Donald Trump

That Time When Donald Trump Praised Single Payer Health Care in a GOP Debate

Trump's answer to a single question about Obamacare captures the blustery, incoherent essence of his campaign.

|

Gage Skidmore

If you want to understand the essence of Donald Trump, which, granted, may not be a life goal to which you aspire, it's worth looking at how he answered a question about Obamacare during last night's GOP presidential debate.

Trump's response captures his entire persona in miniature—his free-associative bluster, his incoherence, his total disregard for political conventions, his condescending view of nearly everyone else and his mammoth self-regard. It's the whole Trump shtick, in all its vapid, awful, glory, boiled down to a single exchange.

The back and forth starts when Bret Baier, one of the three Fox News debate moderators, announces that the following questions will deal with health care and the role of government.

"Mr. Trump," Baier says, "ObamaCare is one of the things you call a disaster."

"A complete disaster, yes," Trump replies. 

Even in this brief opening exchange, you can see hints of the Trump style at work. He agrees with Baier, but in a way that is designed to subtly correct the moderator, and to tip the balance of power towards Trump by saying that Baier hasn't gotten Trump quite right: Donald Trump wouldn't simply call Obamacare a disaster. He'd call it a complete disaster. Donald Trump never simply makes a statement when overstatement is possible. Baier, Trump's reply suggests, should know that.

Baier goes on, getting Trump to agree that the health law "needs to be repealed and replaced."

And then Baier asks Trump the main question, which is, like virtually all of the questions asked last night, a pretty good one: "Now, 15 years ago, uncalled yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren't you for it now?"

You might expect that this would result in a response that has something to do with Obamacare, single-payer, or health care in general. If a politician wants to avoid a question like this, the typical practice is to open with a statement declaring that it's a mistake to dwell on the past, and then transition into any current talking points about the subject at hand. 

Not Donald Trump. Instead, he responds by…talking about his opposition to the war in Iraq. 

"First of all, I'd like to just go back to one. In July of 2004, I came out strongly against the war with Iraq, because it was going to destabilize the Middle East. And I'm the only one on this stage that knew that and had the vision to say it. And that's exactly what happened."

Baier prods him to talk about Obamacare, but Trump keeps going on about Iraq.

"And the Middle East became totally destabilized," he says. "So I just want to say." Right. He just needed to get that out there. This seemed like as good a time as any. 

It's an exceedingly weird moment: Not only does Trump respond to a question about Obamacare and single payer by talking about foreign policy, he does so by going out of his way to highlight a war that was started by a Republican president, George W. Bush, whose brother—Trump's closest competition—is standing right next to him on the stage. And he does this in the race for the nomination of the Republican party, which remains far more hawkish, and more inclined to continue to say the Iraq war was a good idea, than other groups in the country.

For the record, I agree that the Iraq war was a mistaken venture that left Iraq destabilized. But Trump's mid-debate threadjack, I think we can all agree, is not exactly a typical political strategy. Given the venue, it is more like the political equivalent responding to an accusation of murder by saying, hold on a minute, let me first tell you about the time I burgled someone's home.

Only then does Trump wander over to the topic of the original question. And his opening bid is to declare that single-payer—in which the government is the sole or primary health insurer for everyone in the nation—is a great idea.

"As far as single payer," Trump says, "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."

Then he says this:

"What I'd like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I'm negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid. You know why? Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. But they have total control of the politicians. They're making a fortune."

So, to recap: Trump thinks single-payer, the primary feature of which is solitary, government-controlled health insurers, works pretty well, and at least could have worked well in the U.S. at one point.

Yet the two big problems he identifies with the country's current health care system  are that it doesn't offer choice in insurers—in some cases, he complains, there's only one!—and that insurers are too closely linked to the government.

Er, what?

Trump has a sliver of a point when he gestures toward the notion that health insurance markets are fractured by state boundaries. But it is difficult to reconcile his complaints about lack of choice and coziness between government and the insurance industry with his support for systems in which the government is the insurance industry, and crowds out private health insurance options as a result. (Until about a decade ago, Canada actively prohibited individuals from purchasing many forms of separate private health insurance.)

