quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
[B]ecause there's a benefit to him ....

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
Via Bill Wittle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBG6Xds7ifA

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
[B]ecause there's a benefit to him ....

That’s why anyone does anything.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
[B]ecause there's a benefit to him ....

That’s why anyone does anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Ackks posted an argument from National Review at 4:55 p.m. but by the time I am posting this response, it was taken down.

Even so, in the actual video on the page Ackks cited, Trump said: “If people have no money, we have to help them.” “We will work something out.” The question was about his desire to have everyone covered by health care. Never did Donald Trump say he was for “universal health care” as is sometimes equated with a single payor system. He was addressing what he meant about using government funds to cover people who have no money. He specifically said that he rejects both single payor and Obamacare.

In this interview, Trump is in favor of some system that sees all Americans covered by some health care through either their own funds or for those who have no money, by using some government funds. Before Obamacare, such programs for the poor existed. Trump was contrasting himself with Cruz who he seems to see as not addressing how to provide health care for the poor.

National review has the interview footage but editorialized its own spin in its written text. Like Beck, National Review has it out for Trump and is degrading its own brand as a fair source of information. It’s too bad.

The fact that National Review wrote that the interview stated that Trump said he was for "government-funded universal health coverage" is just false. If one listens to the interview, Trump said no such thing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...rsal-health-coverage

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Wasn't in the National Review article not even a mention of his followers so maybe the Review is being dumped on a bit unfairly here.

I’ll try this once more:
It isn’t about dumping on the National Review. It’s about what Trump said versus what most of the reports claim that he said.

I don’t know who are the “they” in his reference to, “They said I could shoot someone.” He was talking about things in the NR article while reading from a rebuttal and while adding his own commentary; his reference is therefore unclear. Who he was referring to, however, is immaterial.

The person who is being dumped on unfairly is Trump in this instance because of how truncating his statement changes its meaning. Perhaps a different example will make it clear enough to understand. Consider the difference between the following statement and how the news media might choose to report it:

Mr. Jones denied the allegations today. He said I, “I am being falsely accused. The prosecutor claims that I watch child pornography. That is an utter lie.”
Mr. Jones said, “I watch child pornography.”
See it now?

quote:

Originally posted by Replacement Tommel:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
One way to judge a persons true character is to look at their kids. From what I've seen of the Trump kids, they seem to have been raised well and admire their dad. But I've only seen them on TV a few time. We got any dirt on the kids?

Donald Jr. used to hit on my (now ex) wife while she attended some classes at Wharton while we were both at Penn Law.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
People dying in the streets?!!!!!

How many homeless people are found dead in the streets across this country every year? They die of disease, freeze to death, die of sicknesses such as cancer, pneumonia, and on and on.

He is right that such things should not happen, but the harsh fact is that it does happen.

Whether he thinks the federal or state gubbermints should do it, is pretty much immaterial at this point.

I wonder how much cleaning up he would get done in the federal healthcare province. As in get rid of the scammers, liars, thieves, etc and get them replaced with real doctors who are there to care for the sick and injured.

And it is not only veterans dying on the streets.

Trump has said the obamacare needs a major overhaul, and that is what he means when he talks about his idea of healthcare.

Probably 80-90% of the stuff done by the feds rightfully belongs to the states. Not to mention those millions and millions of acres of state and/or private land stolen by executive order or by the EPA.

Would it not be nice to see all that stolen federal land revert back to its rightful owners?

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Why do you believe he would not do that regarding health care?

I do not see how the interview cited implies that Trump believes Obamacare did not go far enough. What in his statement leads to that conclusion?

quote:

Trumpcare would require more government than Obamacare
By Philip Klein

Donald Trump on Sunday called Sen. Ted Cruz a "liar" for suggesting that a vote for Trump is a vote for Obamacare. Trump is right in a sense: His vision for healthcare isn't the same as Obamacare. In fact, it would require drastically more government.

