President Nixon's proposed three billion dollar national health insurance plan, unveiled last week, has been drawing sharp criticism from local health care experts.

Under the plan, employers would provide minimum insurance for full-time employees, the government would subsidize family health insurance in certain cases, Health Maintenance Organization clinics would provide health services to individuals and families for a fixed yearly fee, and the current Medicare program would be reformed.

Most of the criticism centers around the feeling that the plan excludes far too many people from coverage.

Dr. Rashi Fein, professor of the Economics of Medicine, testified Tuesday before a subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Welfare Committee, and spoke of his reactions to the plan yesterday.

"It is a grossly deficient plan. It is not universal. It does not provide coverage for all Americans, and leaves out those who most need the care," he said.

"The major provision, major in terms of the people it covers, is the employer employee program, and that leaves much to be desired in terms of comprehensiveness," Fein said.

The Nixon national health insurance plan is now one of several Congress is expected to consider soon. Fein reacted most favorably to the Kennedy-AFL-CIO proposal, a far more comprehensive plan.

"That (the Kennedy-AFL-CIO) proposal is universal and reasonable economically, It is also feasible economically, while the other program essentially says America can have health care if it wants to buy it. While the Kennedy Proposal is not progressive, it is not regressive," he said.

Alvin F. Poussaint, associate dean of the Medical School for Student Affairs and director of the school's minority recruitment program, also was skeptical about the Nixon plan.

"The thing that distresses me most about it, that there is not enough coverage for the people who need it the most-those at the bottom of the scale, We need a lot more to solve current problems," he said.

Dr. Sydney S. Lee, Associate Dean at the Medical School has reservations about the sincerity of the plan.

"It's just a little bit for everybody. It's a political document, which is what it's intended to be, of course. It is useful in that it provides an administration point of view, and there are other plans, such as the Kennedy-AFL-CIO program, which provide a contrast. What will emerge from the congressional debates will be a compromise of some sort," he said.