So what's changed? Core party principals or simple obstruction for political gain?

 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx

 

In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

 

Title I: Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States.

 

(Sec. 1003) Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.

 

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.

COSPONSORS(20), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:

 

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [uT] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Boren, David L. [OK] - 5/17/1994

 

Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Grassley, Chuck [iA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [uT] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] - 5/17/1994

 

Sen Lugar, Richard G. [iN] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Warner, John [VA] - 11/22/1993

Bad idea then, bad idea now regardless of political party affiliation.

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.

 

Oh my goodness these "socialist" republicans actually proposed taking freedoms away and forcing people to purchase a product from a private industry. We were almost goose stepping in the streets. They must have been RINO's.

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.

 

Oh my goodness these "socialist" republicans actually proposed taking freedoms away and forcing people to purchase a product from a private industry. We were almost goose stepping in the streets. They must have been RINO's.

 

See post #2....

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.

 

Oh my goodness these "socialist" republicans actually proposed taking freedoms away and forcing people to purchase a product from a private industry. We were almost goose stepping in the streets. They must have been RINO's.

And, as this one SHOULD have, it failed. Next question.

And, as this one SHOULD have, it failed. Next question.

 

Right, I get it. Nothing to see here. We can propose and co-sponser almost idenitical legislation but if the other side does they are socialist, freedom stealing, government taking over health care baby killers. I gotcha I just wanted to be sure.:thumb:

Right, I get it. Nothing to see here. We can propose and co-sponser almost idenitical legislation but if the other side does they are socialist, freedom stealing, government taking over health care baby killers. I gotcha I just wanted to be sure.:thumb:

:lol: I don't know what you want from me, I already said it failed as this one should have. Let me spell it out for you, I think that bill is every bit as bad as the one Obama singed. Problem is, this one did get signed, didn't it. So, to answer your question, the House, Congress and President was much smarter than what we have now, and much more American.

Why didn't the Dems sign on and pass it?

Why didn't the Dems sign on and pass it?

Surely it wasn't core party principals or simple obstruction for political gain... :lol: :walk:

Why didn't the Dems sign on and pass it?

 

Surely it wasn't core party principals or simple obstruction for political gain... :lol: :walk:

 

Both of you are avoiding answering and for good reason, it's hard to use the H word. It wasn't passed because a much more aggressive "Universal" plan was on the table by democrats. Now how can a bill signed into law by one Republican presidential candiate as state law and a proposed bill written by and co-sponsored by 19 more Republicans in 1993 that was for all intensive purposes the same bill now be universally opposed by Republicans? Not only opposed but stoking fears of losing freedoms, socialist take overs, baby killer, etc.

I'm not looking for the it's a bad bill then and now....Either something has changed in party principals, values, or they are being big H words for political gain.

And the congress then had the good judgement to let both go unpassed. Unlike this one.

Both of you are avoiding answering and for good reason, it's hard to use the H word. It wasn't passed because a much more aggressive "Universal" plan was on the table by democrats. Now how can a bill signed into law by one Republican presidential candiate as state law and a proposed bill written by and co-sponsored by 19 more Republicans in 1993 that was for all intensive purposes the same bill now be universally opposed by Republicans? Not only opposed but stoking fears of losing freedoms, socialist take overs, baby killer, etc.

I'm not looking for the it's a bad bill then and now....Either something has changed in party principals, values, or they are being big H words for political gain.

 

In 93' I was 15....

 

 

It is hypocritical.

 

How many of those who sponsored this bill are still in office?

Both of you are avoiding answering and for good reason, it's hard to use the H word. It wasn't passed because a much more aggressive "Universal" plan was on the table by democrats. Now how can a bill signed into law by one Republican presidential candiate as state law and a proposed bill written by and co-sponsored by 19 more Republicans in 1993 that was for all intensive purposes the same bill now be universally opposed by Republicans? Not only opposed but stoking fears of losing freedoms, socialist take overs, baby killer, etc.

I'm not looking for the it's a bad bill then and now....Either something has changed in party principals, values, or they are being big H words for political gain.

I already answered, the House, Congress and President were much smarter than what we have now, and much more American. They knew a bad bill when they saw it and it was defeated. What the heck else do you want? What's changed now is we have a president that cares only about passing "something" so he can say he got "something" done and a full hardy bunch of Democrats willing to go along. I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

I already answered, the House, Congress and President were much smarter than what we have now, and much more American. They knew a bad bill when they saw it and it was defeated. What the heck else do you want? What's changed now is we have a president that cares only about passing "something" so he can say he got "something" done and a full hardy bunch of Democrats willing to go along. I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

 

But 2 Humped Camel's question to me appears to be more of "Why did the bill have Republican backing then?" rather than "Why wasn't it passed then but was passed now?"

But 2 Humped Camel's question to me appears to be more of "Why did the bill have Republican backing then?" rather than "Why wasn't it passed then but was passed now?"

Obviously, it had VERY little Republican backing then. Tell me, why then did the Democrats oppose it then but not now? :sssh: