U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–301 PDF 2012

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF OBAMACARE ON JOB 

CREATORS AND THE ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 10, 2012 

Serial No. 112–159 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 10, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Jamie Richardson, Vice President White Castle Systems, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Mr. Michael Fredrich, President and Owner, MCM Composites 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Ms. Mary Miller, President and CEO, Jancoa Janitorial Services, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

The Honorable Daniel Wolf, Massachusetts State Senator, Founder and CEO, 

Cape Air 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Mr. John Goodman, Ph.D. President and CEO, National Center for Policy 

Analysis 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Member of Congress from the State 

of Maryland, Opening Statement ....................................................................... 98 

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters on Small Employer Health Tax 

Credit .................................................................................................................... 100 

Massachusetts Health Reform Spending, 2006–2011: an Update on the ‘‘Buster’’ Myth ................................................................................................................ 151 

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Member of Congress from the State 

of Virginia, Opening Statement .......................................................................... 161 

National Federation of Independent Business, Statement for the Record ......... 163 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF OBAMACARE ON 

JOB CREATORS AND THE ECONOMY 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:32 p.m. in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Platts, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, 

Labrador, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, Kelly, Cummings, 

Towns, Maloney, Norton, Kucinich, Tierney, Connolly, Quigley, 

Davis, and Yarmuth. 

Also Present: Representative Keating. 

Staff Present: Alexia Ardolina, Assistant Clerk; Brian Blase, Professional Staff Member; Molly Boyl, Parliamentarian; John 

Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Director of 

Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief 

Clerk; Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Mark 

D. Marin, Director of Oversight; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief 

Clerk; Cheyenne Steel, Deputy Press Secretary; Noelle Turbitt, Assistant Clerk; Rebecca Watkins, Press Secretary; Beverly Britton 

Fraser, Minority Counsel; Kevin Corbin, Minority Deputy Clerk; 

Ashley Etienne, Director of Communications; Susanne Sachsman 

Grooms, Minority Chief Counsel; Angela Hanks, Minority Counsel; 

Carla Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Una Lee, Minority Counsel; 

Suzanne Owen, Minority Health Policy Advisor; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; and Ellen Zeng, Minority Counsel. 

Chairman ISSA. This hearing of the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform will come to order. 

The Oversight Committee’s mission statement is we exist to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right to 

know the money Washington takes from them is well spent. Second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that 

works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. 

We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to 

the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee. 

Today’s hearing focuses on how the President’s health care law 

affects job creators and the economy, and with our mandate to proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75301.TXT APRIL
2 

tect taxpayers money, now that we know Obamacare is a tax, it is 

particularly important that we protect that money. This hearing 

builds on previous hearings conducted during the Congress by Subcommittee Chairman Gowdy, including one this morning. 

We know that Obamacare makes labor more expensive. It requires employers of at least 50 full-time workers to offer a more expensive, selected and mandated government health care insurance, 

or pay an insurance tax of $2- or $3,000 per worker. 

The law will discourage 63,000 businesses with between 40 and 

59 workers from expanding. If those industry companies below 50 

choose not to expand and not to offer or pay the fine, it still won’t 

change the fact that government will, in fact, tax another $2,000 

per worker for not buying insurance and, of course, that insurance 

without an organized health care plan of at least a minimum nature will be inherently more expensive. 

Ninety percent of employers report that Obamacare will increase 

their organization’s health care costs. The other 10 percent clearly 

haven’t checked the price. Although some of the cost increases will 

be passed on to customers, most will be passed on to workers in 

the form of lower wages or lost job opportunities. Let’s make no 

mistake, competitiveness in a global market does not allow prices 

to ultimately rise to any point hoping that we can be competitive. 

There is a darn good reason that you don’t buy Greek cars or Greek 

electronics. Seventy-four percent of small businesses say the President’s health care law makes it more difficult to hire additional 

workers. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the law will 

lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by the end of the decade. 

A paper by economists at Harvard and the University of Chicago 

finds workers more negatively affected by the law are disproportionately young, female, or minority, and those just starting out in 

the workforce. Obamacare increases government employment, particularly at the IRS, where thousands of new IRS agents will be 

charged with enforcing compliance with the law that taxes and 

mandates. 

According to projections, the greatest percentage of growth in 

Federal health care spending comes from the Federal Government’s 

administration of health care. In other words, Medicare, Medicaid 

are already, in fact, expensive, and fail to deliver value programs. 

Let us make no mistake. Everyone on this dais wants good, affordable health care. Where we differ is on whether or not 

Obamacare delivers affordable health care or simply mandates a 

series of nice-to-have, good-to-have, or in some cases, need-to-have 

requirements but does so in a way that creates some of those 

12,000 already produced new pages of regulations. 

One part of the law aimed towards assisting small businesses 

has already failed miserably. Obamacare contained tax credits for 

small businesses to offer health insurance. So few businesses 

claimed these credits because it was overly complicated and required businesses to fill out seven different duplicative forms. This 

failure is symbolic of the bureaucratic approach of the President’s 

health care law. 

This single party law is typical of what happens when you 

produce 2,400 pages of documents—pages of a bill in the dark, 

bring it to the floor and then say we must pass it so we can find 

3 

out what’s in it. The law which spends more than $2 trillion over 

the next decade, increases American taxes and premiums, is 

unaffordable. I look forward to hearing from business owners, and 

business owners, remember, are employers. So they are the people 

who create the private sector jobs that pay for everything, including the government jobs this President is so fond of creating. 

For many reasons, tomorrow the House will vote to repeal 

Obamacare. There is no doubt that our health care system needs 

reform, but these reforms must lower the price of health insurance 

rather than increase the burdens on employers and workers with 

higher taxes and Federal spending and more government red tape. 

With that, I recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 

Cummings, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This week the Republican House leadership has scheduled yet 

another debate and vote on the House floor to take away access to 

health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans. They 

also want to eliminate key protections that were passed as a part 

of the Affordable Care Act. 

Without legitimate ideas of their own on how to replace the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans simply want to gut it, and 

they want to rehash the same debate over and over again. Speaker 

Boehner proudly highlights on his own Web site that the House 

has already taken ‘‘30 votes to scrap the President’s health care 

law’’ during this Congress alone. 

30 votes. Despite the fact that the Senate has already rejected 

this legislation, it is difficult to imagine a more monumental waste 

of time. 

The only difference between the first 30 votes and the vote scheduled for this week is that the Supreme Court, in a decision by 

Chief Justice John Roberts, has now ruled that the Affordable Care 

Act is constitutional. Nevertheless, this week we will engage in another exercise in futility by spending hours and hours debating 

vote number 31. 

Unfortunately, today’s hearing is part of this needless exercise. 

We are rehashing this exact same ground the House Subcommittee 

covered a year ago in a remarkably similar hearing entitled ‘‘Impact of Obamacare on job creators and their decision to offer health 

insurance.’’ 

As we learned back then, the Affordable Care Act will extend 

health insurance coverage to 30 million people. Millions of young 

adults have already gained access to health coverage through their 

parents’ policies. Medicare beneficiaries are paying lower prescription drug costs. And more than 86 million Americans have benefitted from preventive care free of charge, such as mammograms. 

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of small businesses are 

receiving tax credits to maintain and expand health coverage for 

their employees. And millions of Americans are now receiving rebates under a new rule requiring that insurance companies spend 

at least 80 percent of their premium dollars on health and medical 

services or refund the difference. 

Imagine that, insurance companies returning your money rather 

than doling it out to corporate executives. This year alone individuals are expected to receive $426 million in rebates from their inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75301.TXT APRIL
4 

surance companies, and small businesses are expected to receive 

$377 million. 

These are significant accomplishments that will help millions of 

people in very real ways, and there are more changes to come as 

additional provisions of the Affordable Care Act come online in the 

next 2 years to reduce the cost of health care further and provide 

patients with additional protections. 

Despite these accomplishments, Republicans will continue the 

same old scare tactics today, warning about massive job losses and 

economic ruin should the Affordable Care Act continue. 

The main problem with their theory is that it did not happen in 

Massachusetts. In 2006, then-Governor Mitt Romney signed into 

law the model for the Affordable Care Act, including subsidies for 

individuals purchasing coverage, a health insurance exchange, insurance market reforms, and mandates for employers and individuals. As a result, today, more than 98 percent of Massachusetts 

residents are now insured with no indication of negative job consequences. With a 6 percent unemployment rate, Massachusetts remains significantly lower than the national average. 

The fact is that the Affordable Care Act passed by both Houses 

of Congress, signed by the President of the United States and now 

upheld by the Supreme Court, is vital to the health of our people 

and the strength of our Nation, and it will without a doubt save 

many American lives. 

Let’s put an end to this pointless political theater. The Supreme 

Court has spoken and has spoken loudly. It is time to focus on insuring that the law is implemented effectively and efficiently so 

that the American people can take full advantage of its protections. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Bill 

Keating from Massachusetts welcome his Senator from his State. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will be recognized to introduce 

his representative. 

With that, we go to the distinguished doctor from Tennessee, Dr. 

DesJarlais, for an opening statement. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would dispute the fact that we have been told that this is an 

exercise in futility or an unnecessary hearing. We have a number 

of job creators from around the country, and I have talked to a 

number in my district in Tennessee who are very concerned about 

what this Affordable Health Care Act, and it’s hard for me to even 

say that because it has been proven to be unaffordable, will do to 

their ability to hire employees and expand and grow their businesses. It has done nothing but create more and more uncertainty. 

It has given us over 12,000 pages of regulation. And why? I think 

that is a fair question. Why should we bring it to the floor to vote 

to repeal it again. It has been pointed out that we have made 30 

votes already to repeal this. 

I think the answer to that question is because this is a law that 

the American people did not ask for, they didn’t want, and they 

can’t afford. Sixty-three percent of the people opposed this law 

when it was passed in the dark of night behind closed doors without transparency. And they continue to reject it. The majority of 

Americans still do not like this bill. 

5 

So I don’t think that we just give up on the American people. I 

think we continue to fight for them. Now that this has had to go 

to the Supreme Court, and part of it was ruled unconstitutional, 

about States having to expand their Medicaid programs, which are 

already stretched and breaking a lot of States, now we have a 

chance for maybe some of the Democrats who voted for this the 

first time to listen to their constituents, the ones who are still left 

who were not voted out of office in 2010 can do the right thing and 

vote to repeal this bill now that we know it’s a tax. 

I don’t think anybody sitting up here thinks that this bill would 

pass again today if it were brought to a vote, because it was done 

in a fashion that was deceitful. It was clearly called a penalty, and 

now it’s only constitutional because it is a tax. And they still don’t 

want to call it a tax. 

This President vowed to not raise taxes one dime on the middle 

class. Not one dime. But clearly, this is one of the largest tax increases in history. It is one of these bills that Nancy Pelosi said we 

have to pass to see what’s in it. Sometimes maybe you have to pass 

a bill to see what’s not in it. Business owners are going to find, who 

have over 50 people, that there is no language in this bill that even 

allows for them to collect the taxes of 3,000 per employee against 

your companies. If the State does not set up an exchange and the 

Federal Government comes in and sets up an exchange, there is no 

language in this bill that allows for them to charge you that. And 

you have a right to know that. 

So this hearing is far from meaningless. We are doing the people’s work here, and this is the job of oversight. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Kucinich, for an opening statement. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Prior to the Affordable Health Care Act, at least 50 million 

American didn’t have health care. Why? Because they couldn’t afford it. Think about that. These are members of our family, they’re 

our friends, our constituents. They couldn’t afford health care. 

Even with the Affordable Care Act, there are people who will still 

be hard-pressed. What are we supposed to do in America? Are we 

supposed to tell people that because they can’t afford health care, 

they are just condemned? 

And what about those people that were able to afford health 

care? If they had a claim, their expenses could be run up to the 

point where they weren’t able to pay the extra expenses associated 

with an illness. Do you know, about half of the bankruptcies in 

America are connected to people not being able to pay their hospital bills. So this isn’t just a narrow health care issue, this is a 

societal issue that determines what kind of society are we. Are we 

a society that is going to drive people into poverty because they get 

sick? 

Illness doesn’t respect political parties. You can be a Democrat, 

Republican, Independent, if you get ill, your house could be on the 

line. Your life savings could be on the line. Everything you’ve 

worked a lifetime for could be on the line. We need to get back to 

this kind of thinking. We’re involved in polemics here. We need to 

look at the practical application of the law. 

6 

Look, like some of my colleagues, I wasn’t for the Affordable Care 

Act in the beginning. Why? Because I’m for universal, single payer, 

not-for-profit health care. I don’t believe in for-profit health care. 

I think that if you’re talking about health care reform, though, we 

were able to at least prove that reform within the context of a forprofit system was possible. If we couldn’t even prove that, then 

later on, when those of us who want to continue to advocate for a 

single payer system, when we’re told look, it wouldn’t be possible, 

well, how can we challenge that if we had participated in the defeat of the only thing that was in front of the American people at 

the time. 

Is this plan perfect? No. No one is maintaining that. But it is addressing what is a fundamental problem in our society, and that 

is, lack of accessibility and lack of affordability to health care. We 

must not lose sight of that. 

You know, elections come and go. But the outcome of this election in 2012 may or may not solve the health care problems of tens 

of millions of Americans. 

Now there is another issue here too that I want to put on the 

table right now that really ought to take place in these discussions 

about health care, and that is, each one of us does have some responsibility for our own health. Government can’t give me health 

care. I had to change my diet years ago to have a chance at health 

care. Government couldn’t do that for me. I had to make my own 

decision. The government doesn’t tell me what to eat, nor should 

it. 

We have to create a more health-conscious society where people 

are given more information about the choices that they can make 

that can lead to better health so that we don’t have a situation 

where through a lifetime of bad choices, people then come to a system that is already overburdened with high costs and add to it. 

So there is an element of personal responsibility which should 

never be ignored, but that, then, goes into how do we redescribe 

health care? How do we reengineer our health care system to include diet and nutrition, and to include physical education and 

those kinds of things. We need to broaden the discussion. 

Unfortunately, this discussion that we’re having here is not going 

to do that for the most part. It’s about polemics, it’s about the next 

election. But sooner or later, we are going to have to come to grips 

in this country with the fact that we have a fiscally unsustainable 

health care system, and sooner or later we have to understand that 

this step that we took in the Affordable Care Act was a step in the 

right direction, although not by any means the final step. And for 

those of us who think that everyone should have access to high 

quality, affordable health care, there is no question that in the long 

term, and in the medium term, we’re going to need to go to a single 

payer, not-for-profit system if for no other reason than to control 

costs. 

So with that, I want to thank the chair for this opportunity to 

make that statement, and welcome the witnesses. I hope at some 

point we can really get into the details of what we can do to make 

health care available to all Americans, help businesses, help grow 

the economy and put this highly-charged, partisan debate behind 

us. 

7 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the former chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Burton, for an opening statement. 

