Back to National Leadership Conference, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, February 16, 1973
Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526480
label
National Leadership Conference, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, February 16, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526480
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Leadership Conference, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, February 16, 1973
description
This file contains material relating to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Federal budget
Government reorganization
Health
Insurance
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526480
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-02-28
month
2
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-02-01
month
2
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
351242c474493c68
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "National Leadership Conference,
American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, February 16, 1973" of the Ford Congressional
Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
oh Jord please your DN, Holder
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF THE
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, 7:15 P.M. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
1973.
1 Dims 51992 (Avinate
Pres.
1
mg
6.0.8-
THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS GAVE US
13 MORE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN. IF THE
RHETORIC OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS IS ANY
INDICATION OF WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST THIS
YEAR, WE ARE GOING TO NEED EVERY ONE OF
THOSE NEW REPUBLICANS.
IN ALL, THERE ARE 69 NEW MEMBERS
OF THE HOUSE, 43 OF THEM REPUBLICANS.
MANY OF THESE NEW MEMBERS REPLACED OLDER
MEMBERS WHO RETIRED, SO OUR NET GAIN WAS
FAIRLY SMALL, COMPARED TO THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF NEW GOP MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE.
BROO/BEDAM FIT A MOLD WHICH I FIRST SAW EMERGE FROM
NEVERTHELESS, THE NEW MEMBERS
EAT
THE 1966 ELECTIONS. THEY ARE --
Lyro.
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
FOR THE MOST PART -- YOUNGER, MORE
AGGRESSIVE
PEOPLE-ORIENTED MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS. THEY WANT TO MOVE ON THE
PROBLEMS OF THE DAY. THEY WANT CONGRESS
TO BE RESPONSIVE.
patisful
THESE NEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
ARE NOT NECESSARILY MORE LIBERAL. THEY
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL DOLLAR IS
THE ANSWER TO ALL PROBLEMS. THEY HAVE
HEARD THE OLD LINE THAT THE FIRST THING
WASHINGTON DOES WHEN A PROBLEM COMES UP
IS THROW MONEY AT IT AND HOPE IT WILL GO
AWAY.
THEY ARE NOT LIBERAL, BUT THEY
ARE CONCERNED. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
ANSWERS. IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AN
APPROPRIATE ROLE TO PLAY IN PROVIDING
THESE ANSWERS, THEY WILL NOT HESITATE
TO SUPPORT NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
I'm products prod to
-3-
PARTLY DUE TO THESE NEW, YOUNG
GOP MEMBERS, REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE HAVE
FORGED AHEAD WITH REFORMS WHICH THE
DEMOCRATS ARE NOW ADOPTING. WE HAVE
SHARED OUR LEADERSHIP AMONG AS MANY PEOPLE
AS POSSIBLE, PROVIDED MORE DEMOCRACY IN
SELECTING OUR LEADERSHIP AND GENERALLY
MOVED TO MAKE CONGRESS MORE RESPONSIVE.
WE NOW SEE ON THE MAJORITY SIDE
OF THE AISLE WHAT APPEARS TO BE MORE
AGGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP. MY GOOD FRIEND,
SPEAKER ALBERT, HAS TAKEN STRONG STANDS
ON SEVERAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONGRESS WHICH HE
PREVIOUSLY DID NOT GET INVOLVED IN. THE
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE
SHOW SIGNS OF MORE COORDINATION THAN
THERE HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, AND AS A
-4-
RESULT, I EXPECT THAT WE WILL SEE CLASHES
BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN
CONGRESS AND THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUE AND ACCELERATE. THIS IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE IN THE AREA OF
APPROPRIATIONS AND SPENDING. THIS WILL
BE A GOOD DEBATE, A HEALTHY DEBATE.
CONGRESS MUST JEALOUSLY GUARD ITS ROLE AS
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE.
NEVERTHELESS, OUR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT NEEDS TWO THINGS THAT THE
NIXON ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO DELIVER.
