================================================
Forever hopeful Hillary flackers are now talking up the Clinton's "Unapologetic populism"---- reinforcing that the Democratic Party is for justice and opportunity for everyone.
Yeah, sure--- "opportunity and justice for everyone"----just as long as you're not one of those stupid mental defectives taking up space in Democrat Utopia.
Democrats say the historic nature of a Hillary run could lead to a different, but still vibrant, electorate....the first woman president would likely generate outsized enthusiasm among young and single female voters, which could offset drops in other parts of the electorate. "Women will love it, and so will other groups, including young voters”...Democrats say.
Bullhockey....midterm reality looms large. The women's vote was a bomb---only one of the women Hillary campaigned for won. Candidates mentioning the War on Women nonsense were laughed off the stage. Texas' Abortion Darling collapsed and so did Sandra "The Vagina" Fluck.
============================================
CLINTON GRUBERING---Billy keeps on keeping on----the two have so many people they owe. Opportunistic Billy hoped "stupid Americans" would ignore the details when he said: "We had 100 times as many people move from poverty into the middle class," Bill told an appreciative audience during a recent cocktail hour hosted by POLITICO. "This shows the importance of policy," he continued. "We can do this again.”
Billy Boy plumb "forgot" infamous MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber crunched those numbers for the ever-ambitious Clintons....basing the numbers on the Clintons' knee-bending abortion worship. Read on.
=========================================
World Net Daily reported November 14, 2014
BY Jerome R. Corsi / FR Posted by Cincinatus' Wife
NEW YORK – Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, (exposed for his frank admissions that passing Obama's signature legislation required lying to "stupid" Americans)......published a paper during the Clinton administration observing that legalizing abortion saved the government $14B in assistance to economically disadvantaged mothers, including African Americans.....and lowered crime.
MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber argued in his Clinton paper that without the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “marginal children” would have been born to many poor mothers. Gruber said statistics show these aborted children would have been 70 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, 40 percent more likely to live in poverty, 50 percent more likely to receive welfare and 35 percent more likely to die as an infant.
Economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner in their bestselling 2005 book, “Freakonomics,” relied on MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber’s work to argue that legalizing abortion was responsible for an approximately 50 percent reduction of crime in major urban centers in the early 1990s. more at wnd.com
===================================================
BTW, the event Politico got sucked into marked the 10th anniversary of the "Clinton Presidential Center". (The 10th anniversary of what?). (Yawn) My, how time flies.
EXCERPT--- If she wins the White House, healthcare reform could become even more painful than ObamaCare. Clinton ducks questions about her views on health reform. But the plan she proposed in 1993, as first lady, raises concerns.
That proposal was even more coercive than ObamaCare.
Hillary put price controls on doctors and limits on how much health care the nation could consume annually and how much you could buy for your own family — even if you paid for it yourself. True, that was 20 years ago. But it’s an important window into her thinking.
Before Americans choose candidates for 2016, they ought to ask whether Clinton stands by the coercive plan she proposed the last time she was in the White House.
The Obama administration is using ads and street fairs to convince people to get covered. Millions are still saying “no.” ObamaCare penalizes the uninsured but also offers exemptions, including just pleading “hardship.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 90 percent of the uninsured will not be penalized.
As for people not paying their premiums, Hillary told a House hearing back then that an equivalent amount would “be deducted from their wages or obtained through tax deductions in some other way.”
The biggest difference between ObamaCare and Hillary’s approach is how they rein in the nation’s health spending. ObamaCare tries payment innovations, such as Accountable Care Organizations, with little progress so far.
Hillary wouldn’t put up with that. Her plan used coercion: The government would impose a dollar limit on what the nation could spend. If spending neared that limit, insurers and government payers would be legally required to cut payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals to avoid going over budget (p. 137).
Such central planning — even in the face of unforeseen problems such as the flu or EV-68 — would risk patients’ lives and the livelihoods of doctors and nurses. Is that what Americans want?
Hillary may have discarded some of her radical ideas. And, of course, anything she proposes would have to get through Congress. Nonetheless, voting for Hillary before knowing where she stands on health reform could be dangerous to your health.
SOURCE http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/how-hillary-could-make-obamacare-worse/