Mr. BURTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we do have to revise the 

health care system in this country, but there is an alternative 

which we have proposed which is not being discussed today because the Obamacare plan is, in effect, law right now, and it needs 

to be addressed before we can get to a solution that will solve the 

problem without putting such a burden on the future generations 

of America. 

I look out here today and I see an awful lot of young people in 

the audience. When you talk about making sure everybody has 

health care, it sounds pretty good, because it takes care of everybody. We don’t have any problems. If you get sick, everything is 

solved. The government is going to take care of everything. It 

sounds really good. What we don’t say is we are $16 trillion in 

debt. The interest on the national debt is humongous. These young 

people out here are never, ever going to be able to live the kind 

of life that we have because of the cost of government. And this bill 

is going to run it right through the ceiling. 

There is no question that we need to do something about health 

care, and all of us want to do that. But to create socialized medicine, which Europe is running away from right now, I’m chairman 

of Europe and Eurasia on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I just got 

back from over there. And I can tell you right now, those countries 

are on the brink of disaster. Spain is about to go down the tubes. 

And I think they probably will, even though it will take a little 

time. Greece is about gone. Italy is in trouble. France will be in 

trouble. Ireland is in trouble—because they’ve had a socialistic approach to government, and socialized medicine only compounds the 

problem. 

Yes, we have problems. And yes, we need to solve them. And yes, 

they need to be addressed. But they can be addressed in a business-friendly way that will solve the problems of the people of this 

country. Socialized medicine is not the answer. And to the young 

people out here who may be favoring this today, 10 years from now, 

15 years from now, if this thing remains law, you remember what 

I’m saying right now because we’re loading a burden on your backs 

that you will not believe. We have already loaded $16 trillion on 

your backs, and your kids and your grandkids, but this is only 

going to compound the problem. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman yields back. 

All members may have 7 days in order to place additional opening statements in the record. With that, pursuant to unanimous 

consent, I would recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts to 

introduce his witness. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Chairman Issa, and Ranking Member 

Cummings. Before I resume my other duties in another committee, 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this committee 

and for inviting Senator Dan Wolf, who is not only the co-chair of 

the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development in Massachusetts in the State Senate and a decorated Cape businessman, 

8 

but a constituent of mine and a friend. We welcome him here today 

to testify. 

Cape Air’s story is well known in my district, particularly in the 

Cape Cod area and the island where the company gets its name. 

I’m pleased that other business owners nationwide will hear this 

story today and hopefully expand their successes through using the 

Cape Air model as an example. This example promotes success 

through carrying for the company’s surrounding communities and 

staff. 

Senator Wolf, thank you for being here today. Your testimony in 

today’s hearing is essential to provide a firsthand account of the 

impact of the health care reform on small businesses directly from 

a CEO. I can personally attest to the strength of the Cape Air team 

which has been crisscrossing the globe in Cessna 402s since 1989. 

Furthermore, the Cape Air team serves as a crucial link to the rest 

of the country and to the world. For many throughout Massachusetts, it is essential, but particularly for the Cape and islands 

where tourism in a driving economic force for those who live there 

year round, like myself. 

I know that the airline has been at the forefront of national initiatives like health care and green energy initiatives for years. For 

this reason, the advent of the health care reform in Massachusetts 

followed by the Affordable Care Act, and perhaps in the future, a 

strategy to curb greenhouse gases and switch to renewable energy 

sources is an investment in preparedness. 

Again, I welcome my friend from Massachusetts to the Capitol, 

and I thank the committee for the opportunity to introduce him 

here today. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Keating. Thank you for introducing your witness and for being here today. 

With that, we will go to the gentleman from Michigan for a similar introduction. And I only barely let you have this. Remember, 

we are alumni together. The fact that he is a constituent is an accident of current address. 

The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman. When you hear my introduction, you will understand I even have more claim to him than 

you do as an alumnus of distinguished Siena Heights University in 

Adrian. 

Mr. Jamie Richardson grew up in my home school district of 

Onsted, Michigan. I watched him as a late high school student and 

as a student at Siena Heights University, an outstanding student, 

outstanding athlete, outstanding character. He developed to a point 

that ultimately after graduation, he became a marketing guru at 

J Walter Thompson. Ultimately, through a long chain of events, 

and you can read his resume, he ended up at White Castle Corporation, a family-owned business. And I think this is where it 

comes to the point of who Jamie is and why it is a privilege for 

me to introduce him today. 

I think what would be the first and foremost statement about 

Jamie Richardson is that he is married to Cate and has five wonderful kids, that he spends unbelievable amounts of time with intentionally making sure that that happens, even as he is involved 

in numerous other organizations and entities. 

9 

White Castle Corporation is a family-owned business which has 

its unique benefits as well as challenges in the world in which we 

live today, especially in relationship now to things like Obamacare. 

The challenge that we have there for family businesses is very 

strong. 

Jamie is presently the vice president, government and shareholder relations and assistant secretary. He was the gentleman involved in getting White Castle as the first company involved with 

Undercover Boss and worked with CBS in accomplishing that, indicating how that program would go and demonstrating how employees and employers must work together to complement each other 

to make business happen. He understands the benefits of job security and the opportunities for people to expand and grow. 

White Castle is known for its benefits, its security, its ability to 

reach youth, single parents, part-time adult workers, et cetera, 

with a job that has benefits. And ultimately, with this law going 

into place, if it is carried out, will discourage and very likely do 

away with those same benefits that people stay at White Castle to 

work for. 

Mr. Richardson evidences his commitment to meeting the needs 

of people by being involved in directorships, trustees with American Red Cross, Catholic Foundation, YMCA, the Kiwanis, the National Family Enterprise U.S.A., on and on giving back to the community, giving back to society, and making a commitment that ultimately goes again back to the family of Cate, those five kids, and 

people just like him. 

So it is a privilege to have Jamie here today, and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman yields back. 

Now for those not fortunate enough to have a personal friend on 

the panel, I will now introduce Mr. Michael Fredrich. He is President and owner of MCM Composites, welcome. Ms. Mary Miller, is 

CEO of JANCOA Janitorial Services, Inc. And Dr. John Goodman 

is a health economist and President and CEO of National Center 

For Policy Analysis. 

With that, I would ask you all to rise and pursuant to the committee rules, if you would please take the sworn oath and raise 

your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Let the record indicate that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Richardson, being a returning contestant, I 

will expect you to be so good on this, but for the rest of you, it’s 

like a stoplight. Green means go for some of your 5 minutes. Yellow 

means, as Mr. Gowdy said this morning, go real quick to get under 

it before it turns red. And red means stop. If you can stay as close 

to 5 minutes I will ask member on the dais during questioning to 

do the same. 

Mr. Richardson. 

10 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE RICHARDSON 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 

thanks for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of White Castle and the National Restaurant Association. My name is Jamie 

Richardson, and I serve as vice president of government and shareholder relations for White Castle. It is an honor to be able to share 

the impact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is having on businesses like ours and the restaurant and foods services 

industry in general, particularly on our ability to create jobs. 

White Castle is based in Columbus, Ohio, and we first opened 

our doors in 1921 in Wichita, Kansas. Soon after, we joined the National Restaurant Association as one of its first members. Still, to 

this day, we are a family-owned business and a privately held company. We employ nearly 10,000 team members. Most work in our 

408 restaurants across 12 States. Our culture is one of family, and 

we proudly began offering health care coverage to our team members in 1924. 

White Castle offers a rich, full, medical health benefit package 

after 6 months of service to any team member who is open to being 

scheduled for full-time hours which we consider 35 hours per week. 

Year after year, employees name the benefits package as the reason why they come to work at White Castle and why they stay. 

White Castle prides itself on listening to team members and responding to their needs by offering benefits they want and use. We 

have incorporated wellness incentives. And since 2009, we have 

eliminated employee co-pays for regular checkups to encourage 

healthy lifestyles and to increase team members’ use of their benefits to prevent illness. 

Under the law, White Castle and other applicable large employers like us will have to comply with the employer mandate, the 

automatic enrollment requirement, and extensive and detailed new 

reporting to the IRS on health plan offerings and each individual 

to whom it was offered. 

In 2014, we estimate our current plan costs could increase by 

over 20 percent. This estimate is dramatically different than what 

we have started to experience recently. As it appears, our focus on 

wellness and preventive care is having a positive effect. Year to 

date in 2012, our health care costs are trending and estimated to 

increase less than 3 percent compared with the prior year. 

As 2014 and compliance with the employer requirements of the 

law fast approaches, we will have to balance requirements of the 

law with employee needs and the ever-increasing cost of health 

care coverage. 

While we work in a castle, in our realm, there is no magic treasure room to cover these increasing costs without sacrificing job creation. The health care law will have an impact on jobs in the restaurant and food service industry. The only questions are: How? 

And to what extent? Some of the potential impact will be answered 

once we know the rules with which to comply and the implementing regulation and hence, the impact on our workforce. Everything we have seen has shown current costs will increase. Many in 

our industry are worried that our slim profits per employee will not 

be sufficient to cover the additional cost of more employees acceptVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75301.TXT APRIL
11 

ing our offer of coverage or potential penalties that may apply despite our best efforts to provide the required coverage. 

For White Castle, the uncertainty associated with the health care 

law has made us cautious to expand into new markets and impacted the number of jobs we are creating. We have conducted the 

extensive research necessary to explore expansion into other parts 

of the country, but have not acted on those plans yet due to the 

uncertain cost environment. If we were to pursue those potential 

expansion plans, it would bring 400 to 500 team member jobs, not 

to mention the construction supplier jobs associated with opening 

new restaurants. 

In our business, we all manage risk. We do it all the time. Whenever we launch a new product, for example. But the uncertainty of 

increased costs that the health care law brings creates risks that 

no one can manage against. The result is that the growth and expansion of businesses that drive job creation is put on hold, and so 

are the jobs. 

In conclusion, for White Castle and the restaurant and food service industry, the law cannot stand as is. We need in fact, we crave 

reform that addresses the unsustainable increases in the cost of 

coverage. We must find solutions that will allow restaurant operators to offer great health benefits to their employees without excessive cost and regulatory burdens that threaten their businesses. 

Thanks again for the opportunity to testify regarding the impact 

of the health care law on job creators such as White Castle and the 

restaurant and food service industry. We have great gratitude for 

your service and all you do for our country. 

And we would also like to offer, if anyone wants to come a castle 

to work behind the counter and meet the hamburger heroes of 

White Castle firsthand, we would welcome it. 

Chairman ISSA. Be careful what you wish for. When you get done 

with Congress, it may be the best job you have possible afterwards. 

And it would probably be a move up in how the public would feel 

about us from 9 to 90 percent, at least. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 

12 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75301.001
13 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75301.002
14 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75301.003
15 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75301.004
16 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75301.005
17 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75301.006
18 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Fredrich. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FREDRICH 

Mr. FREDRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Cummings. Thank you for having me today. 

I bought MCM in 2001. We closed on the business 45 days after 

9/11, so there was a bit of uncertainty. And certainly the economy 

right after we closed did not serve us well. We also had the disadvantage of, I call it being too smart to not know what you don’t 

know. And so we had a big learning curve right after we bought 

the business. But we made it. We made it at least up until 2009, 

and 2009 was just a god-awful year. Our revenues were cut in half. 

We got down to 43 employees. We have 58 right now. We lost customers. We were working 2 days a week. All the salaried people 

got 60 percent of their salary. We just couldn’t do it any other way. 

We had to balance cash. So we worked through that. 

Last year, they say there is a recovery, there’s not. I would call 

it treading water. You can see that in the fundamentals of our 

business, where things like customers are delaying orders. They 

will place a order and then they will call and say don’t ship that. 

That is a good indicator that it is not good in the economy, and 

that is across all of our customer base. Also, there is not much investment in new tooling. All of our parts are made with tools that 

are owned by our customers, and so we have an early look at what 

their investment strategies are, and they are just not making any. 

The largest investor that I can see right now is actually a German 

company, and they’re building $1 million worth of tools, and it is 

in the aerospace business, and that will be good for us, but that 

is a small segment. 

So on top of this, we made last year, we did $7 million in sales. 

We made $138,000 which is peanuts. It is barely eking out a profit. 

I think this year will be about the same. Our revenue is about the 

same. So I’m not optimistic. 

And on top of that, we now face something I was praying we 

would never have to face, which is this new health care law which 

is going to create God knows what. I mean, it is going to be a burden to be sure, and it is going to be costly and it is going to affect 

companies like ours and larger companies in hiring and the business. I think it will be a general depressant on the entire economy. 

So what do we do? I mean, we will have to live with it. We have 

persevered before and we will persevere again. But what this Act 

does is it changes our focus. We right now need to focus on our 

business. We need to expand our customer base. My time would be 

better served today calling on some prospects and trying to generate some more business. But my focus is here because this is a 

real threat to us. 

It’s adding—it is going to add cost. I don’t see how it can’t add 

cost to the health care system. It doesn’t do anything to address 

the basic problem which is it is a dysfunctional market. And it has 

been dysfunctional since 1942, and what you’ve done here with this 

law, you have made it more dysfunctional. You’ve taken a step in 

the wrong direction. And that is, unfortunately, what we are going 

to have to deal with. 

19 

So what do we do? I look at our company. We have, as I said, 

58 employees. We are kind of on the bubble. We could get down to 

50 and not be subject to this law and shrink our business. Well, 

who wants to do that? Think about it, why in the heck would you 

be in business so you can shrink your business? You want to grow 

your business and add people. So that’s not a very good option. 

We could continue on with the plan we have. Do nothing and 

hope for the best. I think eventually we’ll lose our plan. It is a high 

deductible HSA. It sounds like the Secretary of HHS will determine 

whether that is acceptable, which to me is repulsive in the first 

place. That somebody is going to tell us what is acceptable and 

what isn’t, I don’t like it. 

The third option is on the first day, is drop our coverage completely and leave all of our employees. We have 43 out of 58 who 

take the coverage, and just drop the coverage. And we are not 

going to do that because we will not do that to our employees. 

There is enough turmoil going on, I don’t need to add turmoil to 

their live. I am not going to do it. So, we have to do something. 

Somehow we have to adjust to this. I can only plead, I guess, with 

the committee that you go in the direction of the free market and 

to trust the free market. It works everywhere else. 

I was talking to Mr. Richardson, and I said why are hamburgers 

so cheap? And I was being facetious. He actually was going to tell 

me why, but they are so cheap because people compete in the hamburger business. The government doesn’t run the hamburger business, not yet. 

I see my time is up, so I appreciate the time. And thank you very 

much and look forward to your questions. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you for noting that. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fredrich follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75301.007
21 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75301.008
22 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75301.009
23 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75301.010
24 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75301.011
25 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75301.012
26 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF MARY MILLER 

Ms. MILLER. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify before you today on the impact of the health care reform on job creators and the economy. 

