SKEPTICISM MIGHT BE THE HEALTHY CHOICE FOR CLINTON PLAN

Take a deep breath, America. President Clinton is set to unveil his plan for reform the nation's health care system. In the modern tradition of policy disclosure, the plan, in parts, is already in the public eye. The president wants to do a lot of admirable things with his plan. If he can do these things without burying U.S. taxpayers in new obligations, sinking the economy or destroying small business, he deserves a lot of credit. In the meantime, the healthy choice of Americans should be skepticism.

Here are inarguable facts related to this issue:

-- America has medical care and technology that is the envy of the world.

-- When you increase government mandates on small businesses, a portion of small businesses will inevitably close.

-- Taxpayers have an increasingly heavy load, with new burdens being placed on them regularly at the federal, state and local levels. (The Tax Foundation reports that of each eight-hour workday, an hour and 22 minutes is spent paying taxes that go toward health and medical care.)

-- The economy will be dramatically impacted by the way this plan shakes out. (Even as it was drafted, the economy languished because of the potential havoc it could wreak on individuals and businesses.)

In a sense, President Clinton's Health Security Act is a simple plan aimed at basic desires of Americans. It strives for universal coverage, comprehensive benefits, affordable insurance and less paperwork. Like motherhood and apple pie, these are hard things to be against. We can't help but think implementation of these broad ideas will be a bit trickier than the sales pitch indicates. Employers pick up most of the tab under this plan, with employees taking some of the load. Taxpayers subsidize much of the rest (a double-whammy for many Americans); early calculations show that the federal government will have to come up with an extra $350 billion through the coming seven years.

It is true that President Clinton foresees some of the problems ingrained in his plan. As a cap, no company would have to pay more than 7.9 percent of its payroll for health coverage. Subsidies would be in place for small businesses that would allow some firms to pay as little as 3.5 percent of payroll. Still, the companies most eligible for these subsidies are those that have 50 or fewer employees and low payrolls. Accept this as a premise in most cases: Most start-up businesses operate on a shoestring budget and would pay their employees more if they could. If employers are required to pay more to health-care reform mandates, it follows that less money would be available for employee pay increases or, worse, that fewer employees could be handled by the more put-upon company budget.

In the current system of health care (which needs some degree of reform, without question), Americans benefit from medical treatment that is, at times, nothing short of miraculous. Doctors offer outreach around the world, revealing the discoveries of medicine as unearthed in the United States. However the reform package develops, we would hate to see this cutting-edge mentality reduced to lowest common denominator medicine. Something must be built into the plan that provides incentive for stretching the current knowledge base.

President Clinton, who will speak to Congress and a national television audience Wednesday night on this subject, wants his health-care reform to be as sweeping as some of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. We're not enamored with the direction of that thinking; the New Deal proved a fountain for some of the social programs that hold back many Americans today. The nation should proceed cautiously when it comes to fostering such a legacy.