[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book I)]
[April 8, 1994]
[Pages 645-658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks in a Town Meeting on Health Care Reform in St. Paul, Minnesota
April 8, 1994

    Angela Astore. Welcome to the Twin Cities and our town hall meeting. 
And thank you for this unique opportunity to answer questions about your 
health care program.
    The President. Well, thank you for giving me the chance to do it. 
And I want to thank the people who are joining us from Milwaukee and 
Detroit and Sioux Falls, too.
    Ms. Astore. We'd like you to start off the program perhaps with some 
opening remarks.
    The President. I'll do that.
    Randy Meier. We turn it over to you.
    The President. Thank you.
    First, let me say, I came here to Minneapolis late last night, and I 
started the day off with a rally for health care sponsored by the Nurses

[[Page 646]]

Association of Minnesota. Over 2 million nurses in the American Nurses 
Association have endorsed our health care plan. And that's especially 
important to me because I started out my interest in health care because 
my mother was a nurse. And then many years ago when I started out in 
public life, I was an attorney general, and one of my jobs was to try to 
ensure good care within our nursing home system in my State. Then as a 
Governor, I had to worry about health care for the poor through the 
Medicaid program, something Minnesota and every other State has wrestled 
with.
    About 4 years ago, a long time before I even thought I'd be running 
for President, I agreed to take a look at the health care system for the 
Nation's Governors to see what we could do about it. And at that time, I 
talked to literally 900 health care providers, doctors, nurses, hospital 
administrators, paramedical workers of all kinds, and a lot of business 
people and health care consumers, people in every kind of medical 
problem you can imagine. I became convinced then that unless we had a 
national solution to a lot of our health care problems, we wouldn't be 
able to solve them; that no State, even the most progressive State, 
could solve all the problems of the health care system without a 
national solution.
    And let me just briefly say what I think the issues are, and a lot 
of them will be represented by people who are in our four audiences 
tonight. First of all, 39 million Americans don't have health insurance 
at all, ever, during the year. And about another 100,000 a month are 
losing their health insurance permanently. Secondly, at any given time 
in this Nation of about 260 million people, 58 million people won't have 
health insurance at some time during the year. Third--and it gets worse 
as we go along here--about 81 million of us live in families with so-
called preexisting conditions, a child with diabetes, a mother with 
cancer, a father who had a heart attack early but still had to go back 
to work. Those families either can't get insurance, pay very high rates, 
or can never change their jobs because if they change jobs, they won't 
be able to get insurance in their new jobs. Fourth, small business 
people and self-employed people who have health insurance pay on the 
average 35 percent more than those of us who are insured who are 
government workers or who work for bigger business. And 133 million of 
us have health insurance policies with lifetime limits, which means that 
if someone in our family should get real sick, we could run out of our 
insurance just at the time we need it the most.
    In addition to that, we're spending 40 to 50 percent more of our 
national income on health care than any other country in the world. The 
cost of health care to State government and to the Federal Government is 
exploding at 2 and 3 times the rate of inflation. All the things I'd 
like to do for you as President, in terms of investing more in education 
and training and new technologies for the 21st century, are limited by 
how much we have to put into health care every year to pay more for the 
same health care.
    There are lots of other problems. We have tens of millions of 
Americans with disabilities--some of them are here--who could work, who 
could be self-supporting, who get no help for long-term care in their 
homes, and who can't get health insurance if they go to work. We have 
older people on Medicare who need help with their medical bills. And if 
they could get medicine, they could stay out of hospitals and save us 
money and have a better quality of life, but that's not covered. So the 
question is, what are we going to do about this? Let me very briefly 
tell you what I think we should do; then we'll open the floor to 
questions.
    First of all, I'm convinced that we can't solve any of our problems 
until we deal with the basic one. We can no longer be the only advanced 
country in the world that doesn't provide health care security to all of 
our citizens all of the time. If you want to do that, there are only two 
ways to do it. You either have to have a system where you get rid of 
insurance all together and have the Government fund it, the way Canada 
does, or you have to have a system of guaranteed insurance, the way 
Germany does and several other countries. I advocate--and I'll explain 
why later--I think we should have a system of guaranteed private 
insurance with comprehensive benefits, including primary and preventive 
care which saves a lot of money in the long run, with no lifetime 
limits, and insurance that you can't lose.
    I believe that our system should maintain something that's very 
important to Americans, which is the choice of doctors and health care 
plans. More and more Americans are insured in plans that deprive them of 
any choice of their doctors, and that can be a serious problem. I 
believe there are ways to control costs and

[[Page 647]]

protect choice. Our plan would guarantee you at least three choices 
every year.
    Third, we have to change insurance practices. We have to make it 
illegal for people to have their coverage dropped or benefits cut, for 
rates to be increased just because there's someone in the family with a 
preexisting condition who's been sick, for lifetime limits to cut off 
benefits, or for people who are older to be charged more. This is a big 
deal. The average person's going to change jobs eight times in a 
lifetime. A lot of people are losing their jobs in their fifties and 
sixties and have to get new jobs and can't get jobs because no one will 
give them insurance because their rates are higher.
    Fourth, I want to preserve Medicare, which keeps the choice of 
doctors. But I also want to have Medicare begin to cover prescription 
drugs, which it doesn't now, and phase in a long-term care program not 
only for the elderly but for Americans with disabilities.
    Finally, I think these health benefits should be guaranteed in 
private insurance at work. Why? Because it's the simplest way to get to 
universal coverage from where we are now. Nine out of ten Americans with 
private health insurance are insured through the workplace. Eight out of 
ten Americans who don't have any insurance at all are in working 
families. So the simplest way to cover this is to say the employed 
uninsured should have their insurance paid for by the employers and the 
employees. The Government should pay for the unemployed uninsured and 
should raise a pool of money to provide discounts to small businesses 
who otherwise couldn't afford health insurance. That's essentially our 
plan: guarantee private insurance, choice of the doctor, reform 
insurance procedures, preserve Medicare, have health benefits guaranteed 
at work.
    One last thing--you have to find a way if you want to reform the 
insurance practices to make it possible for insurance companies to do 
these things, which means they have to insure all of us in very large 
pools. And we have to let small business people and self-employed people 
band together in co-ops so they can bargain for the same good prices 
that those of us who are insured through big businesses or Government 
get. That's essentially what we're trying to do in the Congress this 
year.
    Ms. Astore. Mr. President, we're going to start with a couple of 
questions from our Twin Cities audience.