My name is Mary Miller and I am the CEO of JANCOA Janitorial Services headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am honored to 

be here today on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

This year, we are celebrating our 40th year in business at 

JANCOA. We are a family business with literally clusters of small 

families within our business. My husband was a student at the 

University of Cincinnati when his economics professor casually 

mentioned vendor contracting such as janitorial services. Noticing 

how dirty the floors were at the local bar, he thought cleaning 

would be a way to pay for bar tabs. With going to school full-time 

and working another job already, he started hiring friends to help 

him. When his father, Bill, went to have heart surgery, Tony promised to take care of the family. His father died, and at the age of 

19, Tony left school and created JANCOA to support his mother 

and three siblings. Today our company has 320 full-time employees 

and we clean more than 10 million square feet just in the greater 

Cincinnati area. 

One of our most important duties is to attract, train, and motivate quality employees. Our business model helps us do this. Unlike the majority of janitorial companies, we rely on full-time employees. In fact, 98 percent of our employees are full-time and we 

have very low turnover, nearly half of the industry’s national average. We find most people in our community want full-time work, 

and our company does better with full-time employees. This is an 

important win/win. 

By hiring nearly exclusively full-time employees, we are better 

able to recruit, retain team members and improve efficiency, productivity, and quality. We also offer good benefits, including vacation pay, paid holidays, health insurance coverage, and what we 

call the dream manager program. Although our dream manager 

program is a source of great pride for our company, given the brevity of my time and the focus of the hearing, I will limit my remarks 

on it and simply say that the dream manager program has been 

responsible for many of our employees realizing the American 

dream. It has helped our employees become homeowners, achieve 

economic independence through starting their own small business, 

and further their education by earning GED and/or college degrees. 

In short, it exemplifies our mantra of taking the ‘‘dead end’’ out of 

dead end jobs and to let our employees grow. I hope you will read 

more about it in my written testimony. 

One of the benefits we offer which very few of our employees 

take advantage of is health care coverage. We offer a PPO to all 

of our full-time employees and pay an average of 85 percent of the 

premiums, but less than 6 percent of our employees take advantage 

of this coverage. The vast majority of our employees have historically chosen to take home their earnings as wages to pay their 

bills. The coverage that we can afford to provide is subject to a 

27 

$6,000 annual limit, and it is a limited benefit plan. Our issuer got 

a waiver so that we can continue to offer this coverage to our employees until 2014. 

Sure, this is not an ideal coverage, but it is what we can afford 

to offer and allows them an option of some coverage at a very reasonable price, $20–30 a month. However, come 2014, when the employer mandate and the individual mandate kicks in, neither our 

company nor our employees will be able to make these choices 

about health insurance. Our company will no longer have the option of offering this type of plan to our employees, will no longer 

have the freedom to choose how to spend their wages. Even worse, 

the law will force my husband and me to choose between several 

impossible options in order to remain in business. This will jeopardize our ability to offer jobs that our employees value. We face 

additional costs that exceed $1.4 million in premium cost increases, 

over 400 percent, because of this law. It’s a devil’s choice. No matter what we do, our company and our employees will suffer as a 

result. 

As many in the service industry know, for me, raising prices is 

not an option. Most janitorial companies rely on part-time employees and therefore will not be subject to such penalties and employer mandate. It certainly seems to me like the law creates very 

perverse incentives, particularly in this economy when jobs are on 

everyone’s mind. Why would you penalize businesses for hiring fulltime employees and provide a competitive advantage to those businesses that limit their hours their employees can work? These perverse incentives will negatively impact businesses such as ours 

that want to hire full-time employees. Regardless of how much better my services are, there’s only so much a customer is willing and 

able to pay. 

In conclusion, although my employees prefer full-time employment, and I prefer to hire full-time workers, this law may force me 

to reduce the majority of my team members to part-time employment. This will destroy the foundation upon which my company 

was built, and the quality of life we are trying to help our employees achieve. Regrettably, for me and my employees, the new health 

care law is a dream killer. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:] 

28 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75301.013
29 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75301.014
30 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75301.015
31 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75301.016
32 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75301.017
33 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75301.018
34 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75301.019
35 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75301.020
36 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75301.021
37 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75301.022
38 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75301.023
39 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75301.024
40 

Chairman ISSA. We have 15 minutes on a vote on the House 

floor, so counting 5 and 5, I can get you both done if you stick to 

the 5. 

Senator Wolf. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL WOLF 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. My sincerest thanks to the committee for the opportunity to testify on such an important issue for the American 

people. I come before you today to share the perspective of a person 

who, thanks to the hard work and dedication of a team of remarkable individuals, has achieved amazing success in one of the most 

challenging industries in the country, the airline industry. 

25 years ago, as a trained and licensed aircraft mechanic and 

pilot, my dream was to start an airline in Massachusetts. And with 

one airplane, one route, and six employees, Cape Air flew our first 

flight in 1989. Today, headquartered in Massachusetts, Cape Air 

operates in 11 States, four U.S. territories and commonwealths, 

and three foreign countries. We will carry over 725,000 passengers 

this year, and generate more than $105 million of revenue. 

As a member of the Alliance for Business Leadership, Cape Air 

now offers nearly a thousand full-time jobs with about 500 of them 

based in Massachusetts, and they are full-time jobs. Nearly 300 of 

our employees have been with the company for more than a decade, 

and our employees share the ownership in the company with us. 

Cape Air’s success allowed me at the age of 52 to enter government 2 years ago, and the voters from the Cape and Islands chose 

me to represent them in the Massachusetts State Senate. 

My primary goal in this capacity is to help government and private business partners in ways that make our communities 

healthier and make our economy stronger. They are not mutually 

exclusive. And what is also informing my perspective, other than 

the Cape Air experience, is 6 years on the Federal Reserve Board 

Advisory Council for New England, the chairman of the board of 

one of the largest Chambers of Commerce in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, and I also serve as the trustee of the largest mutual bank in the region. Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank. 

From all of these vantage points, I have come to realize that one 

of the most important values that we must embrace is that every 

American should have access to affordable and excellent health 

care, and I am really proud that we have come a long way towards 

accomplishing that goal in Massachusetts. We have done so without stunting business growth, and we have done so without cutting 

jobs. 

One of the reasons I’m here today is to debunk some of the 

myths and distill fear and misunderstanding about the 2006 

Health Care Reform Act that Massachusetts enacted with strong 

bipartisan support, and I stress strong bipartisan support. In the 

State Senate, the vote was 40–0 to enact that law in Massachusetts. It is also the template for much of the Affordable Care Act 

now sanctioned as the law of our land. 

From Cape Air’s first day in business, we have offered health 

care coverage knowing that affordable health care coverage helps 

us to retain a great workforce. And it has. This year, Cape Air’s 

41 

health insurance premium will cost close to $3 million, roughly 3 

percent of the company’s gross income. The company will pay just 

over half of that cost and the employees will pay the rest. 

In 2007, when Massachusetts’ health care reform went into effect, there were dire predictions of the impact on businesses like 

Cape Air. Here is what really happened to our business. We added 

some new dependents under 26 years of age to those of us in our 

company who had family plans. Beyond that, the transition was 

seamless for us. There was no bureaucracy, no heavy lifting in the 

front office. 

Since then, we have added a solid 15 percent more Massachusetts-based jobs with our total revenue growing far faster. Health 

care reform in Massachusetts has not stifled business. Health care 

reform was designed to ensure access, not curtail costs. And with 

landmark legislation now close to passage, building on the success 

of the 2006 Act, Massachusetts is on the verge of implementing 

new strategies to contain costs while continuing to provide coverage 

for more than 98 percent of our Massachusetts residents, and that 

bill is now in conference committee in the Massachusetts legislature. 

I can also report that health care costs have not spiraled because 

of this plan. They have not spiraled. This year, Cape Air saw a 5 

percent increase in premiums, too much, but far from the 15 to 20 

percent increases we saw year after year before this reform took effect. Last year, our increase was 4 percent. The previous year, we 

were able to negotiate a 5 percent decrease in premiums. That is 

after the passage of the law. 

Our success should be taken in the State context. Unemployment 

in Massachusetts has dropped from 8 percent in 2009 to 5.8 percent in May of this year. That is 2.4 percent below the national average. Since January 2007, Massachusetts has ranked third in the 

Nation in economic performance as defined by our gross State product. And our bond rating in the State is AAA bond rating, the best 

in the United States. 

Meanwhile, additional State spending for health care programs 

resulting from payment reform only represented 1.4 percent of the 

State budget in 2011. Again, with more than 98 percent of our residents covered, which includes a 400,000 net increase in the number 

of non-elderly insured residents. 

Chairman ISSA. Senator, your entire statement will be placed in 

the record, if you can please wrap up 

Mr. WOLF. I just have four paragraphs. 

Chairman ISSA. Pick one. 

Mr. WOLF. I will read them quick. 

As important and positive as enacting the Affordable Care Act is 

now and will be, it’s not the last word. Just as Massachusetts is 

now moving forward with cost containment initiatives, there will be 

more opportunities to continue and reform our health care structure. Access is only one of the pillars on which great health care 

is built. The others to address are cost, complexity, outcomes and 

transparency. 

I look forward to a national conversation about all of them, and 

especially a better understanding of the link between a healthy 

business climate and access to health care for all. 

42 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, Senator. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:] 

43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75301.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75301.026
45 

Chairman ISSA. Dr. Goodman. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN GOODMAN 

Mr. GOODMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

the Affordable Care Act will impose very high costs on the private 

sector of our economy. The minimum health benefit for a family 

will cost almost $6 per employee per hour. When you combine that 

health minimum wage with a money minimum wage, it means that 

employees will have to produce at least $13 of goods and services 

every hour or they’ll be priced out of the labor market. That’s why 

hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers are in danger of losing their jobs. The Act will impose about $500 billion in new taxes over the first 

10 years, and it will do so in ways that will reduce investment, reduce output, and reduce employment. The Act creates very high 

marginal tax rates for moderate income families. And if we can 

have the first slide to demonstrate that, moderate income families 

are going to discover that they get to keep less than 40 cents of 

each additional dollar they earn as a result of the phasing out of 

the subsidies for health care as well as other taxes. 

In addition, the Act creates a bizarre system of subsidies. There 

is no help in the legislation for a $10–15 an hour workers at 

McDonald’s and Wendy’s and Wal-Mart, corporations like that, no 

additional help at all. And yet if one of these employers decides to 

completely end its health plan, all of those workers can go over to 

a health insurance exchange and get from $10 to $15,000 in subsidies, and maybe even more. These subsidies, by the way, are in 

danger of causing a complete restructuring of business, not for 

sound economic reasons, but just in response to the subsidies. 

If I can have the second slide, economists at Stanford and the 

University of Chicago have created an uncertainty index, and they 

have found that we are now at the highest point that we’ve been 

over the past 30 years. They have concluded that public policy uncertainty is responsible for the loss of 2.3 million jobs over the last 

4 or 5 years. And one of the reasons for that is the Affordable Care 

Act. 

If I could have the final slide. Employers are responding to these 

conditions in certain ways that create a jobless recovery. What has 

happened is hours of work have actually increased. In terms of the 

number of hours employees are working, the recession is over. We 

are back to normal. What is not normal are the number of people 

being hired. In terms of being hired, it is as though the recovery 

has not even begun. 

Under the Affordable Care Act, there is no penalty for having 

employees work additional hours. There are penalties for hiring additional employees. 

Let me just say something about the Massachusetts experiment, 

because I have looked at it. It hasn’t bothered employers very much 

because all of the expansion is in terms of subsidized insurance. All 

of the newly insured people are either in Medicaid or they are getting subsidized insurance. They are not getting additional insurance from employers. 

And contrary to the statement you just heard, nobody is getting 

more health care in Massachusetts today. There are no more docVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75301.TXT APRIL
46 

tors. There are no new nurses, there are no new clinics. The same 

amount of health care is being delivered now as was delivered 4 

or 5 years ago. More people are going to hospital emergency rooms 

than before the reform was passed. More people are going to the 

community health clinics. Basically, people are going to the same 

places they went before, and they’re getting the same care they got 

before, and all that is happening in Massachusetts is we are just 

moving a lot of money around. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Goodman follows:] 

47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75301.027
48 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75301.028
49 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75301.029
50 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75301.030
51 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75301.031
52 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75301.032
53 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75301.033
54 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75301.034
55 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75301.035
56 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75301.036
57 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75301.037
58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75301.038
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75301.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75301.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75301.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75301.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75301.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75301.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75301.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75301.046
67 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will stand in recess until approximately 10 minutes after the last vote, which should be in about the 

3:15 time frame. 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. I want to 

thank you all for your patience. As members return, they will be 

called by their seniority in the order in which they arrive. 

I will now recognize myself for the first round of questions. 

Ms. Miller, in your case, many of your employees are exactly the 

people who didn’t have health care unless they had a job that provided health care, isn’t that true? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. And I’m going to ask you a question that I asked 

in this morning’s hearing. If Obamacare had said that you have to 

give $2,000 to every one of your employees whether they wanted 

it or not in the form of a health savings account, they could spend 

any way they wanted, but that you had to give that, or be taxed, 

would you be here today? 

Ms. MILLER. No, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Fredrich? 

Mr. FREDRICH. I would much rather put cash in the hands of 

people and that will encourage the private-sector market. Absolutely. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Richardson? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We would feel the same way. 

Chairman ISSA. Dr. Goodman. I know yours is an economic question. Well, let me ask you the other question, though. When you 

look at the uncertainty, if the—if, in fact, Obamacare said that you 

have to not cost shifts, so you have to provide a minimum amount 

of dollars intended to prevent, if you will, total uninsured behavior, 

would we have lowered the uncertainty by having instead of 12,000 

pages of new regulations, and growing, out of a 2,400-page document, if we had simply had a very straightforward, no-cost shifting 

provision without a mandate of various and sundry, would that 

have dramatically lowered or eliminated the uncertainty that came 

out of Obamacare that led to what you see as a loss of jobs being 

created? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, I’m not quite sure what you have in mind, 

but what we could do—— 

Chairman ISSA. In other words, if there were certainty as to the cost of Obamacare, regardless of what it was, I use $2,000 because 

that is the amount that employers know that they can just pay and 

get out from underneath it, but it doesn’t change the total cost of 

Obamacare because of the 21 other taxes and so on. 

Mr. GOODMAN. I think we can afford to give every American a 

$2,000 refundable tax credit. It could come through the place of 

employment, or if they weren’t employed it could just go to them 

directly. And we can, in fact, probably even be a little bit more generous than that, and replace all of the existing tax and spending 

subsidies. That would create certainty. It would be adequate for 

most people, and it wouldn’t destroy jobs. 

Chairman ISSA. One of the—one of the questions I guess, Mr. 

Richardson, is not only obviously you would prefer something that 

went to your employees, but your company, since before you were 

born, has provided health care at least at that level, haven’t they? 

