On the recordFebruary 1, 1995
That is right. What you have proposed which makes sense is you want an objective analysis of the costs involved in a mandate. Fair enough. I agree with you. It seems to me what we want is an objective, nonpolitical analysis as best as they could do which certainly will not be perfect in terms of the benefits, as well. So that they could come forward, not in a political way, not on a 16 to 13 committee vote; they say, ``Look, if you invest $10 million, you are going to save $100 million in health care costs.'' Then you analyze that objectively as opposed to the partisanship which so often exists in committees.
Source
govinfo.gov