Even when Trump happens to stumble into a point that is perhaps partially right, he is so incoherent that it renders anything he says completely useless.

Trump continues his response by reiterating that insurers are making a fortune because they have "total control of the politicians"—a frequent line of argument from Trump, who touts himself as rich and independent enough to be uncontrollable by moneyed interests. (Indeed, he often argues that one of his qualifications is that he has donated to politicians, and therefore knows how money controls them.) 

Finally, Trump, who recently described his Obamacare replacement plan by saying that it would be "something terrific!" (who wouldn't support that?) closes by saying, "And then we have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system."

There you have it! A different system! What system would that be? Who knows? Who cares? The point is that it would be different, very different, so differently different that, if you could see it, you would marvel at its differentness, and how "terrific" it is. See how easy it is?

This appeal to totally undefined difference is one that Trump relied on for other questions as well. Later in the debate, the moderators ask Trump how he would respond to meetings between Russian President Vladimir Putin an Iranian general believed to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

Trump's replies: "I would be so different from what you have right now. Like, the polar opposite. We have a president who doesn't have a clue. I would say he's incompetent, but I don't want to do that because that's not nice." He then rambles on a bit about the administration's nuclear deal with Iran and its handling of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in ways that don't address the question at hand.

But all that's beside the point. What matters is that he would be different. Different how? So very, very different—and definitely not a moron/loser/dummy/incompetent (pick one) like this other guy.

This is how Trump responds to almost everything: By not answering the question, by babbling out some at-best semi-relevant references, by promising to somehow be different and better without explaining how or why, and then by lobbing an insult.

An insult is how Trump finishes the Obamacare exchange as well. After Trump finishes answering the question, Sen. Rand Paul cuts in, saying, "News flash, the Republican Party's been fighting against a single-payer system for a decade. So I think you're on the wrong side of this if you're still arguing for a single-payer system."

Trump's comeback: "I'm not—I'm not are—I don't think you heard me. You're having a hard time tonight."

The gist, as always, is that someone else—indeed, practically everyone else—is a dummy, a loser, a politician. Trump is the only one who really gets it, whatever it is.

Based on evidence provided by Trump's campaign so far, I'd say there's really very little that he gets better than anyone else—except, it seems, how to appeal to the current mood of the Republican party. Trump is not only leading by double digits, he has captured the largest share of the polls of any GOP candidate so far. I don't expect his polling lead to last, but it has already survived longer than many expected, which suggests that, at least for the moment, the essence of Trump reflects something—perhaps something essential—about today's GOP.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

128 responses to “That Time When Donald Trump Praised Single Payer Health Care in a GOP Debate

  1. The gist, as always, is that someone else?indeed, practically everyone else?is a dummy, a loser, a politician. Trump is the only one who really gets it, whatever it is.

    And this right here is Trump’s appeal. The Republican base is extremely disappointed and frustrated with the business-as-usual bullshit being perpetrated by the Republican establishment, and they identify with Trump “calling them out” as a bunch of clueless dummies.

    1. Conservatives really are the Stupid Party is that’s all it takes to get their rabid allegiance.

      1. Actually, conservatives are a subset of The Stupid Party.

    2. He’s the Obama of the right. There is nothing that you could say to his supporters to make them not like him. He’s sufficiently vague and incendiary to allow the idiots in the GOP to impress their own wishes on his blank slate.

      1. Term III and IV of Empty Suit, coming right up.

    3. What a lot of people on the right fail to grasp is that politically incorrect bullshit is still bullshit. And being politically incorrect doesn’t mean you can’t still be a lying, pandering clown like Trump.

  2. Why does he move his mouth like a sucker fish when he talks? That is literally the only thing I want to know about him.

    1. It was bad enough having to listen to him on the radio. I wouldn’t want to see him pucker his yap around those godawful policy points.

    2. It’s actually more like a guppy.

    3. Google image search “Trump fish mouth

      1. nice

    4. I hate his face so much. Normally I can look past appearance…but not with Trump for some reason, maybe because his personality sucks too.

