Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "286186023",
    "label": "Catastrophic Health Care",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286186023"
}

{
    "id": "286186023",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286186023",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Catastrophic Health Care",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286186023",
    "identifierLocal": "12904-011",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the White House Office of Press Secretary (George H. W. Bush Administration)",
        "Marlin Fitzwater Alphabetical Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-BPR-Press-Fitzwater-12904-011.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-BPR-Press-Fitzwater-12904-011.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-BPR-Press-Fitzwater-12904-011.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286186023",
    "naId": 286186023,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-BPR-Press-Fitzwater-12904-011.pdf",
    "mediaId": "03d1e664e9ca26a7",
    "ocrText": "CATASTROPHIC HEALTH\n- 8 -\nSept 12\nMR. FITZWATER: In the meeting this morning with\nRepublican members of Congress, they discussed with the President\nadministration position on a number of pieces of legislation. But\ncertainly, one of the foremost of concern to them is the catastrophic\nbill. And the President assured them that we share their concern for\nits impact on senior citizens, that we have been looking for a way to\nmitigate this situation for the last couple of months.\nWe have not found an answer yet. Our primary concern is\n*\nthat this bill, as you know, would add some $6 billion to the\nTreasury, and without that income we would automatically trigger the\nsequester under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and violate the congressional\nbudget agreement. So we have financial concerns, but we are looking\nfor ways to deal with this problem.\nQ Marlin, as you know, the President supported this\nthing that he said was not a tax when it happened. He said it was a\ngood way -- remember in the debates last year --\nMR. FITZWATER: Right.\nQ\n-- a good way to provide services. It was a\npremium.\nMR. FITZWATER: Yes.\nQ What does it portend for this whole process if when\nwe pass a small premium for an added service, catastrophic - -- which\nthe Reagan administration wanted to put on -- that suddenly there's a\nrebellion and that elderly people who are middle and upper income\ndon't want to pay for it? Is the President going to essentially say\nnow we'll mitigate it for these people, we'll take it back? Is his\nmind set to repeal this piece of legislation?\nMR. FITZWATER: His mind set is that we have learned, as\nthe Congress has learned when this passed the Senate only 11\npeople voted against it that you need to be very careful and\nconsiderate of the cost of these kinds of entitlement programs before\nthey are passed. And that the President did agree with this.\nPresident Reagan signed it; indeed, he had proposed it. And as you\nsuggest, the message is clear that when you pass this kind of\nlegislation you'd better know what it costs before you do it.\nAnd so, we're looking at --\nQ\nSo does the President want to repeal it? Does he --\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, that's what we haven't decided yet.\nBut, obviously, many members of Congress are pushing for repeal. But\nour problem is that repeal has rather devastating effects on the\ndeficit side with regard to triggering a sequester.\nQ\nIs that the only real concern, Marlin?\nQ\nBut he's obviously changed from support to \"I don't\nknow,\" right?\nMR. FITZWATER: No. We have always said that we support\nthe bill and we are concerned about the program -- about the taxes\nand the impact on the deficit. But we recognize this impact on the\nelderly, we recognize their concern, and we are working with members\nof Congress now to try to develop some kind of solution.\nQ\nBut you just said someone asked you, does the\nPresident want to repeal it, and you said he hasn't decided. He has\nchanged from outright support, obviously.\nMR. FITZWATER: Yes, but repeal implies a solution that\nwe don't have yet. A lot of congressmen just want a straight out\nrepeal, but we're not sure that that's the best way to approach it.\nMORE\n#100-09/12\nMF\nsee what is\n* (starid) on 1st\nand last pages\n- 9 -\n9/12\nQ\nfight for keeping it the way it is, either?\nBut President Bush is not going to stand up and\nis that we support it and we don't see any change. But we are\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, he says at the moment our position\nlooking for alternatives.\nQ\nDoes the President think this is a necessary\nprogram, it? Marlin; the problem is just he doesn't know how to pay for\nOr is he not so sure it's a good idea now?\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, the administration thought it was a\nthink it's got good objectives, but they have felt the heat. And the\ngood program in the past, as did most of the Congress. People still\nclear people at home in the August recess obviously made their views\nat the financing and see what can be done.\nabout paying for this benefit. So they're taking another very look\nQ\nBut, Marlin, you're talking about - -- you say the\npresent Congress has learned that you'd better know what these things\ncost before you pass it. It seems in fact -- are you saying that in\nfact there are cost overruns here that the President, when he was\nVice President, didn't foresee, or are you really saying that the\nPresident is feeling the heat, too, from the elderly lobby?