A day before the Iowa caucuses that Trump is now favored to win, ABC's George Stephanopolus asked the GOP frontrunner about his repeated statements in favor of universal healthcare. Trump said, "I want people taken care of. I have a heart. I want people taken care of. If people have no money, we have to help people. But that doesn't mean single payer. It means we have to help people. If somebody has no money and they're lying in the middle of the street and they're dying, I'm going to take care of that person —"

At that point, Stephanoplus interjected and asked how he would do it, and Trump said, "We're going to work with our hospitals. We're going to work with our doctors. We've got to do something. You can't have a — a small percentage of our economy, because they're down and out, have absolutely no protection so they end up dying from, you know, what you could have a simple procedure or even a pill. You can't do that. We'll work something out. That doesn't mean single payer. And I mean, maybe [Cruz]'s got no heart."

To start with, it's noteworthy that Trump echoed leftist rhetoric by talking about the need for government to provide health coverage by arguing that people would be dying in the streets otherwise — and framing anybody who disagreed as heartless.

But in terms of the substance (to the extent that we can discern any) the idea that Trump would replace Obamacare with a system in which government negotiated with doctors and hospitals is in fact the vision for a government-run system.

It also comes on top of Trump's long history of embracing government-run healthcare — both decades ago and during this campaign.

In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump described himself as a "liberal" on healthcare and suggested the U.S. should look to Canada's socialist system as a "prototype." During a Republican presidential debate, he said the socialist systems in Canada and Scotland worked well.

During an interview on "60 Minutes," last September, Trump said, "Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, 'No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private.' But ... I am going to take care of everybody."

Asked how, he said, "I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people." Asked who would pay for it, Trump said, "The government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side." Though he went on to add that there would be private competition, the fact that he said government would be paying to ensure healthcare for all and that they'd be negotiating directly with hospitals would mean an expanded role for the state relative to Obamacare.

Also from the Washington Examiner

And last week he called for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a long-time liberal policy goal that's also currently being advanced by Democratic presidential candidates.

To be clear, Obamacare does not cover everybody and it does not empower government to negotiate drug prices.

The idea that government can cover everybody and save money by negotiating deals with drug makers, doctors, and hospitals doesn't just sound like single-payer. It is in fact one of the central policy arguments used by proponents of single-payer. The idea is that because government is a massive purchaser, it can throw its weight around to drive down costs — thus providing more care for less money.

Socialist Bernie Sanders, in fact, makes this argument explicitly in his $14 trillion single payer proposal. "By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively," the Sanders proposal reads. He also, like Trump, argues that under Obamacare too many people are still uninsured and struggling to pay insurance premiums.

In reality, of course, fixing prices on drugs, hospital treatment, and doctors' visits is a good way to stifle innovation, reduce competition, increase waiting times and reduce quality. Trump no doubt would argue that the magic pixie dust of his sheer awesomeness would overcome this reality, but it doesn't change the nature of what he's arguing.

Also from the Washington Examiner

So, to sum up: Trump has offered scant details about how he would replace Obamacare. But what little he has said is philisophically consistent with the arguments in favor of single-payer, a policy approach that he has praised in the past.

The whole irony of this is that right now, Sanders and Hillary Clinton are in the midst of a heated debate in which Sanders is arguing in favor of single-payer and Clinton is saying it would go too far to be politically feasible.

Should Clinton and Trump be the nominees, it will have meant that Democratic voters will have rejected the candidate pushing single-payer healthcare and Republicans will have embraced him.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
So, to sum up: Trump has offered scant details about how he would replace Obamacare. But what little he has said is philosophically consistent with the arguments in favor of single-payer, a policy approach that he has praised in the past.

The whole irony of this is that right now, Sanders and Hillary Clinton are in the midst of a heated debate in which Sanders is arguing in favor of single-payer and Clinton is saying it would go too far to be politically feasible.

Should Clinton and Trump be the nominees, it will have meant that Democratic voters will have rejected the candidate pushing single-payer healthcare and Republicans will have embraced him.