[Mr. Meier introduced a participant who asked for the philosophical 
arguments in support of the President's plan.]

    The President. Well, compassion is part of my philosophy. But 
anyway, philosophically, I don't believe the Government can solve all 
the problems for people, and I don't think you should rob people of 
their personal responsibilities or their personal choice. That's why I 
don't have a Government-run plan. It's private insurance. And people who 
don't have insurance have the responsibility to provide it for 
themselves.
    But I believe philosophically it is wrong for people not to assume 
responsibilities for themselves and let other people do it. And what's 
happening today--let me just give you two examples. Self-employed person 
X decides, ``Well, I'm not going to have any insurance.'' Then they get 
in a wreck; they show up at the emergency room; they can't pay. They 
could have had insurance, but they didn't do it. That's fine for them, 
except they get the care--nobody lets them die, and nobody thinks they 
should--and then the rest of us pay for it. And that is irresponsible. 
Another example: Restaurant X and restaurant Y, next together. One 
covers the employees; the other doesn't. One is fulfilling a 
responsibility not only to himself and the employees but to the rest of 
society by not asking us to bear the risk of anybody getting sick; the 
other isn't. The other has a competitive advantage in business. I don't 
think that's right.
    And the system we have is not an individual responsibility system, 
it's an irresponsibility system. I don't plan to take over the health 
care system. I don't want the Government to run it. I think the 
Government should help to organize the markets so that small business 
people and self-employed people can afford to have insurance and so that 
they are not disadvantaged as compared with big business and Government. 
And I think it is irresponsible for people not to provide for their own 
health care and irresponsible for the Government not to make it possible 
for people to do it no matter what their station in life.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked if the plan was really 
about control of health care rather than better service.]

    The President. Well, let me try to answer 2 or 3 of those questions; 
you asked me 10 at once so--[laughter]. The only real tax we have

[[Page 648]]

in this plan--we have to raise funds to pay for the unemployed 
uninsured, which we're all paying for anyway, folks. When they get sick, 
they wait until it's too late, it's too expensive. They show up at the 
emergency room, and we pay. Under our plan we would raise a fund to pay 
for them and to pay for the discounts on small business from two 
sources, one, a tax on cigarettes, and the other, a modest assessment on 
the biggest American companies that will get the biggest windfall from 
this. That is, most big companies are paying way too much in insurance 
now to subsidize the rest of us. They'll get a windfall. We ask for a 
portion of that back to create a fund for discounts for small business 
and for the unemployed uninsured.
    There will be more choice under our plan. This idea that every 
American today has a choice of doctors is a myth. More than half the 
American people who are insured in the workplace today don't have a 
choice. They get one plan and that's it. Ninety percent of the American 
people who are insured in small businesses with 25 or fewer employees 
have no choice. Under our plan there will be more choices. That's one of 
the reasons why so many medical groups have endorsed this plan, not just 
the nurses but the family practitioners, the pediatricians. Any number 
of other medical groups have endorsed our plan because they know it 
guarantees more choice.
    Now, if you have a plan today that is better than the one in our 
bill, you can keep it. In other words, if you have a plan today where 
your employer pays 100 percent of your health insurance, not 80 percent, 
and you continue to do that, that's perfectly alright. We don't change 
that at all.
    Q. [Inaudible]--individual when you go for universal coverage. If I 
already have a policy, isn't it true that it will cost people that now 
pay for insurance more?
    The President. No, if you don't pay your premium, if your employer 
pays all of your insurance now----
    Q. They don't pay all of my insurance; I carry family coverage.
    The President. Well, the question is whether it will cost you more. 
It depends on a lot of factors. In all probability, you won't. Not our 
studies but all the nonpartisan studies that have been done show that 
more than half the people will get the same or better insurance for the 
same or lower cost.
    By and large, the people who will pay more are people who aren't 
paying anything now, people who have only very bare-bones coverage now. 
And young single workers will pay more so that older people can pay less 
and we can have a large community rating. Otherwise, most other people 
will pay the same or less.
    But if you have a better plan than we require, what this does is put 
a floor under you. We've got--keep in mind--I don't know where--you 
know, I understand; I saw those ads putting out all that propaganda, 
``This is just politics. This is just a power play,'' and all that. Tell 
that to these people who are disabled who can't get insurance. Tell that 
to these old people who choose between medicine and food every month. 
Tell that to the 100,000 Americans a month who lose their health 
insurance. Tell that to the farmers and the small business people who 
insure at 35 and 40 percent higher rates. I mean, this is a bunch of 
hooey. If people don't agree with me, let them come forward and contest 
me with their ideas. But I am sick and I think a lot of you must be sick 
of all this hot air rhetoric and all these pay television ads and all 
these hit jobs from people who are making a killing from the insurance 
business that we have today. It is wrong, and we should change it.
    Let me just tell you something, I don't go around--I don't mind 
doing this; I'll do this all night. But it never gets--one of the things 
I've learned in 20 years of public life is you don't get very far 
questioning other people's motives. Contrary to what you read, most of 
the people I've met in public life are honest, well-meaning. They're not 
crooks, and they're trying to do the right thing. We have differences of 
opinion. But this health care debate, in my judgment, has really been 
retarded, in more ways than one--[laughter]--by all this motive throwing 
around we've had. If I had wanted to take on a tough issue, I could have 
found something else to do with my time. I believe we have to do this. 
And if we don't do it, you're going to have more people without 
insurance, more people that can't afford what they've got, and a 
terrible situation in this country. And that's why I did it. That 
doesn't mean I'm right, but let's argue about what should or shouldn't 
be done and not talk about other people's motives. I've even tried to 
convince the insurance indus-


