The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The week ends with some more encouraging news. Negotiators trying to cut the federal deficit report some progress. Wall Street has its best day in seven months. We also report tonight on how the nation's doctors are taking to the call for a freeze on their fees.

Dr. DEVRA MARCUS: I think it's really an effort on the part of organized medicine to come to terms with the fact that there's a tremendous problem with health care financing at this point in this society.

MacNEIL: And from New Hampshire, Judy Woodruff reports on the impact the Democrats' latest debate is having on the race for next Tuesday's primary. Jim Lehrer is off. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in Washington. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Also tonight we turn our attention to foreign news. We get an update on the situation in Beirut: a ceasefire is announced: finghting continued. And we have a documentary report on the scope of the U.S. role in Honduras: is the Reagan administration preparing for a long stay?

MacNEIL: Some of the dark clouds over the economy and over the question of federal deficits lifted a little today. Congressional and White House deficit negotiators reported some progress, and Wall Street had its biggest rebound in seven months. The only negative economic news of the day was the inflation figure for January. Consumer prices went up 0.6 point, the biggest increase in nine months. The government said prices were driven by higher food costs caused mostly by severe winter weather.

On Wall Street the Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks, which has plummeted 94 points since the first of the year, jumped 30.47 points to close at 1165.10, the best daily showing since last July.

In Washington the bipartisan working group on the federal deficit met for the second day in a row, and members said it as their most productive meeting yet. The group includes top White House officials and representatives of both parties and both houses of Congress. Afterwards both Republicans and Democrats agreed that the meeting had made progress.

Rep. TRENT LOTT, (R) Mississippi: I thought it was more fruitful today. We put in a full two hours and we did have an agenda that we went by a little more closely. We spent more time discussing defense, again, but I felt like we did make a little progress this time in that area. Senator Domenici had some suggestions that I thought were constructive, and -- I don't speak for him, but I thought Jim Wright felt like that he was making some constructive suggestions.I don't mean to imply that we are about to come to any conclusion or that we will ever be able to, but there seemed to be a degree of more seriousness and a little more give and take today than we had yesterday. Jim gave fewer speeches today, and got more into going down the line item by item saying, "What about this?" or "How about that?"

Sen. DANIEL INOUYE, (D) Hawaii: There is a little light on the other end of the tunnel as a result of today's meeting. Chairman Domenici made a very significant breakthrough. He suggested that in the defense spending on real growth for the year 1985 would be 5%; for '86, 4 1/2%; for '87, 4%. This will mean for a three-year period a budget authorization reduction of $79 billion and an outlay of approximately $43 billion.

Rep. JIM WRIGHT, (D) Texas: I am not sure that the administration will respond affirmatively in any event to the Domenici proposal, but I believe, as Senator Inouye has suggested, that it was a significant and constructive proposal and that we may wind up doing something very similar to that whether or not the administration wants it.

MacNEIL: So, although they said progress was made, the congressmen indicated they're a long way from striking any deals. The conferees said they would meet again on Tuesday.

Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Agent Orange, the chemical spray that came to be associated with Vietnam, is back in the news today and now as then controversial. The Air Force told Congress that an exhaustive new study had found some medical problems among the 1,200 pilots and crew members who sprayed the defoliant in Vietnam. The code name of that program was Ranch Hand. Under it, 12 million gallons of the plant-killing substance containing dioxin was sprayed over Vietnamese jungles to uncover hiding places used by Communist forces. Today's report detailed higher than expected rates of skin cancers and liver disorders among the veterans, as well as more birth defects in their children. The study also said there was an abnormal mumber of deaths among veterans' offspring within 28 days of birth. Despite the negative findings of the report, the Air Force was upbeat about the effects as well as the use of Agent Orange.

Gen. MURPHY CHESNEY, U.S. Air Force: -- so far shows no significant disease in our Ranch Hand personnel who have been exposed more than anyone to Agent Orange. There is no single disease that is showing up. There may be some minor changes at low level, but we are not far enough along to detect that to say yes or no. And so far we've seen nothing that makes us think we shouldn't have used it. And Mr. John F. Kennedy was right in approving this.

HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Thomas Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, strongly disputed statements made by General Chesney. Dachle said that Air Force officials had told a group of congressmen that there was a significant amount of infighting and differences of opinion among scientists who reviewed the findings of the study. And John Terzano, Washington director of Vietnam Veterans of America, charged that the Air Force has a tendency to gloss over some of the findings. He said that the report substantiates what veterans have been saying all along about their increased risk of suffering adverse health effects as a result of their exposure to herbicides in Vietnam.

Robin?

MacNEIL: In Beirut there was a lull in fighting following declaration of a ceasefire negotiated by Saudi Arabia. But Druse and Shiite Muslim militias complained they had not been notified. And by nightfall the ceasefire appeared to be shattered. At dusk there was new fighting along the Green Line separating East and West Beirut, and a rocket duel between Druse and the Lebanese army in the Shuf Mountains. Here is a report from Nick Witchell of the BBC.

NICK WITCHELL, BBC [voice-over]: Traffic policemen in West Beirut have a hard time. The more people talk of a ceasefire, the more people jam the roads. Emotions here fluctuate so much. Today, fighting seemed further away. But then, over the center of Beirut, came two Israeli warplanes levaing vapor trails in the sky. And although the diplomats in Damascus may have worked out some peace proposals, down on the Green Line between Muslim and Christian halves of Beirut the fighters weren't paying much attention to them.

