Hmm.
I read your diary, the articles you quoted, re-watched the Harry and Louise commercial, compared it with the Clinton's plan from 1993, and I'm sad to say I don't see any of the similarities or downsides you are alluding to.
I'm afraid someone's going to have to explain it to me in more detail.
Here is Obama's spin on it:
"What I have said is that the way she approached it back in `93, I think, was wrong in part because she had the view that what's required is simply to fight. And Senator Clinton ended up fighting not just the insurance companies and the drug companies, but also members of her own party. And as a consequence, there were a number of people, like Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, who were not included in the negotiations. And we had the potential of bringing people together to actually get something done."
Except that in Obama's world "getting something done" seems to be sacrificing the parts of the Clinton plan that would bring the costs down for people. He doesn't seem to care that without a mandate, the cost would be high, comparable to today's 'high risk pools" because adverse selection would make it that way. And that would kill the entire thing, like it did in 1993, which suits the people who were doing the 'alternative plan' like Cooper, JUST FINE.
That was their goal.
Again, you're making generalizations and not providing any evidence. I'd say what killed the plan in '93 was the Clinton's unwillingness to deal with anything contrary to their vision, lack of transparency on the issue, etc. And I don't see how you can make "The Clintons wouldn't bring anyone else to the table to try and get things done" into "ZOMG!!! JIM COOPER!!"
But a side-by-side comparison of the two healthcare plans with the pros and cons would be helpful. But it seems to me you're unwilling to provide this sort of information, instead delving into rhetoric to support your point.