\nMR. FITZWATER: Everybody is, sure. I hope there is not\nany misapprehension about the political aspects of this program. I\nproportions. mean, the elderly complaints are rolling in in tidal waves of immense\n--\nQ Well, is that what the President has really learned\nMR. FITZWATER: And that has not been lost on --\ncertainly not members of Congress and not the administration. anyone And\nour point being that we need to be very -- our point is -- what the\nthat lesson for the future is, when you've got these entitlement programs\nprovide a service that everyone agrees is needed, you'd better\nbe sure you understand the financing. And in this case we didn't.\nNot the administration, not the Congress.\nQ\nget from the elderly?\nAnd did you also underestimate the reaction you'd\nMR. FITZWATER: Absolutely.\nQ\nI want to see if I can pin you down on whether the\nPresident's primary concern on repeal -- in fact, only major concern\non repeal -- is triggering the sequester? Were it not for that,\nwould the President repeal this program? Would he support repeal?\nwe'd and like to provide the benefits. We thought it was a good program,\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, I can't say that because obviously\nso forth. But we have to look at all the aspects of it.\nQ Are you searching now for a way to repeal the\nprogram and avoid the sequester? Is that the focus of your search?\nfinancial problems.\nMR. FITZWATER: We're searching for a way to mitigate the\nQ Of repealing the program?\nwe've been for the last couple of months.\nMR. FITZWATER: And saving the program. And that's where\nQ Well, I'm sorry. I really don't understand whether\nyou're aiming to save the program or whether you're aiming to repeal\nand save the budget.\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, we're saving the program. We have\ntestified that we support the program and we don't see any need for\nMORE\n#100-09/12\n- 10 -\n9/12\nchange, but we have also been searching for a couple of months for\npossible changes. We continue to do that.\nQ On another subject -- back on --\nQ No. Marlin.\nQ Wait a minute.\nQ No, let's kick this around a little longer.\nthis rolling in of complaints? I mean, how many has the\nQ Marlin, Marlin, do you have a quantitative count of\nswitchboard been flooded and the mail way up?\nQ What is the income distribution of this tidal wave?\nMR. FITZWATER: Probably 535 to zero.\nQ\nCongress and not from elderly citizens? They have not been calling?\nNo, the complaints you've heard are directly from\nprobably have been elderly concerns directly to the government\nMR. FITZWATER: Oh, there may have been elderly - there\nmeetings it has been relatively unanimous.\nthrough HHS and other places, but certainly in the Congressional\nQ\nMarlin, are you saying that this tidal wave\nthat objections is from all elderly across the board or primarily those of\nare paying taxes and would have to pay the surtax?\nmorning several members of Congress emphasized that in terms of their\nMR. FITZWATER: I don't know specifically, although this\ncategories of the elderly.\nconstituents and the people they talked to in August, it was from all\nQ\nprimarily all the elderly recipients. And this would not increase\njust cut that in half and raise the premiums which affect all people, --\nOne of the suggestions is to have the surtax to\nthe deficit in any way. Primarily it would be budget-neutral but\nwould change the mix. Is the administration willing to consider that\nsince there's no difference in --\nPaula, but obviously we're looking at whatever can be done. And I\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, I can't comment on various options,\nuntil we've reached some kind of an agreement.\nknow that's one of them, but we don't want to commit at this point\nQ Well, last week your OMB Deputy Director testified\nthat they -- the administration would prefer that we just keep the\nprogram as is and, as you said, the concern for sequester and\ntriggering the deficit. If you were to consider repeal, would it be\nonly on condition that that $6 billion in revenue loss be offset?\nposition is to keep the program, but it's also true that we have\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, as you correctly point out, our\nagreed to look at various alternatives, but I'm just not free to\ndiscuss what we might do or what we might not do.\nQ\nmean, if you were to go with repeal, you'd lose $6 billion, so would I\nBut would any of them have to be budget-neutral?\nyou have to offset that?\nMR. FITZWATER: But I don't want to signal that in\nadvance, Paula. We'll have to -- something we'd work out in the\nnegotiating process.\nQ\nabout no program reductions at all? No reductions in services?\nBut when you say \"keep the program,\" are you talking\nkind of detail because when you get into discussions of how the\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, there again I can't specify that\nMORE\n#100-09/12\n9/12\n- 11 -\nprogram might be altered or financing changes, those things are all\nup to negotiation. And we just don't want to make any commitments\nto support the program.\nother than the public one, SO at the moment our policy is to continue\nbecause you need it for budgetary reasons?\nQ Well, do you want to keep it for its own sake or\nMR. FITZWATER: Both. We want to keep it for its own\nsake, first of all, and secondly, to make changes, there are\nsignificant budgetary problems.\nside of the Q equation. It sounds like you're just hung up on the budget\nvery difficult issue.\nMR. FITZWATER: No, we're hung up on all sides. It's a\nQ\nBack to another difficult issue, drugs, was the\nWhite House surprised by the Democratic response to the President's\nproposal? Was it more critical than you expected, and were you\nsurprised that some Democrats talked about raising taxes?\nthe Democrats thought raising taxes was a viable response, yes.