[interviewing] Will there be a ceasefire?

FIGHTER: No, no. No. Every time you hear that, and every time like now, from here, no.

WITCHELL: No ceasfire?

FIGHTER: No, no.

WITCHELL [voice-over]: But the guns might stop conclusively if a political future could be agreed for Lebanon. It might mean a new government. It might mean some form of partition. That's what they're trying to agree in the Syrian capital, Damascus. It's the Syrians who have the most influence now. The West is pulling back. South of Beirut city, the American Marines were continuing their withdrawal.

MacNEIL: On one American ship offshore, the helicopter carrier Guam, a U.S. sailor was killed and two others injured when an elevator hatch accidentally closed on them.

There were conflicting versions of two incidents involving Israeli troops in southern Lebanon. In the village of Marraka, 20 miles southeast of Sidon, Lebanese sources said Israeli soldiers fired into an angry mob of Shiite residents, killing four people and wounding 25. But in Tel Aviv, an Israeli military spokesman denied anyone was killed. Beirut radio reported that five Israeli soldiers were killed in Sidon when a grenade was tossed into a military vehicle, but again an Israeli spokesman denied that any Israeli soldiers were killed.

In the Persain Gulf war, Iran said Iraq fired rockets into two small cities more than 90 miles from the border, killing 80 civilians and wounding 350. Iran said it retaliated by shelling Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq and the country's only commercial seaport. The Iraqis gave no report of casualties there. Both sides made vague claims of success in ground fighting. The Iranians said their troops were advancing in a thrust toward Basra, and the Iraqis said they'd beaten the Iranians back. Gillian Guthrie of Visnews has a report.

GILLIAN GUTHRIE, Visnews [voice-over]: These pictures from Iranian television go some way to illustrating Iran's claims of new successes in its latest Gulf war offensive. According to the national news agency, Iran's forces killed more than 2 1/2 thousand Iraqi troops after sweeping into the key town of El Qurna, about 30 kilometers inside Iraq. They claim to have cut the main highway between Baghdad and the Gulf, captured two border posts and some 37 villages. In the rhetoric of war, Iran's president has told worshippers at a prayer meeting that the Iraqis' only option is to surrender.

But there is another version. Iraq has ridiculed the Iranian reports, denying that any Iraqi territory has been captured, and claiming that almost 5,000 Iranians have been killed in the past two days. Whatever the actual figures, each side has no shortage of bodies, captured weapons and prisoners to put on display. As the Iranians continue their thrust into Iraqi territory, Iraq has called on the international community to take steps to end what it calls Iran's aggressive and adventurous policies.

MacNEIL: The president of Iran, Ali Khomeini, today qualified his country's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. In a Friday sermon, Khomeini said the Strait will not be closed unless Iran's own shipping is denied passage through it. Iran ships large amounts of oil from Persian Gulf ports to both Europe and the Far East. However, Khomeini warned that Iran will attack American interests in the Persain Gulf region if Washington intervenes on the side of Iraq in its war with Iran. A number of American oil companies have interests in the Persian Gulf oilfields.

Charlayne? Honduras: U.S. Digging In?

HUNTER-GAULT: Two fact-finding groups of congressmen are going to Honduras this weekend to examine U.S. military facilities there. Three Democratic House members and four Republican senators are making the trip following the latest phase of joint American-Honduran military maneuvers. Yesterday the Democratic majority whip in the House, Bill Alexander of Arkansas, charged that the Reagan administration has exceeded the authority Congress gave it in setting up U.S. military facilities in Honduras. He told the House he had asked the General Accounting Office for an opinion on the legality of the administration's actions.

The extent and purpose of the new military installations in Honduras are examined in this report by correspondent Charles Krause, on special assignment for this program.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: Since 1979, as revolution has spread from one country to another in Central America, Honduras has become increasingly important to the United States. Honduras borders Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. Because of its key geopolitical position at the heart of Central America, Honduras has become a keystone of U.S. efforts to contain Cuban influence and revolution in the region. Last year the Reagan administration began a series of controversial military exercises in Honduras. Big Pine I was followed by Big Pine II, which ended this month. Granadero I will begin in June or July, and Big Pine III is scheduled for the fall.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [July 26, 1983]: Let me set the record straight on what these exercises are and what they are not.These training exercises are limited in purpose. Yes, we want to underscore once and for all that the United States, along with our friends, seriously opposes the use of force by one neighbor against another in Central America. But we are not seeking a larger presence in that region.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: But as the military exercises have continued, the controversy over whether the administration is or is not seeking a larger military presence in Central America has grown. Senator Jim Sasser of Tennessee is a Democrat and member of the Sente Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction.

Sen. JIM SASSER, (D) Tennessee: They're rotating troops in and out of Honduras saying they're on exercises or maneuvers, and indeed they are. But the bottom line is that these maneuvers and exercises constitute an almost continuous American military presence in Honduras which is substantial.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Since last August, when the Big Pine II exercises began, the United States has had anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 American troops in Honduras at any given time. The number will dip but then climb again within the next few months. The troops' mission, according to the White House and Pentagon, is to train the Honduran army to defend the country against a Marxist-inspired guerrilla movement like those in El Salvador and Guatemala, or a conventional attack from neighboring Nicaragua. But critics and other informed observers here and in Washington suspect the maneuvers are a subterfuge to keep an American military presence in Central Americal without necessary congressional approval in Honduras and the United States.