FIRST, IT NEEDS FISCAL RESTRAINT
IN THE FACE OF LARGE DEFICITS SEVERAL YEARS
IN A ROW.
SECONDLY, IT NEEDS REORGANIZATION
OF THE BUREAUCRACY.
PRESIDENT NIXON IS MOVING IN BOTH
OF THESE DIRECTIONS, AND I THINK HE
-5-
WILL FIND GENERAL SUPPORT IN THE CONGRESS
EVEN THOUGH THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
RHETORIC FROM SOME PEOPLE ABOUT THE BAD
TREATMENT BEING GIVEN TO PROGRAMS
"FOR PEOPLE" AND THE LACK OF "HEART" ON
THE PART OF THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS JUST CAMPAIGN ORATORY IN THE
OFF-YEAR.
Prestain
PRESIDENT NIXON ALREADY HAS
FISCA
in
ACHIEVED AN IMPRESSIVE RECORD IN REFORMING
FIBC
GOVERNMENT. THINK BACK OVER HIS FIRST
FOUR YEARS. THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN REFORM
OF THE DRAFT AND THE POSTAL SERVICE AND
REVENUE SHARING IS REFORMING THE FEDERAL
GRANT PROGRAMS. IT WAS ONE OF THE
DISAPPOINTMENTS OF HIS FIRST TERM THAT THE
CONGRESS DID NOT REFORM THE WELFARE
SYSTEM ALTHOUGH THE HOUSE PASSED IT
TWICE.
-6-
I THINK PRESIDENT NIXON IS
DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN 1973. HE
IS TAKING A HARD LOOK AT PROGRAMS THAT HAVE
BEEN WITH US FOR YEARS EVEN FOR DECADES
AND ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT
EACH. "IS IT WORTH IT? HAS IT PRODUCED?"
I KNOW THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED
IN HEALTH LEGISLATION AS WELL AS GENERAL
LEGISLATION. I WOULD SAY THAT NATIONAL
HEALTH INSURANCE HAS A 50-50 CHANCE OF
BEING PASSED BY THIS 93RD CONGRESS.
CERTAINLY THE COST OF SOME OF THE NATIONAL
HEALTH PROPOSALS INDICATE THEY HAVE A
ROUGH WAY TO GO. SENATOR KENNEDY'S BILL
WOULD COST $80 OR $100 BILLION, DEPENDING
ON WHOSE FIGURES YOU READ. I DON'T SEE
HOW THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER WOULD STAND FOR
THIS.
-7-
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE
OTHER PROPOSALS WHICH ARE MOST MODEST IN
COST, YET WOULD GET TO THE HEART OF THE
PROBLEM. TO ME THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
IS TO GIVE PROTECTION TO EVERYONE AGAINST
THE COST OF A SERIOUS ILLNESS OR ACCIDENT.
YOU ALL KNOW HOW HIGH HOSPITAL COSTS ARE.
YOU HAVE ALL PROBABLY TREATED PATIENTS
WHOSE BILLS HAVE RUN INTO TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. IT IS VITAL THAT
EVERYONE HAVE SUFFICIENT HEALTH INSURANCE
TO COVER THESE CATASTROPHIES.
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT ALL OF US DO.
THEREFORE, CONGRESS IS IN A MOOD TO PASS
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE OR SOME HEALTH
PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR
EVERYONE AGAINST MEDICAL BANKRUPTCY.
I DON'T CONSIDER THIS A LIBERAL OR A
-8-
CONSERVATIVE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I THINK
IT WOULD FIT THE LINCOLN PHILOSOPHY OF
GOVERNMENT. AS LINCOLN SAID OF GOVERNMENT,
ITS FUNCTION IS TO DO FOR THE PEOPLE WHAT
THEY CANNOT DO SO WELL FOR THEMSELVES.
