Johnathan Guber Also Lying About RomneyCare

Last week, a video of Jonathan Gruber was uncovered showing him talking about "ripping off" the Federal government to the tune of $400 million a year to finance RomneyCare. Watch the clip below:

Whenever someone comes out with a video clip that purports to show something scandalous, its better to see the entire clip. Watch Gruber's entire lecture below: 

Many conservatives see the short clip and think this is evidence that RomneyCare is just as slimy as ObamaCare. However, John Gibson of Fox News says that the short clip doesn't reveal the full story:

"...Gruber has also solved one mystery and and at the same moment created another. The first mystery: why exactly Obamacare is NOT a copy of Romneycare. Second mystery: why couldn’t Romney explain this simple difference when Obama claimed in the debate that his plan was just a national version of Romney’s.

Here’s what Gruber revealed: Romneycare was based on the fact the state of Massachusetts, courtesy the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, had a huge slush fund of federal money for the healthcare of the uninsured in that state, which Romney saw as an opportunity to use more efficiently funding universal coverage in Massachusetts. No other state had that advantage, no other state had a federal pot of money which in Massachusetts was $400,000,000, almost half a billion dollars.

Obamacare didn’t have that slush fund, either. Multiplied by the scale of 49 other states, Obamacare had to come up with trillions of dollars and that’s where the endless taxes on your health care comes in. That’s why your premiums and deductibles are so high. That’s why you are paying an onerous tax on a health plan the Obamacare designers, including especially Jonathan Gruber, consider too good, the so called Cadillac plans. That’s why Obamacare taxes your insurance company, which then passes on the cost to you.

All this is revealed in a half hour long interview Gruber did with PBS producer Micheal Kirk in June, 2012.

Gruber glosses over this fact of the Massachusetts slush fund…mostly."

The truth is that Governor Mitt Romney did not rip the Federal Government off. The $400 million was money that was already provided to the state long before Mitt Romney entered into office. Not once did the Federal Government ever object to what Mitt Romney did because there was no problem here. The federal government was aware of it and apparently gave its blessing to do this. In fact, the Washington Post demolishes Gruber's claim that the Federal government was ripped off and verifies that the government gave its blessing to the money to fund RomneyCare:

"He's [Gruber] talking about the deal from the federal government that helped Massachusetts set up its 2006 coverage expansion, which later became the basis for the Affordable Care Act. It's hardly a secret. And Bush re-authorized the deal in 2008.

The short story is basically this: Massachusetts, since the late 1990s, had been receiving special Medicaid funds through a waiver to fund care for populations the program traditionally didn't cover. In 2005, President George W. Bush wanted to end that funding, worth about $350 million. But Kennedy, working with Romney, put together a deal to keep the funds and then some by expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to help low-income people purchase private insurance. The Bush administration signed off on that deal, giving us Romneycare, which then gave us Obamacare.That state Medicaid waiver has been renegotiated three times since then, including earlier this month."

 In other words, the late Senator Ted Kennedy was able to convince the Federal government to  provide this money for the purposes of assisting the uninsured in Massachusetts long before Mitt Romney became Governor. What Mitt did was that he lawfully diverted that money into funding RomneyCare to assist those who did not have insurance. The money was already there. Mitt Romney just found a more cost effective and efficient way to use that money for the same purpose. If the $400 million was being provided to the state to help uninsured people, why not use that money in a much more efficient way to help those without insurance?

Mitt Romney explained the entire process of how he developed his health care plan for the state of Massachusetts in his book, "No Apology: Believe in America." This is where John Gibson (and the rest of the media) gets it wrong. Mitt Romney did explain this difference. But people didn't want to listen or they weren't paying attention. Especially many conservatives. Many of them bought the lie that RomneyCare is the same as ObamaCare. This lie was enough to turn them off to Romney. They haven't done the research or the fact checking to see that RomneyCare is not even remotely the same as ObamaCare. And these conservatives don't want to take the time to learn the facts.

In fact, the funding scheme for RomneyCare is one of the central reasons why Mitt Romney said his health care plan for Massachusetts could not work at the national level. Johnathan Gruber makes this point for Mitt Romney without realizing it:

"The problem is there is no way to say that," Gruber said. "Because they're the same f[******] bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying. The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."

