Bill Clinton slams ObamaCare as ‘craziest thing in the world’

There's not much that I will agree with Bill on but I will agree with him on Obamacare, it is the craziest thing in the world.

Bill Clinton has blasted President Obama’s signature piece of legislation — ObamaCare — as “the craziest thing in the world.”

“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million more people have health care, and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half and it’s the craziest thing in the world,” the former president railed at a rally in Michigan on Monday.

Clinton also said the system is hurting moderately successful small businesses — ones that aren’t doing poorly enough to be subsidized and fall just above the line.

“On the other hand, the current system works fine if you’re eligible for Medicaid, if you’re a lower-income working person, if you’re already on Medicare or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your health care,” Clinton said.

“But the people getting killed in this deal are the small-business people and individuals who make just a little bit too much to get any of these subsidies,” he added.

After the scathing attack, Clinton sought to tone down some of his ObamaCare criticism while stumping for his wife in Ohio on Tuesday. Like Hillary, he said the health-care law is a positive first step that needs improving.

“The Affordable Health Care Act did a world of good and the 50-something efforts to repeal it that the Republicans have staged were a terrible mistake,” Clinton said.

“But there’s a group of people — mostly small-business owners, and employees who make just a little too much money to qualify for Medicaid expansion or for the tax incentives — who can’t get affordable health-insurance premiums in a lot of places,” he said.

“[Hillary] has proposed to take the next step in this and do what the president tried to do the first time and she supported, which is to allow people 55 and over to buy into Medicare and allow others to have a public option that looks like expansion of Medicaid they can afford. It’s the right thing to do.”

But in quelling one firestorm, Bill Clinton ignited another — throwing Bernie Sanders under the bus in an improptu response to a Black Lives Matter heckler as he defended his own controversial 1994 crime bill.

Clinton was interrupted by a protester shouting that he won’t vote for someone who sends thousands of people to prison.

“Hillary didn’t vote for the ’94 crime bill even though Senator Sanders did,” the former president shot back, as the heckler was removed from the rally.

Sanders has been campaigning for Clinton after losing the Democratic nomination to her.

The former president said it was his wife who was the first candidate to speak up about changing incarceration policies.

“The facts are difficult there,” Clinton said in his rebuttal. “You ought to think about it. If you’re really upset, that means you’re also upset that we had a 25-year low in the crime rate, a 33-year low in the murder rate — and, listen to this: a 67-year low in the rate of people being killed by illegal gun violence. I’m pretty proud of that, and I think that was worth fighting for.”

Views: 678

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

He's right about Obamacare being crazy. Most of the media will not carry this news if it hurts Hillary. The media also doesn't care what Billy says or does, like the fact that he hangs around with a convicted pedophile. 

Interesting statement Willy, especially since Trump has a lawsuit concerning the same individual. You prefer republican pedophiles over democratic pedophiles?

Also his statement regarding his "Voluptuous", "piece of Ass" daughter. Where he says shes always been voluptuous, and says "Yeah" when asked by Howard Stearn if shes "a piece of ass" Trump says he can defend this whole country, but cant even stick up for his very own daughter. DEPLORABLE! 

Isn't that convenient. An alleged incident that happened 22 years ago and it is revealed just before the election. Bogus claims. Post a link that validates your second paragraph claim.

I appreciate the fact that you posted all of these links, but I don't have any faith in liberal leftist internet sites to tell the truth. As a matter of fact they make up, mislead and alter information so that people will be unable to determine exactly what the truth is. I hope you don't draw your conclusions regarding the Presidential race and what is happening in America from the likes of CNN and their ilk. You do understand that this election is not about personalities. It's about America's direction. It's between socialism and suffocating Government control and freedom. I know Trump's not perfect but after comparing his platform to Hillary's I can see that it's not even a close call as to who to vote for. If you think corruption is rampant now wait until Hillary gets elected. She will do her best to neuter the Constitution. If she gets her Supreme Court Justices installed the Constitution won't be worth the toilet paper in Congress's bathrooms. Read the latest Wikileaks. Don't lose sight of the real danger we face. Don't forget to check Hillary's uncovered deceit.

Figuring out the election for president in 2016 is pretty much like serving as a juror in a court.  Two sides give you conflicting information, both sides seem to be either lying or otherwise dishonest in their presentations, both sides try to refute the other, etc.  Your duty is to wade through all the nonsense, gather the reliable evidence, sort through and prioritize it, verify it as best you can, then make a decision between the two. 

Hillary seems to be more guilty than Donald, yet she has more 'lawyers', and more high powered ones at that.  Letting her go out free at this stage would not be good for our society or future, IMHO. 


X, since you attended the Baby Kate trial and listened to most of the information just as the jury has done, what would your vote be, as a juror, regarding the fate of Sean Phillips?

First off, I must offer a disclaimer that I haven't been following the rules for jury members, since I have researched a lot of Baby Kate material, news reports, and otherwise received a lot of information from outside the courtroom and outside the rules for admission of evidence for over five years.

I do meet one of the prosecutions standards for jury members, that I could find a defendant guilty of murder even without a body, so I have looked forward to AG Pendergast to set the table both in 2014 and 2016 to get me there. 