I NOTE THAT AMA's HEALTH
INSURANCE BILL, THE MEDICREDIT BILL, DOES
PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION AGAINST
CATASTROPHIES. I AM SURE THAT IS ONE
REASON WHY THE AMA BILL ATTRACTED MORE
COSPONSORS THAN ANY OF THE OTHER HEALTH
INSURANCE BILLS IN THE LAST CONGRESS --
SOME 174 COSPONSORS. INCIDENTALLY, I THINK
IT IS PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF AMA's MEDICREDIT
BILL AND THE SUPPORT IT RECEIVED THAT
SENATOR KENNEDY's BILL DID NOT GO FARTHER
AND FASTER THAN IT DID IN THE LAST CONGRESS.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS, AND WE
CANNOT BURY OUR HEADS IN THE SAND.
-9-
ALL OF US MUST OFFER CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS
TO THESE PROBLEMS OR SOMEONE ELSE WILL.
OTHER SOLUTIONS MAY BE UNACCEPTABLE, BUT
IF THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE,
WE MIGHT BE STUCK WITH THE OTHER FELLOW'S
ANSWERS.
OTHER SPEAKERS WILL PROBABLY
GIVE YOU MORE OF THE SCHEDULE OF NATIONAL
HEALTH INSURANCE. I KNOW THE WAYS AND
MEANS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE TIED UP
FOR SOME TIME IN TAX REFORM LEGISLATION,
SO NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE WILL HAVE TO
WAIT AT LEAST UNTIL THAT IS FINISHED.
THERE IS ANOTHER PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT IS NOT GOING TO
WAIT -- THE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION
LEGISLATION. NOW I AM NATURALLY PARTIAL
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SINCE
-10-
I HAVE SERVED THERE 24 YEARS, BUT EVEN
SENATORS HAVE SPOKEN OUT RECENTLY TO
DEPLORE THE LACK OF TIME THEY HAVE TO GIVE
REAL CONSIDERATION TO LEGISLATION AND THE
IMPACT OF WHAT THEY PASS. IN THE HOUSE,
ON THE OTHER HAND, A MAN SERVES ON ONLY
ONE MAJOR COMMITTEE. LEGISLATION IS GIVEN
A GOOD HARD LOOK IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEES.
FORTUNATELY, HOUSE LEGISLATION PREVAILS
OVER THE SENATE IN CONFERENCE MORE OFTEN
THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
IN THIS HMO LEGISLATION, WE SEE
THE SAME THING HAPPEN. SENATOR KENNEDY's
HMO BILL PASSED THE SENATE LAST YEAR 60-14.
MANY SENSIBLE, CONSERVATIVE SENATORS
VOTED FOR THE BILL WHEN PERHAPS THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE. IT IS NOT A GOOD BILL.
IT WOULD COST OVER $5 BILLION DOLLARS.
-11-
IT IS A BACKDOOR APPROACH TO THE
KENNEDY-TYPE NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY.
IT PROVIDES AN OUTRAGEOUS SUBSIDY TO A
FORM OF MEDICAL CARE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO
BE MORE EFFICIENT. YET IT PASSED, 60-14.
HOW DID SUCH A BILL REACH THE
SENATE FLOOR? IT GOT THERE BECAUSE
SENATOR KENNEDY HAD THE PROXY OF ALL THE
DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE AND VOTED DOWN
EVERY AMENDMENT THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE
REPUBLICANS. I PREDICT RIGHT NOW THAT IF
THAT BILL SHOULD PASS THE SENATE AND THE
HOUSE WITHOUT AMENDMENT IT WILL SURELY
BE VETOED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.