There you have it folks. The reason why RomneyCare cannot be done at the federal level is because of the unique funding scheme for Mitt's health care plan. In fact, Massachusetts was the only state in the nation to receive the special Medicaid funds for the purposes of helping uninsured citizens. Which is why RomneyCare could not be replicated in other states or at the federal level. It was a unique case. Had Massachusetts not been receiving this money since the 1990s, Mitt Romney would not have created RomneyCare. The funding from the federal government makes RomneyCare possible and unique.

The fact that RomneyCare was paid for by funds that were already being provided by the federal government is not a trivial difference. It is a major one. In fact, it is a crucial difference. Johnathan Gruber knows that. And he should have known that's why RomneyCare cannot be done at the federal level unless additional taxes are involved. Instead, the Obama Administration and Johnathan Gruber had to continuously lie and deny that ObamaCare was a tax. Implementing taxes are necessary to make ObamaCare a reality.  Had Obama been honest about this to the American people, ObamaCare would have died immediately.

That is why Obama and Gruber continually lie that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same. They are not the same on so many levels and for so many reasons. But the major and significant difference between ObamaCare and RomneyCare is the funding scheme.

Jonathan Gruber arrogantly lied by omitting the fact the $400 million was money that the Federal Government had already given to Massachusetts. RomneyCare didn't rip off the federal government.

ObamaCare program did rip off the American people. People are now paying more in health care costs and in taxes. And Obama and Gruber lied to you about the true funding and costs of the program.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and The American Flag of Independence

Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied s request for an en banc hearing in the controversial case where school administrators at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif. told four students in to go home for wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo back in May of 2010. At each stage of the case, various courts have sided with the school in refusing to allow students to wear shirts with an American Flag on a day when Mexico celebrates its independence from Spain. The case will probably go to the United States Supreme Court.

Interestingly enough, Miley Cyrus might be going to jail for when she had one of her dancers whip her prosthetic butt with a Mexican flag during her concert in Mexico. Amazingly, her concert was on Mexican Independence Day. The penalty for disrespecting the Mexican flag isn't that harsh:

"Apparently Mexican officials are super sensitive about disrespecting national symbols so the congress of the state of Nuevo Leon wants her prosecuted. The crime of desecration carries a $1,200 fine and a 36 hour jail sentence."

If Miley Cyrus had done a concert in the US with someone whipping her butt with an American flag, people would be praising her as her act as being artistic and brave. In fact, people have a constitutional right to desecrate the American flag. The United States Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning as a protest constituted free speech that was protected by the Constitution. But in Mexico, it appears that there is no such right to desecrate the Mexican flag. 

It is strange that Americans have a right to burn our own flag but we cannot proudly display the United States flag in many places. Americans have to go to court to establish their right to display their U.S. flag. American citizens shouldn't have to fight for this basic right. To me, it seems as though the judicial and educational system is sending a message to the American people that it is good to disrespect our flat but bad to be proud of it. In other words, we are encouraged to scorn the US flag and to not be proud of it. I find that to be a troubling message that our government is telling its own people. It is no wonder that there growing number of Americans who do not respect our flag and view it in a negative way.

Most nations have some kind of law against desecrating the national flag. I support Mexico in opening a criminal investigation on Miley Cyrus. (I also support people desecrating the flag of any known terrorist organization such as ISIS.) Whether she had a right or artistic license to do what she did is up for debate. However, Mexico has every right to expect people, especially non-Mexican citizens, to respect their flag in their country. If only Mexicans living in the United Sates would respect the American flag.

The judicial system erred in holding the four students should not have been removed from school for wearing the US flag. I have no problem with people from other countries displaying their flag here in the America. They have a constitutional right as a matter of free speech to do that. But when a non-citizen is guest in another country, or is living in that country or trying to obtain citizenship in that country, the national flag trumps the flag of their homeland and that national flag deserves respect. Thus, Mexico has every right to be offended by her actions of disrespecting their flag and to hold her accountable by their laws.

If only the judicial system would understand that the national flag of the United States trumps the flag of Mexico. I understand they want to celebrate Mexican Independence Day in America and that have every right to do so. However, they don't have a right to be offended when American students want to wear the American flag on Mexican Independence Day. American citizens should not have the right to wear their own flag be curtailed because that speech might cause non U.S. citizens to react violently to it. 