Sen. SASSER: I think the Congress wants to know what's going on there, what direction the administration is headed, and also why the Congress is not being consulted about this or at least advised what the administration is doing.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Efrain Diaz Arrivillaga is a member of the Honduran congress and an outspoken critic of U.S. policy.

EFRAIN DIAZ ARRIVILLAGA, Honduran congressman: As long as they consider Central America a traditional area of influence of the United States, an area of security of the United States, then I think the presence of troops in Honduras will be on a permanent basis.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Senator Sasser recently visited Honduras, where he met with both government officials and U.S. Army commanders.

Sen. SASSER: And I would have hoped that we would have learned our lesson about backing in willy-nilly without advance plarning or advance discussion into these hot areas around the world which ultimately entail U.S. military involvement and the loss of American lives.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Sasser says he learned from U.S. military authorities that exercises are planned for the next five years, through 1989. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte responded to the senator's charges.

JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras: I'm not certain where he obtained that figure. To the best of my knowledge our specific plans have only been made for this year, and even those plans are not completely finalized. But it is also true that since 1965 exercises have been conducted -- joint exercises have been conducted on an almost continual basis with Honduran forces. And so it wouldn't surprise me if exercises would continue in future years.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: In part it appears that the U.S. government's reluctance to confirm future plans has to do with political sensibilities both in the United States and here in Honduras. The country's recently elected civilian government, headed by President Roberto Suazo Cordoba, is decidedly pro-American but sensitive to charges that it's being used by the United States. President Suazo recently let slip that he would welcome a permanent U.S. military presence in his country. But the government's official position is that U.S. troops will remain only as long as Honduras feels threatened by Nicaragua's Cuban- and Soviet-supplied army. Carlos Flores Facusse is minister of the presidency.

CARLOS FLORES FACUSSE, Minister of the Presidency: The moment when we have obtained the quality ingredient that we need to maintain our internal security and to maintain a force which is capable of defending democracy by itself, we won't be in need then of the military presence of the United States in Honduras territory.

Amb. NEGROPONTE: It is true that we have helped improve some existing Honduran facilities and in exchange for our improving these Honduran facilities we have been given access for their use in the -- should a need arise in some contingency. But we are not seeking to permanently station anybody.

Sen. SASSER: At the very least the United States is building a fairly elaborate, semi-permanent military infrastructure in Honduras. One Hondurian commented to me -- he said, "Senator, on a per capita basis, we'll have more airfields than any country in the world," and that's really not an exaggeration.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Since last year the Army Corps of Engineers has constructed three dirt airstrips strategically located within easy flying distance of Nicaragua. One of the airstrips, at Aguacate, is 8,000 feet long, long enough for jet fighter planes if it were paved. Two other airstrips are scheduled to be constructed later this year, one near the Nicaraguan border, the other near the Salvadoran border. At Palmerola, the Honduran air force's principal base and the site of the U.S. joint command, the United States is constructing a second paved runway, again long enough for jet fighter planes and two underground fuel storage tanks. The administration has requested money in next year's budget to build a permanent barracks at Palmerola for U.S. military personnel at a cost of $4 million. It's also requested money to build two permanent ammunition storage facilities in Honduras. The debate over whether these facilities constitute the underpinnings of a permanent military buildup in Honduras and the beginnings of a permanent U.S. military presence is being voiced mostly in the United States. Most Hondurans, especially wealthy businessmen and the poor, appear to genuinely fear that Cuba and Nicaragua threaten their country's fledgling democracy. Benjamin Villanueva is a U.S. -educated businessman and director of the conservative Association for the Progress of Honduras.

BENJAMIN VILLANUEVA, Honduran businessman: If I was to judge by the lot of people that we've talked to -- businessmen and also campesino and labor leaders -- we feel that we need the presence of American troops in this country because of the threat that we have presently or in the future by the continuous strength of the military forces in Nicaragua and what is going on in El Salvador.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: But there is opposition to the U.S. military presence here. It's centered in the relatively tiny educated urban middle class, the group that has since Fidel Castro produced revolutionary leaders in Latin America when its aspirations are frustrated and its views ignored.

Dr. RAMON CUSTODIO, Human Rights Commission: We think we have a country. If we don't have a country that has sovereignty, then what we are really is a military proctectorate or one more state of the union.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Ramon Custodio is a physician and president of the Honduran human rights commission.

Dr. CUSTODIO: The permanent presence of North American troops in Honduras is against the constitution, and we thought we were going to have a government which was going to be democratic and constitutional, and the constitution is not being respected.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Those Hondurans who oppose the U.S. military presence here fear Honduras could be dragged into a war with one of its neighbors if the United States should ever decide to use its facilities here to invade Nicaragua or intervene militarily to stop a guerrilla victory in El Salvador.

