WASHINGTON -- Vice President Al Gore, dismissing Bill Bradley's health care proposals in their latest debate as a "little $150 a month voucher," notably understated how much federal support families would get under the plan.

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE Here are the particulars of tonight's Democratic presidential candidates debate. PARTICIPANTS: Vice President Al Gore, former Sen. Bill Bradley TIME: 7 p.m. PLACE: Johnson Theatren Paul Creative Arts Center, the University of New Hampshire MODERATOR: Peter Jennings, ABC News SPONSORS: New England Cable News, Manchester Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Television. MORE COVERAGE Bradley, Gore turn up heat in debate To many voters, personalities clear but policies aren't Press freed of campaign staff Bradley plays Clinton card against vice president Truth Squad: A mangled health plan in Democratic debate Excerpts of the debate UMass Boston to host fall presidential debate

For his part, Bradley fumbled the details of the 1996 welfare reforms he voted against as a senator from New Jersey.

The Democratic presidential rivals did not go as far off course in the University of New Hampshire debate Wednesday night as they did in earlier matchups. But here and there, truth was a casualty and complex ideas were boiled down into barely recognizable form.

As usual, the main point of contention was Bradley's signature health care plan and especially his proposal to replace Medicaid with subsidies to enable people to buy health insurance.

Gore left viewers with the impression that the subsidy would be capped at a measly $150 a month, while Bradley says the figures in play are weighted averages, not caps.

But beyond that, $150 a month is Bradley's figure for individuals -- the average subsidy for a family of four would be more than $400 a month.

Gore's dismissal of the plan as minimal also was difficult to square with another criticism he has made -- that it is so expensive it could drive the country into a recession.

Gore tried to put Bradley on the defensive for opposing the welfare reforms that are generally considered a success and, in the course of fighting back, the former senator muddled legislative history.

Bradley suggested the welfare restrictions he voted against were harsher than those that became law, when in fact there was little substantive difference.

"I said at the time that you'd spend the next four years correcting that bill," Bradley said. "But remember this bill came in October of 1996. October of 1996 -- who knew if Bill Clinton was going to win? Maybe it would have been Bob Dole. If it had been Bob Dole, there would have been a long time before there were any changes made in that welfare reform bill."

In fact, the welfare reforms became law in August 1996. Moreover, President Clinton's defeat of Republican Dole in the 1996 election was widely expected by October, if not earlier.

"It was a strange explanation," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, who analyzes campaign debates and ads for their veracity. "There was not a point in which Clinton was not leading Dole in the polls."

Gore took credit in the debate for helping to pass what he called the most significant gun-control legislation in a generation, with his tie-breaking vote in the Senate on a bill to require instant background checks at gun shows. He neglected to mention the bill did not become law.

Gore's claim that Republicans proposed slashing Medicare when they took over Congress marked the return of what Jamieson called "that standard old deception" from the 1996 campaign.

Republicans did not propose a net cut, but rather a slowing in the rate of growth, she noted. Democrats at one point also proposed cutting the rate of growth of Medicare, but more modestly.

Jamieson also was baffled by Bradley's comment, when asked about taking campaign money from the pharmaceutical industry as a senator, that he never did anything against the interests of his constituents or his country.

Considering that pharmaceutical companies were major constituents of his in New Jersey, that claim was essentially meaningless, she said.