[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 106 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I continue to hold out hope that the debate 
we begin next week in this Chamber will result in a bipartisan solution 
to some of our health care problems. I must say, however, that some of 
the comments made by the President last night at his news conference, 
followed up today by Vice President Gore and, I guess, even since then, 
by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, will make it 
increasingly difficult to hang on to that hope.
  Do not get me wrong, all of us have made our fair share of partisan 
comments in the U.S. Senate and outside the Senate on health care and 
probably everything else. But there seems to be an intensification now 
of the rhetoric from the White House, and it is not only misleading the 
American public, it has a potential to do a lot of harm. I will just 
single out one area.
  The administration continues its relentless claim that the plan that 
Senator Packwood and I, along with 38 other Senators, have proposed 
does nothing to help Americans when it comes to health care. To 
continue to make these claims leads me to believe they either have not 
read the plan or they do not want to talk about their own plans. And 
they have several of them and nobody knows precisely which one the 
President really favors. I will just give you a couple of examples.
  At his press conference last night, President Clinton introduced 
America to Daniel Lumley and John Cox. Mr. Lumley is a young man who 
lost his arm in a motorcycle accident. The President said Mr. Lumley is 
concerned he will not be able to obtain insurance because of his ``very 
apparent preexisting condition.''
  Mr. Cox left his job with health insurance for one that did not have 
insurance. When his wife became ill, they decided not to seek medical 
care because they did not have insurance. Finally, his wife became so 
ill he had to seek medical care. By that time, Mrs. Cox's cancer 
progressed to the point where it could not be treated. Tragically, Mrs. 
Cox passed away just this last week.
  The stories of Mr. Lumley and Mr. Cox point out what every Member of 
this Senate has known throughout this debate: There are Americans in 
real need and they are everywhere. They are in your hometown, 
everybody's hometown. They are in your home State, everybody's home 
State, and they are real. I think all of us in one way or another are 
trying to address those real needs. No question about it, there are 
Americans out there who need help, and that is what this health care 
debate should be about.
  The Vice President said today that the Dole-Packwood plan, or what we 
refer to as the ``American option,'' would leave these two gentlemen 
out in the cold. The fact is that our plan would help John Cox, Daniel 
Lumley and countless other lower- and middle-income Americans who find 
themselves in similar situations.
  Under the Dole-Packwood plan, the insurance laws would be changed so 
that people with preexisting conditions like Daniel Lumley would no 
longer be locked out of the system. I must say, I watch television a 
lot; I watch news a lot; I watch some of the specials on health care. 
And you see these tragic stories repeated time after time after time. I 
would guess that 90 percent of these stories are based on a preexisting 
condition where they could not get coverage.
  As far as I know, every single bill that has been introduced by 
Democrats, Republicans or bipartisan groups, takes care of the 
preexisting condition. It takes care of it. So people like Daniel 
Lumley and others would not have this problem.
  I just suggest that we should not make politics out of people's 
misery in the first place, but if we are going to make reference to 
these gentlemen, in this case, who have had tragedies in their own life 
and the loss of Mr. Cox's wife, then I think we ought to be very 
careful that we do not, by inference, say, ``Oh, well, the Republicans 
don't care about these people,'' or ``Republican plans don't help these 
people.''
  The Dole-Packwood plan would also help Mr. Cox and all those who are 
employed by small businesses that may not be able to afford health 
insurance for their employees, like the Christian radio station where 
Mr. Cox worked.
  For example, the Dole-Packwood plan would allow small businesses to 
join together in pools, thereby lowering the cost of insurance. We 
would also allow small businesses to enroll their employees in the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, giving them the same choice 
among benefits packages that Members of Congress and the President now 
enjoy.
  The Dole-Packwood plan also contains Federal subsidies for low-income 
Americans who may not be able to afford insurance. Nearly all the plans 
have subsidies, some may be higher. Ours is cut off at $22,000, some go 
as high as, I think, $35,000 for a family of four. But somewhere you 
have to draw the line, somebody has to pay for it.
  So I just want to underscore, I do not recall any time during this 
debate, and many of us--in fact, the two of us left--are members of the 
Finance Committee. We tried to be very attentive and attend most of the 
hearings. We heard a lot about concerns in America, and the concerns 
ought to be addressed.