Mr. ARRIVILLAGA: Many sectors in Honduran society, contrary to what other people think, are very much afraid and concerned that the presence of the U.S. troops here and the role that Honduras is playing in Central America might lead to a regionalization of the Central American conflict, and a conflict in which Honduras is already involved.

KRAUSE: Do you see any circumstances in which the United States could become militarily involved in Central America?

Amb. NEGROPONTE: Well, I think it is an eventuality which our policy seeks to aviod, but I would not want to address some kind of future hypothetical situation.

Sen. SASSER: Why didn't the administration come to the Congress and say, "Look, to prepare for all contingencies we want to build some airfields in Honduras, we want to store some ammunition there in case it's needed in the future"? Why didn't the administration just come and lay it on the table with the Congress? I don't know why they didn't, and that's something that's very disturbing. What do they have planned for Honduras? That's the question that needs to be answered.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The answer, or at least the administration's hoped-for answer to preserving U.S. security interests in Central America, may be found at a base in Trujillo, Honduras.Called the regional training center, about 180 Green Berets and other U.S. soldiers teach counterinsurgency warfare tactics to both Honduran and Salvadoran army units. Ideally, from the administration's point of view, they will become good enough soldires to protect their pro-American governments from leftist guerrillas or a direct threat from Nicaragua. But the question being asked here and in Washington is, what if they can't? Are the U.S. troops and facilities in Honduras being readied just in case?

HUNTER-GAULT: In neighboring El Salvador a right-wing member of the legislative assembly was shot and killed yesterday as he left his home. It was the second assassination of a right-wing deputy in the past month. The latest victim was Roberto Ismael Ayala, founder of the New Salvador Authentic Institutional Party, PISA. His assailants were not identified and no group has claimed either killing.

[Video postcard -- Danville, Arkansas]

HUNTER-GAULT: You won't find the Coronado Company among the Fortune 500. Where you will find it is in three indictments unsealed today in federal courts in San Diego, Seattle and San Francisco. According to the Justice Department, the Coronado Company was an international drug ring responsible for smuggling 32 tons of marijuana valued at $96 million. Twenty-seven people were indicted as participants in the company.Fifty-seven other defendants had already been indicted and convicted in connection with Coronado Company narcotics ventures. The case has led to government seizure of numerous assets accrued by the company, including more than $1.6 million worth of vehicles and vessels, more than $2.4 million in cash or negotiable instruments, and more than $9 million in real estate. Meanwhile, the House Select Narcotics Abuse and Control Committee said in an annual report released today that the Reagan administration was badly losing the war against narcotics traffickers.

Robin? AMA Recommends Pay Freeze

MacNEIL: Now a followup on yesterday's call by the American Medical Association for a voluntary freeze on doctors' fees. Today doctors around the country expressed everything from enthusiasm to disdain. Yesterday the AMA's board of trustees voted unanimously to ask the nation's 390,000 physicians not to raise their charges for one year to help control health costs. They also asked doctors to reduce their fees to patients in financial straits, particularly the unemployed, uninsured and the elderly. No doctor will be forced to go along with the freeze on fees, but the AMA's president-elect, Dr. Joseph Boyle, said the gesture would show that doctors are concerned about rising health costs and are willing to make some sacrifices. Doctors' fees account for about 20% of the nation's $325-billion health care bill. Today in several cities we asked doctors how they felt about the plan.

Dr. WILLIAM H. COOPER, Washington, D.C.: On the face of it I think it's a good idea. I think that we physicians should cooperate with the government and with what the AMA suggests. But I do have a problem with it, and that is, first, I understand that my malpractice insurance and those of every physician in the District of Columbia is going to go up at least 40%. Some will be higher than that. And my category of obstretics and gynecology is one of the highest categories. Secondly, of course, all my nurses wish a cost-of-living increase, and the rent goes up a little bit. So I think there'll have to be some give and take. It's awfully hard to have a freeze on just one area.

Dr. RAYMOND COLL, New York: The overall cost involved with paying doctors' bills represents a relatively small amount of the overall cost of medical attention. And by freezing doctors' fees per se I don't believe that this will make any significant impression upon the overall and continuing increase in the cost of medical attention.

Dr. DEVRA MARCUS, Washington, D.C.: My colleagues are people that I certainly highly respect, and I think they are hardly in this for the money. I mean, they're in to provide a service. And I think we've really gotten a lot of bad press, and I'm hopeful that perhaps this will be helpful actually in making it clear to the public that physicians are concerned enough to be willing to take a cut in their incomes.

Dr. COLL: If a physician were to freeze his income and he were to want to increase his net income, the only way he'd be able to do would be by working longer hours, seeing larger numbers of patients. And, in many instances, physicians would find it very difficult indeed to increase their gross turnover simply by working harder since most physicians work very hard as is the case at the present time.

Dr. QUENTIN YOUNG, Chicago: I certainly welcome it. I certainly personally will go along with it, but candidly, I don't think it will make a great deal of difference for a couple of reasons. One is despite doctors' costs -- and they're significant and have been rising rapidly until recently -- doctors' fees are not the heart of the problem in health care costs. The second is a more painful reason, is that absolutely none of the voluntary efforts that we've had in this country to contain costs, which have been the big issue for the last decade, have worked.