      1. *I hate his face so much. *

        I guess you’ll have a lot of fun with the daily “two minute hates” from now until inauguration day, 2017.

  3. This is politics, everybody. Isn’t it wonderful?

    1. *sigh. I’m going to go watch some sausage being made.

  4. If there’s anyone who still considers Trump a serious candidate after last night, he’s probably due to have his plug pulled.

    1. I think he’s dreamy

      *swoon*

      #MAKEAMERICAGREATAGAIN #TRUMP2016 #ITSGONNABE_UUUUUUUUUUUGE

    2. What about the others that make them serious, other than big gov’t business as usual. None of them said anything other than the party talking points. They won the mid terms in a landslide saying basically the same things, how has that been working for us? I don’t like the guy, but I do like how he’s making the others look like what they really are, idiots, the other side of the same totalitarian coin.

      As long as libertarians continue to vote for the “lesser of two evils” just because we hate the left, we are saying to them, as long as they run against a dem. we will vote for your regardless of what you do even though it isn’t what you said as long as you’re not one of them, in other words, what we say we want isn’t important, what we say we believe in isn’t important, our ideology can be bought.

  5. “and the Middle East became totally destabilized”

    If you think that the ME would be any more stable with Sadaam around, you’re stupid.

    1. Yeah. Because it’s been so much more stable since he was taken out of power and his army disbanded.

      1. DERP. Correlation =/= causation

        Last I checked America never invaded Syria.

        1. America never invade Iran either, and there is no civil war there.

          1. *invaded*

            1. The Iranians tried to get a revolt going, and we helped the mullahs squash it.

              “Stability” isn’t necessarily an end in itself. Stability of good things is good. Stability of bad things is bad.

              1. It sucks that the Iranians are ruled by religious fanatics. The people there aren’t bad. But their government just plain sucks.

                1. Putting Persian women in burkas should be enough of a reason to go to war with their theocratic government.

                2. That’s what they say about the US.

                  Or so I’ve heard.

                  1. That’s what they say about the US.

                    Or so I’ve heard.

                    It’s not too far from the truth.

                    1. EXACTLY! The irony – it BURNS!

          2. Dictators do keep the lid on.

        2. but the govt was totally on board with deposing Qaddafi and that turned out well. Kinda like removing Saddam but without the high death toll.

          1. but the govt was totally on board with deposing Qaddafi and that turned out well. Kinda like removing Saddam but without the high death toll.

            I hope that’s sarcasm.

        3. The US set in motion all of the “Arab Springs” and in the power vacuum we traded one despot for another. In Arab countries, at least in our lifetimes, all you’ll ever see is some type of dicatorship. They keep the country under control, and hopefully we have a friendly one.

          1. More to the point we traded secular despots for Islamist despots. We took an ostensibly rational dictator and replaced him with an undoubtedly irrational one.

          2. The important thing is that we traded secular dictators for more nutty Muslim ones. Let’s not forget that the administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt, and it took the Egyptian military to sort that out.

            Or for total chaos.

            Its hard to look at Obama’s ME policy and not conclude that his real goal was to get Muslim fanatics in power.

            Or that he’s a total dunce, easily played by iron age barbarians.

            1. “We should support the ______ rebels, because democracy and liberal values an shit.”

              In every single case, the rebels he was pouring money into were either Al Qeada, ISIS, affiliates of Al Qeada and ISIS or pettily little groups who gave their funding and supplies over to Al Qeada and ISIS.

              And any sensible person would see Obama’s rhetoric about crossing red lines to trigger a US invasion, was a direct cause of those gas attacks made to look, supposedly, like the Assad regime had done it. The man is as you say, a buffoon or an Islamist sympathizer. Gaddafi and Assad were both telling the truth when they decalred to western governments that they were supporting terrorists.

            2. It’s actually anticolonialism, and a fond memory for the Nasakom political system that was the official system of Indonesia when his mom moved there.

              1. And let’s not forget the anticolonialist movement in Kenya that led to the Mau Mau Uprising,

    2. The post Gulf War, beaten, contained Saddam was stable and no threat to anyone outside of his own country – and it’s not our responsibility to save them from themselves.

