>>Why not? Why is a consistent pattern not relevant?
A consistent pattern is relevant to the person or entity displaying the pattern. Clinton was never part of Obamacare or anything about it to this point. Her pattern came a lot earlier when she tried to reform healthcare during Bill's tenure but got snookered by vested interest. Are you saying that's what you expect again?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