Dr. FREDERICK ABRAMS, Denver: A lot of people think that the AMA is a union and that everything it says the doctors have to follow. It really isn't. It has no power. It simply is a directive, a recommendation, and not much more than that. It has no teeth in it.

Dr. YOUNG: I think the AMA wants to be part of the process of bringing the costs down. They recognize a public discomfort is changing into public wrath. And it is directed to the doctor because he appears to the patient as the point of the source of all of this. Actually for once you could say the doctor is being victimized because the big costs are in the hospital, in the drugs, in the tests, which he can't control.

MacNEIL: For a look at the impact the AMA proposal may have, we have Abigail Trafford. She's an assistant managing editor of U.S. News and World Report and has specialized in reporting on medical economics.

Ms. Trafford, the AMA estimates that about 85% of the nation's doctors will go along with this. Does that sound reasonable to you?

ABIGAIL TRAFFORD: It's certainly hopeful. I mean, this is a very strong recommendation. It's significant that the AMA has called upon its doctors to lower their fees. I think the message is to doctors, please do something about health costs. This is an enormous problem. And, as we heard, a doctor's fees are not the driving force of health care inflation, but doctors, because they admit patients to hospitals, prescribe tests, order drugs, they control an estimated 70% of the costs. That's why it's significant to get the doctors involved.

MacNEIL: I see. What kind of economic impact do you think this could have if most American doctors went along with it voluntarily?

Ms. TRAFFORD: I don't think the impact is really going to be economic. It's because of every health dollar, the doctors only get about 20 of it. So that the problem is not really in doctors' fees; it's in volume. It's in treating people unnecessarily. And physicians can increase their income just by seeing more patients. So it's not really going to have the -- it's not going to be the economic magic bullet. But, again, it's what goes along with that message.It's telling doctors to watch out and to bring costs down.There's a great deal of crisis going on in the medical profession with a surplus of doctors, a shakeout in the hospitals with hospitals closing. This is a way of saying, "You've got to pay attention."

MacNEIL: What about the point the doctor made who said that his malpractice insurance is going up, his nurses want more pay, his office rent goes up?How do you respond to that?

Ms. TRAFFORD: Well, you know, it's all true. Everything is going up. On the other hand, for the last 15 years doctors' fees have risen above all other services in the industry. So the fees have, you know, have kept abreast of the needs. And it's got to come from somewhere, and I think there's a feeling that doctors do have a very high income, although their income has not increased significantly in 15 years in real dollars.

MacNEIL: What do you think the AMA is saying, politically, in this recommendation?

Ms. TRAFFORD: They're saying, "Give us time." They're saying to Congress, they're saying to the Department of Health and Human Services, "Before you jump in with regulations or freezes on our fees, give us some time to work this out ourselves." They want to say, "We're doing something for the problem," because there are initiatives both in Congress and in the government to have much strorger controls on doctors' fees.

MacNEIL: Do you think those initiatives have political weight behind them and should be taken seriously?

Ms. TRAFFORD: I think they are being taken seriously. I think there's a very important discussion about them, not only for Medicare patients but for all patients, particularly patients who are treated in hospitals. There's an initiative to control what doctors can charge for treating patients in hospitals, and it's hospitals where the money is spent. Forty-two percent of our health dollars go to the hospitals.

MacNEIL: What economic impact could it have if doctors went along with the AMA suggestion that they reduce their fees or charge no fees to a category of patients who are unemployed or have no insurance or elderly patients?

Ms. TRAFFORD: This is a very significant message, and I think it would help a lot. It's hard to put a dollar figure on it because what's happening now is that patients who don't have insurance are going to public hospitals, and they are facing bankruptcy and draining resources for cities across the country so that indirectly we as taxpayers are having a larger amount taken out from us to support public institutions. And if doctors would voluntarily treat people for less this would have a big impact.

MacNEIL: You heard one doctor say that the public distress was becoming -- I've forgotten the word he used -- publc anger or public wrath, I think he said. Is there evidence that the public is really aroused and aroused enough to cause some kind of political action?

Ms. TRAFFORD: Yes. I think that there's a lot of anti-doctor, anti-hospital feeling. It's not perhaps directly from consumers because we're protected, often, from medical bills through insurance. But anybody who's involved in the health care debate, there is a great deal of anger and there's a lot of finger-pointing. Where can we get the money to hold down these costs; otherwise we're going to be spending all of our money on health care. And doctors and hospitals are the target. There's no question about that.

MacNEIL: If you say that the AMA is asking Congress for time, how much time do you think the political system is likely to give the doctor side of the medical profession?

Ms. TRAFFORD: Well, you know, so far the doctors have had time. The political system has worked very slowly. There have been discussions of controls on doctors' fees now for several years and nothing has really come out. So that the chances are that they will get time. On the other hand, we've just had the initiative on the hospitals, on Medicare patients, a radical change of paying hospitals according to diagnoses. Now, if this is extended to doctors it will have a profound impact. I think they want to put these things off and let the forces that are taking place in the marketplace have some time to be played out.

MacNEIL: You said a moment ago that doctors' fees in themselves don't account for that much of the medical costs but that doctors are themselves responsible for 70% of the costs. Now, how do you make the equation between encouraging the doctors to freeze or lower their own fees and translating that into their effect on medical expenses more widely?