Mexico has every right to expect Americans to be respectful to their flag. The United States have every right to expect Mexicans to respect our flag, even when Americans are displaying it on Mexican Independence Day. After all, it was the American Revolution that the inspiration to other nations in the Americas, including Mexico, to seek independence from European rule. In fact, the American revolution prompted many Latin American countries to borrow concepts from the U.S. Constitution once they obtained independence. Thus, Mexicans should not be upset with Americans wearing the US flag on Mexican Independence Day. Instead, they should be happy with it since America inspired their quest for independence. 

Americans and Mexicans should not forget that we have a common history of successfully rebelling against European rule. We should have mutual respect for each other's flag of independence. After all, the Mexican and United States are both American flags of independence.

10 Reasons Why the Washington Redskins Should Keep Their Name

The national debate over whether or not the name and logo of the Washington Redskins needs to be abandoned has been going on for a few years. However, there really shouldn't be a debate on this issue and the team should not cave to pressure on this issue. 

Here are the following reasons why the team should keep their name and logo: 

1. Most people don't that it was an Indian that designed the Redskins logo and the Indian leaders that approved it in 1971. One of those Indian Leaders was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Wetzell's son, Don, explained that, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that (“Redskins”) logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”

2.  Before they were the Washington Redskins, they were the Boston Redskins, and the Boston Braves before that. The team name "Redskins" has been around for a long time and no one really objected to it. Yet, the name didn't become "offensive" until recently within the last 5 or 10 years.

3. There's a poll that was taken back in 2004 that showed only 9% of Natives Americans were offended by the Redskins name. Furthermore, the same poll also found "13% of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9% of those with some college and 6% of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14% found the term disparaging, compared with 6% of conservatives."

4.  The US Patent and Trademark recently canceled the team's trademark. Yet, the same thing happened to the Redskins back in 1999. A panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team's trademarks in 1999 on the grounds that the name disparages American Indians in violation of federal trademark law. Yet, in 2004, a federal judge ruled the team can keep its name, finding insufficient evidence to conclude it is an insult to American Indians. I suspect that those who are making a second attempt to have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancel the team name will fail even though they will try hard. They will shop around to find a judge who will be sympathetic to their cause. However, the 2004 decision is Res Judicata and will help the Washington Redskins alot.

5. The government is involving itself on an issue it has no authority or right insert itself into. For American's who are concerned over government overreach, this is just another example of abuse of government power. Clearly, our government is trying to pressure the team into dropping the name and mascot of the team.  It is as if the government is saying, "Say, that's a nice football team you have here, I'd hate to see something happen to it." The US government is clearly using its muscle to get the outcome it wants on a private issue. That is very disconcerting.

6. 71% of Americans think the name is not offensive and that the team should keep their name. Those who push to have the team abandon the name are clearly in the minority.

7. There are plenty of other sports teams with Indian names. There's the KC Chiefs (Football), Cleveland Indians (Baseball), Chicago Blackhawks (Hockey) and the Atlanta Hawks (NBA). There are colleges with team names such as the University of Utah Utes, The Florida State University Seminoles and the Golden State Warriors. There has been no outrage over these teams names. The outrage towards the Washington State Redskins is extremely selective in light of the fact that we have other teams with Indian names. 

8. This controversy reveals the stupidity behind liberal identity politics. There are plenty of other teams that could be offensive to other people and yet no outrage there. I think there are Irish Americans people who are offended Notre Dame's Fighting Irish with their mascot that looks like he's looking for a drunken brawl. When did Americans start having a thin skin and being offended over stupid petty issues such as this? For me, Political Correctness is the prime suspect for why Americans have developed a thin skin.

9. I find it funny that most of the people who are "offended" by the Redskins name or who are "empathetic" towards the Native Americans on this issue are people who are NOT Native Americans. We have people who are "offended" by the team name and they have no right to be offended because they are not Native Americans especially when a majority of Native Americans are NOT offended by the name. If we are going to be consistent applying liberal identity politics on this issue, then we should be concerned about non-Native Americans being upset over an an issue for which they are not a member of and how they are trying to stir up the American public and Native Americans to be upset over this team name. We have mostly non-Native Americans trying to tell Native Americans how they should feel. In the liberal/progressive mindset, that should be problematic. Yet it isn't.

10. Of all the issues that face America (and the world), we are obsessed over this stupid controversy. If we are truly going to be concerned for the welfare and feelings of Native Americans, we should not be worried about the name of a football team but we should protesting the fact that many Native Americans live, not of their own design, in poverty on reservations. I suspect that this is a feel good protest for liberals because its easier to address this issue than to address the real issue of what is happening in American's reservations.

