Not long ago, I wrote about how I thought that if Bernie Sanders got the Democratic nomination, he could beat Trump. I added that I'd had a debate with a friend whose biggest concern about Sanders was that his "Medicare for All" healthcare plan would scare too many people off. My response was long and detailed, but the very short version was that when Sanders and Trump got on the debate stage, all Sanders would have to say is, "I know not everyone likes my healthcare plan, but here's the difference between me and the president -- I have a plan that is based on providing as much healthcare as possible to people -- and he wants to get rid of it all. In fact, he's joined a lawsuit in Texas to do just that."
What I didn't note was the other side of the debate, what Trump would try to say. Happily, I don't have to make it up. That's because at his recent Town Hall on "Fox News," he was asked that very question -- and his answer was so numbingly convoluted and incomprehensible that you couldn't even call it word salad. Trump was asked: "Because the issue of pre-existing conditions, you say you're going to protect them. But your administration is also fighting Obamacare in the courts. So how do you promise you're going to protect them based on that?" And this is what Trump said. Take a deep breath first and hold on to the arms of your chair -- "That's what I said. We want to terminate Obamacare because it's bad. Look, we're running it really well, but we know it's defective. It's very defective. We got rid of the worst part. And that was a very important thing. You know getting rid of the individual mandate was a very important thing. "But we want to get something — if we can get the House, you'll have the best healthcare and health insurance anywhere on the planet. But we have to get the House back. "Now, that means we have to hold the Senate. We have to get the House. We have to, obviously, keep the White House. But, what we're doing is managing it really well. "Now, it's a case; it's called Texas vs. — you understand — it's Texas who is suing. They want to terminate it. But everybody there is also saying, and everybody — we have our great senator from Pennsylvania. Thank you very much, Pat, for being here. (Applause.) And Pat Toomey. "And — but, very important — and our — by the way, our great congressmen, I have to say, they were warriors. Right? Real warriors, in terms of the fake impeachment. I will tell you that. (Applause.) "But, so Texas is trying — and it's Texas and many states — they're trying to terminate, but they want to put something that's much better. They're terminating it to put much better. And they've all pledged that preexisting conditions, 100 percent taken care of." Suddenly, "Medicare for All" looks a whole lot better. Even if you hate it. After all, halfway through all that rambling, you you remember that, oh, yeah, this is the same guy in charge of handling the coronavirus healthcare pandemic. And who shut down the Pandemic Response unit. And cut out $8.5 BILLION from the CDC for infectious disease prevention. And who said the number of cases of coronavirus would go from 15 (there were about 40 at the time) down to 5 then down to 1 or 2 and then would go away completely like a "miracle." So, yes, there are two sides to every argument. And sometimes, one of the sides isn't great. And the other side is really, really, really, really horrible. And that's if Trump had to debate "Medicare for All." Now imagine that answer when the other side is closer to, "We want to keep healthcare as it was before Trump and expand it, making it even better." Now, go back and re-read his answer to getting rid of pre-existing conditions. But only if you do have healthcare coverage, because otherwise reading it twice may make you very sick.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|