PATTERN OF DENIALS BELIES CLINTON HEALTH REFORM

In the beginning, the White House line on health care reform was that it would save American taxpayers money. Changes in the current system, Bill Clinton said, would help cut the budget deficit by $58 billion over the next six years. Those who questioned this claim were derided as partisan by the president, and called "liars" by the first lady.

Then the Congressional Budget Office, usually no friend to Republicans, testified that the plan would in fact add to the deficit: at least $78 billion over six years. Most non-partisan observers thought this a conservative estimate. After all, the plan would take over one-seventh the U.S. economy.

Undaunted, the president and first lady admitted that maybe their projections of savings were a little ambitious; still, they maintained, the plan would save more money than it would cost.

Critics continued to question the idea of "free" health care reform, however, arguing that implementation in the form Mrs. Clinton had outlined would require major tax increases.

"Scare tactics," the first lady retorted.

But last week it wasn't Republicans or insurance salesmen pointing to higher taxes, it was Democrat Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. His House committee is trying to draft a health care measure that meets the Clintons' goals.

The response from the White House?

"Higher taxes have always been one of the choices," said Hillary Rodham Clinton, acknowledging for the first time what she has denied from the beginning.

Such a pattern of denial and admission doesn't help the Clintons in their goal of health care reform. This is why we continue to suggest that their plan be shelved in favor of less draconian proposals on Capitol Hill.

* * * *

Frankness about the cost of health care reform is not the only thing lacking in the White House's public relations campaign on this matter. The White House has yet to point out that not all Americans would be treated the same under the proposal.

Many fees for health care services would depend upon which part of the country you live. The fees we pay in Cape Girardeau or Jackson might be higher than those paid in Boston, for example.

But perhaps one of the largest differences in treatment would depend upon whether you work for the federal government. Not discussed by the Clintons in their town hall meetings is that the proposed legislation exempts 10 million federal employees from their plan until January 1998. This means Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, members of Congress and the Washington bureaucracy will not be part of this great experiment until the rest of us have tried it first. It makes us wonder how much confidence the president and the first lady really have in their plan. We also question whom the Clintons feel they serve first: taxpaying Americans or politicians and government bureaucrats?

If Mr. Clinton feels the need to fight for his health care plan (as he has on few other items), we suggest to him that the American people might be more receptive if he started with federal employees and exempted us. Then in four years if this trial were successful, he could look at expanding the program.

Better yet, we repeat our earlier call -- shelve the Clinton plan and turn to something more in line with the America that resides outside of the White House wonderland.