  So we want to deal with issues like preexisting condition, like 
helping small businesses, like portability, like subsidies for low-
income Americans and a host of other things, like self-employed people. 
Give them--whether it is a farmer, rancher, small businessman, small 
businesswoman--the same right to deduct the cost of their insurance as 
other people have. In our bill, you can deduct up to 100 percent. It is 
going to be phased up to 100 percent, and the bill introduced by 
Senator Mitchell is only 50 percent. So there are differences in all 
these bills.
  In fact, for over a year I have said that Congress should put 
together a package of reforms that have universal support. We talk 
about universal coverage. I can put together a package that would have 
universal support in this Chamber, and I think I would be joined by my 
colleagues, whether from New York or wherever, because there are a 
number of issues where there is not any different view. We all have the 
same view. They ought to be addressed. We could help millions of people 
this year and not have any rancor, not have any partisanship, not have 
any politics in this Chamber. Just think of the people we would have 
helped had we passed such a bill last year.
  So I just suggest that there are a lot of concerns about health care. 
There are a lot of concerns about the Government-run health care and 
the Government's getting into Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals, the 
Public Health Service. So it is already into health care to a great 
extent. But most Americans, regardless of politics, regardless of 
party, regardless of where they are, who they are, or what they do, 
have this little fear of the Federal Government taking over all of 
health care, one-seventh of the national economy.
  I hope that all of us, including this Senator, when--obviously, we 
are going to be looking for flaws, what we consider to be flaws, and we 
have pointed out some in the bill introduced by my friend, Senator 
Mitchell. And I assume they will be looking for flaws in the plan that 
Senator Packwood and I hope to have completely drafted by tomorrow. And 
there probably are shortcomings, depending upon your point of view, in 
every plan.
  But I would say that the President's plan collapsed. It was 
suffocated by mandates, by taxes, by deficit spending, and by price 
controls. And I would just suggest to the Vice President, instead of 
criticizing our plan, maybe he ought to decide which plan he is for. Is 
he for the original Clinton plan or for the Clinton-Gephardt plan or 
the Clinton-Mitchell plan or for some other plan? Perhaps we could have 
another secret task force we have not heard about. Maybe they could 
draft a new plan over the weekend.
  President Clinton also said last night the Republicans have backed 
away from their commitment to health care reform, and that is just not 
the case. It is not the case. I might say what Republicans and many 
Democrats have done. We have listened and learned from the American 
people.
  I do not have the bill before me, but it weighs 14 pounds. It is 
1,400 pages long. It was delivered last night at 8 o'clock. We start 
the debate next Tuesday--maybe. And we are supposed to inform the 
American people the best we can over the weekend what is in this 
massive piece of legislation.
  When we hear from the American people, I think our perspective gets a 
little better, a little clearer. So we want to help the Lumleys and the 
Coxes and the others who have problems, up to a point. We do not want 
to turn the system over to the Federal Government.
  We want to improve the best health care system we have in the world 
today. The American system is the best in the world. I think that is 
what Senator Packwood has in mind, and 38 other sponsors, certainly 
what I have in mind. And I know, as I said at the start, there will be 
a lot of partisan lobs back and forth. But sooner or later we have to 
ask, are we going to help anybody this year? Why not? Are we going to 
go for broke, going to roll the dice and say, ``If I can't have 
everything, I don't want anything?''
  I just hope that whatever happens, when we make statements, and when 
we have a press conference, and we get all ginned up at one of these 
rallies outside the Capitol, we at least be accurate in what we say and 
not misrepresent the facts and not misrepresent what somebody else's 
bill may do, whether it is the Dole-Packwood bill or the Mitchell bill 
or the Finance Committee bill, which the Senator from New York, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, worked long and hard on, or whether 
it is any other bill. We have a right to lay out what we believe to be 
flaws in that bill, but we have no right to misrepresent what may or 
may not be in the legislation.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I ask the Republican leader to 
remain just a second for me to say that he is absolutely right in 
stating that every major legislative proposal in the Senate--I believe 
it is true in the House--including his, has all-important insurance 
reforms, preexisting condition, as the term is, that you cannot be 
turned down because you have lost an arm in a motorcycle accident, and 
portability, and such matters. And it would be a terrible outcome if, 
when we have 100 votes in this body, or 98, on those measures of great 
consequence, we should let it slip by.
  I thank the Senator for his statement.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleague.

                          ____________________