Ms. TRAFFORD: The message in saying freeze your fees is also saying don't admit so many people to the hospital, don't have them stay in the hospital so long, try not to do unnecessary tests. You know, we understand what causes health care inflation, and it's volume. It's overusing the system. And I think they're using their fees to say freeze your fees is a way of saying, "Get at these other issues, because if this problem is not solved, you may be the target of much stronger regulation out of the government."

MacNEIL: Does all this bring us close to the point where this country is about to have something like socialized medicine?

Ms. TRAFFORD: Probably not.In the last few years what you've seen in the health care industry is a shake-up of competition. You have a growing surplus of physicians in many areas, a significant number of doctors do not charge fees. They're on salary to hospitals, they belong to health maintenance organizations. These are pre-paid health plans. These are growing at an enormous rate. Insurance companies and corporations are much tougher on the amount of money they spend on health care. So that doctors are in a transition, and many of them are on salary so this does not pertain to them. And there's a question of, how is it going to shake down? The other way is for doctors to become entrepreneurs, and they set up their own clinics, compete with hospitals and have X-ray equipment. Now, this of course may drive up the costs.

MacNEIL: Okay. Well, thank you, Ms. Trafford, for joining us. Charlayne? Democrats' New Hampshire Debate

HUNTER-GAULT: The Democratic candidates for President were on the same podium last night for the final debate before the much-ballyhooed New Hampshire primary. And, under questioning from ABC News correspondent Barbara Walters, all eight contenders got a G for gentlemanliness.The debate had particular importance since it followed the results of the Iowa caucus earlier this week which left Walter Mondale secure in his frontrunner's spot but unexpectedly saw John Glenn drop back in the pack. Gary Hart won a distant but surprising second. This debate marked a change in strategy. Candidates muted their criticisms of Mondale, concentrating instead on new efforts to appear as viable alternatives to the frontrunner, leaving Mondale free to hone his frontal assault on Reagan administration policies. Here are some excerpts of the debate.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: In the history of America, when we have had strong presidents who have known where they're going and how to get there, our nation has been stronger.When we've had weak or detached presidents, we ourselves have been weaker. Mr. Reagan, whether it's Lebanon or arms control or the budget deficit or whatever, is a President who's not providing that leadership. I will do so. I know what I'm doing. I've been a senator; I've been closer to a president than any vice president in American history. I would know what I'm doing the first day, and I would take charge.

Sen. JOHN GLENN, Democratic presidential candidate: I was disappointed in what happened in Iowa. I was disappointed mainly that all those mainstream Democrats and independents that I had hoped the interest in our system didn't come through out there, as I had hoped they would. John Kennedy said, "I know of no school where one could go to learn to become president.It's the sum of your life's experiences. It's more than just politics." Well, that's the way I look at politics, is the same way you do right now. It's not straw polls and endorsements. It's not caucus votes. It's a way we build this nation into the future. That's what politics is all about.

BARBARA WALTERS, moderator: I'll have to stop you at this point, Mr. Glenn.

Sen. GLENN: It's the way we build this future, and that's America's destiny. I ask for your vote. We can build that nation --

Ms. WALTERS: Mr. Glenn --

Sen. GLENN: -- that we can have.

Sen. GARY HART, Democratice presidential candidate: The choice for the people of New Hampshire and this nation is our future versus our past. I suggest the people of this state, indeed, of this country, if we want a representative of the best of this party and its past, that we nominate Vice President Mondale. If, however, we want new leadership with new ideas and new proposals, then I ask for the help of the people of New Hampshire in this primary. The issue in New Hampshire is whether the debate will end here or whether, as it has in the past, it will only begin. We're being told that we have only two choices -- either to ratify the selection made by the leadership of our party in Washington or to send that frontrunner a message. I think we have another alternative, and that is to move this country forward into the future and send the people of this country a presidential nominee who can defeat Ronald Reagan.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: Although New Hampshire is only the first primary, some primary watchers believe that this first could be the last for some of the five other Democratic candidates. At last night's debate, that group used the time to stress both their campaign themes and their viability. We start with Senator Hollings.

Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS, Democratic presidential candidate: The big spenders won in Iowa, unfortunately. As long as we have the image of the big spender and weak on defense, we as Democrats are going to give that election to Ronald Reagan. So I want to show that thereis an alternative. I thought John would be it out there in Iowa, but he flunked the course, and now I have to come in and represent that moderate position and the viability of the party.

Rev. JESSE JACKSON, Democratic presidential candidate: I know that my presence here means that for the first time the locked-out have a chance, and the reception that you guys have given me and people in New Hampshire have given me has laid a new predicate. It has raised expectations. I am determined to raise the moral issues of our day and to fight for a sense of social justice in this country. And so I shall keep raising the issues of the misery index -- how many more women and infants and children are hurt and the rising danger index. And I intend to pull the party in that direction.

GEORGE McGOVERN, Democratic presidential candidate: I have never said I wasn't interested in being the candidate. What I said from the very beginning is that I'd like to be president of the United States, but even if the verdict is in that I can't make it to the nomination and make it to the White House -- I don't think that's true, it would still be worthwhile to stand for one's convictions and bring some issues into this debate that were not being discussed.

Ms. WALTERS: How do you answer those who say that you are a one-issue candidate?