BUT OF COURSE THE HOUSE WILL NOT
STAND FOR SUCH NONSENSE. THE HOUSE HEALTH
SUBCOMMITTEE WROTE ITS OWN BILL IN THE
92ND CONGRESS, BUT TIME RAN OUT BEFORE
-12-
IT REACHED THE FLOOR. THIS BILL HAS BEEN
REINTRODUCED IN THIS CONGRESS AND WILL
PROBABLY BE BEFORE US IN A FEW WEEKS. I
CAN TELL YOU THAT IT IS A MUCH MORE
REASONABLE BILL, WITH LIMITED SUBSIDY AND
AN ABSOLUTE LIMIT OF AID TO 40 PROJECTS
THE FIRST YEAR, 50 THE SECOND YEAR AND
60 THE THIRD YEAR, CONSISTING OF LOANS AND
LOAN GUARANTEES RATHER THAN GRANTS OR
CAPITATION PAYMENTS. IT IS AS GOOD A BILL
AS YOU WILL GET.
SOME MONTHS AGO SOME OF AMA's
LEADERS MET IN MY OFFICE WITH SOME OF THE
KEY REPUBLICANS FROM THE HOUSE, AND WE
TALKED ABOUT HMO's. YOUR LEADERSHIP
POINTED OUT THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF HMO's,
AND THEY URGED US TO BE CAUTIOUS BEFORE
AND SUBSTANTIAL,
WE UNDERTOOK ANY LONG-RANGE COMMITMENT OF
FEDERAL MONEY FOR NEW HMO's.
-13-
THE HOUSE BILL IS AN EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM WITH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW
OF THE PROJECTS. I WOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT
THE HOUSE BILL. I AM SURE THE WHITE HOUSE
WOULD SIGN IT.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE MUST
BE A CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENATE BILL
AND THE HOUSE BILL; IF WE SPLIT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM, WE MAY HAVE A
BILL WITH SOME UNDESIRABLE FEATURES.
I THINK YOU HAD BETTER TALK TO
YOUR SENATORS ABOUT THAT BILL. PERHAPS
YOU SHOULD ASK THEM THESE TWO QUESTIONS:
WHY DOES AN HMO SYSTEM
SUPPOSEDLY BETTER AND LESS EXPENSIVE
NEED A $5 BILLION SUBSIDY?
HOW CAN THE SENATE HOLD OUT THE
EXPECTATION OF $5 BILLION IN BENEFITS TO
-14-
HMO's IN THE FACE OF A SPENDING CEILING
WHICH THE SENATE LEADERSHIP HAS AGREED TO?
FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE
YOU WITH THIS THOUGHT -- YOU HAVE HEARD
ME SAY THAT MANY CONGRESSMEN, ESPECIALLY
THE NEW MEMBERS OF MY PARTY, ARE ACTION
ORIENTED; THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS.
IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH, YOUR SUGGESTIONS
WILL RECEIVE SERIOUS AND SYMPATHETIC
CONSIDERATION. YOU ARE THE EXPERTS. WE
DO NOT WANT TO TAKE ACTIONS WHICH WILL
MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO PRACTICE
GOOD MEDICINE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
THE AMA CONTINUE TO SUGGEST LEGISLATION
SUCH AS MEDICREDIT, ITS EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICE BILL, AND THE OTHER BILLS
IT HAS PROPOSED. WHILE WE ARE OPERATING
-15-
UNDER SOME BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, NEVERTHELESS
THIS CONGRESS IS NOT GOING TO STAND STILL.
IT IS GOING TO MOVE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS OF
HEALTH CARE, AS WELL AS POLLUTION,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND TAX REFORM.
IF YOU IGNORE THE PROBLEMS, IF
YOU REACT NEGATIVELY TO OTHER SUGGESTIONS
AND GIVE NONE OF YOUR OWN, I DON'T THINK
YOU WILL LIKE WHAT THE CONGRESS WILL DO.
SHOW US THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED.
GIVE US YOUR SUGGESTIONS. HELP US FIND
THE ANSWERS.
-- END --
Distribution: 20 Capies to Mr. Ford Moffire Copy
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
O'HARE MARRIOTT HOTEL
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
7:15 p.m. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1973
FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. FRIDAY, FEB. 16
The November elections gave us 13 more Republican Congressmen. If the
rhetoric of the last few weeks is any indication of what we are up against this
year, we are going to need every one of those new Republicans.