In the end, I don't think the Redskins will lose their name or logo or mascot. At least they shouldn't. The name isn't offensive. It wasn't offensive back then and it is not offensive now. Most of the people who are "offended" by the Redskins name or who are "empathetic" towards the Native Americans on this issue are people who are NOT Native Americans. Thus, I caution people to beware of those who misuse the concept of "offensive" for their own agenda when it is clear that there is no offense to be taken here. I suspect that there is some thing larger happening here and that there's something more than just offensiveness over a team name. What that agenda is, I'll leave my readers to speculate on. Ask yourself, why are people making this an issue when a majority of Americans and Native Americans are in united in support of keeping Redskin name and logo?

Edit: A reader pointed that if the Redskins should change their name, so should the state of Oklahoma.  Another reader pointed out that that many of the names given to military helicopters are based on Native American tribes.

ObamaCare: A Continuing Study on The Art of Political Deception

Back in October of 2013, I wrote an article about detailing how ObamaCare is an excellent study in how politicians manipulate, deceive and mislead the American people. In fact, the conception, passage and fragile survival of ObamaCare is probably the best example of political deception in modern American history. Someday, Obama will be known as the "great manipulator" in the same way that Regan will be remembered as the great communicator.

More details continue to emerge about Obama's campaign of deception in making ObamaCare the law of the land. We continue our study in the art of political deception with a video has been circulating around the Internet of Obama's 2008 Presidential run in which he aired a commercial that attacked John McCain's health care plan. 

The reason why this old 2008 campaign ad has suddenly become relevant today is because of how well Obama deceived the public on his health care plan.  Obama ended up adopting policies that were proposed by Hillary Clinton and John McCain even though he was initially against them during his 2008 campaign: 

And Obama, who has argued against adopting an individual mandate, as proposed by Hillary Clinton, ended up embracing exactly that option—and even accepted a variation of an idea from McCain that he criticizes in this ad.

What part of McCain's 2008 healthcare plan did Obama incorporate into ObamaCare? The high risk pools. The high risk pools was one of the criticisms Obama had against McCain's health care plan that was mentioned in Obama's 2008 campaign ad above. Its funny that every argument Obama had about McCainCare was, in hindsight, criticism of ObamaCare. 

This isn't the first time Obama attacked an idea before adopting it into his own plan. Obama went after Mitt Romney on RomneyCare's individual mandate before he ultimately incorporated Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan which included the individual mandate into ObamaCare.  Barack Obama's claims that Mitt Romney's healthcare plan was the basis for ObamaCare is a lie based on his own admission. There are many conservatives (as well as liberals) that argue that Obama got the idea for the individual mandate from Mitt Romney. That claim is not supported by the facts.

The truth is that 99% of ObamaCare is based on Hillary Clinton's health care plan with a few ideas from McCain's 2008 health care plan mixed in.

Obama sold himself to the public as young politician who would never lie his way into office and tell people what they wanted to hear. However, now that we have seen Obama in action as a politician as the President of the United States, he's everything he claimed he wasn't. He's a smooth talking, lying, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win, politician. Obama hasn't transcended politics. He's deep into politics.

The fact that Obama was against certain ideas contained HillaryCare, McCain Care and RomneyCare isn't case of a politician flip flopping. This is a case of outright deception in which he publicly opposed these ideas but secretly supported them. Obama had to scare voters away from supporting Hillary, McCain and Mitt Romney so that he can win the 2008 and 2012 election only later work to convince the American people to accept these proposals as part of ObamaCare that he advocated against as a candidate.

Why Conservatives Cannot Support Rand Paul for 2016

There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of Rand Paul running for President in 2016. Given that Ron Paul has been working as a junior United States Senator for Kentucky since 2011, he doesn't have a whole lot of experience in politics, especially when it comes to executive experience. America elected Obama twice. Obama who was a junior senator from Illinois with very little experience to be President. Do we really want to have another inexperienced politician to be our President? 

Another reason we conservatives and the Republican Party should not allow Rand Paul to get the GOP nomination in 2016 is because he flop flops on his political orientation. Sometimes he claims he is a conservative, sometime he says he's a libertarian. Libertarianism and Conservatism are not the same political philosophy. Which political philosophy does Rand Paul really believe? I don't know and I suspect most people don't know either. More importantly, do we really want to elect someone who flip flops on his political views and philosophy? Ron Paul wasn't a conservative. Neither is Rand Paul. Neither one of them are really conservatives. They are both conservatives in name only (CINO) and Republicans in name only (RINO).

