[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[October 3, 2000]
[Pages 2006-2010]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks at a Luncheon for Hillary Clinton in Miami, Florida
October 3, 2000

    Well, thank you very much for coming and for coming on such short 
notice, on this typically Florida sunny day. [Laughter] Actually, on the 
way over here, Chris, I was speculating about 
whether this beautiful pond of yours out here would come into the house 
if the rain came. [Laughter]
    So I want to thank you. And thank you, Irene, for opening your home to me once again. And I want to 
thank Philip and Michael and Stuart and Alex and all the others who 
worked on this event today. I'll be quite brief. I hope you're all going 
to watch the debate tonight. I think it will go well.
    This has been a very interesting election to me, because the 
American people have an unusual decision to make in every one of these 
Senate races and House races and in the White House, because things are 
going very well for the country. The economy is moving in the right 
direction; the society is moving in the right direction. In every major 
area of our national life, there has been substantial progress in the 
last 8 years.
    And what the people of every State and the people of our Nation have 
to decide is, what do we intend to make of this moment? And it's very 
interesting to me that the political rhetoric of our friends in the 
other party has changed rather dramatically, so they're now arguing over 
whether they or we are the real new thing, instead of whether we should 
take some big move to the right, which was their preferred line of 
rhetoric until the voters decisively rejected it over and over again.
    And I can just tell you, I see this everywhere. But there are these 
big issues out there. Are we going to have a tax cut we can afford, that 
will permit us to save Social Security and Medicare for the baby boom 
generation, continue to invest in the education of the largest number of 
children in American history in our schools, and meet our 
responsibilities to the future by paying down the debt? Or are we going 
to say, ``Times are good. I want my mine now,'' and have a combination 
tax cut and Social Security privatization plan that will throw us back 
into deficits, raise interest rates, and get this country in trouble? 
You listen and see if that's adequately debated tonight.
    I am telling you, I've spent a lot--I think that I have earned the 
right to make comments about the state of the American economy. I 
believe I have. And people ask me all the time, ``Well, it's amazing 
what's happened here. What great new innovation did you bring to 
economic policymaking?'' And I always smile and say, ``Arithmetic.'' 
[Laughter]
    I remember back in '92, when the then-Presidential candidate, George 
Bush, used to refer to me in disparaging terms as the Governor of a 
small southern State. Remember that, when he used to say that? I was so 
naive, I thought it was a compliment. [Laughter] And I still do. 
[Laughter]

[[Page 2007]]

    But I knew something about arithmetic and not having rosy scenarios 
and not pretending money was there that was wasn't. So we brought 
arithmetic back and made a lot of people mad doing it. In 1993 I had an 
economic plan that raised taxes and cut spending so that it displeased 
everyone, but it got rid of the deficit. This year we had a surplus of 
$230 billion, instead of the deficit of $290 billion I inherited. When I 
leave office, we will have actually paid the national debt down by $360 
billion. That's worth about $2,000 a year on a home mortgage, average 
home mortgage. It's stunning. So all I can tell you is, I think that 
this is a big issue. It's a big issue in the New York Senate race. It's 
a big issue in the national Presidential race.
    Second thing I think is a big issue is health care. And we're having 
this huge debate which I think has been muddied. Our friends in the 
Republican Party have desperately tried to muddy up the debate over this 
Medicare prescription drug issue. Look, here's the deal. The 
pharmaceutical companies, mostly Americans, but sometimes the Europeans, 
have helped to develop drugs that lengthen and improve the quality of 
life. Everybody knows that. The older you live, the older you get, the 
more likely you are to need medicine. Everybody knows that, right? If 
you get to be 65 in America, you have a life expectancy of over 82 
years, the longest in the world. Everybody knows that. What a lot of 
people don't know is that more than half the people in this country who 
are over 65 cannot afford the medicine that their doctors prescribe for 
them to either lengthen or improve the quality of their life. So the 
question is, what are we going to do about it?
    For most of the time when I was around here, our friends in the 
other party said nothing. At one time we had a chance to give drugs, at 
least, to poor people, when we had a deficit, and they said no. So now 
we've got a surplus, and our position is, led by the Vice 
President and Hillary and others, is that 
we ought to have a Medicare-based prescription drug benefit that goes to 
everyone who needs it; that the poorest people ought to get it for free, 
and others ought to pay in proportion to their ability to pay a little 
bit but that we ought to provide it to everyone who needs it.
    Their position is that we ought to subsidize the cost for up to 150 
percent of the poverty rate, after which people ought to buy insurance. 
And their position is, therefore, with heavy money from the drug 
companies to attack our position as being a huge expansion of big 
Government. Now here are the facts.
     Did you ever follow this debate and wonder what's really going on? 
It's hard to figure out what's really going on, right? Like why in the 
wide world would they be against people getting these drug benefits?
    Over half the people who can't afford their drug prescriptions have 
incomes above 150 percent of the poverty line, which is about, as I 
remember, it's about $16,000 for a couple or something. Hardly a king's 
ransom. Now, why would they be against this? And why would they call it 
a big Government program, since Medicare is Government financing of 
private medicine, right? That's what we propose, public financing of 
private medicine. That's what Medicare is. It has an administrative cost 
of 1\1/2\ percent, as compared with an average administrative cost in 
private health insurance companies of about 12 percent, 14 percent. It 
is not big Government. It's private medicine financed by the American 
people.
    Now, why are they for what they're for, and why are we for what 
we're for? Here's the problem. You see all these stories about people 
going to Canada to buy drugs, and now we may pass legislation which says 
that you can--that our pharmacies in America can re-import drugs from 
Canada, made in America, and sell them cheaper. Do you ever wonder what 
that's about? Here's what that's about.
    We are blessed to have these pharmaceutical companies in America. 
They do great things. They hire tens of thousands of people and give 
them great jobs. They uncover medical miracles. It costs a lot of money 
to develop these drugs, and then they spend a whole lot of money to 
advertise them, once they develop them, while they're still brand named, 
before they become generic. And every other place they would like to 
sell their drugs has price controls, which means they have to recover 
from Americans only, 100 percent of the cost of developing the drug and 
advertising the drug. Once they do that, it then becomes profitable for 
them to sell the same drug a lot cheaper in Canada or Europe. Now, they 
are afraid, the drug companies are, if all the seniors in the country 
can get their drugs through Medicare, that Medicare as a big buyer will 
acquire so much power in the market, we can buy drugs for our seniors

