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.

Ann Romney Leaves The Door Open For Mitt Romney Running For President For A Third Time

Mitt Romney spoke to students at the  University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016. However, Ann Romney, in speaking at the Republican/MassLive.com conference in Dedham, Massachusetts as part of her book tour for her new cookbook, “The Romney Family Table" had this to say about Mitt Romney running again for President: 

Ann Romney said it would take an “extraordinary experience” before she would consider encouraging her husband, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in a future run for office.

Though she did not absolutely rule it out, Ann Romney said there would need to be “an absolute collapse of the economy or something dramatic that it would say 'We need you, Mitt, to fix this.'"

"But it would be a very extraordinary thing to bring me back into it," she said.

Ann Romney spoke to The Republican/MassLive.com at a hotel in Dedham on Thursday, during a book tour for her new cookbook, “The Romney Family Table.”

After Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, ran for president in 2008 and lost in the Republican primary, Ann Romney told him she would never participate in another presidential campaign. She changed her mind, she often said on the 2012 campaign trail, because she felt the country at that time needed someone with her husband’s experience as its leader.

Asked what she told her husband after he lost the 2012 race, Ann Romney said, “Never, ever again, and I mean it this time.”

As I understand it, Ann Romney told her husband after losing the 2012 election that she was adamant that Mitt Romney not run again but now she seems to be open to the idea of running again but only on the condition that America is facing major catastrophic economic or national emergency. Many Romney fans are excited by Ann Romney's statement since the possibility of Mitt Romney running again isn't completely shut. 

Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney will run again. I just can't see him doing it.  If he decides to run in 2016, then I will support him. But if Mitt does decide to run, I think Ann's feelings on the matter will be the deal breaker. If she doesn't want to run, then I don't think he will do it. But if Ann is up for a third attempt, then Mitt might actually go ahead and give it a try again. But for now, it appears Mitt Romney is dead set against running again. But at least Ann leaves the door open for another opportunity for her husband to try to run again.  

By the way, in case you missed it, Mitt and Ann Romney were recently on Rachel Ray's television show and it looked like they had a lot of fun. Watch below: 

ObamaCare: A Study on The Art of Political Deception

This week, we learned, via a fantastic article over at Politico that  a few weeks before he decided to run for President in 2008, Barack Obama didn't have a formal plan on Health Care. It was an idea that was hastily concieved to make him appear that he was more competent as a candidate than he really was:

The most important red line of Barack Obama’s presidency was scrawled hastily in January 2007, a few weeks before he even announced he was running for president.

Soon-to-be-candidate Obama, then an Illinois senator, was thinking about turning down an invitation to speak at a big health care conference sponsored by the progressive group Families USA, when two aides, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau, hit on an idea that would make him appear more prepared and committed than he actually was at the moment.

Why not just announce his intention to pass universal health care by the end of his first term?

Thus was born Obamacare, a check-the-box, news-cycle expedient that would ultimately define a president.

“We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good. So they just kind of hatched it on their own. It just happened. It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.”

This is not surprising given Obama's own admission that he wasn't ready to run for President. Remember this interview from CNN? 

 

It is mindboggling to me that we have a man who openly admits that he was not experienced enough to become President and yet he later decides to run for President despite that statement and we find out that Obama wanted people to believe that he had a formal plan on Health Care when he really didn't have one. 

Moreover, we also learn that not only was Obama dishonest about claiming he had a ambitious health care plan, but that his dishonesty was the result of desperation to do anything to win in 2008. (Doesn't that sound familiar for 2012?) Additionally, the inexperienced Obama knew he was out of his league on the issue of health care and that he wasn't even enthusiastic about his own hastily hatched plan:

Obama’s legacy on health care began with the pressure to say something, anything, at the progressive health conference a year before the first presidential primary votes were cast. He needed to keep up with Clinton, his party’s front-runner, and Edwards, who was trying to carve out space to Clinton’s left as the party’s liberal standard-bearer.

Favreau, who would go on to become the chief White House speechwriter, said Obama wanted “to say something bold and ambitious about health care.”

“He had previously talked about how every year and every election we keep talking about health care and nothing ever happens,” Favreau said. “So we came up with that promise, really one of the first.”

The candidate jumped at it. He probably wasn’t going to get elected anyway, the team concluded. Why not go big?

“In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how,” Obama said at the Families USA conference. “We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we must find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president’s first term.”

Even after his pledge, though, it took months for Obama to buy in.

In March 2007, he found himself on the same stage with a highly confident Clinton at another health care forum, this one sponsored by the Service Employees International Union in Las Vegas.

Obama staggered through a discussion that left policy wonks convinced that he was out of his league, particularly when compared to Clinton, arguably the nation’s premier expert on health care after her unsuccessful attempt to enact reform in the 1990s.

