"Our very preliminary studies show [Clinton]'s program doesn't do a lot one way or the other" to the economy, says David Wyss, economist at consultants DRI/McGraw-Hill in Lexington, Mass. "You gain a few jobs here, lose some there." One of the major reasons effects would be muted: Employers would have at least two years to get ready. That means there wouldn't be any sudden shock to the economy.

For example, consider the effect on small businesses, which have been the plan's harshest critics. Among companies that have fewer than 100 employees, 38% do not offer employees health insurance. Under the Clinton plan, those companies would have to pay an amount equal to as much as 7.9% of their total payroll to cover most of the cost of their employees' health insurance. Because that would raise the cost of adding workers, "that has to be a negative for job creation, at least in the short term," Oxford Economics' [Lea Tyler] says.

"We could end up with a more competitive economy in part because we'd have a healthier, more productive workforce" says [Thomas Massaro], the pediatrician and economist. Imagine, he says, workers who didn't have to worry about whether their medical bills would be paid or whether they would lose insurance if they got fired or changed jobs. And, he says, if preventive care were extended to children in familes that are now uninsured, "that healthier child population will lead to healthier workforces in the future."