[[Page 2008]]

made in America almost as cheaply as seniors in Canada can buy drugs 
made in America. And they don't want that to happen. Why? Because 
they're afraid they can't recover all their costs and their profits.
    Now, they have a legitimate problem, because they labor under price 
controls in Europe. But the answer to their problem is not to keep 
seniors in Florida and throughout the United States away from the 
medicine they need to lengthen their lives. That's what this whole thing 
is about. You're never going to read that in a newspaper. That is what 
this is about. That's why the drug companies are putting millions and 
millions of dollars into the Republican campaigns from President on 
down.
    Now, I'm not demonizing them. I'm glad there are American companies. 
I'm glad we've got them in our country. I understand they've got a 
problem because there are price controls in Europe and Canada and other 
places. But their idea is, it is an acceptable price to pay to maintain 
the status quo to keep the senior citizens of this country without the 
medicine they need, and they're wrong about that. The Republicans are 
with them, and Al Gore, Hillary, and the 
other Democrats are with the people of this country, and I think we're 
right about it.
    What I would do if I were still in office, I'd go to them and say, 
``Look, this is not a way to solve your problems. Sticking it to the 
American senior citizens is not a legitimate way to solve your 
problem.'' This insurance deal is phony. Let me just tell you--I've got 
to say something nice about the health insurance companies, after all 
the fights I've had with them.
    The health insurance companies, to be absolutely fair to them, told 
the Republicans from the get-go their idea would not work. They told 
them that they could not write an insurance policy that people could 
afford to pay the premiums on that would provide adequate drug coverage. 
They told them that.
    Nevada, the State of Nevada, a small place, a laboratory of 
democracy--that's what our Founders said the State should be--passed the 
Republican plan. You know how many insurance companies have offered the 
insurance to buy the drugs? Zero. We've got some State legislators here. 
Ask them. Zero; not one. Why? Because it doesn't work economically for 
them. And they're not going to do it.
    So this really comes down to the fact that the Republicans would 
help a few of our seniors, because we've moved the debate so far, and 
they don't want to be out there three sheets to the wind lost in it. But 
they don't want to help all of them, because they're afraid that if 
Medicare can buy drugs for seniors in the private marketplace, they will 
have so much market power, they'll get the price down, and it will cut 
their profit margins because they can't make up any of the cost of 
production in Europe or Canada.
    My view is, let's take care of the American citizens, and then the 
drug companies will find a way to get all the rest of us to help solve 
their problem. We'll find a way to solve their problem. They're not 
going anywhere, and they're not going broke. And I'm proud they're in 
America, and I'm proud of what they do. I'm not demonizing them, but 
they're wrong about this. Their idea is, the only way to maintain their 
profit margins is to keep the American people from making sure the 
senior citizens of this country have the medicine they need. They're 
wrong about it. Let's solve their problem once we fix the health care 
needs of the seniors. This is a huge issue.
    Same thing on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Health insurance 
companies don't want it because every now and then they'll have a big 
settlement when somebody gets the shaft. Well, that's the whole point of 
protecting people. But even the Republicans admit it will cost less than 
$2 a month per premium, per health insurance premium--less than $2 a 
month to have the protections of the Patients' Bill of Rights. You get 
to see a specialist if your doctor says so. If you've got a doctor for 
cancer treatment or an obstetrician and you're pregnant and you change 
jobs before the treatment is over, you get to keep your doctor. If you 
get hit by a car going out of here, you get to go to the nearest 
emergency room. You don't have to pass up three other hospitals to get 
to the emergency room 40 miles away that your health care plan covers. 
If you get hurt, you get to sue. Otherwise, the bill of rights is just a 
bill of suggestions.
    Now, that's what we say. They say it will add to the cost of health 
care. It will. I did it for the Federal Government. You know how much it 
cost us? I put in all these rights for