While she dominated, he was confronted by an audience member who asked why he didn’t have a health care plan yet. He responded that his campaign was only eight weeks old and promised to come up with one soon. At one point, in response to a question about health care disparities among minorities, Obama talked about lead poisoning as Clinton aides giggled.

Obama knew before he walked off the stage that he had screwed up.

Obama had successfully deceived the Democratic party in to believing that he was more competent than Hillary Clinton on the issue of health care by attacking her for supporting the individual mandate even though he secretly was telling other people that he did support the individual mandate and that it would most likely be a part of his plan. Here's Politico describing how Obama was lying to Democratic voters: 

At the advice of his political advisers, Obama sought to undercut Clinton by accusing her of pushing for an individual mandate — an idea borrowed from Republicans that polled poorly with independents and conservative Democrats in critical battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Aides say Obama was simply looking for any way to differentiate himself from an opponent whose basic policy positions were indistinguishable from his own. After Clinton dropped out in June 2008, Obama was privately telling his staff that any health care reform he proposed would most likely include a mandate.

Watch this clip below of Obama attacking Hillary Clinton on the idea of the individual mandate: 

While Obama was out lying to Democratic voters and later to the American people, it took months for Obama to buy into his own deceptive campaign promise. And when Obama was able to push ObamaCare through Congress through a procedural loophole despite massive public opposition the Affordable Care Act, the central idea of his plan was the individual mandate. Thus, not only did Obama lie to the American people, but he flipped flopped on the issue of he individual mandate. 

Four years later in the 2012 Presidential election, Obama would use ObamaCare as both a sword and a shield against Republican challenger Mitt Romney by falsely claiming that he used RomneyCare as a template for his healthcare plan since Romney's health care plan contained the individual mandate despite the fact that Obama was lying and flip flopping on that idea back in 2008. Once Obama was reelected in 2012, he would go on to use to U.S. government attorneys defend the individual mandate that he criticized and lied about when he was a candidate in 2008.

But back to the Politico's central theme that ObamaCare was born in attempt to make Senator Obama look more competent than he really was.  Supporters of ObamaCare claim that it was a well thought out plan. Now we know that it wasn't. Nancy Pelosi was  being truthful when she said that we had to pass ObamaCare in order to find out what was in it. What do we find out? We find out that  that a bunch of inexperienced twenty something year old Congressional interns wrote it which contained the individual mandate that Obama flipped flopped on. I don't think the Democratic Congress and their interns who wrote the bill even studied RomenyCare closely at all. We also learn that it contained a tax even though Obama would flip flop on that saying there was a tax and there wasn't a tax.

In other words, the legislation didn't come from the White House but Congress. Essentially, Obama let Congress create, draft and pass the bill. All he had to do was sign it. I don't think ObamaCare was really Obama's idea. He was never really enthusiastic about a healthcare plan and it took months for him to buy into the lie he sold to the American people. As you may or may not remember, it was Obama and the Democratic party who wanted a single payer health care program prior to the passage of ObamaCare. But in the end, and if you read the entire Politico article, you'll find that he just wanted his aides and advisors to be able to sell whatever plan someone came up with to the American people.

Ultimately, the biggest deception is that ObamaCare is a designed to pave the way for the eventual implementation of a single payer health care plan. Obama may not have initially had any health care plan when he made that decision to run in 2008. However, Obama has always wanted a bigger and more intrusive government. The intent of ObamaCare was to grow the size of the goverment. Listen to Obama's intent behind his health care plan in his interview with John Stewart on the Daily Show.  If you don't want to watch the entire thing, go to approximately the 8 minute mark and listen. Watch the video below:

As the President stated himself in the John Stewart interview, the "change" in the nation's health care program was to simply make it a framework that will allow for future growth of the federal government. His example of Social Security is used to drive this point home. Social Security was initially sold as support for widows and orphanages but later the "structure" of this program blossomed into a massive entitlement program. He points out that the same is true for every progressive piece of legislation, which includes ObamaCare, in which it started out small but it was never intended to be small. It was designed to allow them to make further "progress" which is another way of saying expanding the government. The implication that Obama is making is that ObamaCare will eventually grow into a single payer program over time.

The birth, passage and fragile survival of ObamaCare is an excellent study in art of political deception. Politicians lie all the time. They make promises to the American people they don't intend to keep. Obama is no exception. The media portrayed Obama as an outsider who was different and above politics. The truth is, he wasn't and he still isn't. 

Its not just ObamaCare that was a lie that was masterfully sold to the American people, it was his campaign. Even more fundamentally, Obama sold himself as a lie to the American people.

