Let's take a few minutes away from impeachment, Ukraine and China-- although I do want to mention the reporting did for the Wall Street Journal, about how Trump lied to Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) when Johnson confronted him about the illegal pressure he was putting on Ukraine, a quid pro quo to get Ukraine to help Trump steal the 2020 election, the way he stole the 2020 election. When Johnson asked Señor T, the illegitimate fake president said, "Muthafucker, no way. I would never do that. Who told you that?"
Let the peoplehave the powerto redeem the work of foolsupon the meek
Instead, let's move along to how the Trumpist Regime plans to destroy Medicare, while persuading Trump's 2-digit IQ moron supporters that he's saving it. During his speech to the old, slow-witted and generally feeble residents of the Villages in Florida this week, he mentioned that the impeachment thing might have been set up by the pharmaceutical industry since he's "taking them on." By taking them on, he means letting them run wild and raise prices with impunity. He attacked Bernie's plan to actually improve Medicare and lower drug prices as putting "everyone into a single socialist government-run program that would end private insurance."Kaiser Heather News reminded it's readers that Trump once again "said he and Republicans are committed to protecting people who have preexisting conditions-- a claim that PolitiFact and Kaiser Health News previously rated False, because of his administration’s policies.
Trump told his audience that “Democrats are draining your health care to finance the open borders.”We asked the White House for the basis of this remark and never got a specific answer. But there are various issues to examine.In August, the president argued that Democrats “support giving illegal immigrants free healthcare at our expense.” But that isn’t accurate. The statement, part of a Trump 2020 television advertisement, was rated Mostly False.That claim examined Democratic candidates who had said during one of the televised debates that their health care plans would provide coverage to undocumented immigrants. But the question posed by a debate host didn’t ask whether coverage would be free. In fact, multiple candidates said coverage for undocumented people would not be free. Some, meanwhile, include copays and deductibles in their health care proposals. Plus, if any Medicare for All plan was financed through, for instance, payroll taxes, undocumented immigrants would also be subject to paying those.Trump argued that Democratic proposals for universal health care “would totally obliterate Medicare”-- adding that “whether it’s single-payer or the so-called public option … they want to raid Medicare to fund a thing called socialism.”The argument here is nuanced but, fundamentally, Trump’s characterization misses the mark and is misleading.The “single-payer” bill he refers to is the Medicare for All proposal pushed by Democratic Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The bill would put all Americans-- including the seniors currently covered by Medicare-- into a single health plan. It would share Medicare’s name but look dramatically different: Unlike the existing program, the proposal envisions covering virtually all medical services and eliminating cost sharing. It would not be administered by private, for-profit contractors.Predicting what this looks like is difficult since it’s grounded in hypotheticals. And one could argue that using the term “obliterates” is not completely off base because Medicare in its current form would no longer exist. But that misses the broader impact. Under the proposal as it’s written, seniors would be insured through a program at least as generous-- if not more-- than what they currently receive.As for “public option” proposals put forth by candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, they would leave Medicare more or less as it is, while also creating a public health plan uninsured people could buy into.Describing Medicare for All, Trump said the plan would “reduce Americans’ household income by $17,000 a year.”We contacted the White House to find out the source of this number. The administration acknowledged receipt but never sent an answer.That said, it’s unclear where this number comes from, because the evidence simply doesn’t exist to make such a precise claim. After all, many details about Medicare for All are still being worked out. That makes it exceptionally difficult to figure out how much such a system would cost-- let alone how an individual household’s finances might change under such a system. (This ambiguity is why the Congressional Budget Office has declined to estimate single-payer’s fiscal impact.)And different households would likely make out differently under Medicare for All. Some might end up paying more. But others would likely pay more in taxes while still seeing their health care costs go down-- meaning they could ultimately save money.Trump said, “the Democrat plans for socialized medicine will not just put doctors and hospitals out of business, they will also deny your treatment and everything that you need.”This statement relies on a talking point that’s been widely debunked.We focused on the first part of this claim. Both conservatives and moderate Democrats have argued that single-payer health care, in particular, would drive hospitals and doctors to shutter en masse. (Conservatives have made this argument about a public option as well.) In a past related fact check, we rated this as False.The argument springs from the way Medicare currently reimburses hospitals, at 87 cents for every dollar spent on health care. But the Sanders bill does not set a reimbursement rate, and instead would charge the federal government with devising an appropriate rate.Some hospitals might struggle under a new system-- but others, health care economists have previously told us, would likely do better.“It really depends on which hospitals you’re talking about,” Gerard Anderson, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins University and an expert in hospital pricing, told Kaiser Health News in July.
The L.A. Times' Michael Hiltzik didn't beat around the bush: Trump’s plan to ‘save’ Medicare would actually destroy it. "Trump," he wrote, "portrayed himself Thursday as the nation’s foremost defender of Medicare against what he termed the 'socialist' Medicare for All proposals being offered by Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail. 'As long as I’m president, no one will lay a hand on your Medicare benefits,' Trump told an audience at a big Florida retirement community. During the day, he signed an executive order purportedly designed to 'protect and improve' the program. Here’s the truth of the matter: Trump’s executive order is a stealth attack on the very program he’s swearing to protect. Buried within the order is a provision that would destroy Medicare by driving its costs to an unsustainable level. At the same time, Trump is proposing to turn more of the program over to commercial insurers. Put simply, he’s proposing to privatize Medicare... The victims will be the 60 million seniors who depend on Medicare for their healthcare. Their costs would go up, and their access to benefits shrink."Biden can't defend his swampy family of lobbyists, drug addicts and swindlers. Instead his desperation has caused his campaign to run this bullshit ad (below) in Iowa , New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, pretending that Trump wants anyone but Biden instead of what Trump really wants: Biden, Biden, Biden. Trump knows full well that by attacking Biden in early primary states, unsophisticated and simple-minded Democratic primary voters will want to thwart him and vote for Biden-- Trump's strategy for not having to debate a more substantive candidate-- Bernie or Elizabeth-- on policy. He wants Biden so the whole campaign is about who is the worst liar, who is the more senile and whose family is more disgusting-- i.e., a pure lesser of two evils race, the only kind of race Trump knows how to win.