[THIS IS THE PERIODIC BRIEFING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO ITS OFFICIALS AND OTHER SUPPORTERS OF ITS HEALTH-REFORM PROGRAM. IT PROVIDES AN INSIDE LOOK AT HOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROMOTING ITS PLAN. THIS ITEM WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME SUBJECT LINE (WITH DIFFERENT DATES) SO YOU CAN EASILY SKIP IT IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO READ IT. -- Steve Freedkin , LIST.HEALTHPLAN Administrator] The White House Health Care Reform Today March 15, 1994 Guaranteed Coverage at Work: The President's bottom line is guaranteed private health insurance for every American. There are only three ways to achieve this: government insurance, guaranteed coverage at work, or an individual/family mandate. The President chose to build upon the current system and ask all businesses to do what the most successful American companies do today -- provide health coverage for their employees. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION BUILDS ON CURRENT SYSTEM: The best way to achieve guaranteed coverage is to build on what we know works. Right now, 9 out of 10 people who have private insurance get it through employers. Excluding the very smallest companies -- those with less than 5 employees -- the vast majority of businesses provide insurance. Even among the smallest companies, more than half provide coverage and many of the rest say they would if they could afford it. And the most competitive American businesses -- nearly every Fortune 500 company -- provide medical coverage to their employees. ELIMINATING COST-SHIFTING SAVES FIRMS THAT NOW PROVIDE: When all employers take responsibility, costs will be substantially reduced for businesses that currently provide insurance. The CBO confirmed that: "Universal coverage would mean that those firms that now offer insurance would not longer need to pay indirectly through higher doctor and hospital bills for the care given to uninsured workers and their families. On the other hand, firms that do not now provide insurance could not longer ride free." Right now, eight out of ten people who do not have health insurance are in working families -- workers or dependents of workers. In 1991, employers who took responsibility for their employees' insurance paid an additional $10.8 billion in premiums to cover uncompensated hospital care -- nearly half of which was provided to workers, or dependents of workers, in firms that didn't provide coverage. JOBS -- EXPERTS SAY NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT OR NET CREATION: The non-partisan CBO analysis states clearly that the President's approach will have a negligible net effect on employment. "The Clinton plan, [CBO] concluded, would not . . . result in the loss of jobs, as many critics have charged. HAWAII EXPERIENCE PROVES MANDATES DON'T COST JOBS: Hawaii's real world experience suggests that required employer contributions do not necessarily have adverse employment effects. Since Hawaii began asking all employers to provide insurance for their employees in 1974: the unemployment rate has dropped to one of the lowest in the nation; small business creation rates have remained high; and the rate of business failures has been less than half the national rate. In addition, only 2% of Hawaii's "rainy day" fund, which set up to assist the small businesses provide insurance, has ever been used. CONSERVATIVE APPROACH PROPOSED BY NIXON 20 YEARS AGO: In 1971, President Nixon first proposed extending the employer-based health insurance system to all employees. Nixon's proposal was one of shared responsibility between employers and employees -- with the employer paying 75% of the premium and the employee paying 25% -- which is strikingly close to President Clinton's approach.