It is said that the the greatest lie the Devil told was to convince the world that he didn't exist. It may be that the greatest lie a politician can tell is to convince the people that he's more competent than he claims to be. Obama campaigned on a lie that he was ready to be president even when he fully admitted that he wasn't. 

Now, Americans have endured almost eight years of an amateur president who has clearly shown himself to be incompetent on foreign affairs and domestic affairs. If Obama is competent at anything, he's a master at manipulating and deceiving the public into making him President and allowing him to pass a health care plan that was initially conceived as a campaign tactic to make him look more competent than he actually was.  

Mitt Romney Is Not Running In 2016

Mitt Romney appeared at the University of Utah today to meet with students at the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016.

Romney also made it clear to the overflow crowd of students, faculty and business leaders gathered to hear his 45-minute speech that he was done running for the White House after two unsuccessful tries.

"I've had two bites at the apple. Three strikes and you're out," he said.
Romney, who received hearty applause after a questioner thanked him for his 2008 and 2012 presidential races, jokingly suggested his wife, Ann, or son Josh — who lives in Utah — would be better candidates next time around.

Before the speech, Romney said he was "feeling bad I'm not in the White House," calling it a "great thrill to run for president" and an honor to have had the support of Utahns.

"The country faces real challenges, which unfortunately are not being addressed in the way I'd hope they'd be. A lot of people are hurting. A lot of people across the country can't find work," he said, including new college graduates.

I knew that Mitt Romney would not be running again in 2016. Its not that I had any inside information but I knew that he just wasn't going to run. I don't think he wants to become like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who have ran for President in multiple presidential elections. I also think he wants to move on and do other things whether it be in business or politics. 

There are many people (I am not one of them) who want Mitt Romney to run in 2016. There's even a Facebook group called Mitt Romney for President 2016 that has already been set up to promote that idea. Even though I am deeply saddened that Mitt Romney lost and I believe he would have made a great president, he made the right choice not to run again. 

As far as 2016 goes, I would like to see the following people throw their hats into the ring for that Presidential election: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Robert McDonnell, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts, Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Former U.S. Representative Allen West and former Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan. 

I also don't want the following people to run in 2016: Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, John Huntsman Jr., and Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee.
 

Do you think it was right for Mitt Romney to decide not to run in 2016? Who do you think should run in 2016?

How Do We Stop The Great Food Stamp Binge? A Look At The Mormon Welfare Program

Fox News renewed a fierce debate over how the U.S. Government takes care of its poor and needy citizens when it aired Bret Baier's special report, titled "The Great Food Stamp Binge." You can see the entire documentary below: 

This documentary is very educational. But everyone is focusing on the interview John Roberts did with a willfully unemployed and unmotivated surfer who lives a life of leisure in a very wealthy suburb of San Diego, California called La Jolla. To put La Jolla in perspective, Its the same place where Mitt Romney bought a  house that is worth $12 million.  

This surfer makes people angry for many reasons. He unabashedly admits on television that he chooses not to work despite living in San Diego's richest suburb, La Jolla. He is happy that other people are subsidizing his life style and seems to relish that fact. He is doesn't appear that he really needs the food stamps that he uses. His lifestyle is offensive for two reasons. He's accepting money from people who work hard only to have the government squander it on losers like him and he's taking the money from people that really need the help.

The Fox News documentary was designed to provoke people to debate this issue. We need to have this debate, especially when these entitlement programs are the largest driver of our national debt. This program is also pushes people to wonder if there is different approach that our government could take to help the poor and the needy. 

Actually, the answer just might be found in a Church that has its headquarters in Salt Lake City. Yes, I am talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, other wise known as the "Mormons." 

Ronald Reagan was a big fan of the Mormon's Welfare Program. After he taken a tour of the Church's welfare program, he made the following comment to the press: "What I think is that if more people had this idea back when the Great Depression hit, there wouldn't be any government welfare today, or need for it."  He also told his aides after the tour that, "You know, there is a program that comes very close to being the most ideal way dealing with those who are poor and unfortunate; and that is the Mormon Welfare Program."

The reason why the LDS Church has been a model for how to help the poor and the needy is because it runs their welfare program in the exact opposite way that the U.S. government does. There are no freebies. No hand outs. People are required to work or help as a condition for receiving assistance. Here's how the Mormon Welfare Program works:

The system is supported by the generous “fast offering” donations of 13 million Church members throughout the world. Mormons fast, or skip two meals each month, and give the money they would have spent on the food (and often much more) to their local Bishop. The money they give is called a “fast offering.” The bishop then uses those funds to help members of his congregation, and others, who are in need.