68 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. So your employees enjoyed exactly what was described as the problem of Obamacare, meaning with the exception 

perhaps of 25-year old adult children being covered, but depending 

upon the State, you already provided a level of care that was what 

had justified the need for Obamacare, isn’t that right? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Correct. 

Chairman ISSA. So in a sense, you are a victim of overregulation 

when, in fact, you were not part of the problem? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That’s how we feel. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, when you look at those 21 new taxes, medical device tax, that is going to raise cost and is not going to help 

health care, when you look at essentially a whole new tax on capital gains and other income, is any part of that going to help you 

build your business? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. No. It just added to a lot of uncertainty and indecision. 

Chairman ISSA. Now, Mr. Fredrich, you mentioned that, and this 

was particularly interesting, because I started off in manufacturing 

in Ohio, and a lot of—made a lot of products with my employer’s 

or my customer’s tools. So I was often working with the tool and 

die shops to create the tool that would be the least cost for me to 

then manufacture their products. 

If your costs go up, and your tooling go up—we will forget about 

your 49, 51 employees—what is likely, the likelihood that that German company will simply either move the tool making overseas, or, 

in fact, move the entire production to another country? 

Mr. FREDRICH. Most of our customers are large companies and 

what they have the ability to do is outsource, and their market is 

the world. So we don’t compete just against companies in the U.S. 

We compete against companies all over the world, China, India. So 

they are going to source it somewhere else. And the reason they 

buy from us is because of good service, good quality. They can buy 

it in smaller lot numbers. They don’t have to buy container loads 

full of handles or something. But without question, if we become— 

and they are very price conscious. But if our price gets out of line, 

they go somewhere else; not in this country. They go somewhere 

else in the world to source it. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, Senator Wolf, you certainly made a good 

case for why you support Governor Romney’s bipartisan effort in 

Massachusetts. But let me ask you a different question. You compete down in the Virgin Islands and so on. I noticed your flights 

go into those places. If your cost of fuel, your cost of pilots, your 

cost of maintenance, your cost of Cessna 400 series aircraft, if all 

of those go up, are you, in fact, likely to do less business, or can 

you simply pass it on? 

Mr. WOLF. To a degree, we can pass it on. But if the costs go up 

significantly, obviously, that does have an impact on business. So 

I would say the answer to that is it depends. I will say, though, 

that the variability of health insurance is a lot less than the variability of some of the other cost factors that we face, fuel being a 

primary one, if you look at that volatility. 

Chairman ISSA. Sure, no, I understand the volatility of fuel, but 

no cost in America has equaled the increased cost of health care, 

69 

and I want to preface this in closing, before or after Obamacare. 

There is no question that healthcare costs led the cost increases in 

the years before Obamacare, and of course, in the years since it has 

been passed. So for any of you here, what is it in the President’s 

health care, in ACA, that in fact, in your estimation will lower your 

cost of doing business? 

In other words, what in those taxes, what in those regulations, 

if anything, is actually going to lower your cost of health care for 

your employees? Anything? 

Mr. WOLF. Is this for any of us? 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I am getting noes from everybody, so I will 

give you, Senator Wolf, what is it in the President’s health care 

that will actually cause health care costs to go down? Because 

nothing has happened so far. They have to—they would have to 

drop about 20 percent from where it is today to get back to where 

it was, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WOLF. For our company that has always provided the benefit, a portion of our premium dollars is going to provide health 

care for people who are uninsured. That is pretty accepted in the 

industry. So. 

Chairman ISSA. But you were already in a State that prevented 

that. You already had all of that, so you wouldn’t see any of that. 

And yet, Massachusetts, where you operate, you are paying additional taxes even though you had already implemented effectively 

Obamacare, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WOLF. I think one of the reasons that our health insurance 

premium rates have stabilized is because we are not any longer 

cross-subsidizing the 16 percent nationwide that do not have health 

insurance, but is in our Commonwealth right now. 

Chairman ISSA. Right, but your State, people in your State, are 

seeing additional taxes, substantial additional taxes, $87 billion 

from the increase in Medicare payroll tax alone, and the list goes 

on and on for $1 trillion, your constituents as a State senator are 

going to pay that tax even though you are not part of the problem 

under Obamacare, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WOLF. It is. The case that the increase in cost in the State 

budget, since the implementation of this bill, has been de minimis. 

And when I say de minimis—— 

Chairman ISSA. No, no, Senator, I appreciate now that you are 

now a State senator. Your constituents, though, are going to pay 

these taxes. The estimated $123 billion, $87 billion, $60 billion, $52 

billion, $46 billion, these were all from taxes that Obamacare expects the people who make appliances, parts for the medical industry that ultimately, you know, the thing that goes into your bones 

when you are having an artificial limb and so on, all of those are 

enjoying a tax that is expected to be billions of dollars. Your constituents of their manufacturing are paying that even though your 

State was not part of the problem. I recognize my time is up, and 

I recognize the ranking member for his opening questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me pick up where it was left off here. Senator, first of all, I want to thank you for—I am going to thank all 

of you for being here. I want to thank you, Senator, and you and 

Governor Romney for the Massachusetts law. 

70 

And I mean that very sincerely. I’m not—it is not a political 

statement. It is that I see the people who don’t get health care. 

I’m assuming that when this law, when you all did this, there 

must have been a moral issue here somewhere. It seems to get lost 

up here. The person, the lady that came up to me in my community 

not long ago who had colon cancer and said I have no where to go. 

We ended up sending her to NIH. You know, or my neighbor, who 

died. The last thing he said on his death bed to his wife is, Ruth, 

I got to get up out of here because we ain’t got no insurance. 

Was that a part of the consideration, because it seems to get lost 

up here. The fact that people die, and I’m not—and I’m saying this 

for a reason. I’m trying to figure out as a former businessman, I 

understand the other side of it too, trying to make sure that you 

keep costs down so you can make a profit, so that you can employ 

people, and I have no problem with things that these folks have 

said, and I know you don’t, because you understand. You are a 

business person just like them. 

In some kind of way, I’m trying to figure out where—how did you 

all come to the conclusion that, first of all, you needed to do something? Was there a moral consideration in this, and do you believe 

you have saved lives? Do you believe you have saved needless suffering and pain, and do you believe that it’s been worth it? In some 

kind of way, we had got to—we have to figure that out. 

I guess the question of who we are as a society, some of my constituents, somebody said to me in a debate, Cummings, you know, 

if you—you ought to tell the people and apologize for voting for the 

Affordable Care Act. And I told my constituents, I said if you—if 

you expect me to apologize for not leaving somebody on the side of 

the road to die, then I’m your wrong candidate. You need to vote 

for somebody else. And I just wondered, where did that come in? 

And I believe that Governor Romney had a compassion. There was 

some compassion there. And any time you are going to get 40 votes 

in a Senate, bipartisan, that’s something serious. So help me with 

this. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you for the question. And as an employer, I 

will tell you that since the primary way to procure health care in 

this country historically since 1942 has been through employment, 

we have always seen that as a responsibility. 

I could tell you stories that would make you come to tears about 

employees of ours who came to us with preexisting conditions prior 

to this law who were not able to procure health insurance on our 

plan, or employees who became sick and had to leave our company 

and were unable to get insured after they left. The law in Massachusetts has fixed that. And I think that is right, and I think it 

is compassionate. It is also smart business. 

So that I think part of it is a moral obligation that we have to 

make sure that everybody has access to both preventative health 

care, and health care in crisis, and I think that we have a responsibility A, as an employer, now that I am a senator, I see that responsibility carrying through to all of the citizens of the Commonwealth who I represent. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so when you’re—the argument, and I know 

you, I know you empathize with the comments of your fellow busiVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75301.TXT APRIL
71 

ness folks there. I mean, and you are head of a Chamber of Commerce? You were, is that right? Is that what you said? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, the thing that I guess you all have— 

you all have tried it, and it seems to be working, but I mean, 

what’s the—and Mr. Goodman basically said all you are doing is 

moving money around, something to that effect, whatever you said. 

I mean, do you agree with all of that? Can you talk about some of 

the things that he said in complaining about the plan, and how it— 

he said people are getting the same kind of treatment. You heard 

the things he said, and I just want you to answer those. 

Mr. WOLF. A couple of facts in the statement which I would just 

like to address or correct. First of all, the statement was made that 

more Massachusetts businesses did not offer it after the plan and 

that’s not the case. Prior to this bill going into effect, 69 percent 

of the businesses in Massachusetts offered health care. At this 

point, 77 percent of all those employers that have more than three 

employees offer health care, so that’s been a success. 

The other statement that I would like to address is a statement 

about people still going to emergency rooms for primary care. Since 

enacting this legislation, we have saved $118 million by diverting 

folks from emergency rooms as their source of primary care treatment back to primary care clinics and primary physicians. So both 

of those aspects I think have been a success as well. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so that the fact that they, you know, are diverted from the emergency rooms, you know, I hear from my hospitals all the time, their concerns and whatever, and I am just curious, I mean, has that had an effect on their, I’m sure it has, bottom 

line, and how does that affect the program overall? Do you follow 

me? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if we get people to get treatment and preventative treatment prior to emergency rooms, it is going to ultimately 

cost less for everybody. So it is not only more humane, but it is also 

a more cost-effective way to do it. 

As a business person who looks at efficiency every day in the 

business that we run, there is so much inefficiency in our health 

care system, that just as important as addressing the access issue 

which this bill does, we need to very aggressively go after the cost 

issue. There is a lot of low hanging fruit to wring cost out of this 

industry while providing a better and more humane health care 

system. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, do you all have a similar provision in your 

bill to the ones in the Affordable Care Act where if the insurance 

company spends more than a certain percentage on things other 

than direct health care, that money has to be refunded to the insured? 

Mr. WOLF. We do. That is a great question. Our target in Massachusetts is 90 percent, so that the insurance companies are expected to spend 90 percent or more on what we call the loss, the 

direct loss, or the payment, the claims. And that would leave 10 

percent for administrative. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so what happens if they go over? 

Mr. WOLF. There is a rebate. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

72 

Mr. GOWDY. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman from Maryland. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Richardson, could 

you inform the committee what White Castle’s employee retention 

rate is? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yeah, we have tremendous loyalty among our 

team members. We are really proud to say that we had only a 57 

percent turnover rate among our hourly employees, but then with 

our management team last year, it was only 6 percent compared 

to an industry average, probably closer to 25, 30 percent. 

Mr. WALBERG. So seemingly some significant satisfaction there? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We are able to measure that as well, and we 

do that by doing surveys, and measuring that engagement and do 

very well in that area. 

Mr. WALBERG. Where does your benefit package, specifically 

health care come in on that? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The biggest thing about our health care focus 

is providing what we call freedom from anxiety, so that is something we have been focused in on since 1924. That benefit specifically is rated one of the highest in terms of why people come to 

White Castle, and why they continue to stay. 

Mr. WALBERG. Prior to Obamacare’s passage, businesses had significant concerns about providing workplace coverage. What was 

the primary concern of employers like you? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The primary concern was increasing cost as we 

saw the landscape changing, and big increases each year. 

Mr. WALBERG. Does the Patient Protection Affordable Health 

Care Reform Act alleviate any of those concerns? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. No, unfortunately, to us it adds more uncertainty because we can see looking ahead to 2014, significant increases coming down the pike. 

Mr. WALBERG. Ms. Miller, wherever I go in my district in talking 

to employers, I hear concern about rising health care costs, and 

Obamacare. You told, as reported here, in CNN, you told them ‘‘We 

are afraid to spend because we don’t knee what the big scary monster around the corner looks like.’’ 

Ms. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. WALBERG. Would you have invested and spent more if the 

health care law had not been enacted? 

Ms. MILLER. Definitely. We are a company of 40 years that we 

have always invested money back into the business and spending 

in a way to grow our business and create innovation, and we have 

never had the cash on hand we have today because we are not 

spending money, because we don’t know exactly what that looks 

like before this came down, the penalty if we don’t do anything 

being $640,000 for us. We pay over 320 employees. 

I have to make sure I have enough money on hand as this goes 

into play until we can figure out how to make this work. Because 

it is not going to be an easy process to make these changes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is there any estimate at the Chamber or any business organization you know of, estimate of how much capital is sitting on the table, under the table, behind the table? 

Ms. MILLER. I do not have a number like that, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. That would be significant at this point. 

73 

Ms. MILLER. I’m sure they can find that number for you and get 

back to you on that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Goodman, do we know how 

many people will lose their health insurance because of the government takeover of health care? 

Mr. GOODMAN. No, we don’t, but it could be as high as 80 million. I assume you mean lose their employer-sponsored? 

Mr. WALBERG. Employer-sponsored. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, it could be very high, much higher than the 

Congressional Budget Office has estimated. 

Mr. WALBERG. Taking that into consideration, what will be an 

overriding economic impact of the takeover of health care to our 

economy, to our businesses? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, as I said we are imposing heavy labor costs 

on every employer in America, and if they don’t bear that cost, and 

they have to pay a pretty substantial fine, we have $500 billion in 

new taxes which the way they are imposed is going to reduce investment, reduce growth, reduce output, and as you point out, people are going to have to switch where they are getting their health 

insurance because employers are going to find, in many cases, it is 

just cheaper to pay the fine and send the employees to an exchange 

where they can get very, very substantial subsidies. 

Mr. WALBERG. Does this—does this potentially add, based upon 

economic impact, add to a significant increase in debt crisis simply 

because of the health care reform bill? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, the Affordable Care Act is not paid for, and 

that’s the point that hasn’t been made yet in this hearing. Half the 

cost of the Affordable Care Act is paid for by cuts in Medicare 

spending and yet the chief actuary of Medicare has said that if you 

go ahead and do this, you are going to have one out of seven hospitals go out of business before the end of the decade, and senior 

citizens won’t be able to find a doctor. 

And the prediction, apparently by the actuary’s office and by the 

Congressional Budget Office, they don’t put it quite this way, but 

they keep putting out these alternative forecasts. And what they 

are really saying is, we don’t believe Congress will stick with this. 

You didn’t really pay for this bill. Okay. 

Mr. WALBERG. That’s an amazing balloon in the sky with all 

sorts of uncertainty, isn’t it? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yeah. 

Mr. WALBERG. Except the certainty that we can’t pay for it. 

Mr. Richardson, or any of you, I would be glad for you to address 

this. When asked what he believed to be the single—I see my time 

has expired. 

Mr. GOWDY. Unanimous consent, for 30 seconds if you want to 

ask one more—— 

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. 

Mr. WALBERG. The cofounder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus responded when asked what was the single greatest impediment to 

job growth today, he said the U.S. Government. 

Asking business people here at the table, would you agree with 

him and why? 

74 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We would tend to agree because what we are 

seeing right now is more uncertainty than we have ever encountered. I think as we look at the landscape, this is an aggressive 

program in terms of health care reform. The cost of health care reform have come at the absolute worst time and the fact that we 

can’t even calculate what the costs are going to be make it impossible for restaurants like White Castle to be able to plan for the 

future. 

