Trump policy: 100% healthcare coverage - dismisses single payer

[CBradSmith]

In an interview this morning on This Week, Donald Trump cited his desire to “help people” as the reason he favors government-funded universal health coverage. Unlike Ted Cruz, Trump said, “I have a heart.” “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,” Trump said. Host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump “how do you do it?” And Trump explained his plan thusly:

"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 he’s got no heart. And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine, because, frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country. We can’t let them die on the sidewalks of New York or the sidewalks of Iowa or anywhere else."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ave-heart-ill-enact-universal-health-coverage

 

[squeak]

I'm all for a safety net, but at some point you have to let them die in the street.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

I'm all for a safety net, but at some point you have to let them die in the street.

LOL

 

[TPOKE]

I have no problem helping people who are making an effort to make their life better, but coming up short. It's the ones who do nothing and expect something.

 

[MegaPoke]

I have no problem helping people who are making an effort to make their life better, but coming up short. It's the ones who do nothing and expect something.

agree. And was thinking about a similar compromise for minimum wage.

 

[CBradSmith]

I assume Trump can count on @syskatine 's vote now. Probably @CowboyUp as well.

 

[CBradSmith]

Structurally and FAIRLY (I hate that word), there has to be a mechanism in place to incentivize a person to change behavior or adopt behaviour that perpetuates the need to continue to subsidize a baseline quality of life. This obviously applies to able-bodied/minded individuals.

How do you build that mechanism humanely? (It expires? Lifetime limit? ...)

And how do you discern who is able bodied/minded? (Link a clinical mental/physical health evaluation to the application of disbursement programs, and compare against the statistical mean? ...)

Obviously opens cans of worms. Spitballin

 

[long-duc-dong]

This isn't some new revelation about the Donald.

 

[Colorado_Poke]

And Trump explained his plan thusly:

"We’re going to work with our hospitals. We’re going to work with our doctors."

This sounds similar to a lot of his plans: lacking in substance.

 

[NeekReevers]

This sounds similar to a lot of his plans: lacking in substance.

Yep....my biggest complaint about the man. He really has no plan for anything, he's just going to figure it out when he gets there. I've heard him say you can't have a plan because you have to work with others so you can't just unilaterally decide policy. While it's true you can't decide policy unilaterally you have to have a place to start or a goal in mind. I seriously doubt he goes into his real estate deals without having a price in mind.

 

[JimmyBob]

Yep....my biggest complaint about the man. He really has no plan for anything, he's just going to figure it out when he gets there. I've heard him say you can't have a plan because you have to work with others so you can't just unilaterally decide policy. While it's true you can't decide policy unilaterally you have to have a place to start or a goal in mind. I seriously doubt he goes into his real estate deals without having a price in mind.

Dang, good to see some folks "getting it". Deport all aliens, build a wall, 45% tariff on China imports: the absurdity of this horseshit is mind-boggling. "What we have here is" an alligator mouth overloading a hummingbird ass; sadly it lacks substance.

 

[CBradSmith]

This isn't some new revelation about the Donald.

Empty contribution to the discussion.

Others points are valid.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Empty contribution to the discussion.

Others points are valid.

Just stating a fact. He's been on record stating he's ok with obamacare so no one should be surprised by his words. That's all. He's pretty liberal so people need to get used to the fact he's not much different than Hilldo, just uses different tactics. To me he's no different than any other politician. I see through his bullshit.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Just stating a fact. He's been on record stating he's ok with obamacare so no one should be surprised by his words. That's all. He's pretty liberal so people need to get used to the fact he's not much different than Hilldo, just uses different tactics. To me he's no different than any other politician. I see through his bullshit.

Not sure if this is a flip flop or not but yesterday Trump hammered Cruz for saying Trump's okay with Obamacare. He said he would defund it and get rid of it completely.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Not sure if this is a flip flop or not but yesterday Trump hammered Cruz for saying Trump's okay with Obamacare. He said he would defund it and get rid of it completely.