But it is not a handout. The bishop gives the needy individual or family assignments to work for the assistance they receive. The work might include cleaning a church building or using skills to help someone else in need.  Fulfilling these assignments helps those receiving assistance to maintain their dignity and self-respect and provides a way for them to give back.

The Church Welfare program helps both members and non-members alike. The person who requests assistance from the LDS Church works with the local Mormon ecclesiastical leader, known as a Bishop, to make sure that their needs are being met. The ecclesiastical leader also makes sure that the person has some work assignment to do as they are receiving the help that they have requested for.  

The goal of the LDS Welfare program is based on the idea of getting people who need help the immediate help they need, but then weaning them off of it and making them productive in society.  The LDS Welfare system works hard in helping as many people as they can. During the 2012 election, Brian Williams did a report about the Mormon Church. Below is a clip where they reported on the Church's Welfare program: 

Despite the massive size and scope of the welfare program, the LDS Church is very efficient and successful in helping people get back onto their feet quickly as possible: 

According to Rick Foster, who oversees a smaller storehouse in Salt Lake City along with the cannery and dairy at Welfare Square (the original site of all the church’s welfare services), people depend on the food at the storehouse for an average of three to six months. (emphasis added)

The LDS Church's Welfare program is so efficient and cost effective because it operates on the singular goal of helping people become self sufficient and reliant as soon as they can. The Church has a system in place to make sure that nothing is wasted, people get what they need and they get it quickly so that they are back on their feet again. 

In fact, the Mormon Welfare program is so efficient that it is usually the first organization on the scene after a major disaster of some kind. See John Stossel explain this below: 

Additionally, the program is also extremely effective because it has mechanisms and incentives in place to prevent people from free loading which ensure that slackers (like the La Jolla surfer) do not drain the welfare system dry. The Church does not allow for situations where food and money are doled out with no accountability.

Thus, the idea of receiving help but also being able to live a leisurely lifestyle is completely unacceptable in the Mormon program. The LDS Church would simply not tolerate nor appreciate the La Jolla surfer's attitude or thinking. You don't get to play while others are helping you. You do what you can to help yourself or pitch in to help others.  

It is clear that entitlement reform is needed in America. The LDS Church provides some good ideas on how to create a program that works on helping people who really need it in a quick, efficient and cost effective manner. The only only problem is this: Will our government actually put these ideas into practice?

For more information on the LDS welfare program: http://www.providentliving.org/

You can also make a donation to the Church's Charity program here: http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org

Glenn Beck: Did You Ever Really Lose Your Voice?

Although Glenn Beck has asked a very important question that I have never thought about. If today was the last day you had a voice, what would you say? I began to think about the question and I realized a few important things.

Glenn Beck relies on a narrow definition of the word "voice." He uses it as using your vocal chords to express your thoughts, feelings and ideas. And based on that, it can be a scary thing if you are not able to talk. It also might prompt people to begin to reconsider their words and the effect it has on other people and how they might choose their words more carefully.

Like Glenn Beck, I make a living communicating. I am an attorney. I use my words to defend clients in court or to help them resolve their legal problems. I write memorandums, briefs, letters and other documents for my clients. I understand how important words are and how powerful our voices can be.

I am also an individual with a profound hearing loss. Not only can I communicate by talking but I use my hands to speak. I learned American Sign Language (ASL) when I was in high school. I use ASL to speak with my Deaf clients or to talk with my friends.

Because of my hearing loss and my profession, You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. EVER. You might lose the ability to speak as a result of some medical condition. You might have your voice restricted, suppressed or silenced by a repressive government.  Someone could physically prevent you from speaking by putting duct tape over your mouth or throwing you in prison. 

How you feel, think and see the world can never be suppressed. The Soviet Government is a good example of this. No matter how much they tried to control people's speech, the good people found a way to make their voices heard. An underground movement known as Samizdat was formed in which people wrote letters, poems, articles and essays expressing their views. With all the might that the former USSR had, it  couldn't suppress speech. 

As a result, our 1st Amendment right can never be taken away. It will always be there. You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. The 1st Amendment takes a broad view of speech. It protects all forms of communication. But our voices doesn't have to be made by sound or put down on paper.  That's the cool thing about American Sign Language.  Your voice is also found in your hands, eyes, and body. That is what makes ASL beautiful and awesome.What is in your heart or in your mind can be expressed through your body. Even ASL is protected under the 1st Amendment. 

So Glenn, you might lose your ability to talk, but you will never lose your voice. I recommend that you learn American Sign Language. You are a passionate man with lots of things to say. However, I suggest you expand the way you use your voice to include American Sign Language. You will never see the world the same again and how you express yourself and your ideas will never be the same. 

I know you might not be able to talk, but you will always have your voice.