In all, there are 69 new members of the House, 43 of them Republicans.
Many of these new members replaced older members who retired, so our net gain was
fairly small, compared to the total number of new GOP members in the House.
Nevertheless, the new members fit the mold which I first saw emerge from
the 1966 elections. They are -- for the most part -- younger, more aggressive,
people-oriented members of Congress. They want to move on the problems of the day.
They want Congress to be responsive.
These new members of Congress are not necessarily more liberal. They do
not believe that the federal dollar is the answer to all problems. They have
heard the old line that the first thing Washington does when a problem comes up is
throw money at it and hope it will go away.
They are not liberal, but they are concerned. They are looking for answers.
If the Federal Government has an appropriate role to play in providing these
answers, they will not hesitate to support new federal legislation.
Partly due to these new, young GOP members, Republicans in the House have
forged ahead with reforms which the Democrats are now adopting. We have shared
our leadership among as many people as possible, provided more democracy in
selecting our leadership and generally moved to make Congress more responsive.
We now see on the majority side of the aisle what appears to be more
aggressive leadership. My good friend, Speaker Albert, has taken strong stands
on several issues pertaining to the organization of the Congress which he
previously did not get involved in. The Democratic leaders in the House and
Senate show signs of more coordination than there has been in the past, and as a
result, I expect that we will see clashes between the Democratic leadership in
Congress and the Nixon Administration continue and accelerate. This is especially
true in the area of appropriations and spending. This will be a good debate, a
(more)
-2-
healthy debate. Congress must jealously guard its role as the representative of
the people.
Nevertheless, our Federal Government needs two things that the Nixon
Administration is trying to deliver:
First, it needs fiscal restraint in the face of large deficits several
years in a row.
Secondly, it needs reorganization of the bureaucracy.
President Nixon is moving in both of these directions, and I think he will
find general support in the Congress even though there will be a lot of rhetoric
from some people about the bad treatment being given to programs "for people" and
the lack of "heart" on the part of the Nixon Administration. This is just campaign
oratory in the off-year.
President Nixon already has achieved an impressive record in reforming
government. Think back over his first four years. There has already been reform
of the draft and the postal service, and revenue sharing is reforming the federal
grant programs. It was one of the disappointments of his first term that the
Congress did not reform the welfare system, although the House passed it twice.
I think President Nixon is doing what needs to be done in 1973. He is taking
a hard look at programs that have been with us for years, even for decades, and
asking the tough questions about each: "Is it worth it? Has it produced?"
I know that you are interested in health legislation as well as general
legislation. I would say that national health insurance has a 50-50 chance of
being passed by this 93rd Congress. Certainly the cost of some of the national
health proposals indicate they have a rough way to go. Senator Kennedy's bill
would cost $80 or $100 billion, depending on whose figures you read. I don't see
how the American taxpayer would stand for this.
On the other hand, there are other proposals which are most modest in cost,
yet would get to the heart of the problem. To me the most important thing is to
give protection to everyone against the cost of a serious illness or accident.
You all know how high hospital costs are. You have all probably treated patients
whose bills have run into tens of thousands of dollars. It is vital that everyone
have sufficient health insurance to cover these catastrophies.
Unfortunately, not all of us do. Therefore, Congress is in a mood to pass
national health insurance or some health program which provides protection for
(more)
-3-
everyone against medical bankruptcy. I don't consider this a liberal or a
conservative piece of legislation. I think it would fit the Lincoln philosophy
of government. As Lincoln said of government, its function is to do for the
people what they cannot do so well for themselves.
I note that AMA's health insurance bill, the Medicredit Bill, does
provide this protection against catastrophies. I am sure that is one reason why
the AMA bill attracted more cosponsors than any of the other health insurance bills
in the last Congress -- some 174 sponsors. Incidentally, I think it is partially
because of AMA's Medicredit Bill and the support it received that Senator Kennedy's
bill did not go farther and faster than it did in the last Congress.
