Trump to 60 Minutes: single payer health care

The Examiner ^ | September 28, 2015 | Gary Gross

[TBP]

ccording to the transcript of Donald Trump's interview with Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes, Mr. Trump favors a single payer health care plan in certain situations. During the interview, Pelley asked Mr. Trump what his plan was to replace Obamacare would look like. Mr. Trump responded, saying "I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now." When Pelley pressed Mr. Trump further about who would pay for this coverage, Mr. Trump said "the government’s gonna pay for it."

[woofie]

Blind at best

[woofie]

Its not one tree but its a pretty fat tree

[dynoman]

In context it’s a twig, not a tree.

[woofie]

Nearsighted? Astigmatism? Look again

[nopardons]

Someone sure is and it isn’t me.

[dynoman]

Check this out;

Donald Trump Holds Press Conference Aboard His Plane Before Iowa Rally (12-29-15)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3378265/posts

[LurkLongley]

Please, for your own sake, go and read the analysis of our new national nightmare that exist in many places. For all of the reasons that you stated that you like Obolacare, it is n not sustainable financially. In addition, the millions who you are convinced got coverage is a big crock. Most people without coverage remain uncovered. It’s a fact, please look it up and know what you are talking about. Additionally, health insurance doesn’t mean much if you cannot meet the co-pay or the deductibles.

Do some research on the British National Health Service, or Canada’s system and tell me how happy you think you will be when some uneducated political hack decides that you don’t need that lifesaving treatment after all.

The whole thing is a shell game. It accomplished the first part of its goal by giving the government access to your medical records. The death panels already exist.

[Zhang Fei]

I see Hillary as truly formidable and not the weakling some think she is

Hillary might be a formidable candidate, in terms of the nuts and bolts of campaigning. However, it's not reflected in her polling. She's 5% ahead of Trump, whom she polls best against. At this point in 1979, Reagan was polling almost 30% below Carter.

[MIA_eccl1212]

He will stand in the well of the Senate and complain about it he might even filibuster it for a half hour to 45 minutes because other than that he’ll be able to do nothing.

Because he’s not going to get elected as President!
He is right in his positions, but he does not have the gravitas or the charismatic personality to win although he is worthy as far as his stance on the issues go.
He’s a principled conservative that has very little influene personally.
It IS a shame.... Maybe next cycle.

[D-fendr]

Thanks much for your reply:

>>>”He has covered it in his presentations to thousands of people across the country.”

I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking for it, something of the same detail and content of your reply earlier of what Trump’s position is.

I still haven’t found it. The best in terms of compilation of his statements/positions is here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm

Can you help and direct me to an interview/video/report.. where he describes his position as the same as your previous post?

thanks..

[D-fendr]

This is why I steadfastly maintain that Trump is NOT a conservative - he is a populist. He is brilliant at reading the mood of the public and modifying his positions to be in line with whatever the current popular position is.

I think that is very accurate.

He has no core principles - just whatever will please the audience at the time. And he will attack and try to destroy anyone that opposes him.

Yes and I think the second sentence explains part of his attraction to conservatives for whom the first sentence should repel.

thanks for your reply.

[spetznaz]

I hear you, but let me offer two points as a counter (and again, this is pure opinion on my part). First, polls at this point don't mean much in my estimation. At this point in the last two elections, where were McCain, Romney and (for the Dems in late 07/early 08) Obama polling? I believe polls are important and do offer accurate snapshots, but they are snapshots and as a simulation of the GE they are early. My second point is that, looking at the Reagan/Carter race, there were some very specific issues (ranging from 'malaise' to the Iran crisis to an incumbent many saw as a failure to the point that Reagan won over a good number of Democrats even) that really added high octane fuel to Reagan going forward, as well as turned Carter's wheels into square concrete blocks. Context matters, and there is little comparison between Carter-Reagan and Clinton-Trump when it comes to the operative dynamics on the ground.

However, my main point in that post is that people on FR, as usual, are underestimating Hillary yet she is no joke. She comes with several advantages, ranging from a gotv machine that is an evolution of Obama's monster that made Romney's ORCA system a dead dolphin, an overhang of media support, a GOP field that is fractured and cannibalising, about 200 electoral votes already in the bag, and a slight demographic advantage compared to the core GOP voters. This does not mean she will win, but she's not the stupid oaf set to be jailed that a number of FReepers think she is.

It's just my opinion, but I think it is always best to overestimate rather than underestimate a foe. First prize would be to 'accurately price' the situation, but if that's not possible then it is more prudent to overestimate than underestimate a situation. The former only means you 'over engineered' and raised costs for nothing. The latter kills you.

In my opinion Hillary is the most formidable Dem candidate since JFK, and while some FReepers feel (feel, not think) that their 'pet goat' can defeat Hillary, I believe that line of thinking will lead to some proper shocks unless it changes and changes fast.

[D-fendr]

Lot of good points in your post here...

[spetznaz]

I know, and no ...that is not pride. I know because I made the same points in 2008 and 2012, and they came to pass. At the time, Obama was the most formidable candidate since JFK. I'd also met some person some years back who knew Barrack (or 'Barry' as he called him), and this investor (an African American who was trying to do some international PE, and according to him he'd been part of the group that helped 'Barry' early in his political career) told me something about 'Barry.' That he was absolutely driven and highly focused, and even by Chicago standards he stood out.

Yet on FR I kept reading how he's an empty suit! A person who came from literally nowhere to occupy the US presidency, an empty suit. Someone who managed to outfox Hillary and the Clinton political machine, an empty suit.

My words of warning didn't amount to much, and the usual answer I got was 'there's no one I know who will vote for Obama.'

One more thing - I know my words will not be heeded this time either on this issue. According to FReepers, Hillary will be easy to beat. Goodness, not only that, but she'll probably be arrested. And if she's not it will be easy to defeat her in the GE.

A couple of days I was wondering why the GOP is called the Stupid Party, and I think I understand that now. Or maybe it is just simply wishful thinking ...maybe thinking a pet goat can beat the Clintons (and it is The Clintons) makes people sleep better at night. But per my analysis, the electoral and demographic mathematics is better now for the Dems than when Obama was running, the GOP is split and candidates brusque toward one another, and the media is largely Preparation H ...I mean, pro Hillary.

But FR logic is that it will be easy.

Okay, then I guess there's nothing to worry about.

Sorry if I'm coming across as a tad acerbic, but it boggles my mind that I am a non-voting foreigner, a Kenyan, and I am more concerned about US elections than people who claim to be American patriots. This is the election of a generation, and people actually think (ha, think!) that their pet goat can beat The Clintons.

When Obama was running in 2008 things like Gay Marriage were a big debate. 8 years later and it's no longer an issue ....THEY WON. Obama is tantamount to John the Baptist, and Hillary is creeping towards the river for her baptism. But people say she's easy to beat.

Amazing!

[21twelve]

“A person who came from literally nowhere to occupy the US presidency, an empty suit.”

My tagline is a link to an old (1939) and very long article about the New Deal and FDR. If you read the article, obama followed almost all of it. obama is no idiot. And Hillary, or any democrat that can rise to that level aren’t idiots either. Evil - but not stupid.

Excerpt from the link:

Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern....

But it could not be so embarrassed and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme. It took off from a revolutionary base....

... the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technic; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse.

The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention.

The end held constantly in view was power.

[spetznaz]

Quite apropos. Many thanks for the link.