I see, so when you said "Then why didn't it receive any support?" you really meant was "It wasn't supported by every Republican in the Senate." And a "serious" attempt is only one that succeeds and becomes law?<quoted text>
I see you left out the most important part:
"The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009,"
In other words, it was all lip service and reactionary to HillaryCare which ushered in the historic Congressional turnover from Democrat to Republican leadership. 21 co-sponsors? You do realize there are 100 Senators, don't you?
What I asked for was a "serious" attempt by Republicans for national healthcare, not a dog and pony show. The Republicans had no intention of taking over 1/6 of our economy.
But I find it interesting what you are saying about the Republicans back in 1993 --- that when they were confronted with a serious Democratic healthcare proposal, they made up a response which was not really serious. So they were deceiving the public, and had no real interest in healthcare legislation? Was that Heritage Foundation plan on which it was based also just part of the scam?
More to the point, when you are confronted with hard evidence that you are wrong on a matter of historical fact do you ever just admit your error and move on? This all started with you denying that the healthcare mandate had Republican origins. I presented you with the Heritage Foundation document, and then you responded that nothing ever came of it. When presented with evidence of a Republican bill incorporating those ideas that had 19 Republican co-sponsors, you blow that off as not "serious" by some standard that only you understand.