He's said a lot of things that contradict his previous stances. I'm all for people finding their way and evolving, but he has done that on a lot of issues all of a sudden. Just find it curious.

 

[CBradSmith]

My take on Trump is largely I am optimistic that he would hire top notch talent into advisory, cabinet, and department roles.

I also think in about half the"policies" out there, he doesn't have a firm position, or it's fluid. ..hence the importance of hiring well, which again, I think he'd do.

 

[CBradSmith]

Put another way, I don't perceive him as a radical ideologue or owned by either establishment. One could make a solid argument that he's from a role in life and a perspective that is more about results than an agenda...come hell or high water.

I want to see him challenge ALL thoughts and assumptions. Start with a foundation in the bill of rights/Constitution and build up.

There needs to be a national, lengthy conversation that begins at First Principles, our freedoms, and builds out.

I'm inclined to believe he would trim much more than he would add...mirroring efficient, effective business.

 

[JimmyBob]

He's said a lot of things that contradict his previous stances. I'm all for people finding their way and evolving, but he has done that on a lot of issues all of a sudden. Just find it curious.

Pick your side of the coin: Dem - pathological liar, can't be trusted, wouldn't let the bastard walk my dog. Rep - convenient liar, can't be trusted, media whore who says whatever works at the moment, having nothing to do with issue.

 

[NeekReevers]

Put another way, I don't perceive him as a radical ideologue or owned by either establishment. One could make a solid argument that he's from a role in life and a perspective that is more about results than an agenda...come hell or high water.

I want to see him challenge ALL thoughts and assumptions. Start with a foundation in the bill of rights/Constitution and build up.

There needs to be a national, lengthy conversation that begins at First Principles, our freedoms, and builds out.

I'm inclined to believe he would trim much more than he would add...mirroring efficient, effective business.

I've seen nothing from him that leads me to believe he would be a strong proponent of our first principles and freedoms. Why do you think that's what he would do? Honest question as I just haven't seen or heard it.

 

[CBradSmith]

I've seen nothing from him that leads me to believe he would be a strong proponent of our first principles and freedoms. Why do you think that's what he would do? Honest question as I just haven't seen or heard it.

Are you communicating that you believe he is the opposite, willing to suspend liberties for whatever he believes in? If so, do you mind citing statements that would lead you to believe this?

For my take, it's most likely more of an educated assumption at this point. Gleaned from listening to the actual words he says, versus press clippings, and my general belief that any good business man, the ones who win, favor a truly free society, because their talents allow them to win without relying on government intervention. And only in a truly free society can you maximize profit.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Are you communicating that you believe he is the opposite, willing to suspend liberties for whatever he believes in? If so, do you mind citing statements that would lead you to believe this?

He did say he would like to "close up" certain parts of the Internet.

 

[NeekReevers]

Are you communicating that you believe he is the opposite, willing to suspend liberties for whatever he believes in? If so, do you mind citing statements that would lead you to believe this?

For my take, it's most likely more of an educated assumption at this point. Gleaned from listening to the actual words he says, versus press clippings, and my general belief that any good business man, the ones who win, favor a truly free society, because their talents allow them to win without relying on government intervention. And only in a truly free society can you maximize profit.

He opposes legalization of marijuana, supports the Patriot Act, supported the GM bailout, supported Tarp and the bank bailout. As donger said he alluded to censoring the Internet and he's for trade tariffs. I am not saying I disagree with all of these positions, but they don't sound like the positions of someone who is a serious supporter of freedom and free market first principles. This guy is not a conservative and never has been, just look at his history.

 

[imprimis]

This sounds similar to a lot of his plans: lacking in substance.

Have you read his VA plan? It's as much in detail as any other candidate's plan on any subject. As a veteran who gets some medical care from the VA, I like much of what he has proposed. Obviously, he has to be elected to implement his plan. Like Trump, I believe bad managers/administrators need to be fired and there are many at the VA. His plan addresses many of the points of contention many of us face when dealing with the VA. If elected, implementing 1/2 of his proposal would improve the care by 100%. As someone facing knee replacement surgery soon, I would love to be given a voucher to have this done in a non-VA facility.