So you can’t commit to opening new restaurants and going into 

new markets if you don’t know what you are going to be paying a 

year and a half from now as far as your costs go. So we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to make the unconscionable choice between violating our conscience, or mortgaging our future in a way to continue to provide the benefit our team members 

have become accustom to. So it is paralytic. 

Mr. FREDRICH. I actually think that it’s our single greatest risk 

right now for our business. We are in the country. We have nowhere to go, and we are borrowing $4 billion a day. You, not our 

company, obviously. And that is not a good long-term plan. And if 

you don’t address that seriously, we are right with Greece, Spain, 

and nobody is going to bail us out. We are too big. 

Ms. MILLER. My husband and I have had a conversation more 

than once that when he started this business 40 years ago, he 

thought it was about cleaning toilets and mopping floors. And 

today we have to spend a large percentage of our time dealing with 

government compliance, and paying taxes and figuring that out, 

rather than focusing on how to make our business better, to grow 

our employee base, and take care of customers, to create jobs, and 

to create more revenue. And it takes us away from what it takes 

to run a business. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Can we all answer that? 

Mr. WALBERG. It’s up to the chairman, but I’m willing to listen. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. I think the question is, is the biggest threat to our 

growth, is it overregulation or is it government? I operate a business in the most highly regulated industry in the country, which 

is the airline industry, and we have found that regulation is not 

what gets in the way of our growth. I will tell you, if I had the opportunity to come down here and talk about how do we level and 

make predictable energy costs, for example, in an industry where 

there are profits being made hand over fist without any effort to 

make that a predictable cost, I would have showed up a lot earlier 

for that hearing. 

This is 3 percent of our company’s expense. And it is not a significant mover relative to whether we continue to grow. And by the 

way, we have grown 75 percent as a company since 2007, since the 

law was enacted in Massachusetts as far as gross revenue. 

So the answer would be no. I do not think the regulation of 

health care is an inhibitor at all to our business growth. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. The chair would now recognize the 

gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton. 

75 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to thank 

each and every one of you for your testimony. I have listened very 

carefully, and I think I understand what you are feeling, particularly about uncertainty. 

Remember, we are talking about a bill, major parts of which 

don’t go into effect until 2014, and yet we are here trying to calculate how many jobs it makes or doesn’t make. 

The—I also appreciate your concerns about whether it will slow 

job growth, notwithstanding the CBO, which has repeatedly said 

that it will slow the increase in the cost of health care. But I know 

that I want to ask Senator Wolf a set of questions. 

You come from various States, Texas, as I understand it, Columbus, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Wisconsin, so you are pretty representative of at least some parts of the country. But I tell you, we have 

seldom had in the Congress, a real-time example as any kind of 

model when we have enacted legislation by which to measure what 

we are doing, and that’s what the State laboratory of Massachusetts has given us. 

It has given us, as it turns out, a Republican model from a Republican governor who made it a bipartisan bill in a Democratic 

State. 

And in these he had to prove himself. It’s the model as it turns 

out as Mr. Wolf said, that the country has embraced since the early 

1940s, which is, hey, look, just use the existing system. Preserve 

insurance, and build around it. That’s what that is. That is all that 

is, is what we have always had. So let me ask Mr. Wolf who has 

some real-life experience from which we can draw some conclusions. Mr. Wolf, Senator Wolf, I’m sorry, in your State, there is a 

free rider prohibition or penalty on both the employer, and the employee, as I understand it. Is that not correct? So let me ask you 

straight away. Did the employer mandate and the company penalty 

cause a drop in employer-based jobs of health care, or in jobs in 

your State? And if they didn’t, why not? Since all the predictions 

are for catastrophe on that score, why in the world didn’t that happen in Massachusetts, if it did not happen in Massachusetts? 

Mr. WOLF. Because in Massachusetts, we are overcoming that 

with a lot of other government assistance through education, and 

workforce training. I mean, it is a State that is looking very hard 

at our economy. We have cut taxes. In fact, this year we cut both 

income tax at a personal level and at a corporate level, part of the 

healthy economy story. But again, Massachusetts is eighth in job 

creation so far this year with almost 38,000 jobs created. We are 

third in gross State product growth since 2007 when this bill was 

enacted. It is clearly not inhibiting business health and growth, 

and I will repeat what I said before too, that when this bill went 

into effect, 69 percent of the businesses in Massachusetts with 

more than three employees gave this benefit. Now, 77 percent do. 

So it has incentivized more businesses to give this, and very few 

businesses are paying a penalty because most businesses are complying with the law. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, the other—the other speculation, and again, 

I want to go with real experience for a change. The Massachusetts 

experience seems to contradict. According to your testimony, you 

had a 15 to 20 percent increase in health care before this bill, your 

76 

bill took effect, and the last year, as I recall, as I read your testimony, your increase had gone from 15 to 20 percent down to 4 percent, and that you were actually able to negotiate a 5 percent decrease. 

Would you explain that in light of the parade of horribles we 

have heard here, all speculation, all before the bill has gone into 

effect, as the Massachusetts bill already has. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah, it—the bill has allowed for premium rates to 

stabilize in Massachusetts. The personal experience of Cape Air, 

again, as you point out, is 2 years ago we were able to negotiate 

a 5 percent decrease in premiums, and the last 2 years, the increase has been about 4. 

Ms. NORTON. Did the fact that you had a larger pool of people 

who are in health care, help to bring down the cost of health care? 

This is economics 101. The smaller the pool, the greater the cost. 

When you had a larger the pool, did that help to bring down the 

cost. 

Mr. WOLF. It did, and one of the things that Massachusetts has 

done is we have implemented a pool opportunity for up to 85,000 

employees for small business to actually get together and accumulate their employee groups so that they can go with a bigger number and try to get reduction. So we are also addressing the fact 

that, yeah, there is a scaling issue which is that if you can put 

more employees together to negotiate for that, then the rates will 

come down. 

Ms. NORTON. Senator Wolf, this may explain why if you look at 

every economy in the world, when countries choose to offer health 

care, and by the way, almost all countries do, even the developing 

countries, they use not a system we use, we are respecting the old 

system with employer-based health care. They use some kind of 

single payer. Singapore, which is not exactly, which is perhaps 

everybody’s example of a free market unregulated economy, single 

payer, sometimes a single payer is sometimes employer based, but 

it is always single payer. And the reason I think comes down to the 

fact, if you put the sick and the well, and all of us together in one 

pool, the basic theory of insurance, the basic theory of economics 

is, we bring down the costs for everyone. Thank you very much, 

Senator Wolf. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, gentlelady from the District of Columbia. The chair would now recognize the gentleman from the great 

State of Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have enjoyed all of the 

conversation from both sides of the aisle today praising Governor 

Romney. I will look forward to their support in November as well, 

and I’m the same voice on that. I also appreciated some of the conversation about other countries. 

And in my area in Oklahoma City, let me tell a couple of stories. 

In Oklahoma City, there is a surgical hospital there that does a 

flat-fee surgery. It is a tremendous hospital, very popular. When 

they started several years ago, the owner of the hospital said the 

surprise that he had is once they posted their fees on line and 

started competing and opened up, the first folks that started to call 

them were the Canadians, who would rather fly to Oklahoma City, 

77 

stay there, pay for the surgery, and fly home than wait 6 months 

for the exact same surgery back home. 

Another story, there is a cancer radiation treatment center in 

Oklahoma City; two really fantastic ones that are there, stellar. 

Twenty-five percent of their business is from the U.K. because we 

have more advanced cancer treatment in Oklahoma City than they 

have in all of the U.K. 

So while we talk about perspectives here, it is interesting for me 

to look at and say, we will get some flat amount that everyone will 

get access to, but the world is still coming here. And the lines are 

apparently very long overseas, and those who have the money and 

can fly out and go cut the line get it, and those who don’t, suffer 

and wait. 

So that the promises that are built into this have been interesting to me to be able to track. The promise that you are going 

to be able to keep your health care. If you like it, you can keep your 

plan. 

Now we are going hearing from the administration up to 80 percent of the small business plans will not be acceptable and will not 

be grandfathered in. Up to 80 percent. Up to 64 percent of the larger employer plans will not be grandfathered in and we will have 

to make some sort of change. The cost has changed in the last 2 

years from $800 billion to $1.8 trillion, in 2 years, and it has not 

been fully implemented yet. And now we hear from CBO, that they 

estimate in the next 10 years, 800,000 jobs will be affected by this; 

800,000 lost jobs. Now, may I remind everyone in June or economy 

only created 80,000. So we are talking about 800,000 lost jobs. 

Now, my concern is is that there seems to be some assumption 

that health care is complicated and difficult, and if we would only 

give it to the Federal Government, it would be so much easier and 

more efficient and faster. 

And I think that is where I struggle with the process on this. It 

is—it is the thought that there’s something that the States do that 

if the Federal Government did it, it would be better. If there is 

something that private business did, if the Federal Government did 

it, it would be better, and I just struggle with that, personally. 

Does anyone know of an example of a State regulation that went 

to Federal that was so much more efficient and cheaper and faster, 

or of a private business that when it was federalized, it suddenly 

got cheaper and faster and more efficient? 

I don’t either. And I’m not anti-government. But there seems to 

be this assumption that it will be so much more efficient, it will 

be so much cheaper, it will be so much better if we will just federalize this. 

Mr. WOLF. Is that a rhetorical question? 

Mr. LANKFORD. No, it was an actual question. 

Mr. WOLF. I do have an answer to that. Again, it is the industry 

that I’m in. I cannot imagine air transportation commerce being 

regulated State by State. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Now, I can understand that, even though. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you want an answer to the question? 

Mr. LANKFORD. No, no, here is the thing on that. There is a difference between setting the boundaries, State highway department, 

aviation, whatever it may be, and if instead weaken your business, 

78 

as you mentioned before with health care costs or with energy 

costs, you mentioned that, the fluctuating cost of the energy. If we 

went in and did a mandate on energy, we were going to lock in the 

fees, my question to you, you know, I’m on the Aviation Subcommittee for Transportation. I could bring up a bill for aviation, 

say you know what, let’s go into all the—because I don’t like paying the different prices. I have noticed different months, different 

prices for aviation. I would like to lock those down and just have 

one price and I’m going to set it. 

In fact, I’m going to come to all of the aviation groups and I’m 

going to say, I don’t like how much advertising you do. I see it all 

the time. It is a waste. So I’m going to say, 95 percent has to go 

to the passenger. I need 95 percent of the money. You can keep 5 

percent for administration. You would be ticked at that point because you run a great company, apparently, and you should have 

the flexibility to run a great company and provide a great service, 

and compete and win. 

And the concern is that somehow if we federalized it, if we went 

into your company, not just set boundaries for safety but went into, 

not just regulating, but running your company, it would somehow 

make it better. 

Now, I do want to ask a question of Mr. Richardson. You brought 

up an interesting thing, you said 400 to 500 jobs have not been created because you all have hesitated on expanding business. Would 

you clarify that for me as well? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yeah, for the past several years we have been 

looking to expand into new territories so we have done market research to explore that. In looking towards that, we are concerned 

about what our cost curves are going to look like, so we have held 

back on any expansion at this point. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So right now you are just on pause until what? 

Until we get to 2014 and try to figure out what the costs are going 

to be, and then try to see where to move from there, so at least 

2 more years of pause? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We are a family-owned business in the restaurant industry, so by nature, we are optimistic. But I think we 

are really trying to sort out and understand. We know for certain, 

so it isn’t speculation on our part, we can look and model out that 

our costs are going to increase more than 20 percent when it comes 

to health care. That is $7 million-plus. That is a lot of money that 

could go into building new restaurants, creating new jobs, and providing more benefits for our team members. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman, from Oklahoma. The chair 

would now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of 

our witnesses for being here today, and Senator Wolf, I want to 

thank you in particular, because I—you are the one that has experience with the real program. You are a little bit like a skunk at 

a lawn party. Everybody else is talking about myths, and fear, and 

speculation, and then you throw a little cold water on it and talk 

about reality, but you go right back to the myths, and fear, and 

79 

speculation, because that narrative is something people apparently 

don’t want to change. 

But the, you know, one of the things we talk about is what has 

been happening in our State, Massachusetts, at least, those 64 million-plus residents in Massachusetts with Medicare have saved— 

I’m sorry, residents in Massachusetts saved under Medicare, $64 

million in prescription drug costs. Right? 

Mr. WOLF. Yep. 

Mr. TIERNEY. 1,324,000 in Massachusetts with private health insurance gained preventative service coverage with no cost sharing, 

right? We have a better value for our premium dollar through the 

80/20 rule. You have a 90 percent rule in your law in Massachusetts, so an average of $140 for 85,000 families in Massachusetts, 

right? And we have an ability to scrutinize the premium increases. 

Will you tell us a little bit what the governor did with the legislative support on premiums? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I mean I can—yeah, but I can also give you 

some real data which is that when premiums are considered as a 

percentage of household income in Massachusetts, we are now 48th 

out of the 50—51, out of the 50 States plus the District of Columbia; 48th as far as the percentage of premium relative to household 

income. And that has gone down dramatically since the implementation of this law. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So I was a former local chairman of the Chamber 

of Commerce, as well. Do you agree with me that as far as our 

small businesses at a local level this is good for them? 

Mr. WOLF. I think that CNBC is about to announce this afternoon, I hope, that Massachusetts is considered to be the number 

one place in the United States to do business. If this, what we are 

talking about on a national basis was so deleterious to the economy 

and to small business growth, how is it possible that the one State 

that implemented it would be named as the best State in the country to do business? It just doesn’t make sense. 

Mr. TIERNEY. That won’t deter anybody, though. But Ms. Miller, 

let me ask you some questions. You have a policy you say that you 

offer to your employees, correct? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How much on an hourly basis does your newest, 

lowest-level employee make? 

Ms. MILLER. $9.80. 

Mr. TIERNEY. $9.80 an hour. So take-home pay somewhere 

around $6.80, $6.75. 

Ms. MILLER. Somewhere around there. 

Mr. TIERNEY. All right, and how much would their share of a 

premium cost for health care cost on a dollar basis? 

Ms. MILLER. That’s $20 a month, sir. This is what our minimum 

is. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So the $6, they work 40 hours a week, what are 

they bringing home? 

Ms. MILLER. Bringing home net, yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How much are they bringing home on a net basis 

on a weekly? 

Ms. MILLER. I’m not a mathematician. 

80 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, 40 times $6.00, so $240 or $300, or whatever. 

And your plan is limited, you said, right? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So limited in a sense is a big copay? 

Ms. MILLER. No, small copay, just max is $6,000 a year, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Oh, and that’s it. So a lifetime cap and an annual 

cap? 

Ms. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Deductibles? 

Ms. MILLER. It is a low deductible. I can’t remember the number 

off the top of my head. But it is like a copay to go to the doctors 

is like $10 to $15. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Out of that $6-an-hour job, all right, and the 

deductibles? 

Ms. MILLER. I only know that it is a $6,000 max a year. 

