ice President Al Gore, saying he feels energized by his slide from front-runner to underdog, said yesterday that Bill Bradley's health care plan would ''destroy'' Medicaid, would threaten the solvency of Medicare, and would never meet its goal of guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all.
Gore, in his most sustained critique of Bradley's record and proposals to date, called Bradley's health plan a misguided effort to achieve universal coverage with one comprehensive and costly plan.
A witness to the Clinton health care reform effort, which crumbled in part because of its sweeping ambitions, Gore now sees wisdom in a more incremental approach.
''There's a reason there's been no simple, neat, and correct answer to universal health coverage,'' Gore said in a morning session with Globe editors and reporters. ''It takes time. We have to accomplish it on a step-by-step basis.''
Gore also sketched out other key differences between himself and Bradley. He criticized the former New Jersey senator for voting in favor of President Ronald Reagan's budget cuts, for his support for using public funds for private school vouchers, and for voting, at one point, to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70.
He also drew a contrast between his willingness to fight former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's conservative agenda with Bradley's decision to retire at the time of the GOP takeover in Congress.
''Senator Bradley chose that moment to leave the field of battle,'' Gore said.
The vice president's more aggressive articulation of his policy differences with Bradley surfaced as he was reorganizing his campaign and rethinking his strategy in the face of polls showing him slipping behind or into a tie with the senator in some key states, including New Hampshire. Gore said he will eschew personal attacks on Bradley, but will provoke comparisons on substance every chance he gets. On Saturday, Gore and Bradley will square off in back-to-back speeches before the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines.
During his session at the Globe, Gore renewed his hope that he and Bradley could meet in a series of biweekly debates, each centered on a particular issue. The vice president acknowledged, however, that he would not have pushed for more debates had he not seen his advantage as front-runner evaporate.
''I've been quoting Janis Joplin - freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose,'' Gore said. ''Let's just let her rip, and put all the issues on the table and roll up our sleeves and talk about what the options for the future are.''
Anita Dunn, Bradley's communications director, said her candidate plans to debate Gore, but is not prepared to agree to the long series of encounters Gore has proposed.
''We also believe debates are only a part of the campaign, and it's equally important to talk to the American people,'' she said. ''But certainly we're going to debate him.''
Dunn also called it unfortunate that Gore chose to attack Bradley's health plan rather than enter into a serious discussion about providing health insurance for every American.
''I think it's a shame that the vice president is choosing just to tear down his opponent with these negative tactics, instead of presenting his own vision of where America could go and what America could be,'' Dunn said. ''That's what Bill Bradley will continue to talk about in the campaign.''
Even as he outlined how he plans to take the debate to Bradley, Gore was reluctant to analyze why his campaign has faltered. He did say, however, that he looks forward to the day when he stops hearing talk that voters are too ''fatigued'' with the Clinton-Gore administration to embrace the idea of a President Gore.
''I'm counting on `Clinton fatigue' fatigue,'' he said. ''I think I have a fair shot of the country moving into that realm.''
Part of Gore's new strategy is to go after Bradley directly, forgoing attacks through surrogates or more subtle references to their differences. To that end, the vice president pointed to what he called the two defining moments for Democrats in the last 20 years, moments that help define the two Democratic candidates as well.
During the 1980s, Gore said, Bradley voted for President Reagan's deep cuts in programs that ''lift those who have been left behind.'' Gore said he voted against ''Reaganomics.''
Then, in 1995, when Gingrich and his Republican allies took over the Congress, Gore said he fought their Contract with America, while Bradley retired from the Senate and pondered a run for president as an independent.
But Gore's attack on Bradley's health care plan was by far his harshest.
Gore has proposed providing health insurance for all children as well as their parents, preserving the solvency of Medicare, the senior citizens' health insurance program, and creating a new prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Gore would also leave in place the health insurance program for the poor and disabled, known as Medicaid, and he would help small businesses get the same rates for health insurance that big businesses currently receive. All that would cost $110 billion over 10 years, he says.
Bradley, on the other hand, recently proposed spending $650 billion over 10 years to require parents to obtain health coverage for their children. All children in families earning less than $50,000 a year would be fully or partially subsidized. Families could deduct from their taxable income their health premium costs, and adults would be subsidized on a sliding scale up to $33,000.
Gore said the size of Bradley's plan would make it impossible to keep Medicare afloat with money from the budget surplus. Though Gore accused Bradley of killing Medicaid, the former New Jersey senator would actually replace the program. Gore said he believes that the Bradley substitute would cut back on the benefits.
''If you're going to eliminate Medicaid, take away the chance to fix Medicare, destroy the federal employees health plan, and still not reach universal coverage, then I'm not for that,'' Gore said.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group, said it is too early to tell whether Gore's dire predictions would prove true.
''Every one of the things the vice president said are very plausible,'' Pollack said. ''But I can't say it's totally clear those things would happen.''
Still, Pollack said Gore is accurate when he notes that Medicare could be put in jeopardy under Bradley's proposal. The Clinton administration is setting aside 15 percent of the federal surplus to shore up the Medicare fund. Bradley, on the other hand, does not specifically earmark surplus dollars for Medicare, he said.
Dunn, however, said Medicare is financially sound through 2018 and another Bradley official said the former senator would address the particular needs of Medicare later in the campaign.
As he discussed his health care proposal, Gore also spoke to the special needs of teaching hospitals, including major institutions in Boston.
Departing from the Clinton administration's current position, Gore said the teaching hospitals need funds right away. The Clinton administration has insisted that Congress save the Medicare program and help the teaching hospitals at the same time. Gore, however, says the teaching hospitals have to be helped immediately, particularly if Congress does not address Medicare this year.
''The problem can't be solved without more money,'' Gore said.
