Okay, looking at that I have a few issues.
First, it says the 1994 plan requires employers to offer insurance, but doens't require them to pay the premium cost, which then makes me wonder how it works at all. is it simply that they make agreements with insurance companies to directly remove funds from employee's pay checks if they want health insurance but the business doesn't actually contribute any? This looks entirely different than the mandate in Obama's plan.
Second, it says everyone is required to purchase health insurance however gives no indication of how. Under penalty of fine, increased taxes, jail, level of coverage, etc?
The "Makes efforts for a more efficient health care system" is so nebulous that god knows what they include in that to compare all three bills.
The Obama plan penalizes anyone with a "cadillac plan", where as the 1994 one only did it for employee sponsored ones, not individual purhcased one. Additionally the chart failed to state what the price cap was on the 1994 one, leading the comparison greatly lacking.
I see nothing in the bill concerning having the government be the one whose panel oversees the type of treatment you can particularly get nor removing the ability to appeal the decision. I see nothing in the chart suggesting the 1994 bill had the government unfetted access to your bank account. I see nothing about the government subsidizing union and community activist group plans. I see nothing about having to go under the government plan if you lose coverage and there's not a comparable plan available.
In the 1994 bill I do see tort reform and I see things to ease the strain on self-insured small business owners.
To me they look similar, but far from identical, and far from something I could make such a claim of based on a chart by a third party whose word we have to take as gospel that somehow a "yes" under both makes them exactly the same.