Posted on 02/01/2016 12:32:54 PM PST by dangus
Republicans have always specialized in running candidates that accept the most important premises of liberal governance and make themselves indistinguishable from their Democrat counterparts. They should patent their pale pastels, which blend in so effectively there is no discernable ink contrasting their talking points to Democrat policies.
In 2012, Republicans concocted a brilliant electoral plan. In a race fought over healthcare, they managed to nominate the only human being in America who implemented Obamacare before President Obama did. Now that the Democrat front-runner is Hillary Clinton, the original god-mother of single-payer healthcare, Republicans are on the cusp of nominating the one man in the GOP who has long championed Marxist healthcare policies.
In case anyone thought Donald Trump has indeed undergone a cathartic change since deciding to run for president and is no longer promoting New York values, he wants everyone to know if you oppose universal healthcare, you don’t have a heart. Here is what he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos this morning:
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.
Somehow Trump “opposes†Obamacare, but believes that if you don’t champion something similar to it you have no heart. He declined to defend “single-payer,†which he championed for years, but left out the fact that he praised Canada and Scotland’s dysfunctional Marxist system during one of the early presidential debates.
What’s worse than Trump’s support for the Democrat position on healthcare (wait, how is he going to debate Hillary again?) is the way he articulates this position. He uses the most antiquated tool in the Marxist/Alinsky shed, which is to play on emotions over intelligence, thereby achieving neither sound policy nor compassionate outcomes. Let’s not even discuss the constitutional powers of government; evidently that is never a factor with Trump.
Had Trump spent more time studying the government he seeks to run instead of pandering for the endorsements of Bob Dole and his less charismatic mini-me, Terry Branstad, The Donald would understand that we already spend hundreds of billions on Medicaid, S-Chip, and an array of state programs for those who would “die on the sidewalks†because they have no money. Medicaid alone will cost us $350 billion this year. The “dying on the sidewalk†Alinsky argument is a non-sequitur. The real question is what happens with the rest of us. Either we are all forced into single-payer, which has been Trump’s long-standing position. Or we are forced into something similar to Obamacare’s coverage mandates that he won’t specify. Here are the results of such a plan from my personal experience:
This is the outcome of a liberal “heart†in which no middle class family will be able to afford health insurance with dignity. When you pursue increased coverage at the expense of reducing costs you achieve neither objective. I can’t wait to see the premiums under Trump-care. Then again, under single-payer the problems will go much further than health insurance but will spill over to healthcare itself. Perhaps he will then take his rode show onto universal housing, college, and transportation.
Doesn’t Trump’s Alinsky thought process on healthcare sound awfully similar to his immigration views he harbored prior to running for president?
Many of us who believe immigration is the single most important issue have tolerated Trump’s New York values on many critical issues so that we could engage in the long-overdue discussion of national sovereignty. But as Trump devotes less time to immigration (shocker!) and promotes one left-wing idea and talking point after another, the circus has come full circle. Moreover, doesn’t Trump’s Alinsky thought process on healthcare sound awfully similar to his immigration views he harbored prior to running for president?
“You have to give them a path and you have to make it possible for them to succeed…“You have to do that.†“How do you throw somebody out that’s lived in the country for 20 years?...You just can’t throw them out.â€
Again, it’s not just the positions he took in recent years that are problematic, it’s the way he expressed them. Trump’s comments are not taken out of context; they are clearly coming from a deep-rooted liberal intuition on the most critical issues facing our nation. You might even say they come from the “heart.â€
As someone who has fought for national sovereignty over the past decade I can tell you there is no such thing as a politician who is to the left of Susan Collins on most issues but is somehow aligned with Jeff Sessions on immigration. If you believe that in your heart I have some property to sell you in Ciudad Juárez.
What Trump actually said,
“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.
God bless him if he actually decides to start helping people besides political props. But read the article; he said a lot more than that.
Nothing is going to be done about abortion no matter who wins. Vote for someone who actually says stopping muslim immigration and building a wall on the southern border is a good idea.
I'm for that.
Just on the cost of cleanup alone.
What Trump actually said,
“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.
