Moorhead, Waxman on Opposite Sides of Aisle and Issue : Legislation: Republican rallies to an alternative that eases burdens on employers. Democrat is a booster of Clinton’s blueprint for universal coverage.

A critic of President Clinton’s proposed health care reform plan, Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) supports an alternative Republican proposal that he says would expand care and reduce costs while placing a lighter burden on employers.

“It’s not a panacea for all our problems, but it’s certainly more reasonable and more affordable than either the Administration’s plan or any of the Democratic plans,” Moorhead said. “It sets up an opportunity for an individual to get health insurance through a group plan, but it doesn’t force the employer to pay for it.”

This gradualist approach will be one of various competing proposals on the table when Congress returns from its winter recess in January. At this point, the plan, sponsored by House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) appears to have relatively little momentum.

Among those who disparage it are Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), a key supporter of Clinton’s hotly debated blueprint to provide universal health care and restrain costs.

“The Republican plan is unacceptable because it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem,” Waxman said. “It accomplishes very little and it doesn’t address the major problems of controlling health costs or assuring every American of coverage.”

The views of Moorhead, and particularly Waxman, matter more than most in the high-stakes battle over health care because of the influential positions they hold. Moorhead is the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, through which much of the reform legislation must pass. Waxman is the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health and environment, the first stop for many health care bills.

*

Interestingly, both veteran San Fernando Valley-area lawmakers have expressed support for more than one alternative. In addition to the Michel bill, Moorhead prefers a politically palatable bipartisan proposal by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) as an alternative to Clinton’s plan.

Cooper’s plan would guarantee employees and small employers the right to buy insurance (with or without employer contribution) through health insurance purchasing cooperatives.

Both of the plans that Moorhead favors are less generous and less complex than Clinton’s and have been touted as requiring less government control and bureaucracy. Moorhead said they would also be far less onerous to hard-pressed small businesses.

Waxman, meanwhile, recently signed on as co-sponsor of a Canadian-style national health insurance plan sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), the most radical proposal of all. It would essentially set up a government-financed system and require hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. Critics say this approach is politically unrealistic.

Waxman has long favored such a system. But he said he did not previously become a co-sponsor of the single-payer bill--which Clinton rejects--because he had promised the White House that he wouldn’t do so until the Administration produced its own legislation.

But there is growing speculation that the President will be pulled toward the more conservative proposals advanced by Cooper and Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.). Thus, Waxman said he decided to co-sponsor the single-payer bill to exert pressure in the opposite direction--”to indicate that I support the goals the single-payer bill is trying to achieve.”

The Michel plan, which was developed by a Republican task force that included Moorhead, would require employers to offer--but not necessarily pay for--policies for their workers and allow employers to join health purchasing cooperatives to get lower rates from insurers.

The plan calls for a standard acute-care benefit package without the prescription drug, dental, mental health and in-home care coverages proposed by Clinton.

The financing would come from shifting funds from other government programs, $5 billion over five years from cuts in various programs and increased premiums for high-income Medicare recipients. Cost controls would be achieved through administrative savings, malpractice liability reform and enhanced competition.

The measure would sharply limit insurance companies’ ability to refuse to provide insurance to an employer or individual because of pre-existing conditions or a job change. The government would subsidize low-income individuals. And families could contribute up to $5,000 a year into a tax-deductible “Medisave” account for health care.

*

Moorhead touted this plan as more incremental than Clinton’s sweeping initiative to transform a system that constitutes 14% of the national economy.

“I don’t see the need to totally change the whole system of providing medical care for the whole country just because we have 15% of our people who are unprotected,” Moorhead said. In addition, he contends: “Most people would have better quality of care under this program than they would under the President’s program because the President’s program is way underfunded.”

The Michel plan, however, has also come under fire for not providing sufficient resources to cover its estimated $20-billion price tag over five years. And it has been criticized for requiring employers merely to offer insurance rather than making them pay for it.

Moorhead acknowledged: “It’s not totally universal, but it goes a long way towards covering the problem.” Clinton has vowed not to compromise on the goal of universal coverage.

Waxman disagrees with Moorhead’s upbeat diagnosis of the Republican plan.

He said it is unclear what kind of subsidies would be made available for poor people and where the money would come from. He said requiring employers to offer workers insurance without paying for it won’t solve anything because “two-thirds of the uninsured in the country are working people and their dependents.” Most tend to be in lower-wage jobs.

Moreover, “the Republican plan doesn’t do anything to hold down health-care costs, which are rising rapidly.” And he said that so-called managed competition--which would help restrain costs under the Clinton plan--would not apply to a totally voluntary system.

Finally, Waxman said that the House GOP proposal would leave the less affluent in health maintenance organizations, where they would get limited services “and couldn’t leave to go elsewhere for their medical care if they were dissatisfied.”

Moorhead countered that Waxman’s criticism underestimates the enormous savings that could be achieved through standardizing medical billing, encouraging greater computerization and reducing other administrative expenses--which account for a third of all current costs--and defensive medicine, which is driven by the specter of huge malpractice awards.

*

He did not dispute Waxman’s contention that those who can afford to pay for better care would receive it. But he sees that as entirely justifiable.

“You make insurance available to all regardless but you don’t tell people if they want to be totally protected, they can’t be,” Moorhead said. “You don’t prohibit people from going out and buying the insurance policy they need to cover their own situation.”

As for lower-income recipients: “For people who can’t afford medical care and can’t afford insurance, is it asking too much for them to use an HMO if that’s the way quality care can be provided for them at a cheaper rate?

“If we’re providing something for them they do not have today, do we have to give them access to the most expensive doctor of the most expensive facility?”

*

Times staff writer Karen Tumulty contributed to this story.