 

[twiza]

Not a Trump fan but do any of these people have a clear plan on how to fix healthcare??? Ted Cruz was asked just the other day what he would replace it with and all he said is that it was unfair the way it was passed.

 

[ctdub]

Not a Trump fan but do any of these people have a clear plan on how to fix healthcare??? Ted Cruz was asked just the other day what he would replace it with and all he said is that it was unfair the way it was passed.

Re: Cruz
I think he mentioned during the debate last week. Off the top of my head I think these were the 3 points he made.
1. Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines... Should bring premiums down with increased competition.
2. HSA's- Allowing people to safe for health care in a tax free manner.
3. Delinking insurance from employment so that if you lose your job you don't lose your insurance.

I think the liberal mainstream media is confused that his "replacement " isn't a government program instead it is removing red tape from the process and making it more affordable and accessible for consumers.

 

[Headhunter]

Trumps only got a couple of jobs he needs to do and that's enforce immigration laws and make good trade deals.

The Chinese are screwing us over if it takes a big tariff to get them in line then we're going to have to bite the bullet.

The President really can't do much on his own unless congress let's them get away with it.

 

[ctdub]

This sounds similar to a lot of his plans: lacking in substance.

His tax plan is out there and it's a solid plan and has a realistic chance of recieving congressional support too.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

 

[NeekReevers]

Trumps only got a couple of jobs he needs to do and that's enforce immigration laws and make good trade deals.

The Chinese are screwing us over if it takes a big tariff to get them in line then we're going to have to bite the bullet.

The President really can't do much on his own unless congress let's them get away with it.

Trade is one area in which I do agree with Trump. Congress has bent over American manufacturing for years by forcing US companies, especially smaller companies, to play by a different set of rules than the rest of the world. People talk about wealth inequality and they need to look no further than that. Manufacturing was the one area where a worker with a high school education could make a pretty decent wage for his family and make it possible for his kids to have it better than he did. Those jobs have dried up in a big way. Energy is one of the few areas where that was still true, up until recently.

 

[CBradSmith]

@NeekReevers

I largely agree with the few points @Headhunter made, but I want to expand on a few items when I've got more time.

For now:

I'm not sold on a firm (binary) position on TARP, Bank bail outs, The Patriot Act, weed legalization, etc...

Are portions of all of the above beneficial? As in, are they grounded in freedom, do they pay themselves back (or mitigate a larger cost than their own cost), do they promote the general welfare in a reasonably straight forward way .... You speak about these things, it seems, from a place of already assigned value.

Using verbiage like

he alluded to censoring the Internet and he's for trade tariffs

does a disservice to the support of your position. I'm persuadable, but supporting evidence needs to be framed and communicated accurately and clearly.

For example, I see his mention of "support" of tariffs not as him saying we're going back to the 1600s, but that they are a TOOL to deploy when other countries use their own policy tools that put the U.S. producer or consumer at a disadvantage.

There is already a degree of "censorship" of the internet. If a company tries to sell knock-off Gucci bags online, if found out, they are shut down. There are governing bodies in place for this type of thing, and in the case of fraud (like shown above), I have no issue with the website being shut down.

In the case of his discussion on "closing up" some small part of the internet where terrorism is being bred, I'm asking you, do his own words give enough perspective or context to accurately convey some intrusion into your liberties...or are you reading that into his own words? Or, contrast that with what he may truly be communicating, is it that he will ask experts, he mentions Bill Gates, but he would have to include legal experts as well, to see how we can better (innovatively) protect the U.S., operating within the parameters of the law, in ways that are not already being executed upon?

Is he being driven by an entrenched ideal or pragmatism? Do some entrenched ideals merit scrutiny?

By "beginning with First Principles," I'm referring the mental model where you start at the ground floor, from what is known, what is truth, or what is established as a universal value, and you build out, step-by-step, in a way that inherently honors established knowns/values (because they are the foundation upon which everything is built to begin with in this model) and use pragmatism, evidence, etc, to reach the goal of maximizing happiness/utility (however you decide to define that, in this instance).

