- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,469
- Reaction score
- 35,315
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What you are proposing was in large part the original plan that couldn't garner enough support from blue dogs or Republicans. I agree. This makes more sense than the current bill, but thanks to the obstructionists that fought against any reform we got the watered down version rather than the original concepts.
Yes its in large part similar to the original plan...if you took primarily only the liberal ideas from CC's plan and few of the conservative ones. Which is why it coudln't get much support. Tort reform wasn't in the original to my understanding, far more regulation than what CC was suggesting was in the original, far more penalties were placed on individuals and businesses concerning insurance, across state lines to my understanding wasn't in the original, having the provider being the review board not the government wasn't in the original, the protection for hospitals not providing care to peopple who don't have insurance or can't prove that they can pay for it wasn't there, the government stating clearly it will not subsidize anyones hospital payments if they don't have insurance wasn't there, etc.
If I'm wrong on multiple of those, tell me, I'd be happy to hear it. I will admit I did not read hundreds upon hundreds of pages each time a new one was put out.
So yeah, it was "close to" what was in the original...save for all the things CC put in there to make it bipartisan and attractive to both sides, thus why it failed to get anyone other than liberals on board with it.
The fact you think that's "close" to what the original one was though shows exactly what the current congressional and presidential Democrats view point is on what "bipartisan" is apparently.