FACT: In all 50 states, a hospital or ambulance company can lose its license for failing to treat such a person, regardless of ability to pay.
FACT: As the article states, “Had Trump spent more time studying the government he seeks to run instead of pandering for the endorsements of Bob Dole and his less charismatic mini-me, Terry Branstad, The Donald would understand that we already spend hundreds of billions on Medicaid, S-Chip, and an array of state programs for those who would “die on the sidewalks” because they have no money. Medicaid alone will cost us $350 billion this year. The “dying on the sidewalk” Alinsky argument is a non-sequitur. The real question is what happens with the rest of us. Either we are all forced into single-payer, which has been Trump’s long-standing position.
I think this is something the “Conservative†media machine might want to keep in mind. Candidates come and go, your reputation follows you around for the rest of our career in media.
Really want to get a reputation as habitual liars? Take a look at how that tactic has worked for your cohorts in the Leftist media.
Trump has promised that "everyone" will be covered. You cannot do that without either an individual mandate, or single payer, so some mixture of the two. It's simply not possible as a matter of logic. Without a mandate, some people will choose not to be insured because they won't want to pay for it. And if they're not willing to pay for it, then the government must. Otherwise, "everyone" will not have coverage.
This obvious contradiction keeps getting ignored by Trump supporters who insist that he's going to eliminate Obamacare but not have single payer. You can certainly do both, but you can't do that and cover "everyone", as Trump said he is going to do.
If he wants to backtrack on "everyone" being covered, that's fine. But until he does that, it would be irresponsible not to ignore what he's said.
If Trump is already veering towards the middle now, just think of what’s going to happen if he gets the nomination.
You don’t get it.
Trump 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.
Conservative Review is a Levin site that is all in for CRUZ!
It doesn’t mean single-payer, but it does mean mandatory. And the failure of mandatory, which we are witnessing, will make single-payer inevitable, even if Trump claims he no longer desires that outcome.
Well, he'll make America great again by cutting deals with the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. Oh, wait: isn't that what the GOPe is doing now?
“Conservative Review is a Levin site that is all in for CRUZ!”
Doesn’t the son of Levin’s fiancee work on another candidate’s campaign?
Please show me the conservative answer to the specific situations that I’ve outlined.
The pre-existing condition issue gets everyone at some point.
We all get sick. People are surviving cancer and chronic disease at much higher rates because modern medicine is improving. The ‘widow maker’ heart attack that would’ve been the end of a 45 year old isn’t ending his life and that man is living to be 85. T1 Diabetes used to be a death sentence, but now it’s an expensive, high-maintenance disease that doesn’t completely cripple a person and they *can* work, but they can never afford their disease without help.
There *is* no easy conservative answer to this problem. Conservationism hasn’t caught up with the reality of modern medicine.
The closest thing that I’ve seen that could work is the Australia model. They’ve got a crappy, inconvenient public system that people pay a reasonable price to stay out of.
Just another Establishment Republican politician.
Yes, citing the man’s public record is definitely idiotic. We’re just supposed to clap our hands twice and believe.
NONE and this article is CRAP; filled with lies, distortions, and is extremely biased.
Yes, citing the man’s public record is definitely idiotic. We’re just supposed to clap our hands twice and believe.
Public record? Absolutely. There is only one candidate here with stood with Barack Obama & Goldman Sachs in the United States Senate. That would be Ted Cruz.
>> Please show me the conservative answer to the specific situations that I’ve outlined. The pre-existing condition issue gets everyone at some point. <<
HIPAA was passed unanimously in 1996 by a Republican-controlled Senate, and expanded unanimously in 2004 by a Republican-controlled Senate with a Republican president. It was an expansion of Reagan’s COBRA. It means that if you were previously covered by health care that you cannot be turned down if you enroll in another health care program within several months.
“Public record? Absolutely. There is only one candidate here with stood with Barack Obama & Goldman Sachs in the United States Senate. That would be Ted Cruz.”
Nice try.
If you mean the banking bailout, Cruz opposed it, and Trump supported it. In fact, Trump supported the bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus spending, and his supplemental 2009 budget.
The only tie Cruz has to Goldman Sachs is that he put a second mortgage on his house to loan money to his campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.