There are problems, and we cannot bury our heads in the sand. All of us
must offer constructive solutions to these problems or someone else will. Other
solutions may be unacceptable, but if there are no alternatives available, we might
be stuck with the other fellow's answers.
Other speakers will probably give you more of the schedule of national
health insurance. I know the Ways and Means Committee is going to be tied up for
some time in tax reform legislation, so national health insurance will have to
wait at least until that is finished.
There is another piece of legislation that is not going to wait -- the
Health Maintenance Organization legislation. Now I am naturally partial to the
House of Representatives since I have served there 24 years, but even senators
have spoken out recently to deplore the lack of time they have to give real
consideration to legislation and the impact of what they pass. In the House,
on the other hand, a man serves on only one major committee. Legislation is
given a good hard look in the House committees. Fortunately, House legislation
prevails over the Senate in Conference more often than the other way around.
In this HMO legislation, we see the same thing happen. Senator Kennedy's
HMO bill passed the Senate last year 60-14. Many sensible, conservative senators
voted for the bill when perhaps they shouldn't have. It is not a good bill. It
would cost over $5 billion dollars. It is a backdoor approach to the Kennedy-type
national health security. It provides an outrageous subsidy to a form of medical
care that is supposed to be more efficient. Yet it passed, 60-14.
How did such a bill reach the Senate floor? It got there because Senator
Kennedy had the proxy of all the Democrats on the committee and voted down every
(more)
-4-
amendment that was offered by the Republicans. I predict right now that if that
bill should pass the Senate and the House without amendment it will surely be
vetoed by the White House.
But of course the House will not stand for such nonsense. The House Health
Subcommittee wrote its own bill in the 92nd Congress, but time ran out before it
reached the floor. This bill has been reintroduced in this Congress and will
probably be before us in a few weeks. I can tell you that it is a much more
reasonable bill, with limited subsidy and an absolute limit of aid to 40 projects
the first year, 50 the second year and 60 the third year, consisting of loans and
loan guarantees rather than grants or capitation payments. It is as good a bill
as you will get.
Some months ago some of AMA's leaders met in my office with some of the key
Republicans from the House, and we talked about HMO's. Your leadership pointed out
the good and the bad of HMO's and they urged us to be cautious before we undertook
any long-range and substantial commitment of federal money for new HMO's.
The House bill is an experimental program with specific provisions for
review of the projects. I would not worry about the House bill. I am sure the
White House would sign it.
The problem is that there must be a conference between the Senate bill
and the House bill. If we split the difference between them, we may have a bill
with some undesirable features.
I think you had better talk to your senators about that bill. Perhaps you
should ask them these two questions:
Why does an HMO system, supposedly better and less expensive, need a
$5 billion subsidy?
How can the Senate hold out the expectation of $5 billion in benefits to
HMO's in the face of a spending ceiling which the Senate leadership has agreed to?
Finally, I would like to leave you with this thought. You have heard me
say that many Congressmen, especially the new members of my party, are action
oriented; they are looking for solutions. In the field of health, your suggestions
will receive serious and sympathetic consideration. You are the experts. We do
not want to take actions which will make it difficult for you to practice good
medicine.
I think it is important that the AMA continue to suggest legislation such
(more)
-5-
as Medicredit, its Emergency Medical Service bill, and the other bills it has
proposed. While we are operating under some budget constraints, nevertheless this
Congress is not going to stand still. It is going to move to solve problems of
health care, as well as pollution, transportation, housing and tax reform.
If you ignore the problems, if you react negatively to other suggestions
and give none of your own, I don't think you will like what the Congress will do.
Show us that you are interested. Give us your suggestions. Help us find the
answers.