[[Page 649]]

try I don't want to attack their motives. I just want us to argue about 
what we should do.
    Mr. Meier. Mr. President, I want to direct you to this side of the 
floor where you can look at that large monitor. I want to give our live 
satellite audiences a chance to join in. Let's go first to WDIV-TV in 
Detroit and Carmen Harlan.
    Carmen Harlan. Thank you, Randy. They were living the American 
dream. The Bertolones had two healthy children, a nice home, and their 
own business. But in a matter of months, their dream life changed.

[At this point, a videotape was shown about the family's efforts to 
obtain their insurance company's approval for treatment for Mrs. 
Bertolone's breast cancer. Ms. Harlan made comments during the film and 
then introduced Mr. Bertolone.]

    Q. My wife had advanced breast cancer. She was told by a leading 
bone marrow transplant unit in the country that they had a 25 percent 
chance of prolonged life extension if she would receive the transplant. 
Our insurance company deemed the procedure experimental and would not 
cover the expense. Would women in a similar situation be told the same 
under your health care plan?
    The President. It's an issue I'm very familiar with. As you may 
know, my mother had breast cancer, and so I've learned a lot about this 
issue. What we would cover under this health care plan--transplants of 
all kinds as long as the doctors thought it was an appropriate 
procedure.
    Now, there are some people who still believe bone marrow transplants 
for breast cancer are experimental, although there's a lot of evidence 
that it can prolong life among younger women, especially women 50 and 
under. And the truth is that it will depend upon the doctor's belief 
that it should be the appropriate course of medical care. But what we're 
trying to do is to give these decisions back to doctors and their 
patients who believe it's an appropriate course of medical care. And I 
think that it is clear that we're moving to the point where most 
physicians believe that there are circumstances under which it is an 
appropriate thing to do to give women with breast cancer bone marrow 
transplants.
    But I'm not trying to give you an evasive answer, I'm trying to give 
you the standard that will be used in the insurance policy: Is it 
appropriate medical care? Will the doctor believe that? I think that 
more and more doctors do believe that, so in most cases I think you can 
look forward to that kind of procedure being covered.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Astore. Let's bring the audience in Milwaukee into the 
discussion now.

[The Milwaukee, WI, moderator introduced a participant who asked about 
premium increases and the cost effectiveness of requiring a referral for 
coverage of a visit to a specialist.]

    The President. Well, first of all, let me say that a lot of that 
referral business is probably because of requirements that the insurance 
companies have put on the doctors treating this lady. If you talk to any 
doctor, they'll tell you that more and more and more, they're having to 
call insurance companies and get permission to practice medicine in 
advance of doing what they think has to be done anyway. Last night I was 
down in Kansas City, and I had three doctors in our group there, and 
that's all they talked about was how much time they were spending 
getting the approval of insurance companies to do what they knew to do 
anyway.
    You talked about how much your insurance had gone up. Let me say, 
one of the best things about having a national reform is that you can 
charge people the same price for an individual policy and a higher price 
for a family policy, but you would pay that price even if you had to use 
the doctor enough. That's what insurance used to be. I mean, when Blue 
Cross first got organized, everybody was lumped in a great big pool, 
everybody paid the same amount. Some people got sick, and the rest of us 
paid for that as well, as a hedge against ourselves getting sick. Now we 
have 1,500 separate insurance companies, thousands of different 
policies, hundreds of thousands of people working in doctors' offices 
and hospitals and insurance offices figuring out who's not covered for 
what. So if you're in a little pool--and this lady, you heard what she 
said, she has an illness--your rates can go way up. If we're all insured 
in large pools, then your rates would not go up unduly--just more or 
less at the rate of inflation--just because you had an illness. That's 
one of the--this woman would be dramatically advantaged if we had 
national insurance reform--health care reform.

[[Page 650]]

[Mr. Meier introduced a participant who suggested combining the best 
parts of the Canadian and German health care systems.]

    The President. Well, that's kind of what we're trying to do. The 
Canadian system--in Minnesota, for example, where you're close to 
Canada, or in Michigan or any of the States that are in our program 
tonight, there are a lot of people who would like to see the single-
payer system that the Canadians have.
    The problem is twofold. One is, it would be very difficult to get 
Congress to agree, in effect, to put all the health insurance business 
in America out of business and substitute it with a tax. And a lot of 
people like the lady who asked the second question here would wonder 
what that would do to their health care plans. Secondly, the Canadian 
system, in my judgment, has not had quite as much success at controlling 
costs as the German system has, where all the people pay something, 
assume some responsibility directly for their health care, and therefore 
negotiate more vigorously on an ongoing basis to try to hold down the 
costs of health care.
    But let me say from my point of view, sir, to you, there are lots of 
people in America who are HIV positive who could be working, who could 
be making a contribution and paying taxes, who have difficulty doing 
that because they can't get health insurance. But if they were insured 
in very large pools, they would be able to do so. So I think that one of 
the most important beneficiaries of this policy will be people who have 
very serious illnesses that still may permit them to work for long 
periods of time and be active if they can provide for their own health 
care needs.
    Ms. Astore. Thank you, Milwaukee. We have one more live location to 
bring into our town hall meeting tonight on health care.

[The Sioux Falls, SD, moderator introduced a participant who asked about 
coverage for services by nontraditional medical practitioners.]