Mr. TIERNEY. It is any surprise to you that 85 percent of your 

employees don’t take advantage of this plan? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, sir, it is a surprise. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Really? 

Ms. MILLER. Because it covers basic health care. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I mean, I think that, you know, I have seen 

people that bring home that amount of money and there isn’t a lot 

left over for playing with deductibles and copays and that kind of 

a share on it, or whatever, so it is no surprise to me—and people 

that were in my Chamber wouldn’t be surprised, and Senator Wolf, 

I suspect people in your Chamber wouldn’t be surprised. Am I 

right? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Ms. MILLER. Sir, the costs would go up quite a bit higher with 

the new plan. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, let me suggest what the market was doing 

before we had the Affordable Care plan. In the last 10 years before 

we had the Affordable Care plan, the premiums more than doubled, 

a rate three times faster than wage increases. From 2004 to 2007, 

12.6 million adult Americans, 36 percent of those who tried to purchase a policy from an insurance company in the individual market 

were denied coverage, charged a higher rate, or discriminated 

against because of a preexisting condition; 8.6 millions more Americans were uninsured. So it went from 38.4 million to 47 million. 

If we don’t act, if we hadn’t acted, it was estimated the cost of 

employer-sponsored family health insurance plans would reach 

$24,000 just by 2016. That would be an increase of 84 percent. 

Most American households would be spending 45 percent of their 

income on health insurance. Family premiums would be expected, 

without the Affordable Care Act to rise on an average of $1,800 a 

year. 

So those people that work for you for $6.25 or $6.75 an hour 

would have to pick up an extra amount of that every year, $1800. 

Fourteen million more Americans would be expected to be uninsured. So we go from 47 million to 61 million. Small businesses, in 

the 10 years before we had the Affordable Care their premiums 

were rising at 129 percent. I know it because I saw it in my business. Senator Wolf, I suspect you saw it in yours, and Ms. Miller, 

I think you saw it in yours as well. 

81 

If we hadn’t acted on the Affordable Care Act, premiums would 

have increased more than doubling in most States. It would have 

risen by 60 percent in the best cases, and small businesses were 

projected to lose more than $52 billion in profits due to high health 

costs. So for the last 10 years before we had the Affordable Care 

Act, our national health care spending increased 90 percent. 

So if you want to see damage done to our economy and to young 

people, and what the effect would have been, that would be it. So 

Senator Wolf, I will say once again, give you a last opportunity to 

wrap up here. That was the projection without a health care plan 

like the one in Massachusetts, the Affordable Care Act. With the 

plan in Massachusetts, what have you seen in reality? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, both our company, but also statewide, as I said, 

we have seen the amount being spent on premiums as a percentage 

of household income drop significantly since the implementation of 

the plan. And I think that’s probably the best measure because, if 

you look at absolute dollars, you then have to adjust it for different 

regions and the cost of living, and all of that stuff. So I think the 

best measure is the cost to a family as a percentage of their household income. And I think in Massachusetts, that’s been a success 

story since the implementation. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Ms. MILLER. Sir, may I respond to your earlier question, please? 

Mr. GOWDY. It’s your question. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Give me the time, sure. 

Ms. MILLER. Right now out—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. I mean, I saw the young lady hand you the note. 

Would you like her to testify? 

Ms. MILLER. No. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Is she from the Chamber of Commerce? 

Ms. MILLER. She’s doing the calculator for me. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Is she from the chamber of commerce? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Oh, of course. 

Ms. MILLER. As I said, our policies, our benefits cost between $20 to $30 a month, so average of $25 a month; 12 months, it is $300 

a year cost, for minimal coverage, but it is coverage. With the new 

plan it would cost them $1,500 a year. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, you don’t have a new plan under this plan. 

It hasn’t gone into effect yet. 

Ms. MILLER. But it would be. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So it is your speculation? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. That’s my point. If you want a reality, Senator 

Wolf is sitting right next to you. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just sitting here 

listen to all of these numbers rattle through my head, and I think 

Massachusetts care just sounds almost too good to be true. 

We are about to implement a law that, in my experience in 

health care, cannot bring down costs when you are adding more recipients and not ration care in some form or another. We have 

got—something has got to give when it comes to the cost of health 

82 

care because the Affordable Health Care Act does not do anything 

to address cost containment. Health care costs are rising, so I don’t 

know how this is going to be cheaper, but we are fortunate to have 

a number cruncher on the panel, Dr. Goodman. Maybe you can explain, you know, whether or not Obamacare is really affordable for 

this country and why is the care in Massachusetts so much better 

than what we are projecting for this? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, I want to start with Mrs. Miller’s company 

and her employees. There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act 

that does anything to help her or her employees afford a $15,000 

family policy. There is nothing. There is no new subsidy, no new 

tax break. It is just a law that says that if she and her employees 

can’t come up with $15,000 for a health plan, they are going to be 

fined. How does that help anyone? It doesn’t. 

Now, in Massachusetts, again, the expansion, the way they cut 

the uninsured in half was not by going out and forcing employers 

to provide a lot of new health insurance. They cut their health insurance, uninsurance rate in half by putting most of the people in 

Medicaid, and the rest of them are getting highly subsidized insurance from the State. So this isn’t affecting employers very much, 

but also, we need to correct the impression that a lot of people are 

getting additional care because they are not. And a lot of people in 

this room are confusing health insurance with health care. 

I was in Massachusetts last year and I talked to a woman cab 

driver and I said, how is the health plan working? And she said, 

well, she is on Mass Health which is Massachusetts Medicaid. She 

said, well, I had to go down a list of 20 doctors before I could find 

one that would see me. I said, are you going down the Yellow 

Pages? She said, no, this is the list that Medicaid gave me. 

You can’t give people more health care if you don’t create more 

doctors, more nurses, more clinics or deregulate the market so that 

it can more efficiently provide services. So Massachusetts made the 

same mistake that Obamacare is making at the Federal level. 

In Texas, we have 25 percent of our population uninsured. Now, 

we can go put them all on Medicaid, but where are they going to 

find the doctors? Where are they going to get more care? They are 

not. And so we are creating a promise of more access to care but 

we are not going to be able to deliver, and they haven’t done it in 

Massachusetts. And I will repeat again, more people are going to 

hospital emergency rooms in Massachusetts today than ever before, 

and the same number of people going to community health centers 

are still going there even though they now are insured, and they 

are not getting more care. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Senator Wolf, your company sounds fantastic. I 

mean, when all of these airlines are going bankrupt you are just 

thriving and increasing profits and that is wonderful. Congratulations. How many employees do you have? 

Mr. WOLF. About 1,000. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. 1,000, and do you offer all of these employees 

health care? 

Mr. WOLF. They are all offered and some of them are covered 

under other plans, but yes, they are all offered it. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. What does it cost you approximately per employee to provide health care for them? 

83 

Mr. WOLF. The total policy, or our portion of it? 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Your portion of it. 

Mr. WOLF. An individual policy is between $5- and $6,000. Generally, we pay 60 percent of it. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, well, you sound like a very shrewd businessman. So you said not all thousand are on it but about $6,000. 

So you are spending, if you are insuring all of them, $6 million a 

year in health care coverage. 

Mr. WOLF. Our total premium dollars are somewhere just over 

$3 million. A lot of our employees—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, now, 3 percent of your company’s budget. 

Mr. WOLF. That’s right. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, now, what are you going to say to your 

accountants who come in and said do you realize if you pay the tax 

that President Obama is proposing, you can cut that cost in half? 

I mean, you are doing well right now, but what if times get tough? 

Are you going to keep those employees on that health care? 

Mr. WOLF. We think it is our obligation as an employer, since 

that is how human beings get health coverage, and I agree, we are 

confusing health insurance with health care, but the fact is health 

insurance is the gateway into health care. And we just don’t think 

it is a humane workplace to have employees who either personally 

or family crisis drives them on to the street or into bankruptcy. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So you think it is a right to have health care? 

Mr. WOLF. We will do whatever we have to do to continue to provide that for our employees. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, how about our business folks here? Is 

that a similar experience that you are having, Mr. Richardson. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Seventy-five percent of our team members who 

are eligible for health care, all of our full-time team members are 

eligible; 75 percent participate in the program. Our cost is $30 million a year, a significant investment. We have been making a similar investment over the decades. We have seen that cost increase, 

but for us, it is about the dignity of each person, providing that as 

something that is part of that special relationship we have between 

an employer, and an employee. I guess where we are concerned is, 

to us, it hasn’t been speculation, but it has been a fear because we 

see a semi-truck of extra costs about 3 feet away about to hit us 

and every one of our restaurants in each one of our neighborhoods, 

so we are really struggling with how are we going to be able to 

make ends meet to be able to continue what we have done for almost 90 years. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. It may be humane, but if your company is 

broke, you are not going to be able to provide health care or wages. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The choice I referred to earlier was that, yeah, 

this is a difficult position we are in. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. All right, well, my time is expired and I thank 

the panel. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, the gentleman from Tennessee. The 

chair would now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Wolf, first of 

all, I assume you represent Falmouth? 

84 

Mr. WOLF. Actually, no, the Senate president represents the 

great town of Falmouth. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you are not quite, my family’s State senator, 

but close. You would like to represent Falmouth. 

Mr. WOLF. I would love to represent Falmouth. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I am a fellow Bay Stater by birth and child 

rearing, and so I’m glad to have you here today. 

I’m confused. We heard unbelievably dire predictions about what 

would happen if the Affordable Care Act were adopted, and if it 

were to be implemented. Would it be fair to say similar dire predictions about unemployment, investment, budget busting, and 

whether it was efficacious to begin with were similarly echoed in 

Massachusetts at the time of the adoption of Romneycare? 

Mr. WOLF. To some degree, yes. However, because it was a bipartisan effort, the message from government was, we have come together, both parties, to do what we think is right for the citizens 

of the Commonwealth. And I think the message matters from government as we roll out a plan like this. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Senator Wolf, your business credentials, you are 

not some wide-eyed, lefty, commie, pinko, are you, I mean? I mean, 

you were in fact—— 

Mr. WOLF. I choose not to answer that question. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah, on the grounds that it may incriminate 

somebody. But you served as the chair of one of the Chambers of 

Commerce in Massachusetts, is that correct? 

Mr. WOLF. I was on the board of the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce for 15 years. I served as the chair from 2005 through 2007. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And you are also or were a trustee in one of the 

largest mutual banks? 

Mr. WOLF. Still am, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Still are. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Other than that, you sound like a communist. So 

those dire predictions that some made and some are making now, 

what—let me ask you this: Is it true that 98 percent of the residents in Massachusetts now have health insurance? 

Mr. WOLF. It is true, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What was it before Romneycare was adopted? 

Mr. WOLF. We went from about, I believe about 88 percent to 98 

percent. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there any other State in the Union that has 

98 percent health insurance coverage? 

Mr. WOLF. The rest of the country has on average of 16 percent 

not employed—I mean, I’m sorry, uninsured. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Uninsured. Versus 2 in Massachusetts, correct. 

Mr. WOLF. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, the unemployment rate, though, must have 

skyrocketed because of this hobnailed boot of government on the 

backs of business. 

Mr. WOLF. The unemployment rate has dropped since the recession in 2009 from 8 percent to 5.8 percent. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you have actually been creating jobs? 

Mr. WOLF. We have been creating jobs. 

85 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Against all predictions? Well, premiums, premiums, health care premiums must have skyrocketed, because we 

all know, as we have heard from testimony here today, health care 

costs are going to spiral up with no matter what we predicted, no 

matter what the various experts predicted in the adoption of the 

Affordable Care Act. What happened to premiums after 

Romneycare got adopted in Massachusetts? 

Mr. WOLF. As I said before, the premiums for us and statewide 

have leveled off and relative to other States, are actually doing 

really well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Now, there is a debate going on about whether 

it is a tax, or a penalty, and you know, somebody with a little bit 

of a theological background, it’s almost a little bit like how many 

angels can dance on the head of a pin. But in Massachusetts, I received an email from somebody close to me and he said, in Massachusetts, the statute passed and signed into law by Governor Romney, requires every Massachusetts resident to file a certificate with 

the annual State income taxes that they have to file, proving you 

have insurance. If you don’t have insurance, then you get hit with 

a penalty. It’s the exact same plan. Is that an accurate description, 

Senator Wolf? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, it is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, is that a tax, or a fee, or a penalty? 

Mr. WOLF. That sounds to me like a semantic discussion, which 

I don’t necessarily—I don’t have an answer for that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, certainly Governor Romney, when he was 

governor, vetoed this. 

Mr. WOLF. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. He didn’t? 

Mr. WOLF. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You mean he signed that into law? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, that was signed into law. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, he criticized it at the time when he signed 

it, right? 

Mr. WOLF. Not that I remember. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Hmm. Well, would it be fair to say, is it your understanding that when President Obama and Congress, those of us 

who participated in the Act, used Massachusetts as a model for the 

national Affordable Care Act, is that your understanding? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, the Massachusetts law was used as a template, 

and I think there are a lot of similarities. There are some differences as well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Including an individual mandate? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time is expired, but I thank the good senator 

for his testimony. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you the gentleman from Virginia. The chair 

would now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Wolf, you said 

something that is really interesting. The message matters. The 

government, when you rolled out the Massachusetts health care 

plan, you actually had bipartisan support for this plan, isn’t that 

correct? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

86 

Mr. LABRADOR. Don’t you think that was one of the biggest mistakes that was made here in Congress that they didn’t look for a 

bipartisan solution to a health care crisis that we have in the 

United States; instead we looked for a one-party solution? 

Mr. WOLF. I—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Be honest about this. 

Mr. WOLF. No, I cannot pretend to understand how this works 

down here. I can just tell you how it works in Massachusetts. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But what did Governor Romney do in Massachusetts? He talked to the senators, to the Democratic leadership, because it was controlled by Democrats in Massachusetts, and he was 

able to find a bipartisan solution that he believed worked in Massachusetts. Isn’t that what he did? 

Mr. WOLF. The belief in Massachusetts that was a genesis of this 

plan, was that as close as possible, every citizen of the Commonwealth should have access to affordable and good health care. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you believe the only way to get to that solution was by involving both parties; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WOLF. That’s where the dialogue started. There was bipartisan belief that every citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should have access to affordable health care. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Wait, that’s not my question, you’re not answering my question. The belief was in order to have a solution that 

would work for Massachusetts, you would need to have both parties 

actually work, not just one party working on the solution; and the 

answer is yes, I think you have already have said. 

Now, there was a study done by Gogan from Stanford and Hubbard from Columbia that said that the Massachusetts plan has 

caused health insurance to rise 5.9 percent more per year than the 

rest of the United States; isn’t that true? 

Mr. WOLF. It may be true that the study says that. That is not 

what my numbers show. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So you disagree with that study? 

