Todd Young: “I would like to elaborate on the chairman's retort to what we just heard about criticisms pertaining to this law. Number…”

“I would like to elaborate on the chairman's retort to what we just heard about criticisms pertaining to this law. Number one, this law is inherently unfair. Trying to finance health insurance for some Americans by cutting hours and wages for other Americans is just, frankly, not what we should be doing as a country. The Save American Workers Act would actually save most workers from a potentially massive loss in hours and wages, and I will walk the gentleman through that momentarily. It will also cause fewer workers to be directly impacted by this employer mandate. Very briefly, let us start with saving most workers from a potentially massive cut in hours. Under current law, if you work between 40 to, say, 45 hours and your employer happens to not offer you employer-sponsored health insurance, you are in the minority. An employer is incentivized to offer these typically higher-wage, higher- skilled workers employer-sponsored health insurance, and that is why so many do. It is part of our normal functioning labor market. So if one were to be moved hypothetically from 40 hours down to 29 hours, they would lose roughly $270 a week or $14,000 a year, according to the American Action Forum. Under the Save American Workers Act, these 40- to 45-hour workweek individuals would no longer be at risk of such a massive cut in their wages or their hours. Let's take someone working 30 to 35 hours, just above that new full- time employment threshold in ObamaCare.…”