    The President. Well, what we do in the health care plan is to 
require certain kinds of care to be covered. And then that care can be 
provided in a variety of different ways by anybody who is qualified to 
provide it. What will happen is that the people who band together in 
these purchasing alliances will be given any number of choices from 
which the consumers of health care can choose what kind of health care 
plan they want. So all consumers will have the option, if they wish, to 
choose plans that have different kinds of providers, including 
alternative providers, as you mentioned, to provide various health 
services. We have to have--everybody by law has a right to have three 
different kinds of plans, kinds of plans. But what you'll have in most 
places is the kind of choices that now, for example, Federal employees 
have. You know, a lot of Federal employees can choose between two dozen 
different plans. It's amazing. And as a consequence of that you have all 
different kinds of options, and a lot of providers, including 
chiropractors, have a chance to provide services to people. That's the 
way ours would be set up.
    Let me go right to the heart of the question because I've got a lot 
of friends who are chiropractors who have asked me this. We do not 
specify in the bill as it is presently drawn the services of 
chiropractors, osteopaths, nurse practitioners, or neurosurgeons for 
that matter. What we do instead is say, here are the kinds of health 
care services that have to be offered, let people organize themselves 
and offer them to the consumers of America.

[Mr. Meier introduced a participant who asked how the plan would address 
increased costs related to malpractice.]

    The President. Our plan does that in two ways. Let me also mention, 
since we're talking to South Dakota and you've got a lot of rural 
population, although we do here in Minnesota, too, and in Michigan, the 
other States that are represented and in Wisconsin, another big problem 
that we have in my rural State where I'm from is that more and more 
general practitioners out in the country are reluctant to do things like 
deliver babies and set simple fractures because of the malpractice 
problems.
    Our bill does two things. One is it sets a limit on the percentage 
of a malpractice judgment that can be taken by a lawyer, a percentage of 
the contingency fee. The second thing it does, which I am convinced will 
have a far more positive impact on insurance rates, is it sets up a 
system in which the professional associations set up medical practice 
guidelines for various kinds of cases. And then if the physicians can 
demonstrate that they follow the guidelines, there is a presumption that 
the physician was not negligent.

[[Page 651]]

    Now, that presumption can be overcome, but it is much harder. And if 
that happens, we believe that there will be a substantial reduction in 
the number of frivolous cases in the malpractice area and therefore 
malpractice insurance rates will go down.
    That's been tried in a rural State, Maine, with some considerable 
success. And I think that it's the best way to go to guarantee lower 
malpractice fees and still give people a right to go into court when 
they've genuinely got a gripe.

[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]

    Ms. Astore. Welcome back everyone to ``Health Care in the 
Heartland,'' our town hall meeting in the Twin Cities with the 
President.

[Mr. Meier introduced a videotape about a person's loss of health 
insurance. A participant then asked about insurance portability and the 
effect of economic changes and profitability of companies on the funding 
of the plan.]

    The President. Thank you very much. You know, this is so 
interesting. Of all these forums that I've done, you're the first person 
that's asked me that question. And let me try to explain how it would 
work.
    First of all, under our plan, companies would be free to self-insure 
if they were above a certain size. We now have 5,000 and above. There 
are some in Congress who think it should be smaller. But what we have is 
complete portability of benefits so that no family can ever be without 
benefits. So that if your company goes down and you don't have another 
job, you just carry your benefits. And for the period in which you're 
between jobs, this reserve fund that I talked about that we'll set up--
the Government basically would provide the reserve to guarantee that 
your coverage would continue just as if you were still working at the 
other company. So you would not have been put in the position that 
you're in now. And it's very important. In addition to people who are in 
the position that you're in, where your company went broke and you got 
left with all those bills, there are an awful lot of people who just 
want to change jobs, but they have to wait for months and months and 
months, even after they change jobs, before they actually get coverage. 
So this is a big issue. We need to guarantee--the term of art is 
portability--complete portability of policies through jobs and through 
employers. And our system would provide that.
    Thank you.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked about health benefits for 
immigrants.]

    The President. Most of those folks, even with very limited English 
capacity, have jobs. So they would get at the job site a card, a health 
care card, just like everyone else, which they then would be able to 
present to their doctor. They would have the opportunity either at work 
or at a local health clinic to have explained to them what their choices 
are of the health care plan, and then they would just--they wouldn't 
have to keep up with a lot of paper or anything, just one card for the 
family that they could present at the health care clinic when they 
needed it or at the hospital. So I think that's the way it will work.
    Now, in many places where there are a very large number of people 
whose first language is not English, we will have to expand the outreach 
activities of the public health clinics for people who are not employed 
and where there's no one in the family who is employed. And we 
understand that we're going to have to do that and make some provision 
for doing that.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Meier. Mr. President, we're going to join our satellite audience 
one more time in Detroit and station WDIV.

[The Detroit, MI, moderator introduced a participant who asked about 
prescription drug coverage outside of Medicare.]

    The President. Under our plan, every health policy would have to 
have a prescription drug component which would have the following 
characteristics. There would be a $250 deductible. In other words, you 
have to spend up to $250 of your own money on medicine before it would 
trigger in. And then after that, every prescription would require a 20 
percent copay. But there would be a ceiling beyond which you could not 
spend; it's about $1,000. If your expenditures were over $1,000 a year, 
then the insurance policy would cover all the prescription drugs that 
your doctor would require and that your health would require.
    So it's a pretty good policy because--now, if you have a better 
policy now, you can keep it. Keep in mind, if the coverage is better 
now, you can keep it. But almost no one has coverage

[[Page 652]]

that good today in their health care policy for prescription drugs. And 
there are a lot of national studies which show that the adequate 
provision of prescription medicine can actually save money by reducing 
hospital stays and emergency room visits.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked if the President knew 
about the community health center system in Ontario, Canada.]