Mr. WOLF. I disagree with that study. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Dr. Goodman, can you talk about that study and 

talk about where the disagreement is here? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, Massachusetts has some of the highest 

health insurance premiums in the whole country. It is right up 

near the very top. It was a very misleading statement by Senator 

Wolf when he divided by State income. It also is a high income 

State. But their premiums are among the highest in the whole 

country. They have not controlled health care costs and they admit 

they have not controlled them. There is nothing in the Massachusetts health reform project that even tries to control costs. But now 

they are threatening the State with a global budget. What a global 

budget means is they will give you a certain amount of money and 

make you ration health care. That is what Massachusetts is very 

seriously considering right now. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Senator Wolf is nodding his head no. Dr. Goodman, why is he nodding ‘‘no’’ as you are making that statement? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, John Gruber and everybody involved, including Governor Romney admitted they didn’t have any cost control that they put in place. They acknowledge that. Just as the 

Obamacare legislation, there is no cost control in the Affordable 

87 

Care Act. They just pushed that aside. They have some demonstration projects. The CBO has three times said that what you are 

doing in these demonstration projects is not going to control costs. 

So in Massachusetts, they are going to fall back on global budgets. 

They have been pretty open about that is the road that they want 

to take. 

Mr. LABRADOR. You stated that Massachusetts actually has the 

highest health insurance costs; is that correct? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. But they also had very high costs before 

Romneycare. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Has this made it the lowest cost or the middle? 

Mr. GOODMAN. No, still the highest in the country. Near the very 

top. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Would you not agree, Senator Wolf, that Massachusetts has some of the highest health care costs? 

Mr. WOLF. Massachusetts has some of the best teaching hospitals and research centers for medical care. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Again, you’re not answering the question. I know 

you’re a senator and you’re a politician, but just answer the question, please. 

Mr. WOLF. I will consider that a compliment. 

Massachusetts, relative to its income, has the 48th out of 51 

States. So if you look at absolute costs, yes. But the cost of living 

in Massachusetts is overall higher. So relative to the impact on an 

individual family’s ability to make ends meet, Massachusetts is the 

third best in the United States of America today. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Because it has the third highest income, correct? 

Mr. WOLF. Because as a percentage of family income—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. The income is the third highest in the United 

States. So if you want to play semantics and play with the numbers, but the reality is your health care costs are higher than 48 

other States? 

Mr. WOLF. Let me try it this way: Massachusetts, 9.8 percent of 

a family’s annual income is towards health care. The annual average now is close to 15 percent. I would rather live in Massachusetts 

then. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That’s good. And you are doing a good job representing Massachusetts, but it is still the third highest in the 

United States; isn’t that correct? The cost of health insurance? 

Mr. WOLF. We are going to keep doing this. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Just answer the question. It is a simple question. 

I could be wrong; I could be right. 

Mr. GOODMAN. You’re correct. I’ll answer it for him. 

Mr. WOLF. The question was asked of me, and I’m going to answer it, if you will, please. Massachusetts relative to income, is 48 

of 51 States. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I have heard you say that five times, five times 

you have said the same thing, but you are not answering the simple question that Dr. Goodman just answered, which has the third 

highest cost of health insurance in the United States. That’s all I 

was trying to ask. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The chair thanks the gentleman from Idaho, and the 

chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

88 

Mr. DAVIS. Dr. Goodman, you mentioned at one point that people 

are still going to emergency rooms and community health centers. 

I don’t know necessarily about the emergency rooms, but I believe 

they are still going to the community health centers because they 

get good care and they can afford it. I think they are one of the 

best approaches to providing health care, especially primary care, 

to large numbers of low income people that we know are in this 

country. 

Senator Wolf, let me read portions of an op-ed that Jonathan 

Gruber wrote, and I’m going to quote. He worked for Governor 

Romney on his health plan. He is an MIT economist, and I’m reading directly what he said. He said that ‘‘Lately, critics of the Affordable Care Act have been promoting a different claim, that 

Obamacare is a job killer. Specifically, they say it will stifle the 

economy with regulations and taxes. But the economic literature 

doesn’t support this claim. If anything, it suggests the opposite. 

The Affordable Care Act will boost the economy.’’ 

Senator Wolf, does the Massachusetts experience support the 

conclusion that the ACA will boost the economy? 

Mr. WOLF. My experience in Massachusetts, as I said in my testimony, is that it has not had a deleterious effect on the economy or 

in job growth in the Commonwealth, and the statistics that we look 

at will bear that out, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. He went on to say that the law will result in more 

than 30 million additional Americans getting health insurance but 

what few realize is by expanding insurance coverage, the law will 

also increase economic activity. Many uninsured consumers are 

forced to set aside money in low interest liquid accounts to make 

sure that they have enough to cover unexpected medical costs. 

With the security provided by health insurance, they can feel free 

that money up for consumption that is much more valuable to 

them, more purchases of consumer goods will provide short-run 

stimulation to the economy and more hiring. Would you agree with 

this comment? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. I also agree, and I find it difficult to understand what 

people are talking about when they talk about the increase in need 

for health care, given the fact that many more people will be seeking it. That has to increase the economy, and if it doesn’t right 

away—and I see, Dr. Goodman, you’re shaking your head. It’s 

amazing to me that as more people seek health care, as more people live longer and receive care, as more doctors and nurses and 

medical technologists and other health personnel are needed, how 

could this not increase the economy? 

Mr. GOODMAN. First of all, there is no provision in the Affordable 

Care Act to create more doctors, more nurses, more health care. It’s 

all about health insurance. It is not about expanding the supply of 

medical resources. You have to remember that every dollar spent 

on the Affordable Care Act on health insurance for those 30 million 

people is a dollar that has to come from somewhere else. It’s a dollar you take away from the seniors on Medicare, the disabled on 

Medicare or the device makers or the people who go to tanning salons. And when you take dollars away from those people, then they 

are not spending the dollars. I’m surprised that Jonathan Gruber 

89 

would say what he said because I do have respect for him. But just 

shifting money out of one pocket into another does not increase 

total spending. 

Mr. DAVIS. As people are living longer, as they are consuming 

consumables, as they are using food, as they are using housing, 

does not this expand the economy? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Not if the dollars that they spend are taken from 

somewhere else. And there is also nothing in the Affordable Care 

Act that will make people live longer because there is nothing in 

the Affordable Care Act that expands the supply of health care. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, if they receive more health services and they 

are adequate and good, I think they will live longer, as I’ve seen 

people who die prematurely for lack of care, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

The chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes of questions. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, who incidentally enough 

is widely viewed as being a very genial, very popular Member of 

Congress who is very devoted to his political ideology—I happen to 

disagree with his political ideology—but nonetheless he is a very 

devoted, very genial man, and I was listening to his opening statement and he talked about the virtues of universal care, and it just 

struck me while he was talking that it is counterintuitive to believe 

that an entity can give you something and also not place limits on 

how you can use it or extract commitments from you on how you 

can use it. 

It is just counterintuitive. I mean, cliches are cliches for a reason, because they are universally accepted as being true. And the 

cliche that there is nothing free in life is true. 

So against that backdrop, let me ask you this, Senator Wolf. Are 

there things that States can do that Congress cannot do? 

Mr. WOLF. I would say that there are appropriate roles for States 

to play that are not appropriate at the Federal level. And that’s an 

opinion, but, yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, it is an opinion that is also shared by our 

Framers. Ours is a limited powers government. The Constitution 

limits the powers of the Federal Government, and that is why we 

have a 9th and 10th Amendment. So whatever is not specifically 

given to the Federal Government is reserved either to the people 

or to the States. So you would agree with me that there are things 

that the State of Massachusetts can do that Congress cannot do? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Can Congress tax Mr. Richardson’s business for not providing dental insurance to his employees? 

Mr. WOLF. I think a higher power than I, which would be the Supreme Court of the United States, has answered that question. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, I said dental insurance; I didn’t say health insurance. I’m trying to see what the limits of the power of the Federal Government are. You’re right, it was a 5–4 decision. I think 

it is tragic that decisions that impact generations of Americans to 

come, whether it is capital punishment decision or whether it is a 

health care decision would be decided by one person. But nonetheless, you’re right, to the surprise of many conservatives, Chief Justice Roberts provided that fifth vote that said that while we can’t 

make you do it, and that’s important, if you read his commerce 

90 

clause analysis, we cannot make you do it, but we can tax you if 

you do not do it. 

So my question is: Can Congress tax Mr. Richardson’s business 

for not providing dental insurance to his employees? 

Mr. WOLF. My belief is, based on the experiment in Massachusetts, which has been successful, and based on the Supreme Court 

ruling, that it is appropriate for the Federal Government, for the 

Congress, to pass legislation that both covers health and dental. 

And by the way, I have always supported dental care. It is the 

one orifice that everything that enters our body goes through. And 

I have never understood why dental care is not considered as part 

of health care. So yes, I believe it is appropriate. 

Mr. GOWDY. Just so we are clear, good oral health is tantamount 

to good overall health. I will spare everyone the studies that support that. But you believe it is within Congress’ power to tax employers who do not provide dental insurance? It is not a trick question. I just want to make sure that the answer is yes. 

Mr. WOLF. I believe that the law as written is appropriate for 

Congress to enforce. That’s my answer to that question. You’re 

choosing the word ‘‘tax.’’ I’m not using the word ‘‘tax.’’ I’m not 

choosing to use it. Or the word penalty or anything, because as I 

said before, to me that is semantics. I believe the implementation 

and enforcement of this law is appropriate at the Federal level. 

Mr. GOWDY. The only reason I use the word ‘‘tax’’ is because that 

is the only power by which Congress can do it. The Supreme Court 

said you can’t do it on the commerce clause. One of my colleagues 

asked you about your line of work, and you correctly cited the commerce clause as the reason that we don’t have 50 different sets of 

systems for air traffic control and for airplanes because it is inherently interstate commerce. The Supreme Court specifically rejected 

that analysis. There are limits on what Congress can do via the 

commerce clause. I’m trying to decide whether there are any limits 

to what government can do via the tax clause. 

I think you would agree with me that exercise and good diet are 

tantamount to good health. So can Congress tax Mr. Richardson for 

not providing a free gym membership to his employees; and if not, 

why not? 

Mr. WOLF. I hate to keep frustrating you people by saying the 

same thing over and over again, I’m going to answer you the same 

way I did before, which is, I believe based on the law passed and 

signed by the President and the Supreme Court ruling that the 

Federal Government has the right to pass and enforce the law that 

is now the law of this land, and has been sanctioned. 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m not being argumentative. I’m genuinely trying to 

determine what limits, if any, you believe exist on Congress’s authority to dictate to businesses what they have to do? You are a 

business owner, a successful one, which I laud you for. My question 

to you is those of us sitting here, can we tax you for not providing 

a free gym membership? Are there any limits on what we can do 

in Congress with respect to health care? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification, are you 

questioning Senator Wolf as a constitutional legal expert, because 

I wasn’t aware that was his background? I thought he was in the 

airline industry. 

91 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m not a constitutional legal expert so it would be 

impossible for me to ask any questions about that. I’m asking him 

as a businessman, if he believes, and I think he made, and I stand 

to be corrected by the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think he 

made a reference to the recent Supreme Court case. I don’t think 

that you have to be a constitutional legal expert to understand it. 

If so, I wouldn’t have been able to read it. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I guess my question was, he made a reference 

to the case as to what existing facts are. You are asking him a hypothetical on something that I think perhaps would take a legal 

scholar to answer. I’ll let him answer if you want. I don’t know 

what the value of his opinion would be—— 

Mr. GOWDY. He has been markedly more successful in life than 

I have been, so I think he is able to answer the question. And if 

he can’t, he’ll say what all witnesses say, which is ‘‘I can’t answer 

the question.’’ It’s not a trick question. I am genuinely trying to understand the intersection between government power—and you represent a State, we represent Congress—the intersection between 

State power, Federal power, and personal responsibility. It is not 

a trick question, and if it comes across as one, I apologize to you. 

I want to know what are the limits to what we can do next session, 

to your business, to your business, and to your business. If exercise 

is good for you, why can’t we tax you for not doing it? 

Mr. WOLF. My answer to that, and what interested me and got 

me into politics after a successful career in business, is much more 

about how we can partner the private sector and the public sector. 

Not a question of limitation, but looking for opportunities to work 

together to provide the future. And that involves health care. In my 

case, it involves transportation. It involves a whole slew of issues. 

Some of those will be challenged as we move forward public and 

private sector together, and that is appropriate. There is a process 

to do that. This is part of that process and I am very fortunate and 

very grateful to have been a part of it. 

Mr. GOWDY. My time is up; and I now recognize the gentleman, 

my friend from Kentucky, Mr.Yarmuth. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses. 

Mr. Richardson, I want to especially welcome you and thank you 

for nourishing me through most of my life. I happen to represent 

a district that brags about having the largest White Castle store 

in the country. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Castle number 7. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I’m glad to see you here, and I appreciate your 

testimony. 

Senator Wolf, you mentioned during your response to a question, 

you said you want to make sure, you will continue to do this as 

long as you can because this is how people get their insurance. You 

are speaking specifically of the United States, I assume, that is the 

historical pattern, at least in modern history in the United States? 

Mr. WOLF. That’s correct. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Fredrich, you referenced something about— 

well, you talked about, and I think your quote was that you would 

prefer to see a market-based health care system, health care insurance system, and you said it works everywhere else. I assume you 

92 

were talking about in other segments of the economy and not in 

other geographic jurisdictions? 

Mr. FREDRICH. It works in this country. And as long as we have 

a free market with limited controls, it works just fine. 

Mr. YARMUTH. What would you describe as the system we have 

had up until now? 

Mr. FREDRICH. For health care? 

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes. 

Mr. FREDRICH. It is a system that developed out of a bad bad 

choice, trying to regulate the amount that people could pay in 

wages in 1942 during the war, and that’s what started this. We 

don’t have the same problem with home care or auto—I mean, 

home insurance and auto insurance. You have to ask why. Why is 

it so different and why are we here talking about how difficult it 

is to control costs when it is so obvious how you control costs? You 

don’t have the user of the service buying the service. It is that simple. The user of the service is me if I’m sick. The buyer of the service is the insurance company, and you don’t have that. It is the 

only way this will ever get fixed. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Doesn’t the free market theory rely on an equal 

amount of power, the buyer and the seller? You can’t have a truly 

free market if demand is something you can’t control; is that correct? Would you agree or disagree? 

Mr. FREDRICH. I disagree. 

Mr. YARMUTH. So when you’re sick or in an accident, you have 

the same freedom to make intelligent choices as when you’re well? 

Mr. FREDRICH. You mean if I’m awake? I assume somebody is 

going to take me to a hospital. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Exactly. Do you know any place in the world 

where there is a free market health care system that you can point 

to as evidence that what you would prefer to see is effective? 

Mr. FREDRICH. Yes. You see islands of free market health care. 

You see—Singapore, I think, has a hospital where people fly to. 

Thailand has a hospital. 