###
20 copies to Mr. Ford only
Office Copy
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
O'HARE MARRIOTT HOTEL
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
7:15 p.m. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1973
FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. FRIDAY, FEB. 16
The November elections gave us 13 more Republican Congressmen. If the
rhetoric of the last few weeks is any indication of what we are up against this
year, we are going to need every one of those new Republicans.
In all, there are 69 new members of the House, 43 of them Republicans.
Many of these new members replaced older members who retired, so our net gain was
fairly small, compared to the total number of new GOP members in the House.
Nevertheless, the new members fit the mold which I first saw emerge from
the 1966 elections. They are -- for the most part -- younger, more aggressive,
people-oriented members of Congress. They want to move on the problems of the day.
They want Congress to be responsive.
These new members of Congress are not necessarily more liberal. They do
not believe that the federal dollar is the answer to all problems. They have
heard the old line that the first thing Washington does when a problem comes up is
throw money at it and hope it will go away.
They are not liberal, but they are concerned. They are looking for answers.
If the Federal Government has an appropriate role to play in providing these
answers, they will not hesitate to support new federal legislation.
Partly due to these new, young GOP members, Republicans in the House have
forged ahead with reforms which the Democrats are now adopting. We have shared
our leadership among as many people as possible, provided more democracy in
selecting our leadership and generally moved to make Congress more responsive.
We now see on the majority side of the aisle what appears to be more
aggressive leadership. My good friend, Speaker Albert, has taken strong stands
on several issues pertaining to the organization of the Congress which he
previously did not get involved in. The Democratic leaders in the House and
Senate show signs of more coordination than there has been in the past, and as a
result, I expect that we will see clashes between the Democratic leadership in
Congress and the Nixon Administration continue and accelerate. This is especially
true in the area of appropriations and spending. This will be a good debate, a
(more)
-2-
healthy debate. Congress must jealously guard its role as the representative of
the people.
Nevertheless, our Federal Government needs two things that the Nixon
Administration is trying to deliver:
First, it needs fiscal restraint in the face of large deficits several
years in a row.
Secondly, it needs reorganization of the bureaucracy.
President Nixon is moving in both of these directions, and I think he will
find general support in the Congress even though there will be a lot of rhetoric
from some people about the bad treatment being given to programs "for people" and
the lack of "heart" on the part of the Nixon Administration. This is just campaign
oratory in the off-year.
President Nixon already has achieved an impressive record in reforming
government. Think back over his first four years. There has already been reform
of the draft and the postal service, and revenue sharing is reforming the federal
grant programs. It was one of the disappointments of his first term that the
Congress did not reform the welfare system, although the House passed it twice.
I think President Nixon is doing what needs to be done in 1973. He is taking
a hard look at programs that have been with us for years, even for decades, and
asking the tough questions about each: "Is it worth it? Has it produced?"
I know that you are interested in health legislation as well as general
legislation. I would say that national health insurance has a 50-50 chance of
being passed by this 93rd Congress. Certainly the cost of some of the national
health proposals indicate they have a rough way to go. Senator Kennedy's bill
would cost $80 or $100 billion, depending on whose figures you read. I don't see
how the American taxpayer would stand for this.
On the other hand, there are other proposals which are most modest in cost,
yet would get to the heart of the problem. To me the most important thing is to
give protection to everyone against the cost of a serious illness or accident.
You all know how high hospital costs are. You have all probably treated patients
whose bills have run into tens of thousands of dollars. It is vital that everyone
have sufficient health insurance to cover these catastrophies.
Unfortunately, not all of us do. Therefore, Congress is in a mood to pass
national health insurance or some health program which provides protection for
(more)
-3-
everyone against medical bankruptcy. I don't consider this 9. liberal or a
conservative piece of legislation. I think it would fit the Lincoln philosophy
of government. As Lincoln said of government, its function is to do for the
people what they cannot do so well for themselves.