    The President. I think that one of the things that will happen if we 
pass this bill is that you will have more and more health care provided 
in that way by community-based clinics or comprehensive health centers 
that have salaried professionals, including doctors. Interestingly 
enough, we're here in Minneapolis; that's what you have at the Mayo 
Clinic, right? Everybody concedes that there is no finer health care in 
the world. And yet I have many people who have been patients at the Mayo 
Clinic tell me that it is less expensive than what they paid back home 
for other kinds of care.
    So I think that you will see a lot more of that in this country once 
the health insurance market is organized so that people know they will 
always be reimbursed for the services they provide. That then permits 
people to organize these kinds of associations and know that they'll be 
able to run them without going broke, because they know they'll always 
have reimbursement.

[The Milwaukee moderator introduced a doctor and showed a videotape 
about his clinic. The doctor then asked if the President supported 
community health centers.]

    The President. Yes, I do, not only for the reasons we just saw in 
the fine practice that you have but because the community health centers 
are increasingly providing services to large numbers of people who used 
to not use them at all. For example, in many of the Southern States of 
this country, including mine, over 80 percent of all the children in the 
States get their immunizations through community health centers, because 
a lot of regular doctor's offices don't do it anymore because of the 
malpractice problems that were mentioned earlier. So I think it's very 
important. And our plan has a special provision for funding community 
health centers at a higher level to try to make sure that these kind of 
comprehensive services can be provided.
    And let me emphasize, too, that in the inner city and in rural 
areas--we've got South Dakota here, remember, on this television 
program--if it weren't for community health centers there would be no 
access to health care, so that people might have insurance but they 
still wouldn't have any place to go with their insurance. So it's very 
important.
    Thank you for practicing there.

[Mr. Meier introduced a participant who questioned the cigarette tax.]

    The President. Well, as I said, first of all, let me say if I could 
figure out how to get enough savings out of this program to pay for it 
without any tax, that's what I would do. We are going to get dramatic 
savings out of this program, mostly by having a single form, simpler 
administration, which will save the taxpayers a lot of money, and those 
of you who aren't taxpayers who have private insurance, by drastically 
cutting the amount of administrative overhead in the system.
    We cannot, however, provide enough money to do the things that we've 
been discussing without raising some money. Obviously, I think it is 
fair to ask the companies that will have the biggest drop in their 
insurance premiums to give a small portion of that to the fund for small 
business discounts and for unemployed people.
    The reason I think that the cigarette tax is a legitimate place to 
get funds is that cigarette smoking is the only activity we know of in 
our society that there is no known safe margin for doing. That is, it's 
not like alcoholic consumption where, if you're not prone to be an 
alcoholic, there are safe margins of consumption. We know of no safe 
measure of smoking. And we also know that several thousand people a year 
get lung cancer from subsidiary exposure to smoke, when they don't do it 
themselves. We also know that our society bears a health care burden and 
cost as a result of the health care consequences of smoking far in 
excess of the money raised from the cigarette tax. So for all those 
reasons, I thought since we had to raise some money, that was the 
fairest way to do it.

[Following a commercial break, the Sioux Falls, SD, moderator presented 
a videotape on rural health issues and then introduced a farmer who 
asked about organ transplants.]

[[Page 653]]

    The President. Yes, sir. We support transplants, as I said, let me 
restate--particularly organ transplants. We support transplants when 
they are the recommended medical procedure, and we try to provide ways 
to make sure that we facilitate that.
    Now, let me also say to you since you were introduced in a slightly 
different way--as a farmer who's self-employed, who has already had a 
medical problem, who has folks working for you on the farm--farmers, in 
my opinion, may be the biggest winner in the proposed reform we have 
because today, believe it or not, self-employed people who buy health 
insurance, number one, pay exorbitant rates anyway because they're not 
in big pools. If they've been sick, they pay lots more. And if you're 
self-employed, you can only deduct 25 percent of your cost of the 
premium from your income taxes, whereas a business can deduct 100 
percent.
    Under our plan, you'd be able to buy on an equal basis with others 
in a much bigger pool, and you would be able to deduct 100 percent of 
your self-employed premium; which means in almost every case in the 
country, farmers would be able to insure their farm hands for the time 
they work for them and their families for less than they're paying just 
for family insurance today. And you certainly would, because of your 
preexisting condition.
    But let me just say this, I will try to get some more information on 
the specific question you asked me about encouraging and organizing the 
whole market for transplants. And I will make sure that we get back to 
you in the next day or two with a more specific answer to your question.

[The Sioux Falls moderator introduced a participant who asked about the 
development of health care infrastructure in small towns.]

    The President. Yes, I'd like to talk about that a little bit. And 
I'd like to say, first of all, my wife had a wonderful time out there. 
And I want to thank Senator Daschle for doing such a good job and 
working on this rural health care issue.
    Let me try to explain how this would work, and let me say for the 
rest of you, a lot of people who live in small towns in rural areas 
don't even have a doctor in their town anymore. I met in rural North 
Carolina earlier this week a doctor who told me she was working 110 
hours a week and had been for several weeks, but she had just come to 
her slow season when she could work 80 hours a week. Now, that's a 
doctor who's going to need a doctor pretty soon, right? [Laughter]
    Here's what we try to do. Let me briefly run through the things that 
are in this plan for rural areas: Number one, revive the National Health 
Service Corps where young doctors can pay for their medical education, 
which normally leaves them with a big debt, by serving in underserved 
areas; 7,000 doctors over the next few years doing that. Number two, 
give doctors and other health care providers who go into underserved 
areas significant income tax credits as incentives to do it, $1,000 a 
month for doctors, $500 a month for nurses and other medical 
professionals for up to 5 years; that's a huge incentive. Number three, 
give doctors faster writeoffs, tax writeoffs, when they buy modern 
equipment to put into their clinics in rural areas. And number four, 
make sure that we've got the technology, the computer technology to 
connect rural clinics with urban medical centers, so doctors can feel 
good about the quality of their practice when they're out there and feel 
like they're giving their patients the kind of care they need. Those are 
the things that we think will get a lot more doctors and nurses and 
others into rural America and make a big difference.