If you do that, does Social Security continue to exist in its current form, does Welfare, the Patriot Act, etc, etc...or are there better ways to construct society in which to reach the goals we generally all share?

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/ar...e-world-changing-technological-breakthroughs/

 

[NZ Poke]

Trumps only got a couple of jobs he needs to do and that's enforce immigration laws and make good trade deals.

The Chinese are screwing us over if it takes a big tariff to get them in line then we're going to have to bite the bullet.

The President really can't do much on his own unless congress let's them get away with it.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you on so much now.

Securing our southern border is numero uno --- if we continue to have mass third world immigration through our southern border, everything else is irrelevant.


And second, agree re the trade deals. The Chinese have been stealing 300 billion of intellectual property from us each year.

Absolutely staggering economic warfare against us, and establishment Dems and Republicans have allowed it to keep happening. Tariffs may indeed be needed.


I suggest all you guys watch this video -- it's all unedited clips from US and foreign leaders.

These are the multinational corporate interests that own our government, foreign governments, institutions, mass media, UN etc. They fear Trump because he's putting American interests first.

 

[imprimis]

he alluded to censoring the Internet and he's for trade tariffs.

Isn't this exactly what Zuckerberg did with Facebook and its decision not to allow sales of guns between individuals? Facebook is 100% a creation of the internet. It appears like ole Zuckerberg is doing Obama's bidding and censoring out political conduct which he disagrees with.

 

[NeekReevers]

@NeekReevers

I largely agree with the few points @Headhunter made, but I want to expand on a few items when I've got more time.

For now:

I'm not sold on a firm (binary) position on TARP, Bank bail outs, The Patriot Act, weed legalization, etc...

Are portions of all of the above beneficial? As in, are they grounded in freedom, do they pay themselves back (or mitigate a larger cost than their own cost), do they promote the general welfare in a reasonably straight forward way .... You speak about these things, it seems, from a place of already assigned value.

Using verbiage like does a disservice to the support of your position. I'm persuadable, but supporting evidence needs to be framed and communicated accurately and clearly.

For example, I see his mention of "support" of tariffs not as him saying we're going back to the 1600s, but that they are a TOOL to deploy when other countries use their own policy tools that put the U.S. producer or consumer at a disadvantage.

There is already a degree of "censorship" of the internet. If a company tries to sell knock-off Gucci bags online, if found out, they are shut down. There are governing bodies in place for this type of thing, and in the case of fraud (like shown above), I have no issue with the website being shut down.

In the case of his discussion on "closing up" some small part of the internet where terrorism is being bred, I'm asking you, do his own words give enough perspective or context to accurately convey some intrusion into your liberties...or are you reading that into his own words? Or, contrast that with what he may truly be communicating, is it that he will ask experts, he mentions Bill Gates, but he would have to include legal experts as well, to see how we can better (innovatively) protect the U.S., operating within the parameters of the law, in ways that are not already being executed upon?

Is he being driven by an entrenched ideal or pragmatism? Do some entrenched ideals merit scrutiny?

By "beginning with First Principles," I'm referring the mental model where you start at the ground floor, from what is known, what is truth, or what is established as a universal value, and you build out, step-by-step, in a way that inherently honors established knowns/values (because they are the foundation upon which everything is built to begin with in this model) and use pragmatism, evidence, etc, to reach the goal of maximizing happiness/utility (however you decide to define that, in this instance).

If you do that, does Social Security continue to exist in its current form, does Welfare, the Patriot Act, etc, etc...or are there better ways to construct society in which to reach the goals we generally all share?

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/ar...e-world-changing-technological-breakthroughs/

I'm not debating the pros or cons of any of his positions that I do think he's made clear by his own statements or convince you to support or not support him. I may have misunderstood your post but I took it as saying you would see him governing based on a traditional constitutional/bill of rights position like Paul or to a lesser degree Cruz and in that respect I disagree because of his positions that I mentioned.

 

[CowboyUp]

I assume Trump can count on @syskatine 's vote now. Probably @CowboyUp as well.