I must say I was very disappointed.  She and Prosecutor Paul haven't came close to establishing that a death has occurred.  Pendergast did make the admission that the letter could not be true in her closing statement, yet she went over parts of it meticulously as if it were a new book of the Bible filled with truths.  Scratch that simile, it was more like a pedantic English teacher reading your poem to the rest of the class and telling them it had an entirely different meaning than you intended it to ever have.

Read at face value, the 'confession' letter describes a horrific accident that could have never happened given the facts.  To me, it becomes a work of fiction at that point, and so it loses any value as a bit of evidence, unless it can be otherwise verified, which it cannot-- and Sean Phillips' last English teacher should be proud of him for doing that.

Without any evidentiary value in the letter, I confirm the prosecution's assertion that there is no other bit of evidence pointing at murder.  A review also shows there is no proof of a death occurring in the evidence beyond the letter.  Hence, not guilty of murder and not guilty of involuntary manslaughter.  And I doubt whether any other jurist would change my mind.

I agree with your updates & synopsis X, well said. But, didn't Glancy today or yesterday announce as defense attorney to the jury that there was an "accident"? If he Truly DID say that, he just sank his client badly, imho.

I think I will cut Glancy some slack, because I think he did say that, but it was in another context.  Paraphrasing, he prefaced to the jury that if you decide to believe the letter, then what occurred is a tragic accident and not a murder.  He touched on that theme several times, and it may not have always been explicitly prefaced with the hypothetical.

I have said it before, Glancy should have been focused on establishing a narrative that challenged the prosecution's notion that a death had occurred and illustrated that the letter was pure fiction, for the prosecution through their detectives and AG Pendergast were relying only on the one letter to prove a death had occurred and Phillips' state of mind.  

Lol, Willy, you're responding to a story from the NY Post - A TABLOID!! Most of my links have Trump in video. You don't trust YOUTUBE? I think Walgreen's has tinfoil on sale.

WILLY says - "You do understand that this election is not about personalities"You consider being a sexual predator to be a personality trait?  AND - "Most of the media will not carry this news if it hurts Hillary." Well Willy, it was carried by most of the media.

Corruption? Trump has the majority of the people around him sign non-disclosure agreements, you seriously think hes not going to bring it to the White house? You guys are only fooling yourselves. This whole site has been nothing but complaints about openness, Trump doesn't have people sign these agreements to hide patents or ideas, he has them sign them because of things he says and does.

Personally, I think this government has needed change for a long time. Say what you want about Gary Johnson, but you won't see deplorable things about him as you see with both Trump and the Clinton's! ALSO, Libertarians are a hell of a lot more CONSERVATIVE than either of the other two parties.

I'm very critical of "outsiders" controlling the outcome of an election, such as Wikileaks. Whether its Putin or Trump/Putin paying off leakers, I have a feeling its coming from somewhere over there. I'm very curious of their agenda. I would almost guarantee three things will happen with Trump.

1. His no new taxes/trickle down will sink this country ESPECIALLY with all his new programs. How can he possibly pay for ALL these new things - wall, deportations, money for police forces, build up military. AND CUT TAXES AT THE SAME TIME? While the military is important, why not better train versus making it bigger. There is no reason ALL the grunts cant be Ranger trained. We don't need just "bodies" as we did since Vietnam and before. With today's technology, we need better trained, Not more, if they cant hack it move them to support or set them free. We're not fighting the same kind of wars. All the training in the military is done internally, so no new personnel would be needed.

2. The Trump organization will finally build in Russia, and BIGLY!! Hes been trying to build there since the 80s.

3. Julian Assange will be granted immunity by Sweden and the investigation to all this hacking will end. Unless Trump reneges on the deals hes made with them, be it Assange or the Russians. I seriously think Trump has been making deals with both.

I read all news I can, whether its wiki, reason or cnn, Ive learned to google if something gets me wondering, I can decipher whether or not its true. I'm not easily brainwashed, so I don't fear reading liberal views just as I don't fear reading republican ones. You asked for verification and it was provided to you in VIDEO form. A valid response would have been "this video or site shows NONE of this is true" you're trying to kill the message by killing the messenger. If these weren't true TRUMP himself would be up in arms. 

The most ironic thing to me is still the idea you read a NY Post(tabloid) article and take it as gospel and the say - but I don't have any faith in liberal leftist internet sites to tell the truth. That is as ironic as Trump saying Clinton was a rapist and groped people and its bad for him to do it.

Richard, I've been following your conversation with Willy, and I'm at a loss about the NY Post link that you ascribe to him, I just don't see it beyond the heading that Dave put out-- which had direct quotes throughout, and has not otherwise been challenged for accuracy in this case.  In fact, you offer links from mainstream media supporting the 'tabloid's' report of news.

As for Trump, I have my own reservations about his candidacy, but I have much worse reservations about Hillary Clinton's.  Typically, I would find solace in the Libertarian Party given such a choice, but Gary Johnson just doesn't seem competent or true to libertarian beliefs, IMHO.


© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service