[The Sioux Falls moderator introduced a participant who asked about 
reimbursement for rural providers under Medicare and Medicaid.]

    The President. Well, for one thing, Medicare and Medicaid are going 
up right now at 2 and 3 times the rate of inflation, by far more than 
inflation and population growth, because primarily of the way the 
Medicaid program is organized. Under our plan, Medicaid recipients would 
be put into big insurance pools along with small business people, self-
employed people, and larger business people. In other words, they'd be 
put in these big community pools. And doctors, for the first time, would 
be reimbursed at the same rate, whether or not they had a Medicaid 
patient or someone who was privately insured. It would be exactly the 
same reimbursement. And that would make a huge difference to the 
physicians. And how would we do that and still save money? Because 
you'll have competition, you'll have managed competition, which we've 
seen already in Minnesota

[[Page 654]]

with the work that's been done here. You've had dramatic drop-off in the 
increase in medical costs here as people have organized themselves into 
larger groups.
    Secondly, under Medicare, we leave it the way it is because so many 
of the people that I have talked to at AARP and the other groups believe 
Medicare works and want it left alone. But we do add a prescription drug 
benefit, and we add a long-term care benefit.
    How will rural doctors be able to deal with this? They won't have 
any more uncompensated care. One of the things that makes Medicare and 
Medicaid a bigger burden in rural areas is there are an awful lot of 
uncompensated care in rural areas. Now doctors will be paid something by 
everybody they treat. And I believe that that will make a big difference 
to the quality and rewards of the practice of medicine in rural areas.
    We can save this money, to go back to your question, by the way we 
organize the health care markets and by making sure that everybody is 
reimbursed for all the services that are provided. Then we'll be able to 
lower the rate of inflation.
    Keep in mind, we don't propose to cut Medicare and Medicaid, ma'am. 
Medicare and Medicaid under our proposal would go up at twice the rate 
of inflation, instead of 3 times the rate of inflation, which it's going 
to do if we don't pass national health care reform.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked about coverage for mental 
health care.]

    The President. Yes, it is a very important part of health care 
reform. Under our plan, some mental health benefits would be included 
from the beginning of national health reform. That is, whenever--all the 
States would have until the end of '97 to provide universal coverage. 
Each State would have that time. From the beginning of the time 
everybody was covered, there would be significant mental health 
benefits, much more than most people have under their policies today, 
both inpatient and outpatient care.
    There would not, however, be complete parity, and if you're 
interested in mental health, you know--parity between the mental health 
benefits and the physical health benefits until the year 2000, and 
that's because we don't have accurate cost estimates on how much it will 
cost, and we have to phase it in. To go back to what some other people 
had said earlier, we have to know that when we put these things in, that 
we can pay for them and we're not going to cost the Treasury more than 
we have.
    But there will be quite a significant mental health benefit from the 
very beginning and much more than most people have today. I think it's 
very important. I think it's one of the best things about our plan, and 
I personally believe it will make us a healthier country and will cut 
down on long-term medical costs if we have the proper kind of mental 
health.

[Mr. Meier introduced a participant who asked about the plan's effect on 
the present Minnesota Care health plan.]

    The President. No, you won't lose money because--and I commend what 
you've done; I think it's important. But you won't lose money. We 
estimate that both private insurers and the Government will save money 
if we go on with national health care reform. And what will happen is if 
we have the national plan, we'll be able to do some things that at least 
you're not now doing.
    First, everybody will be able to be insured. And secondly, in 
addition to holding costs down, we'll be able to hold costs down with 
more choices for health care consumers than you're going to be able to 
provide unless we have a national plan which reorganizes the insurance 
markets. So my judgment is you'd be--I would urge you to keep going with 
your reforms here, to do the best you can and go full out until the 
Congress acts. But I believe you'd be much better off when the Congress 
acts.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked about coverage for 
substance abuse treatment.]

    The President. I don't know if I can do a better job of defending 
it. Some days I don't think I do such a hot job. [Laughter] I did my 
best when we started tonight, but I'm going to try. Let me say--I think 
you may know this, but I have a brother who is an addict, who is a 
recovering addict. I know the treatment works. And we have done two 
things in our administration. One is to require that drug treatment be a 
part of the benefits, as a part of a general approach to preventive 
health care. I believe in preventive health care, folks. We spend a ton 
of money after the cow's already out of the barn door in our health care 
system. And I like--I mean, I like the fact that we

[[Page 655]]

have the best technology in the world. I like the fact that we can get 
it. But we can save so much money if we just invest in prevention 
generally, whether it's mammograms for women or cholesterol tests for 
people or substance abuse treatment.
    In addition to that, although I just presented a budget to the 
Congress that cuts defense and cuts discretionary domestic spending--
that is, not Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security--for the first time 
since 1969, we increase in our regular budget drug treatment funds by, 
oh, about 8 or 10 percent, just because I think it is so important. And 
I will fight very hard for it. I think it would be a big mistake for us 
to back off of this. There's still an awful lot of people who have 
alcohol and drug abuse, substance abuse problems in this country. And we 
can save a bunch of money and a lot of people, more importantly, if we 
stay with it.

[The Detroit moderator introduced a participant who asked about 
prescription drug coverage for senior citizens.]