The most important reason why Republicans and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul it is the same reason why people didn't support his father Rand Paul. Ron Paul has a well documented history of associating with known racists, anti-semites, conspiracy theorists and Neo-Nazis. 

For example, people couldn't get behind Ron Paul because had published newsletters that spewed bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism. Ron Paul initially denied writing those newsletters but later admitted that he did but claimed that he only wrote the non-offensive parts. Do you really believe that? I don't.

Another reason why people couldn't support Ron Paul is due to the famous photos of Ron Paul with Don Black, who is a well known White Supremacist and also posed with Don Black's son, Derek Black. If you don't know who Don Black  is, you should. He's the founder of the white supremacist website stormfront.org. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul also accepted donations from a white supremacist group and refused to return the money. Two well known White Supremacists endorsed and supported Ron Paul in the 2012 election.

It appears that Rand Paul is no different than his father, Rand Paul, when it comes to associating with questionable people who are known to be racists, bigots and ant-Semites. For example, the famous hacker group called “Anonymous” broke into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information which showed that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are intimately connected with the American Third Position Party and Stormfront. Here's a sampling of what this Annonymous found:

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account
was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and
other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the
neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P
member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul.
I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much
more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner
of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.
12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul,
newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on
WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because
of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together,
and we are really gathering some quality here.”
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb5_1372379074#gGo5pQjIqIrAwTw8.99

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
 

In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.” (emphasis added by author of this blog)

The Annonymous document dump also revealed that Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party — the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots:

Griffin from the British National Party was also involved in these meetings. "We'll be meeting up with Nick Griffin on Wednesday night... a few of us," Kelso wrote to a member of AP3. "I let Nick know about the CPAC going on Thurs. and Fri. at the Marriott Hotel north of the White House," he said. "Ron Paul will be there Fri. afternoon. Want to meet up with him?"

If Rand Paul's alleged connections with these racists groups isn't bad enough, there's his former association with Jack Hunter, who was an aide and co-author of Paul's 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington. However, the Washington Free Beacon revealed that Hunter used to be a neo-Confederate shock jock called the Southern Avenger, a columnist who compared Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein, and the former chairman of the Charleston, South Carolina, chapter of the League of the South, a secessionist group. The League of the South has been classified as a hate group by the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, Rand Paul has tried to distance himself from Jack Hunter by parting ways with him. Rand Paul has also distanced himself by stating that Hunter's earlier writings "stupid" and said he was not aware of them when he hired him. (Right....) Despite Rand Paul trying to distance himself from Jack Hunter, both men were spoke at an event that was organized by his father Ron Paul. Not surprising, Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

The Republican party as well as conservatives should steer clear of Ron and Rand Paul. The more people learn about these two men, the more we find them in a tangled alliance with those who promote bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism that has been well documented. These men have a long history of associations, communications and support from the dark side of society. Fortunately, Ron Paul has retired from politics.  But Rand Paul hasn't. 

If Rand Paul were to win the Republican nomination, he would be easily slaughtered by a Democratic candidate. Imagine Rand Paul going up against a seasoned and political candidate like Hillary Clinton. The Republican party would suffer a massive defeat at the local, state and national level. The Republican Party would suffer a PR nightmare for having allowed Rand Paul who has strong connections with bigoted people. 

I know 2016 is a long way off. However, time will fly by and before we know it, 2016 will be here. It is crucial that the Republican party and conservatives prevent Ron Paul from successfully competing in the 2016 election. There are so many reasons why the Republican Party and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul. However, I think the best and strongest reason is the Paul's connections to these people.

Based on Rand Paul's history and associations with his father and their mutual connections to bigoted people, he should not be associated with the Republican party. He should not receive any support from conservatives in 2016 because Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian and has said so many times. Rand Paul really should be in the Libertarian party which is where he really belongs. He is not one of us. That's why conservatives should not and cannot support Rand Paul in 2016.

the League of the South is a hate group.

the League of the South is a hate group.Jack Hunter is also connected to Ron Paul since Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

Where Did Obama's "If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan" Promise Come From?