Mr. YARMUTH. People fly to. But the citizens of Singapore are 

under a government-run system; correct? 

Mr. FREDRICH. But that is an indication of what a free market 

will do, so why not use it? I don’t get the fact that just because it 

is health care, that the government has to run it. It doesn’t run 

anything well. 

Mr. YARMUTH. The question is not whether the government has 

to run it, but the question is whether the free market can organize 

it effectively, and there has never been a situation that I have been 

able to find and you have been able to indicate to me, that there 

is evidence that that can work? 

Mr. FREDRICH. Other than the rest of the entire economy? So this 

is just a special thing that just doesn’t work? 

Mr. YARMUTH. There are many people who actually believe that. 

Mr. FREDRICH. Well, it sure doesn’t seem to be working, does it? 

Mr. YARMUTH. No, it is not working. I happen to believe with 

Congressman Kucinich. I’m a single payer person. 

Ms. Miller, I want to ask you a question as well. You talked 

about a very small number of your employees actually use the insurance system, avail themselves of it because they can’t afford it? 

93 

Ms. MILLER. No. They choose. They can afford it. Our employee base averages a $10-an-hour rate. So that is higher than a lot of 

other cleaning companies that only hire part-time employees. We 

went to full-time employees so they could have health insurance. 

We found policies that cost between $20 to $30 a month, so it is 

an affordable policy. There are only 6 percent of our employees that 

choose. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Okay. I was actually looking at it from the other 

direction. 

I’ll ask one further question of Dr. Goodman. You talked about 

25 percent of Texas residents being uninsured. You said that without any indication that that’s a bad thing. What happens to those 

25 percent who are uninsured when they get sick? Do they die? Do 

they suffer, or do they use the same health care facilities and essentially have a subsidy and let the rest of the people subsidize 

them? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, they use safety net institutions, just like 

they do everywhere else. I don’t advocate that. I like the idea of 

the universal refundable tax credit that allows everybody to have 

private insurance. 

May I respond to the free market for health care? The international market for medical tourism is a free market and it is 

growing very fast. Thailand is competing in it. India and Singapore. But also, we are getting closer to home. We also have within 

the United States a domestic medical tourism market, and that is 

what the Canadians participate in. When they come here, they pay 

half of what you and I would pay for a knee replacement. They get 

package prices, and they can compare prices and compare quality. 

Cosmetic surgery, that’s a free market. Lasix surgery, that’s a 

free market. Mediclinic is a free market. So there are many individual health care markets that give you an indication of how a 

market can work in health care. 

Mr. YARMUTH. If we were only talking about elective procedures 

and procedures that people could afford, none of us would be here. 

This wouldn’t even be a conversation. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. But if we gave everyone a refundable tax 

credit and gave them a financial means to have decent catastrophic 

coverage and a health savings account, then people would have the 

wherewithal to participate in a free market for health care. 

Mr. YARMUTH. How much would that cost? 

Mr. GOODMAN. I think we could replace all of the existing tax 

and spending subsidies with a tax credit, let’s say $2,500 for an 

adult, maybe $8,000 for a family, and that’s enough. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. I might note 

as a native Clevelander like Mr. Kucinich that, in fact, the Cleveland Clinic is an example where they are not taking emergency 

rooms, they are really not taking health care insurance, but people 

are flocking there from all over the world. The private system does 

work if you either have excellence or a low cost. But Mr. Kucinich 

will probably go to the Cleveland Clinic if he needs really great 

care. He will not go to Canada. 

With that, I recognize the former chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes. 

94 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you having this hearing. 

Let me begin by asking you, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Fredrich 

and Ms. Miller, is there anything that you like about the Affordable Care Act? Anything? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think for us, it has 

always been about the dignity of the individual. So our founder, 

Bill Ingram, started our business with that in mind. He wanted 

people to have freedom from anxiety. So as we developed and grew 

the business, that was a primary focus in terms of how do we provide that in any way that we can. 

That freedom from anxiety in 1924 started with a health insurance plan. And after that, we came up with a defined benefit pension plan, and then a profit sharing plan. And then each year we 

take a percentage of sales up to 1 percent and give that back to 

team members because we wanted to have that be part of everything that we are doing. 

So when we look at the Affordable Care Act, what we see is a 

wall that is being placed between ourselves and our employees because we have been able to have that conversation with them on 

a daily basis. Every year we do surveys to find out what is on their 

mind. We listen intently, and we modify those benefits. We have 

done that over time. Now we feel like there has been a barrier 

placed between us that tells us how we have to do that, something 

we have been doing very successfully. 

It almost feels like we’re trying to communicate with an orange 

juice can and string versus being able to go direct like we were. 

That is what has us concerned because as we are looking to the future, we are very concerned about the cost implications that this 

has for us and our ability to continue to do that. We are put into 

a bit of a box where really the only way that we can continue to 

offer the benefit that our team members have come to depend upon 

us for and that we have a great relationship with them on is to reduce the quality of the benefit. So to us it seems like we’re walking 

around in paradox alley just trying to understand it. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. 

Mr. FREDRICH. My answer is, no. There is nothing about it. To 

me, it is a step in the wrong direction because I believe the only 

solution to this is a market-based system, and it is just moving 

away from that. 

Mr. TOWNS. You are not impressed with the testimony of Senator 

Wolf who indicated that 98 percent of the people in the State of 

Massachusetts are now covered? That doesn’t impress you in any 

way? 

Mr. FREDRICH. Not a bit. I seriously doubt the numbers. I didn’t 

study Massachusetts, but I think we are playing with numbers 

here, and that is easy to do. And makes statistics look real good, 

but I don’t believe it. 

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here is fear. 

I think people who really have not had any dealings because this 

has not been implemented, and I think there is fear here. When 

I listened to Senator Wolf, who has had experience with this, I 

mean he is now living it. And, of course, what he is saying to me 

is very different from what I am hearing coming from all of you. 

95 

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Towns, if I may answer that also, you’re right. 

I have a lot of fear about this plan. I don’t know all of the details, 

but when they tell me that I have three options. Basically I can get 

health insurance for all of my employees under this plan, and it 

would cost me based on the numbers put out there, $1.4 million. 

I’m a cleaning company. I don’t get the kind of rates that airlines 

can get in Cape Cod. I am a cleaning company in Cincinnati, and 

I think I average and represent more businesses than an airline in 

Cape Cod would represent. 

I also have the opportunity to go to all part-time employment 

and that doesn’t help my employee base because then they would 

have to have two or three jobs to be able to cover their costs. Or 

I could drop it and pay just the penalty or tax or whatever you 

want to call it. And that would cost me still $640,000. That is not 

in my budget anywhere. I do have fear. 

Our focus has been for the past 20 years to improve the quality 

of life for our employees, to encourage them to go after the dreams, 

improve their quality of life, and do what they want in their life. 

They have to have a job first before they can worry about health 

care. So you’re right, there is a lot of fear here. 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me just run down a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. Many small business owners across the country have expressed strong support for the Affordable Care Act. Let me give 

just give you a couple. For example, Mike Roach, the co-owner of 

Paloma Clothing in Portland, Oregon, said: Despite everything I’ve 

heard said about the Affordable Care Act, what I have never heard 

anyone argue about is the tremendous problem health care has 

been and continues to be for small businesses. The costs have been 

crushing. If nothing was done about health care costs, we would either have to cut benefits or lay some of our employees off, neither 

of which we want to do. The fact of the matter is the new law has 

already started helping us. Overturning the law now would not 

help us, it would hurt us. We want the law fully implemented with 

support from across the board. 

And then Mr. Wolf, who—let me give you another example. Betsy 

Burton is the owner of King’s English book shop in Salt Lake City, 

Utah. Here is what she said. ‘‘Before health care reform passed, I 

faced the very demoralizing decision to either drop my business 

health plan or lay off employees to contain costs. But we received 

tax credits through the Affordable Care Act which took that decision off the table. We are able to afford our insurance and have not 

had to lay off any of our valued employees.’’ 

And this is from Ken Weinstein, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Oh, no. Take all the time you want. 

It is interesting that a Federal subsidy is how the bookstore was 

able to stay in business. I guess if we subsidized everybody, it 

would be perfect. 

Mr. TOWNS. We are talking about creating jobs, aren’t we? That’s 

a job that is created. If that is what this is about, and I want to 

make certain that I am at the right hearing. 

Chairman ISSA. Absolutely. As long as the Chinese keep loaning 

us the money. 

Mr. TOWNS. Ken Weinstein, owner of Charlie Card Diner in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: ‘‘Anyone opposing the new law obviVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75301.TXT APRIL
96 

ously does not understand small businesses. Small businesses cannot afford the system under the status quo. Health care reform was 

needed to help bring down costs and level the playing field with 

large businesses.’’ 

Mr. Wolf, a study commissioned by Families U.S.A., and the 

small business majority found that more than 3.2 million small 

businesses employ 19.3 million workers across the Nation will be 

eligible for this tax credit this year. To me, this sounds like small 

businesses are finally getting the help they need. 

So I want to say, first of all, Mr. Wolf, Senator Wolf, that I really 

appreciate your sharing with us today, and I think you are helping 

us a great deal, because you have been involved with it, you have 

lived it, and of course you understand it. And I think once we get 

over the fear, we can recognize the fact that the Supreme Court 

has spoken. They have spoken. And you’re right, in this hypothetical question to you, I think the only thing you should have 

added is that the Supreme Court has spoken and when that happens, that’s the law of the land. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I would now ask that the GAO report of May of 2012, small employer held tax credit, factors contributing to low use and complexity be placed in the record. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Towns, this, in fact, is where it is shown 

that because of the complexity, less than a quarter of those anticipated in what you just read ever took advantage of it. In fact, the 

program, that is a good example of an abysmal failure where you 

have to fill out at least seven different forms in order to take advantage of that credit, so most companies have not done it. But I 

appreciate the fact that it had good intentions. Perhaps we can 

work to fix it during these waning days. 

Mr. TOWNS. Yes. I think we need to have another hearing and 

eliminate the forms. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Chairman, this is why we were such good 

friends during your chairmanship. 

As we close, I would like to thank our witnesses. And I would 

like to thank my good friend, Mr. Towns, because during his tenure 

as chairman, we did work hard to try to reduce a lot of forms. Like 

most Federal officers we try, we fail. All of you as employers know, 

including Senator Wolf, the one thing government is not good at is 

reducing the complexity of paper filing. And if we go electronic, we 

still manage to have you have to do redundant entry. 

I might note in closing, General President George Washington 

died while being bled. His doctors felt that they needed to bleed 

him more, and so they did. In retrospect, they probably bled him 

to death. The American people are going to be taxed heavily for 

this program that has no cost controls. That ultimately is going to 

be one of the questions: Can America’s competitiveness sustain a 

system that, as well intended as the President’s flagship health 

care program is, ultimately has no cost controls, taxes in at least 

21 additional places, and is likely to run up the cost. 

Senator Wolf, I have only one thing for you, and one question in 

closing because I am the keeper of the record. Could you please cite 

the source of 98 percent of all of Massachusetts being insured? 

97 

Mr. WOLF. As they say in pilot lingo, stand by one. 

Chairman ISSA. Yes, sir. People loved it so much we needed to 

get that in the record. 

Mr. WOLF. And it is an important number, so I want to make 

sure that we give you the right citing. 

Chairman ISSA. Because we have been looking at the 2006 and 

the 2010, and we don’t get close to that number. 

Mr. WOLF. So this is the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 

Massachusetts health reform spending 2006 through 2011, an update on the budget buster myth by the Massachusetts Taxpayers 

Foundation. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. I ask unanimous consent that be placed 

in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman ISSA. I believe you have all done a very good job of 

making clear what you find in your businesses. The reason we have 

had a second hearing in which we had business people specifically 

on this health care initiative is that ultimately the success or failure will be found in your balance sheets. 

If we are right on what is your right, you will see higher costs 

and lower profits. If they are right on your left, we will all be 

pleased that, in fact, a health care initiative worked as well as Senator Wolf believes it has in Massachusetts. 

I, for one, will join with my good friend, Mr. Towns and say I 

hope Senator Wolf is right. And with that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

98 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75301.047
99 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75301.048
100 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75301.049
101 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75301.050
102 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75301.051
103 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75301.052
104 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75301.053
105 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75301.054
106 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75301.055
107 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75301.056
108 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75301.057
109 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75301.058
110 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75301.059
111 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75301.060
112 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75301.061
113 


Insert offset folio 62 here 75301.062
114 


Insert offset folio 63 here 75301.063
115 


Insert offset folio 64 here 75301.064
116 


Insert offset folio 65 here 75301.065
117 


Insert offset folio 66 here 75301.066
118 


Insert offset folio 67 here 75301.067
119 


Insert offset folio 68 here 75301.068
120 


Insert offset folio 69 here 75301.069
121 


Insert offset folio 70 here 75301.070
122 


Insert offset folio 71 here 75301.071
123 


Insert offset folio 72 here 75301.072
124 


Insert offset folio 73 here 75301.073
125 


Insert offset folio 74 here 75301.074
126 


Insert offset folio 75 here 75301.075
127 


Insert offset folio 76 here 75301.076
128 


Insert offset folio 77 here 75301.077
129 


Insert offset folio 78 here 75301.078
130 


Insert offset folio 79 here 75301.079
131 


Insert offset folio 80 here 75301.080
132 


Insert offset folio 81 here 75301.081
133 


Insert offset folio 82 here 75301.082
134 


Insert offset folio 83 here 75301.083
135 


Insert offset folio 84 here 75301.084
136 


Insert offset folio 85 here 75301.085
137 


Insert offset folio 86 here 75301.086
138 


Insert offset folio 87 here 75301.087
139 


Insert offset folio 88 here 75301.088
140 


Insert offset folio 89 here 75301.089
141 


Insert offset folio 90 here 75301.090
142 


Insert offset folio 91 here 75301.091
143 


Insert offset folio 92 here 75301.092
144 


Insert offset folio 93 here 75301.093
145 


Insert offset folio 94 here 75301.094
146 


Insert offset folio 95 here 75301.095
147 


Insert offset folio 96 here 75301.096
148 


Insert offset folio 97 here 75301.097
149 


Insert offset folio 98 here 75301.098
150 


Insert offset folio 99 here 75301.099
151 


Insert offset folio 100 here 75301.100
152 


Insert offset folio 101 here 75301.101
153 


Insert offset folio 102 here 75301.102
154 


Insert offset folio 103 here 75301.103
155 


Insert offset folio 104 here 75301.104
156 


Insert offset folio 105 here 75301.105
157 


Insert offset folio 106 here 75301.106
158 


Insert offset folio 107 here 75301.107
159 


Insert offset folio 108 here 75301.108
160 


Insert offset folio 109 here 75301.109
161 


Insert offset folio 110 here 75301.110
162 


Insert offset folio 111 here 75301.111
163 


Insert offset folio 112 here 75301.112
164 


Insert offset folio 113 here 75301.113
165 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 114 here 75301.114