    The President. Yes, ma'am. Let me explain this again for the benefit 
of all of our participants here. Older people who are at or below the 
poverty line are eligible for coverage under the Medicaid program, the 
Government's program for poor folks. If you're under Medicaid, then you 
have a prescription drug benefit. But if you're a senior citizen 
eligible for Medicare, that is, the regular elderly person's health care 
program, and you haven't spent yourself in poverty, you don't get any 
prescription drug benefit. But we know that older people are 4 times as 
likely to use medicine as younger people. And we also know that we save 
money in our health care system if people who need medicine get it and 
can therefore stay out of hospitals. I mean, you can spend a year's 
worth of medicine in 3 days in a hospital.
    So what our plan does is to add to Medicare a prescription drug 
benefit which has a $250 deductible, a 20 percent copay, and I think, a 
$1,000 ceiling; it has a ceiling, and I think it's $1,000. That is, 
after you spend $1,000 out of pocket, your insurance then will cover all 
your medicine from then on.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked about maintaining 
competition in the health insurance market.]

    The President. First, let me say, I think there has to be some 
consolidation of the insurance market. To be fair, I've tried to say 
this over and over again, and sometimes not so well, but I don't think 
there are any bad people in this drama. We have the best health care in 
the world. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best medical 
technology, the best medical research. We have the worst health care 
financing system in the world. It is the world's most expensive. It's 
estimated by nearly everybody that studies it that we spend about $90 
billion a year, which is pretty good money, in clerical work, simply 
because of the way we're organized.
    I think there should be and will be, inevitably, some sort of 
insurance consolidation. How do we guarantee competition? By requiring 
that in every group of buyers, every consumer in America have access to 
at least three different kinds of plans, a fee-for-service plan, a 
health maintenance organization, a professional provider organization.
    They may have access to 24 different specific plans--as I said, the 
way the Federal Government employees often do today--but we will 
guarantee that every person always has access to at least three 
different kinds of plans, including fee-for-service medicine in the old-
fashioned way. When you do that, you're going to ensure that there will 
be more competition than there will be. If we do nothing, the move 
toward competition, in my judgment, will be just exactly what you say, 
there will be more and more concentration, more and more managed care 
but less choice, less quality, and less competition.

[Ms. Astore introduced a participant who asked if choice of physicians 
would be limited.]

    The President. No. But let me answer your question directly. First 
of all, one option you will always have, ma'am, is to continue to pay 
your doctors as you would now, on a fee-for-service basis. Your premiums 
might be slightly higher, but they probably still would be as low, if 
not lower, than they are today because of the way the markets are 
organized.
    In addition to that, you can also join a certain plan, like a 
certain health plan, and maybe all your doctors aren't members of it; 
let's say three are, but one of your specialists aren't. You can buy a 
small premium, which would not be very expensive, which would give you 
the right also to use that doctor, who would then get reim-


[[Page 656]]

bursed from your plan at the same rate other doctors in the same 
specialty or the same area would.
    So you would be able to keep all your doctors. That would be one of 
the things you'd have to do. You might have to pay slightly more to do 
it than you would otherwise pay, but you could keep them all. And in all 
probability, based on our studies, it would be for the same or less 
money than you're paying now, if you have a comprehensive plan.

[Ms. Astore called on the Milwaukee moderator, who introduced a 
participant who asked about increasing employment opportunity for 
welfare recipients, listing her education and job skills.]

    The President. My guess is we've already done it. I'll bet you'll 
have four job offers tomorrow since you've been on television. 
[Laughter] I imagine we probably solved your problem. But let me give 
you a more general answer. I hope somebody who's watching you will call 
you and offer a job tomorrow.
    First of all, quite apart from welfare, we have to create more jobs 
in this country. In the last 15 months, our economy has produced 2\1/2\ 
million new jobs, 90 percent of them in the private sector, more than in 
the previous 4 years. So we're creating more jobs. That's the first 
thing.
    Secondly, with regard to welfare, how do you move people from 
welfare to work? You have to make work more attractive. We, this year, 
starting in this calendar year, we are lowering income taxes for 16.6 
percent, one-sixth, of American workers who make lower wages, to make 
sure that work will always be more attractive than welfare by saying if 
you work for modest wages, you'll get an income tax cut.
    The third thing we are trying to do is to reform the welfare system 
itself by helping to create jobs ultimately for people who have training 
and are able to go to work, if necessary, with some sort of public 
funding. But let me say, it doesn't apply to you.
    But the biggest problem we've got with welfare for a lot of people 
is that--remember, if you're poor, on Medicaid and on welfare, your 
children get health care. If you take a minimum-wage job in a business 
that doesn't have health insurance, you have to give up your kid's 
health care to go to work. Then you work for a minimum wage and you pay 
taxes so people on welfare can have health care. It doesn't make any 
sense. So, the health care issue is an important part of welfare reform.
    The answer to this lady's question is she should be able to get a 
job in a healthy market economy. So we have to create more jobs. 
Ultimately, for people on welfare who are willing to go to work, if they 
can't find jobs within a certain specific time, in my judgment, the 
Government is going to have to work with the private sector to give 
extra incentives for people to go to work. It's better to have work than 
be on welfare even if you have to give extra incentives to create the 
jobs.

[The Milwaukee moderator introduced a participant who asked about the 
plan's effect on the Nation's free enterprise system.]

    The President.  I think it will do much more good than harm. There 
will be some job loss in some areas, and there will be some job gain in 
some areas. And let me explain how and why I think it's the right thing 
to do.
    First of all, the system is entirely private. We require people to 
purchase insurance. We keep private insurance. We do not abolish 
insurance and substitute taxes. Secondly, all the health care providers 
that are now private will continue to be private. So we leave that 
alone. But if you go to a comprehensive benefit program where you have a 
single form that the doctor has to fill out, a single form that a 
hospital has to fill out, a single form that a patient has to fill out, 
and everybody is clearly covered by producing a card, then all those 
people who are busily at work trying to figure out who's not covered 
under what health insurance policy or why the health insurance policy 
needs to be cut off or why a small pool can't anymore support a person 
who's got a sick child, those jobs will go down in number dramatically. 
But we'll have a big increase in jobs in health care providers, people 
who work in home health, for example.
    Some small businesses will pay more because they don't pay anything 
now or they have very limited policies now. But on average, it will add 
one to 2 percent to their cost of doing business, and all their 
competitors will have to do the same thing. And within a few years 
they'll all be saving so much more because medical inflation will be 
less.
    The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan group that did a 
study on this. They estimate that on average, within 5 years we'll

[[Page 657]]

be creating many jobs in the small business sector because we'll lower 
medical inflation and all small business people will be on equal 
competitive terms.
    So I think there will be some job loss, more job gain in the short 
run in health care, and big job gains over the long run by bringing 
health costs in line with inflation.

