The Ugly Truth Donald Trump Has Exposed

The Market-Ticker ^ | Dec. 13, 2015 | Karl Denninger

[CottonBall]

I’ve never heard him say that in his campaign. Certainly not that the government would pay for it.

[Hoodat]

Here are his words from his 60 Minutes interview on September 28 of this year:

Scott Pelley: What's your plan for Obamacare?

Donald Trump: Obamacare's going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what's going on with premiums where they're up 45, 50, 55 percent.

Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

Donald Trump: There's many different ways, by the way. 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--

Scott Pelley: Universal health care?

Donald Trump: 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.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how?

Donald Trump: They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably--

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: --the government's gonna pay for it.

[Hoodat]

Here he is at the GOP debate in August giving praise to single-payer in Canada and Scotland:

No, Donald Trump, Single-Payer Health Care Doesn't 'Work Incredibly Well' In Canada & Scotland

Last night in Cleveland, the 17 declared Republican presidential candidates participated in the first official debates of the 2016 election season. Health care policy was a bone of contention. "How can you run for the Republican nomination and be for single-payer health care?" asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry of Trump. When Fox anchor Bret Baier later asked Trump to defend his position, Trump responded: "As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland."

[monkeyshine]

I have long been annoyed by articles that start off with anecdotes, similes or out of the blue comparisons like this one did with the Tet Offensive. There are infinite possible parallels one can draw so why choose any?

Of course so many writers use these devices that I have learned if I start to read one I skip ahead a half dozen paragraphs to get to the meat. The author has some good points. Why he (and so many others) choose to bury those points beneath 500 words about something totally irrelevant escapes me.

[Pajamajan]

Excellent MUST-READ article.

[Old Sarge]

Very astute. Our Republic is at Stage IV Terminal, and only a massive excise surgery will correct it.