Two things about this: first of all, this bill was reactionary to HillaryCare which nobody wanted thus turning over the leadership of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. Secondly, the bill was never voted on.<quoted text>
One of the few nice things about getting old is that you can personally remember how ideas actually evolved, rather than relying on the opinions of folks like you.
"Mitt Romney, as we know, has been catching a lot of flak from conservatives for Romneycare, because Romneys signature legislative achievement served as the model for Obamacare. But as Romney said in a debate in Las Vegas last October,we got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation."
"In 1991, Mark Pauly and others developed a proposal for George H.W. Bush that also included an individual mandate."
"In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.
Newt Gingrich, who was House Minority Leader in 1993, was also in favor of an individual mandate in those days. Gingrich continued to support a federal individual mandate as recently as May of last year.
It would seem that 1990s conservatives werent concerned with the constitutional implications of allowing Congress to force people to buy a private product.I dont remember that being raised at all, Mark Pauly told Ezra Klein last year.The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax So Ive been surprised by that argument."
The Republicans today are offering alternatives to Commie Care. Again, reactionary and not assertive. It's not something they want to deal with, but they have to now.
I didn't hear of repeated threats by doctors and medical personnel of retiring or not treating people under RomneyCare. I read countless articles of doctors saying they will take that route under Commie Care. I didn't read anything about medical insurance skyrocketing for many people and others in the millions losing healthcare insurance altogether after RomneyCare. I see it happening with Commie Care.
The results are not in just yet as this painful plan unfolds slowly. But in the federal registry, it was stated that they expect 80 million people to lose the coverage they had before CommieCare.