Today Congressman Sam Johnson (3rd Dist.-Texas) delivered the following opening statement at a hearing titled, “Examining the impact of state mandates on employer-provided health insurance.” Johnson chairs the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Today Congressman Sam Johnson (3rd Dist.-Texas) delivered the following opening statement at a hearing titled, “Examining the impact of state mandates on employer-provided health insurance.” Johnson chairs the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“GOOD MORNING. LET ME EXTEND A WARM WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU, TO THE RANKING MEMBER, MR. ANDREWS, AND TO MY OTHER COLLEAGUES.
“MOST FOLKS HERE KNOW I HAVE A DEVOUT RESPECT FOR DEMOCRACY.
SOME OF THE CORNERSTONES OF DEMOCRACY INCLUDE FREEDOM AND FREE ENTERPRISE. ANOTHER HALLMARK OF DEMOCRACY IS EMPOWERING STATES – AND CITIES – AND COUNTIES – TO BE THE LABORATORIES OF IDEAS.
“AND AS LOCAL AREAS EXPERIMENT, THE BEST IDEAS ALWAYS SEEM TO RISE TO THE TOP. TODAY I WANT TO HEAR WHAT LOCAL AREAS ARE DOING TO FIND HEALTH INSURANCE SOLUTIONS. ARE THEY INCREASING THE INSURED? ARE THEY PROTECTING PATIENTS? ARE THE COSTS RISING OR DECLINING?
“WE CAN USE THESE TEST CASES, IF YOU WILL, TO SEE WHAT WORKS – AND WHAT DOESN’T.
“IN CONGRESS, WE HAVE A CIVIC OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPOSALS DEVELOPING IN THE STATES DON’T OVERRIDE ANY FEDERAL LAWS.
“THAT’S ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE: ONE - PEOPLES LIVES ARE ON THE LINE AND, TWO - THE LAWS THAT GOVERN MANY HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS ARE PROTECTED BY A FEDERAL LAW, CALLED E.R.I.S.A.
“AS YOU KNOW, THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WITH HEALTH INSURANCE HAVE THEIR COVERAGE THROUGH AN EMPLOYER.
“LET’S BE CLEAR: EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE IS A BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYEE; IT’S NOT MANDATORY. GOVERNMENTS WHO VALUE FREEDOM AND FREE ENTERPRISE DO NOT TELL BUSINESSES HOW TO OPERATE.
“IF STATES ARE TINKERING WITH E.R.I.S.A. – WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT THE RESULTS ARE FAIR AND HAVE NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES – OR WORSE – GIANT PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.
“CLOSE TO CAPITOL HILL, WE ALL WATCHED THE STATE OF MARYLAND CHART A NEW COURSE. IN MARYLAND, SOME BELIEVE THAT EMPLOYERS MUST BE FORCED, NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE HEALTH COVERAGE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SET OR LEVEL OF BENEFITS.
“FOR EXAMPLE, THE MUCH-DISCUSSED LAW THAT RECENTLY PASSED IN MARYLAND SEEKS TO PENALIZE COMPANIES, WELL, AT THIS POINT ONLY A
“SINGLE COMPANY, THAT DO NOT PROVIDE WHAT POLITICIANS DEEM ‘ADEQUATE’ HEALTH INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEES.
“IN SHORT – THE FOLKS IN THE STATE CAPITAL OF MARYLAND ARE LEGISLATING WHAT ONE COMPANY MUST DO FOR ITS EMPLOYEES.
“IN MY MIND – MANDATING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFITS ON ONE COMPANY FROM A STATE CAPITAL IS NOT FREEDOM AND FREE ENTERPRISE. AND I’M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IN THE FUTURE – FOR PEOPLE … FOR STATES …AND FOR COMPANIES.
“COULD YOU IMAGINE IF MARYLAND TOLD MCDONALDS THAT THEY COULD ONLY FEED THEIR EMPLOYEES BIG MACS? THERE IS SUCH A THING AS GOOD GOVERNMENT. OVER-REACHING GOVERNMENT IT IS NOT.
“LISTEN, AS A FORMER STATE LEGISLATOR IN TEXAS, I AM HAPPY TO SEE STATE LEGISLATURES WORKING ON SOLUTIONS FOR THE UNINSURED.
“HOWEVER, I AM DEEPLY ALARMED THAT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS OVER-RIDE THE GOOD INTENTIONS E.R.I.S.A.—THE FEDERAL LAW THAT GOVERNS EMPLOYER BENEFITS.
“I AM ALSO CONCERNED THAT THESE PROPOSALS LARGELY IGNORE THE PROBLEM OF SKY-ROCKETING INSURANCE COSTS AND INSTEAD SIMPLY ADD ADDITIONAL BURDENS ON EMPLOYERS – AND THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO MAY END UP WITH THE SHORT END OF THE STICK.
“AS SUCH, TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM LARGE- AND SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS ON HOW LEGISLATION IN THE STATES WOULD AFFECT THEIR EMPLOYEES’ LIVELIHOOD AND THEIR BUSINESSES.
“IN ADDITION, WE’LL HEAR FROM SOMEONE WHO CAN LOOK AT THE ISSUE FROM A 30,000-FEET LEVEL AND TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL RESULTS OF ENACTING SUCH MANDATES.
“I WELCOME OUR WITNESSES AND LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY.”
