I found it.

So I found the comparison chart I had seen a week or two on Health care reform. It shows just how similar the current – and just passed — Health Care reform package is to the one proposed by the Republicans in 1993 as a counter to the Clinton Health care Proposal. What was an acceptable Republican Proposal in 1993 turns out to have been nothing more than naked socialism!

(OR the Republicans were on a mission to had Obama a defeat — which is sound  strategy is you win — and nothing Obama could have done would have won him Republican votes.)

Here’s the link to the original article.

The chart follows after the break.

Major Provisions Senate Bill 2009 Sen. Chafee (R) Bill 1993 Rep. Boehner (R) Bill 2009
Require Individuals To Purchase Health Insurance
(Includes Religious and/or Hardship Exemption)
Yes Yes No (individuals without
coverage would be taxed)
Requires Employers To Offer Health Insurance To Employees Yes (above 50 employees, must help pay for insurance costs to workers receiving tax credits
for insurance)
Yes (but no requirement to contribute to premium cost) No
Standard Benefits Package Yes Yes No
Bans Denying Medical Coverage For Pre-existing Conditions Yes Yes No (establishes high risk pools)
Establish State-based Exchanges/Purchasing Groups Yes Yes No
Offers Subsidies For Low-Income People To Buy Insurance Yes Yes No
Long Term Care Insurance Yes (sets up a voluntary insurance plan) Yes (sets standards for insurance) No
Makes Efforts To Create More Efficient Health Care System Yes Yes Yes
Medicaid Expansion Yes No No
Reduces Growth In Medicare Spending Yes Yes No
Medical Malpractice Reform No Yes Yes
Controls High Cost Health Plans Yes (taxes on plans over $8,500 for single coverage to $23,000 for family plan) Yes (caps tax exemption for employer-sponsored plans) No
Prohibits Insurance Company From Cancelling Coverage Yes Yes Yes
Prohibits Insurers From Setting Lifetime Spending Caps Yes No Yes
Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed No Yes No
Extends Coverage To Dependents Yes (up to age 26) No Yes (up to age 25)
Cost $871 billion over 10 years No CBO estimate $8 billion over 10 years
Impact On Deficit Reduces by $132 billion over 10 years No CBO estimate Reduces by $68 billion over 10 years
Percentage Of Americans Covered 94% by 2019 92-94% by 2005 82% by 2019
Share

4 thoughts on “I found it.”

  1. Several questions leap out at me from this post, which I don’t have the time to get to the bottom of.

    You say, “It shows just how similar the current – and just passed — Health Care reform package is to the one proposed by the Republicans in 1993 as a counter to the Clinton Health care Proposal. What was an acceptable Republican Proposal in 1993 turns out to have been nothing more than naked socialism!”

    First off, this 1993 bill used for comparison. Was it really ‘THE Republican alternative’? Or just a lessor alternative, put up by the notorious RINO Chafee in partnership with one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, John Kerry?

    The article you link to links to another which claims, “In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: …”, Note the language, “… one of the…”. So what were the other Republican proposals?

    Even if this Chafee bill was the centerpiece of Republican thinking on health policy during 1993 (which I strongly doubt), is it really that similar to Obamacare? The devil is always in the details. And right off the bat the comparison chart you provided shows some differences, the question is how important are those differences?

    More importantly can anyone say for certain what is really in the Obamacare law? How can you compare the Chafee bill to Obamacare when we don’t know all of the land mines that are hidden within Obamacare’s 1,200+ pages of text? I seriously doubt the Chafee bill was of similar length!

    Final note, Kaiser Health News main source on Republican health care policy seems to be ex-Senator Durenberger. Interesting fellow, and hardly impartial…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Durenberger

    1. The Chafee proposal had 19 Republican co-sponsors, that’s plenty evidence this was the not ideas or support of just one Republican.

      Yes Chafee was a liberal Republican, I did not say that the proposal was a conservative one, but that it was a Republican one. Those are not the same thing.

      The general sweep and tone of the proposals are similar and yes the devil is in the details. But Republican opposition to HCR has not been built on details. It’s been calling it socialism, fascism, communistic, and tyrannical. HCR has been none of these things.
      The length of the bills is not the point. I doubt that you could tell me the length of any other piece of controversial legislation without having to look it up.

      Your final point is an ad hominem, you attack the man (a source) without addressing the argument. Fine you don’t trust the source, show me where it is wrong in this argument.

      1. Bob, you are putting forth the notion that Republican opposition to Obamacare is illegitimate. In support of this accusation you try to claim the Republicans are hypocrites because of the 1993 Chafee bill.

        I don’t find either accusation credible.

        First reactions to Obamacare are beginning to pour in. The emperor wears no clothes, and the Democrats continue to play, hear no evil – see no evil – speak no evil.

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575146002445136066.html

        1. No, I have never put forth that opposition to the current HCR law was illegitimate, not the Republican opposition or anyone’s. That is a straw man.
          I have said that the republican made a strategic decision to oppose HCR to hand Obama a big loss and that more than and philosophical principle has guided and explains their actions. (I never said that the strategy was illegitimate, in fact I’m fairly sure I called it a valid strategy.)
          As evidence that this was indeed their strategy I showed the 1993 Republican proposal for HCR which had 19 Republican co-sponsors and that it was similar to the current proposal which was unable to get a single Republican vote.
          I have mocked and will continue to mock those who use hyperbole in describing this as ‘socialism.’ It had made the healthcare industry more heavily regulated but it is not socialism. Republicans have tossed that charge around the way the liberal tossed around racist at GWb and the Republicans. In both case it was hyperbole and stupid devaluing the terms.

Comments are closed.