[Mr. Meier called on the Sioux Falls moderator, who introduced a 
participant who asked if businesses would still provide health insurance 
to retirees under the new plan.]

    The President. It would relieve them of some of their 
responsibilities for paying for the early retirees. And they would be in 
the retiree pool in our health care program. But I still believe it's 
good economics because a lot of these companies are paying now 15, 16, 
17, 18 percent of their payroll, as compared with the national average 
of 8 to 8.5 percent of payroll, for health care. And that is undermining 
their ability to reinvest money and to create more jobs and to make our 
economy stronger.
    Most of those companies that are severely affected by this are 
companies like automobiles and steel, which had to have huge layoffs 
through early retirement all during the 1980's to be competitive. In 
other words, it wasn't a decision they made; it was necessity. And they 
had contracts which required them to carry these health burdens.
    We believe for relatively modest cost we can generate a huge amount 
of money in these sectors, which are now prospering, to create more jobs 
and help strengthen the American economy. So we think that it'll be 
about a wash that we can well afford.
    Let me say, sir, that we have had the cost of our plan evaluated by 
any number of people, including groups that are composed largely of 
folks that were active in the previous two Republican administrations. 
And all of them say more or less the same thing, that over the 10-year 
period our numbers are right. They differ from year to year sometimes, 
but I think that the cost figures in my plan are good because we've bent 
over backwards, we've contacted 10 different medical actuarial firms and 
also had a lot of outsiders look at it. I think the numbers are right.
    Ms. Astore. Thank you, Sioux Falls. Mr. President, we have time for 
one final question here in the Twin Cities. And we'd like you to pick a 
member of the audience to ask that final question.
    The President. Go ahead.
    Mr. Meier. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I've got to pull a Donahue here 
and get up there. [Laughter]
    The President. Maybe we'll do two if you can do it real quick.
    Mr. Meier. Tell us your name and what your question is.

[A participant asked if the plan would include dental coverage.]

    The President. Yes--we're running out of time. I can't give you the 
whole details. But the short answer is yes. You'll have to pay some of 
it, and I'll get you the details.
    Go ahead, what's your question? Thank you.
    Ms. Astore. Hurry, Randy.
    The President. We can do it. We can do it.
    Mr. Meier. I'm getting there. Here we go. Your name and what your 
question is.

[A participant asked about coverage for his adult handicapped daughter.]

    The President. What's her handicap?
    Q. Right now it's a form of scoliosis. She's got a severe curvature; 
she's had a back spinal fusion amongst other things.
    The President.  Your daughter would be able to buy insurance as an 
individual once she becomes an adult, on the same terms as anybody else.
    Now, the only way we can do that is if we organize the insurance 
markets and the buyers so that there are big insurance pools and large 
numbers of buyers so we can spread the risk of some future illness or 
problem of hers across a large number of people.
    I do want to make full disclosure, because one of the first 
questions I got was who would pay more under this plan. We would ask 
young single workers to pay a little more per month than they would 
otherwise pay so that we'd be able to insure people like your daughter 
and older workers on affordable terms. I think, again, that's a fair 
thing because young, single workers want to be older some day, number 
one, and they're going to be married, they're going to have children, 
and they might have children that have health problems.
    So I think it's a fair thing to do. But that's the way it would 
work. That's the way, by the

[[Page 658]]

way, other countries do it. And your daughter would be able to get 
insurance.
    Ms. Astore. President Clinton, we're coming to the end of our town 
hall meeting. We'd like to give you this opportunity to offer some 
closing remarks.
    The President. I just want to make two points after I say thank you 
to all of you. Thank you to those of you who asked questions and those 
who couldn't get your questions asked. For those of you in the other 
sites, if you had a question that didn't get answered, send it to us, 
and we'll answer it. And those of you that are here, I'll just gather 
them up while I'm here.
    I want to make two points if I might. We can differ about the 
details of this, but the one thing we have to decide on as a people is, 
are we going to continue to be the only advanced economy in the entire 
world that can't figure out how to provide health insurance for all of 
its people, so that we insure people and pay for them if they are on 
welfare but we punish working people? Or are we going to solve this 
problem after talking about it for 60 years now?
    The second thing I want to say is this, to go back to a point I made 
at the beginning. This is a complicated issue. I've tried to shoot 
straight with you and tell you what the problems are with it. I respect 
people who have differences of opinion with me on exactly how we should 
do it.
    But what I want to ask you to do is to try to communicate to your 
Members of Congress, without regard to party, that Republicans and 
independents and Democrats all get sick, all have kids, all have 
parents, all have hopes, all have fears, and that it's okay for us to 
disagree about this in terms of the details, but it is not okay to let 
another year go by and not deal with it.
    And what I ask you to do is not so much to say, ``Bill Clinton's 
right about everything,'' but to say, ``This is a serious problem; we 
have to deal with it. Please act now.'' We will not know any more about 
this next year than we do this year. It's just going to be like an 
ingrown toenail. It will get worse, not better, if we don't move. So 
that is what I plead with you to do. Ask your Members of Congress to act 
now and to work in the spirit of humanity, bipartisanship, and common 
sense, and let's get this done.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The town meeting began at 7 p.m. at the KSTP-TV studio.