Sen. ALAN CRANSTON, Democratic presidential candidate: I believe that the issue of averting a nuclear war is a universal issue, because if we destroy ourselves in a nuclear war, we won't be around to worry about jobs or the environment or education or equal opportunity or health care or all the other issues that are of importance to us. So we have to focus on first things first.

REUBIN ASKEW, Democratic presidential candidate: I think we have to learn to compete better, not to try to hide from our competition -- if it's unfair, fight it. If it's fair, beat it. This country grew great from meeting competition, not fleeing from it. We have to have opportunity. We must have social justice. We must open up more opportunities for all of our people, and we also have to understand that if we don't rebuild education and improve our environment, we're not going to have the quality of life that we want. We also have to value life both before birth and after birth.And that ultimately and basically we have to have someone who is willing to take risks in order to get there the right way to govern the right way.

HUNTER-GAULT: When all was said and done, there was more to be said about the candidates' attacks on each other prior to this debate. The first, by the way, sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

Sen. HART: I don't remember saying anything about any other candidate here that is regrettable or outside the context of what a nomination race ought to be about. The nomination race ought to be about the future of this party, the direction of this party. You cannot decide that without disagreement and contrast. I have not attacked anyone. I asked Mr. Mondale a question about his views on labor issues, and that came out as an attack. I don't think he or I believed that that was an attack.

Ms. WALTERS: Mr. Glenn?

Sen. GLENN: Well, I think all of us have raised questions about each other. Mr. Mondale has raised questions about me. He has raised them about Mr. Hart.

Ms. WALTERS: But do you feel the things you have said about Mr. Mondale are going to be forgotten if and when --

Mr. GLENN: Oh, I think if I'm the nominee I'll be willing to forget the things that he has said about me.

Mr. ASKEW: If we don'tjump on each other you say we're boring. When we jump on each other, you say --

Sen. GLENN: That's only me.

Mr. ASKEW: -- that's divisive.

Ms. WALTERS: Now, you don't think he's boring, do you?

Mr. ASKEW: No, actually I don't. I think he's an outstanding American. I really do.

Sen. GLENN: People say I'm dull and boring. I admit to being dull, but not boring.

Mr. ASKEW: But you know, I've always tried to be candid. And when he jumped on Fritz, on saying, "How in the world are you going to pay for all those things," and Fritz jumped on him and said, "You voted Reaganomics." All I said was, "I thought you were both honest and were really saying the truth." See, but if the American people will forgive George Bush for calling supply-side economics voodoo politics or voodoo economics -- and he proved to be right -- then I mean, the American people will accept it, and we are a party of diversity. And that's what you wanted, distinction.But never make the mistake thinking we leave San Francisco -- which one of us or someone else out there waiting in the wings gets it, we're going to leave San Francisco united to defeat Ronald Reagan.

Mr. MONDALE: I'd like to say something good about all of us. The fact of it is that the eight of us have had more joint debates, more joint discussions, have answered more questions for more Americans than any candidates for president in the history of the United States, and I'm proud of that process.

Ms. WALTERS: And you're all still talking.

Mr. MONDALE: Oh, we're going to be together.This is the sweetest primary in American history.

HUNTER-GAULT: The candidates reagard an event such as last night's debate as a vital way of getting all-important television exposure. That's a knife, however, that can cut both ways, depending on how voters react to each of the different contenders. The response is sometime logical, sometimes visceral.

Judy Woodruff was in New Hampshire for the debate and filed this report on the reaction of one group of voters.

JUDY WOODRUFF [voice-over]: I asked Mrs. Kathy Gabriel, who is on the Manchester School Board, to invite some of her friends over to watch the debate. She's committed to Alan Cranston. Some of the others were either leaning to Mondale or undecided. One couple, Ken and Ruth Rhodes, usually vote Republican, but are considering voting in the Democratic primary on Tuesday. Mr. Rhodes says he'd been disappointed in John Glenn's performance earlier in the campaign, but would take another look after what he saw last night.

KEN RHODES: I don't think there were any surprises. I think I was quite impressed with Glenn tonight, more so than I felt I had been before. I like Mondale. It's obvious he has great poise and he has the experience. I guess of all the candidates, those two would impress me the most.

DENNIS WITHEE: I thought that the candidates seemed to be more at ease with each other than they were at the Dartmouth debate. I particularly enjoyed Mondale, Glenn and Hart. I think Mr. Hart was -- I liked his honesty. Glenn, to me, he just came across as, I don't know, a more down-to-earth candidate, perhaps, as opposed to the hostility that he showed during the Dartmouth debate.

RAY TONDREAU: I'm committed to Mondale, but I really liked Glenn tonight. I feel I need someone like a Mondale who perhaps would carry out some of the things of the Carter administration in terms of social kinds of programs that have been cut during the Reagan administration. Hot lunch programs, hungry kids. You can't teach a hungry kid.

EVELYNWITHEE: I was a little disappointed in Gary Hart's performance, if you want to say that. I think he has some really good ideas. At least, I've read -- when I read his ideas on issues, and I don't think he really came across as being that strong or as charismatic as you would like to see go with his ideas. I was -- I enjoyed Hollings.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Though impressions were made, few seemed to come away from the debate completely certain of whom to vote for.

