[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STEARNS BILL WOULD SAVE MONEY AND JOBS
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues
the results of a comprehensive new study conducted by Lewin-VHI, the
country's leading health care consulting firm, contrasting Stearns-
Nickles H.R. 3698 proposal, the Consumer Choice Health Security Act,
with the President's health care reform plan. This study was presented
before the Senate Finance Committee on March 15.
This independent study shows that our bill would save money and jobs;
while the President's plan would cost jobs, and reduce wages. The
Clinton employer mandate would result in the elimination of between
155,000 to 349,000 jobs and low-wage retail and service workers would
on average experience $243 per year in lost wages. In fact, 88 percent
of this employer mandate would be passed on to the consumer in the form
of lower wages.
By comparison, our bill would not eliminate jobs, would not reduce
wages, and would save the average family $643 per year in health care
costs. In fact, by 1998--the first year the plan would be fully
operational--under the consumer choice plan overall household spending
would decrease by $35.5 billion. However, under the Clinton plan
household spending on health care would only decrease by $7.7 billion.
The ``Consumer Choice'' plan offers universal coverage through a
refundable tax credit while reducing health care costs for all income
groups. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the ``Consumer Choice''
plan offers Americans what they want and does so in a more cost-
effective manner.
____________________