[[Page 2009]]

everybody insured by the Federal Government--Medicare, Medicaid, the 
Federal employees--do you know how much it cost? One dollar a month. So 
they say--and even the Republicans admit it will cost less than $2 a 
month. Now, would you spend $1.80 a month to make sure that if one of 
the other people here at this event got hit by a car--God forbid--on the 
way out of here, could go to the nearest hospital? I would. And I think 
most Americans would.
    Now, that's what this debate is about. And so the American people 
have got to decide. There are big differences on education. There are 
big differences on all these issues. And I want you to watch the debate 
tonight. And I thank you for helping Hillary. As you know, there's a lot 
of interests that would like to whip her, and I think half of them think 
it's their last chance at me. [Laughter] But she's doing well. She did 
well in her debate. I'm immensely--I'm so proud of her. But it's very 
important that she not be outspent, three to one, on the way in.
    In politics, you can get outspent. But you have to have enough to 
get your message out and to answer all the incoming fire. And you've 
helped make that possible today. And one thing I have learned is, every 
one of these Senate and House seats is important. This is not just 
important to me, although, obviously, it is. It's important to you and 
to the American people.
    The last thing I'd like to say is, I took a little time today on the 
economy and on the Patients' Bill of Rights and on the drugs to make a 
point. The American people are very oriented toward the issues this 
year. They want to make an intelligent choice. Clarity of choice is our 
friend. I think our friends in the other party have moderated their 
rhetoric a lot from the Gingrich years, but a lot of their policies 
haven't changed all that much.
    So in order for the American people to make the right decision, they 
need to be quite clear on what their choices are. And while most people 
are very issue-oriented, how many people do you know who could tell you 
the real difference in Gore's economic plan 
and Bush's; in Gore's position on Medicare 
drugs and Patients' Bill of Rights, and Bush's? It may be more important 
in Florida even than the senior issue and Gore's education plan and 
Bush's. I read the papers, and sometimes I see people writing about it 
who don't really understand what the differences are.
    So the last thing I'd like to ask you--I thank you for helping 
Hillary. If you know anybody else who's not here and would want to help 
us in the last month, ask them. [Laughter] But after this debate 
tonight--every one of you knows people who don't come to events like 
this, who have never been to a political fundraiser, who have never been 
involved in public service.
    I want to thank Buddy MacKay 
for being here, for doing such a good job. Let me just say, in his 
service as our Special Envoy to the Americas, we passed an historic 
Caribbean trade initiative, and we passed the sweeping plan to help 
Colombia, and the nations bordering Colombia, to try to roll back the 
tide of the narcotraffickers and their relationship with others that are 
trying to bring down democracy in that country. So I'm very proud of 
him.
    You all know people. Chris said that he had somebody minding the 
store, because he didn't like to come to political events. But you know 
people that are going to show up and vote on election day, because 
they're patriotic; they love their country; they think they ought to be 
there when the voting comes. But they'll never come to an event like 
this. Maybe they can't afford to come, maybe it doesn't interest them, 
but they will sure vote.
    So the last thing I want to ask you is, you know, I think that the 
Clinton/Gore administration has done a good job for Florida. We moved 
the Southern Command here. We had the Summit of the Americas here, the 
first one in 30 years. We have worked very hard with all the affected 
interests to save the Everglades, and that's just the beginning. I think 
we've dealt well with all the natural disasters.
    I just wish that you would do what you can, every day, to make sure 
people understand where we were in '92 and where we are today, what 
we've done in Florida, and what the real differences are. And I only 
dealt with two today, on health care and the economy, but as I said, I 
could have gone on about the environment and education and nuclear arms 
control, where the differences are breathtaking and, I think, very 
troubling--very important to our future.
    So I ask you, do what you can. This is a close race. By the nature 
of things, if you look at all of American history, when you have this 
kind of setup, unless one candidate can preform

[[Page 2010]]

reverse plastic surgery on another, the way George Bush did to Michael 
Dukakis in '88, these kinds of races tend to be quite close. But the 
Vice President and our party, we've got the record; we've got the ideas; 
we've got the issues. What we need is clarity, clarity. So please--
please--go out and tell people that.
    And the last point I want to make is this: There's an overriding 
philosophy behind everything that I've tried to do. I like the fact that 
there are more people than ever that can afford to live in homes like 
this. But I also think the people that are catering this event ought to 
have the same chance to send their kids to college that Chris and Irene do, and Democrats 
believe that. We believe everybody counts; everybody has a role to play; 
and we all do better when we help each other.
    So if you can get the issues out and that simple message, I think 
we'll have a good night on election night.
    Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 1:50 p.m. at a private residence. In his 
remarks, he referred to luncheon hosts Chris and Irene Korge; Republican 
Presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush of Texas; and former 
President George Bush and his opponent in the 1988 Presidential 
election, former Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.