Mr. WITHEE: I probably will be reconsidering right up until when I step into the booth. I would say yes, you know, Mondale was my favorite from the very beginning, but I was impressed with Glenn.

Mr. RHODES: I was quite impressed with the whole thing, though. I thought they were all on their best behavior, but perhaps more alert. I think Glenn's going to show a great improvement in the election here, you know, as opposed to the last one.

RUTH RHODES: I'm not prepared to vote for any of those gentlemen tonight. I've learned a lot. I might change my mind.

KATHY GABRIEL: I thought the debate was terrific. I think it's the best one. I think finally, instead of getting panicky at the end the candidates are showing that they really do have a humorous side. Maybe they're tired enough that they've become pleasant. It shows me that the Democratic Party is seriously healthy. We have George McGovern, who is our conscience. We have Jesse Jackson, who is going to remind us of the social issues. I think it just shows that the Democratic Party really has America's interests at heart.

Ms. WITHEE: But I'm still undecided, and I think I'll have to spend the weekend reading all the newspapers.

[Video postcard -- Ouachita National Forest, Oklahoma]

HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, the main stories of the day. Members of a bipartisan working group looking for ways to cut the federal deficit said they were making some progress.

The government said consumer prices went up 0.6 of a point in January, the biggest increase in nine months. Most of it was blamed on higher food costs.

On Wall Street, the stock market jumped upward by more than 30 points on the Dow Jones industrial average of stocks.

In Lebanon there was a lull in the fighting during the day, but at nightfall the latest ceasefire was shattered.

And for the 10th day Iran and Iraq reported heavy fighting near the Persian Gulf.

Robin?

MacNEIL: We close tonight with another of our essays from Roger Rosenblatt. Every day people in the news business, reporters, editors, news producers, ask themselves, what shall we lead with? Meaning, what do we put first; what matters most? It's a question we all ask ourselves.

Looking at recent events, Roger Rosenblatt has been thinking about that question.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Newsmen put the question in practical terms. What should we lead with? The rest of us ask it more generally. What matters most? It comes to the same puzzle. Survey events in a given period of time and try to come up with a single moment, the headline by which the world may be characterized, stopped in its spin.

In the past couple of weeks we have stood chest-high in choices. In Lebanon, one more last battle for Beirut, the collapse of the Gemayel government, the pullout of the U.S. Marines. In the Soviet Union, the death of Yuri Andropov and the succession of Konstantin Chernenko, a funeral in red. In Iowa, the small beginnings of an American presidential election, the first funny hats and toots of the horns. In Sarajevo, one more winter Olympics done; memories on videotape.The ice dancers Torville and Dean synchronized as if accidentally like birds in a wind. Four major acts then: war, ceremony, process, grace.

What should we lead with? What matters most? Let's concede from the start that the problem is subjective, that whatever choice we settle on it is bound to be formed more my habit than by a command of history. We're not in control of history.

Getting bored with Beirut? It's not unheard of, if you don't live there. Every few weeks another upheaval, another onslaught, the familiar pictures of crushed Mercedes, balconies split open like stale cake, here a distraught mother, there a distraught maniac. Polls show that the American people are growing tired of Lebanon, of the Middle East as a whole. Too bad. The region matters. It's lead. Boring or not, Beirut may be the center of the world, the place where everything comes together or apart.

So, too, for Moscow these past two weeks. After the obsequies and the miles of citizen mourners, after the visiting dignitaries have filed past a dead man's medals, half the world closes ranks behind another mystery. Who is this Chernenko. Brezhnev's former water boy turned master of the house?

After Iowa, who is Mondale? Walter, we thought we knew you, but now we'd better look a bit closer at him, who may become the leader of the other half of the world.

Which leaves us with Sarajevo, the least important place on our current events map. Perhaps. But before we say so definitely, play it again, that ice dance performed by the two Brits. I don't think that I caught it all the first time. I think I missed one of the turns of her head or an extension of his arm, the way the came together or apart. Here is what one would like to say. The Torvilles and Deans routine was more important in its sublimity than all the shootings and elections time can muster, that life is short and art is long, and that the skating dance, brief and evanescent as it is, represents a perfection in which the entire universe may be encompassed.

Theodore Roethke described such an effect in a poem. "A ripple widening from a single stone, winding around the waters of the world." Nice. May even be true. Yet we have no sure way of making such a judgment. It is just as likely that Beirut is the widening ripple by which everything is framed. What we confront in making such choices is not the events alone but ourselves, and it is ourselves we are not able to place in order. The mind, fickle as a southern belle, swishes rapidly from battles to dances, enthralled equally with every suitor, enthralled with itself.

Tell me a story about my mind, Mister News. Did I overturn a government this week? Did I come to power? Did I win an election? Did I skate flawlessly again? Was I murderous, decorous, triumphant? Beautiful? And if I was all those things, how should I order my priorities so as to know what is truly human?The essential prevailing act. The question is us. What should we lead with? What matters most?

In another poem Roethke suggested that the widening ripple is ourselve. "I lose and find myself in the long water. I am gathered together once more. I embrace the world." We do that every week, cursing and awestruck at all we are.

MacNEIL: Thoughts by Roger Rosenblatt. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We will be back Monday night. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Have a good weekend.