Those who do the bidding of the heartless, greedy 1% of the population are too important to bother with plebeian tasks like reading an entire bill. Trump's wealthcare or death-care (as it should be referenced) is, after all, tiny compared to that monstrous ACA bill, right?

South Carolina's former disgraced governor turned House Representative Mark Sanford admitted he really didn't read ALL of the bill. That's a lot of reading, and it's apparently rather boring to decide who lives and who dies.

Friday morning on CNN's New Day, Alisyn Camerota asked him how he arrived at the decision to endorse the cruelest 'healthcare' bill imaginable.

CAMEROTA: Did you read this entire bill?

SANFORD: Yes. I wouldn't say -- yes. I turned through every page, as to whether or not I got through some of the details on some of the pages, no. But, yes, I attempted to read the entire bill.

CAMEROTA: But you glossed over some of it?

SANFORD: You would too if you read through it, yes. But, again, it was relatively modest as these bills go. We're talking a couple hundred pages as opposed to a couple thousands pages.

CAMEROTA: Why not dive into it? Why can't you say you read it thoroughly?

SANFORD: I read it as thoroughly as I could. I think the amendments, which were really the previous question for me because I already voted no on the original base bill were actually, you know, a couple pages long and I absolutely in detail form read through those.

This transcript courtesy of CNN, not shown in video above.

...So I read through the bill. I had my staff read through the bill. I mean, I think we have taken a deep look at this thing and I think it's fundamentally about two things.

It is about protecting people with pre-existing conditions, which I think with the Upton Amendment it does.

CAMEROTA: You do? I mean, because let me stop you there for one second because the way we understand it is that it will be up to governors. It will pass this down to states and the states can seek a waiver for the pre-existing conditions, but they would set up high risk pools, but those might be more expensive and not cover everyone?

SANFORD: Well, I don't believe that that's the case. I mean, that's why the original $15 billion was there in the original amendment dealing with high risk pools and the additional $8 billion was added to that with the Upton Amendment.

And again let me go back to what I was saying, which is fundamentally it is about trying to protect people with pre-existing conditions, while concurrently trying to address the fact there has been a rapid increase in premiums for many people. Insurance is not been insurance, if you have an $8,000 deductible, but you only have $1,000 in your savings account, you don't have insurance.

And what we've seen in many states like South Carolina is the choices have narrowed down to one provider and premiums went up by 30 percent. So, there are a lot of small business out there and a lot of people out there struggling in the individual health care marketplace who in essence haven't had insurance.

What's exasperating is how Sanford pretends that everything will be fine for poorer folks who can't afford the insanely exorbitant costs of high risk pools.

High risk pools is a nicer way of saying that they wish to eviscerate everything President Obama's A.C.A. accomplished for those who could not obtain insurance previously. High risk pools really mean that they, once again, welcome the discrimination of those unfortunate beings with pre-existing conditions. In other words, tough luck, poor people. Too bad, so sad for you. We got ours, so we don't care.

GOP Wealthcare, as Alan Grayson put it so perfectly