I note that AMA's health insurance bill, the Medicredit Bill, does
provide this protection against catastrophies. I am sure that is one reason why
the AMA bill attracted more cosponsors than any of the other health insurance bills
in the last Congress -- some 174 sponsors. Incidentally, I think it is partially
because of AMA's Medicredit Bill and the support it received that Senator Kennedy's
bill did not go farther and faster than it did in the last Congress.
There are problems, and we cannot bury our heads in the sand. All of us
must offer constructive solutions to these problems or someone else will. Other
solutions may be unacceptable, but if there are no alternatives available, we might
be stuck with the other fellow's answers.
Other speakers will probably give you more of the schedule of national
health insurance. I know the Ways and Means Committee is going to be tied up for
some time in tax reform legislation, so national health insurance will have to
wait at least until that is finished.
There is another piece of legislation that is not going to wait -- the
Health Maintenance Organization legislation. Now I am naturally partial to the
House of Representatives since I have served there 24 years, but even senators
have spoken out recently to deplore the lack of time they have to give real
consideration to legislation and the impact of what they pass. In the House,
on the other hand, a man serves on only one major committee. Legislation is
given a good hard look in the House committees. Fortunately, House legislation
prevails over the Senate in Conference more often than the other way around.
In this HMO legislation, we see the same thing happen. Senator Kennedy's
HMO bill passed the Senate last year 60-14. Many sensible, conservative senators
voted for the bill when perhaps they shouldn't have. It is not a good bill. It
would cost over $5 billion dollars. It is a backdoor approach to the Kennedy-type
national health security. It provides an outrageous subsidy to a form of medical
care that is supposed to be more efficient. Yet it passed, 60-14.
How did such a bill reach the Senate floor? It got there because Senator
Kennedy had the proxy of all the Democrats on the committee and voted down every
(more)
-4-
amendment that was offered by the Republicans. I predict right now that if that
bill should pass the Senate and the House without amendment it will surely be
vetoed by the White House.
But of course the House will not stand for such nonsense. The House Health
Subcommittee wrote its own bill in the 92nd Congress, but time ran out before it
reached the floor. This bill has been reintroduced in this Congress and will
probably be before us in a few weeks. I can tell you that it is a much more
reasonable bill, with limited subsidy and an absolute limit of aid to 40 projects
the first year, 50 the second year and 60 the third year, consisting of loans and
loan guarantees rather than grants or capitation payments. It is as good a bill
as you will get.
Some months ago some of AMA's leaders met in my office with some of the key
Republicans from the House, and we talked about HMO's. Your leadership pointed out
the good and the bad of HMO's and they urged us to be cautious before we undertook
any long-range and substantial commitment of federal money for new HMO's.
The House bill is an experimental program with specific provisions for
review of the projects. I would not worry about the House bill. I am sure the
White House would sign it.
The problem is that there must be a conference between the Senate bill
and the House bill. If we split the difference between them, we may have a bill
with some undesirable features.
I think you had better talk to your senators about that bill. Perhaps you
should ask them these two questions:
Why does an HMO system, supposedly better and less expensive, need a
$5 billion subsidy?
How can the Senate hold out the expectation of $5 billion in benefits to
HMO's in the face of a spending ceiling which the Senate leadership has agreed to?
Finally, I would like to leave you with this thought. You have heard me
say that many Congressmen, especially the new members of my party, are action
oriented; they are looking for solutions. In the field of health, your suggestions
will receive serious and sympathetic consideration. You are the experts. We do
not want to take actions which will make it difficult for you to practice good
medicine.
I think it is important that the AMA continue to suggest legislation such
(more)
-5-
as Medicredit, its Emergency Medical Service bill, and the other bills it has
proposed. While we are operating under some budget constraints, nevertheless this
Congress is not going to stand still. It is going to move to solve problems of
health care, as well as pollution, transportation, housing and tax reform.
If you ignore the problems, if you react negatively to other suggestions
and give none of your own, I don't think you will like what the Congress will do.
Show us that you are interested. Give us your suggestions. Help us find the
answers.
###