Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, September 22, 1995 TAG: 9509220099
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
``No one should be forced to choose, but everyone should have the right to choose'' an alternative to the 30-year-old fee-for-service coverage, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, providing partial details of a plan intended to achieve $270 billion in savings over seven years.
Democrats said the changes were designed to finance GOP tax cuts for the rich - not to shore up the solvency of the Medicare system, as Republicans contended. ``We may lose, but we're going to go down fighting,'' vowed House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.
Rep. L.F. Payne, D-Nelson County, said the GOP plan goes too far too fast. "It makes savings not to ensure the solvency of the Medicare program but to finance a $245 billion tax-cut plan that I believe is unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible," Payne said.
To underscore their determination to resist, Democrats vowed to hold a hearing today on the lawn outside the Capitol to compete with the formal session held indoors by Republicans.
Democrats also were frustrated Thursday as Republicans in the House Commerce Committee rejected a series of proposals to soften legislation to turn health care for the poor over to the states.
The committee was expected to finish work on the Medicaid bill Friday. It would cut the program's growth rate in half and is intended to save $182 billion over seven years.
Despite a nationally televised news conference on Medicare, the GOP stopped well short of providing full details of a plan expected to be voted on in committee in the next few days.
They offered no accounting on how the $270 billion would be achieved - how much from higher premiums on senior citizens; how much from curbing the rate of increase in payments to doctors and hospitals; and how much from a ``look-back'' series of controls that would kick in if the other changes failed to produce the desired savings.
Officials said the Congressional Budget Office, the arbiter of these issues, was estimating lower savings than the Republicans from the shift in seniors who would choose lower-cost plans. The result would be to leave Republicans shy of their $270 billion goal, and trigger the so-called ``look-back'' provisions.
At the same time they looked to doctors and hospitals for much of the savings, Republicans offered provisions long sought by these groups, including limitations on medical malpractice damage awards and relaxation of certain antitrust provisions.
Said White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, ``We're just dealing with another press release today. We're seeing no specifics in terms of numbers ... no specific policies outlined ... and I think they're continuing to hide the tough policy decisions from the American people.''
Republicans conceded that their proposals were the politically riskiest element of an ambitious plan to balance the budget by 2002, and both sides girded for a fierce struggle. GOP senators are laboring over a similar proposal.
by CNB