\nMR. FITZWATER: I'd say we were a little surprised that\nQ\nbecause you think that's --\nWere you pleased that that was their response\nfighting drugs and they're for raising taxes.\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, it did make it clear that we're for\nQ Is this what you call stopping the partisan --\nQ Is there any possibility that --\nMR. FITZWATER: (Laughter. Hey, she asked the question.\nNick, go ahead.\nQ\nIs there any possibility that Yeltsin would be\navailable to the press while he's here on the White House grounds?\nMR. FITZWATER: I don't know. You'd have to ask him.\nQ Can we find out --\nQ I mean, which way is he coming out?\nQ\ndriveway, or where is his limo?\nWill you allow him to go out and talk in the\nMR. FITZWATER: He's free to do whatever he wants.\nQ Marlin, before you leave, what's the purpose --\nminutes?\nMR. FITZWATER: What time is the speech? We've got 15\nQ\nWhat's the purpose of the Hassan visit?\nissues, primarily, however, economic assistance.\nMR. FITZWATER: He's here to talk about a wide range of\nQ To who? To who? Economic assistance --\nMR. FITZWATER: To Jordan.\nprices are down? Is that why?\nQ To Jordan? For what purpose? Just because the oil\nMR. FITZWATER: Yes, they're having significant economic\nMORE\n#100-09/12\nSEPT 14\n9/14\nthat be done without busting the budget? And is it your view now\nthat the White House is going to have to take a far more active role\nin this if this program is to be saved?\nMR. FITZWATER: On catastrophic? Well, we are working\nwith the Senator and others on the Hill on a solution. We don't want\nto commit to any one course of action at this point.\nQ\nHow do you feel about making it voluntary? He's\ncommiting to a solution.\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, he is, but we've got a lot of\npeople to discuss it with and we don't want to take a public position\nuntil we can reach a greater consensus.\nQ\nCan it be made voluntary and not bust the budget?\nMR. FITZWATER: I don't know.\nQ\nI mean there are a lot of senators and congressmen,\nas you well know, up on the Hill who insist that short of a very\nactive White House position -- presidential position on this, that\nhe'll be steamrolled and the thing will be repealed outright. That\ncame up the other day when Gingrich and company were in here.\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, we are --\nQ\nYet there still seems to be no well -- clearly\ndefined White House position on this thing, and I'm curious as to\nwhy.\nMR. FITZWATER: The reason for that is that we are\ndiscussing it with any number of members and there are a number of\ndifferent ways to approach it. And we are not wedded to any single\none, but to working out the best solution. And as we have said here\nbefore, there are a lot of people who feel strongly on both sides,\nand there are different alternative financing mechanisms. So it\ndoesn't pay us to take a position on voluntary implementation or\nwhatever until we work out a consensus.\nQ\nMarlin, when you talk about the best solution, are\nyou talking about the best solution for all the elderly or for\nkeeping any alternative within the budget?\nMR. FITZWATER: The best solution for the elderly, in\nterms of preserving the benefits, making the premiums realistic, and\npreserving the fiscal aspects of it in terms of the budget.\nQ\nAre you willing to preserve the progressivity of the\npayments?\nMR. FITZWATER: We'd like to preserve the benefits, but\nthe payments and progressivity, all those are aspects that are under\ndiscussion.\nQ\nYou're not trying to keep that principle in there?\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, we're not going to say. We're\nMORE\n#102-09/14\nspecifics. saying we're willing to discuss it, but we're not committing to any\nQ\nDo you want to preserve all the benefits under\ncurrent\nMR. FITZWATER: That's our initial position, sure -- that\nwe think it's a good program, we proposed this program, and we'd like\nto keep it.\n10/3\nQ\nIs the President making any calls on the\ncatastrophic before the catastrophic vote today?\nMR. FITZWATER: I don't believe so, no.\nQ\nDo you have a preference among the three\nalternatives they will be considering?\nMR. FITZWATER: Our position is the same as it's always\nbeen, that we prefer to maintain the benefits while finding some way\nto mitigate the cost of the premiums.\nQ\nWell, they have three actual alternatives they're\ngoing to choose from. Can we presume from that that you like the\nWays and Means approach the best?\nMR. FITZWATER: We wouldn't want to specify publicly\nwhich we favor until we see the final product.\n- 6 -\nOct 3\nQ\nBut you are against the repeal amendment, aren't\nou?\nMR. FITZWATER: Yes. We've opposed repeal.\n*\n10/2\nQ\nDo you have a position on the various options taken\nabout catastrophic health in the House tomorrow?\nMR. FITZWATER: That's another case where there are still\na number of options in the works. Our position is clear, but we'll\nwork with various peoples.\nQ\nWhy are there options in the works? I mean, we know\nwhat amendments will be offered on the floor. You don't have a\nposition on the bill or one of those amendments?\nMR. FITZWATER: Well, our position, basically, is that we\nwant to retain the benefits and mitigate the premium cost. Bud there\nare some ways that some of the bills want to reduce all the benefits,\nsome want to eliminate the premium entirely, some want to eliminate\nthe surtax. I mean, there's any number of different approaches.\nQ\nBut there's three approaches the House is going to\nvote on. Do you have a position on those?\nMORE\n#106-10/02\nMR. FITZWATER: No. We'll wait and work with them still.\nWe haven't reached a final point yet.\nQ\nDon't want to get out in front on this one, huh?\nMR. FITZWATER: Nope. We're right where we want to be.\n(Laughter.)\nQ Obscure."
}