During the 2008 Presidential primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were battling each other to become the Democratic candidate for the General election. They clashed with one another on the issue of health care. The only major difference between the two candidate's health care plan was that Hilary Clinton had an individual mandate while Barack Obama's health plan didn't. However, Obama would later include the individual mandate into his health care plan. Once he incorporated the individual mandate, he also incorporated her campaign promise:

Hilliary Clinton told the American people this: 

Obama would go on to repeat Hillary Clinton's promise 36 times:

Obama stole that infamous campaign promise from Hilliary Clinton. 

That 2008 campaign promise that "if you like your plan/doctor/hospital, you can keep it" is a lie. It was a lie told by both candiates. One of those candidates would later become President in 2008. The other candidate is thinking of running in 2016.

UPDATE (4/11/15):  The Wall Street Journal just came across a memo that one of Hillary Clinton's staffers wrote  nearly 20 years ago during the summer of 1994 which reads, “If you like your Blue Cross you can keep your BC.” The next line extends that promise to Aetna, Prudential, and any similar insurer. See the memo below:

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Health Care Problem

There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of Hillary Clinton running in 2016. The biggest hurdle for Hilliary is her health care plans that she proposed back in 1993 and in 2008.  Why will her old health care plans come back to haunt her in 2016?

 

Obama was inspired by Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan that she offered during her bid to become President during that time:

In 2009, President Obama adopted Senator Clinton’s plan almost in its entirety. Obamacare is Hillarycare 2.0. All of the harmful consequences of Obama’s individual mandate — people losing their policies, higher premiums, and increased tax burdens — were the foreseeable consequences of Clinton’s plan. Any criticisms of Obamacare can be aimed equally at Hillary Clinton.

In 2008, the linchpin of Senator Clinton’s health care plan program was a mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance. Those who did not would pay a penalty. 

In fact, during a Presidential debate, Obama admitted that almost all of the ideas for his health care plan was cribbed from Hillary Clinton's health care plan: 

At a primary debate, Hillary complained that “Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not.”

And Obama countered, “I have consistently said that Senator Clinton’s got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better. But I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.”

“The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.”

Now we know that Obama's health care plan was completely ripped from Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan since the linchpin of ObamaCare is the individual mandate which he later implemented after becoming President. Thus, Barack Obama's claims that Mitt Romney's healthcare plan was the basis for ObamaCare is a lie based on his own admission. 

Given that Obama's health care plan is really based completely on Hillary's ideas, I now realize that the name for President Obama's health care "ObamaCare" is a misnomer. It really should be called HillBamaCare.

The fact that Obama implemented every aspect of Hillary's 2008 health care plan is a problem. However, the deeper and bigger problem for Mrs. Clinton is that she shares Obama's progressive belief in an growing the size and scope of government in which there is a paternalistic welfare state that offers an array of entitlements to take care of the citizens from cradle to grave. In short, both believe in that the government can solve the needs and problems of its citizens. 

Since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both ardent supporters of a massive welfare state, it is no surprise that they both of them rely on a monstrous maze of government bureaucracy to run their health care plans. It is the central core of making their health plans work.

Back in 1993, this is what the bureaucracy behind HillaryCare would have looked like if it was implemented: 

This is the bureaucracy behind ObamaCare today:

As you can see, the core mechanism for Hillary's 1993 health care plan and ObamaCare rely on a massive bureaucracy to keep it running. If Mrs. Clinton does decide to run in 2016, the devastating blow that the failure of ObamaCare has done to the liberal/progressive promise that our government can competently, honestly and frugally manage our health care may be too big for Hillary to overcome. 

 

If Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, she won't be offering a plan to overhaul ObamaCare but she will be offering tweaks and modifications to HillBamaCare. The problem with that is that any adjustment or improvement she proposes will further increase uncertainty and disruption in the market place. Americans have been nauseous with economic uncertainty ever since Obama's health care plan was passed in 2008 and they're not willing to stomach another four more years of economic disruption caused by further "fixes" to HillBamaCare in 2016. Americans will have had enough in progressive experimentation and tinkering of our health care by then.

Americans will start revolting against ObamaCare in 2014 and the anger may continue well into 2016. Hillary cannot back away from ObamaCare since her 2008 health care plan is too intertwined with ObamaCare. She cannot back away from her progressive beliefs about government having a role in almost every aspect of American's lives including their choices regarding health care. ObamaCare is a colossal failure and any attempt to try to keep it alive or any promise that it will get better will be utterly rejected by the American people.

Both Obama and Hillary have staked their political futures on a progressive reform of America's health care. That's why HillBamaCare will be a huge obstacle for her in 2016.