On the recordAugust 3, 1994
Well, first of all, I disagree with your characterization of the Mitchell bill. I believe it will achieve universal coverage for all Americans, and that is the one criteria I have set out. What the Mitchell bill says is, is that if you make a dramatic amount of progress in a short time--that is, if you move from where we are now, at about 83 percent of coverage, up to 95 percent in a few years--that is evidence that we can achieve full coverage in the near future without requiring insurance to be bought. That is what that bill says. If it is deficit neutral, and if it is passed in the way that it is, I believe it will achieve full coverage, because what the bill also says is, if we don't make that amount of progress in a few years, there will be a requirement on the Congress to provide for full coverage, and if the Congress doesn't act, then automatically employers and employees will be required to purchase insurance. I believe it does meet the objective I set out in the State of the Union Address, and I would sign it.
Source
govinfo.gov




