This issue gives the Persimmon Messiah a fine opportunity to trot out his signature style of crafting platitudes:This should not be big, surprising, new news. But somehow it is.“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said.“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”– Excerpt from Washington Post interview with Donald Trump, published yesterday, Sunday the 15th of January, 2017.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.– Excerpt from transcript of CBS interview with Donald Trump, September 27th, 2015.Do you see the problem with treating this weekend’s “revelation” that Donald Trump is fundamentally pitching a universal coverage plan as new and, well, a revelation? That’s where we are, though.
Donald Trump has consistently voiced his support for government-run health coverage. You may dimly recall way back in the ancient past of last week when the #MAGA legions were crowing about the impending repeal of Obamacare as a vindication of Trump’s election, and an end to government control of healthcare or socialized medicine. Search your memory, last week was a long time ago, but I assure you it happened.
For conservative Republicans dubious about his pledge to ensure coverage for millions, Trump pointed to several interviews he gave during the campaign in which he promised to “not have people dying on the street.”
“It’s not going to be their plan,” he said of people covered under the current law. “It’ll be another plan. But they’ll be beautifully covered. I don’t want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people,” he said Saturday.
“I don’t want single-payer,” he throws in. As is his way, the President-elect of course expects to be given credit for both (opposing) points of view. He is against government health care. He is also for it. He is against single-payer. He is also advocating it.Reconcile this, all you #MAGA devotees:
Here is his cake, eaten and kept.
Trump has lauded the success of single-payer, though. During a Presidential debate in 2015, Trump had this to say:
“As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.”
Note: it does not work incredibly well in Scotland.Again, I say to the incoming Congress, robust, proactive command of the agenda is going to be essential. The headwind is going to be Squirrel-Hair's ramrod personality. Your advantage is that he has no consistent ideology, no guiding principles. You do, or, perhaps the way to word it is that you must.
The opportunity for conservatism to inform this nation's policy direction is its best in decades, perhaps ever. But it will depend on Congress asserting its coequal status as a branch of government. It is not a fine new day in America because Donald Trump is about to be president. It is a fine new day because it is brimming with potential, potential that can only be actualized by grown-ups with their heads on straight.
Exit question: In a tweet the other day, S-H said he was pleased that his cabinet appointees were speaking for themselves in their confirmation hearings, that he didn't want to be surrounded by yes-people. Will he have that stance when new HHS head Tom Price inevitably asserts his free-market principles when it comes to this issue?
You're right, bloggie, it does not indeed work well in Scotland right now http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-s-nhs-at-breaking-point-warns-bma-chairman-1-4340144
ReplyDeleteBut is there a plan? Is there a Republican plan? Nice touch repealing the pre-existing clause after midnight though, with 5 Republican dissenters. If your ilk rams whatever they might have up their sleeves up our posteriors, expect a swift turn-around in the mid-terms, just like what happened to the intransigent Dems. Come on, your ilk wants to keep America exceptional, if not exactly make America great again, dontcha? I realize this all takes time, but please eschew the blame game you ascribed to Obama, as it is again of course, something like morning in America, right? How we gonna pay for this beefed up military and nuclear escalation? With the fearless leader you're all on board with tweeting the glorious way to the new day?
Um, regarding that business about being "on board," see the post below.
ReplyDeleteRe: blaming Obama: he was perfectly happy to have his name attached to the nickname for the "A"CA, and in fact advertised it with lies about keeping one's doctor and premiums going down.
Re: paying for the beefed up military: a robust Defense Department does not take up anywhere near a majority slice of the budget pile And don't forget, the plan is to shave way back - who knows? maybe even eliminate - completely unnecessary departments and agencies such as Education, Energy, HUD, and the EPA.
Excuse me, I meant this post - which makes the "on board" remark even more strange.
ReplyDeleteOn Board, who's navigating? It is certainly not Martin Luther King. Hopefully it is more Pence then Trump today. Hoosiers are resilient.
ReplyDeleteI said you're all on board with Trump. Well, you're in his chosen cabinet, and soon will be panting for that Supreme Court pie, right? You're all on board with what he says about Israel, right? You're all on board because you are all kissing the ring, and you would too if he had a job for you. Getting back to how we're all gonna pay for what you're all on board with: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-navy-build-up-comes-with-steep-price-tag/ar-AAlVCr0?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5JDHP
ReplyDeleteAll aboard the train wreck? Like Michael says, look who's driving?
ReplyDeleteIs there a plan? Is there a Republican plan? Can we get some Demo support or will be up our posteriors you will cram? You know what your fearful leader says.
ReplyDeleteActually, government has no business proposing a replacement for a realm of economic interaction that should have been between individuals and private organizations in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe title of your linked Hill article does not live up to its titillation factor.
ReplyDeleteOne challenge the author raises is a purely procedural legislative-branch procedure, and it's a roadblock put up by national-security-haters: the business about only raising the defense budget ceiling if non-defense budget ceilings are likewise raised.
And some kind of very vague, general "pressure on Trump . . . to keep federal spending low."
Weak tea.
We need to beef up defense spending big-time.
Maybe the only purpose of government is to intervene when business acts irresponsibly in the public interest, otherwise but out.
ReplyDeleteIn defense spending beef up what would you mean Barney? An increase in capacity to destroy all micro chip in a given area. We already pretty good capacity there. Or maybe you mean beefing up defenses by increase of the competency in Tokomak physics. I an all for beefing up defenses. I am not for the military complex being in charge of the idea of how.
ReplyDeleteAs bloggie always reminds us, the money's got to come from somewhere. On this day in 1961, Ike delivered his MIC speech, but to bloggie and co. all that's now passé
ReplyDeleteAnd he demonstrates his cluelessness with his blanket statement about government having no business with Healy care. He talks out his behind about how simple it is. What will he do about the body of case law? And now he just conveniently ignores the replacement aspect of the Pub equation.
ReplyDeleteAnd Obamacare already is a market based solution the Pubs basically cMe up with when Clinton tried to get a bill passed, though the bloggie will dispute this.
ReplyDeleteGovernment is involved. Not market-based.
ReplyDelete