    3. If you think that the ME would be any more stable with Sadaam around, you’re stupid.

      Well we have empirical evidence that it was more stable. Certainly any non stupid person, like yourself(?), could do the math by looking at how stable it was with that dictator in power and how stable it has become since his departure from power.

      1. When toxic’s war boner gets engorged, his brain shuts off.

        1. I’m not convinced it ever got turned on.

          1. He didn’t get medical help after 4 hours. He’s suffered permanent damage.

      2. *Well we have empirical evidence that it was more stable.*

        Yeah, that whole Iran-Iraq war was super stable. That stuff didn’t spill over into any tanker war or anything.

        Oh, and Saddam was financially rewarding Pali suicide bomber’s families. I’m sure that encouraged a whole bunch of stability, right there.

  6. Does anyone really think that Trump isn’t Hillary’s stalking horse?

    1. He is, but no more so than Jeb Bush.

    2. More like a stocking horse.

    3. “Does anyone really think that Trump isn’t Hillary’s stalking horse?”
      Nope.
      Stupidity vs cupidity; stupidity every time.

  7. Trump continues his response by reiterating that insurers are making a fortune because they have “total control of the politicians”?a frequent line of argument from Trump, who touts himself as rich and independent enough to be uncontrollable by moneyed interests. (Indeed, he often argues that one of his qualifications is that he has donated to politicians, and therefore knows how money controls them.)

    Well, he should know, since he went on to talk about how he’d so thoroughly bought Hillary Clinton he could force her to go to his wedding.

    1. Romney should have done this routine rather than trying to pass himself off as Joe Bagadonuts. Yes, he’s unfathomably wealthy. So what?

      1. And not even fabulously wealthy by past presidential standards. George Washington was even wealthier and got rich on fucking his soldiers out of the real estate they were to be paid for their service. Romney to my knowledge, didn’t get rich by fucking war vets out of their pay either. And yet he’s the evil rich villain.

      2. Trump is way wealthier that Romney even.

  8. Hypothetical: Melania Trump: vapid FLOTUS or the most vapid FLOTUS?

    1. Melania

      Isn’t that a sort of skin cancer?

      1. No, i’m pretty sure it’s a giant prehistoric monitor lizard.

        1. She’s definitely got some lizard genes, and not too many generations back.

          1. Well, Trump is a Draco Reptilian.

  9. With the hangover from last night beginning to abate I’m starting to dread the Democrat debate in October. I may trade in the wine for tequila and drain cleaner.

    1. Hell, no. I want to see if Sanders has the stones to actually throw the grenade on the table and call Hillary a corrupt, lying shrew to her face. If he acts deferential towards her just because of her vagina instead of calling her out, he might as well hang it up and go back to the Senate, because there’s no way his supporters will continue to back him after that. They’re reflexive Dem voters, but they don’t want to vote for Hillary if they won’t have to.

    1. Any friend of Alex is a friend of mine.

    2. I wonder if DONDEROOOOOOOOO follows Dave Navarro on Twitter.

    3. why can’t they use a more recent picture of Hillary…

      http://russia-insider.com/site…..illary.jpg

  10. Shorter Suderman: “I over-analyze so you don’t have to!”

    1. Over analyze?

      1. Even in this brief opening exchange, you can see hints of the Trump style at work. He agrees with Baier, but in a way that is designed to subtly correct the moderator, and to tip the balance of power towards Trump by saying that Baier hasn’t gotten Trump quite right: Donald Trump wouldn’t simply call Obamacare a disaster. He’d call it a complete disaster.

        Yes.

        Maybe it gets better but that just seems like he’s reading way too much into it.

        1. He’s definitely not reading too much into it. There was no question that’s how Trump was responding. The douchiness was just dripping from every word.

  11. his free-associative bluster, his incoherence, his total disregard for political conventions, his condescending view of nearly everyone else and his mammoth self-regard

    but with Obama, you folks thought these things were cool. Are they now bad because Trump is white, that he’s running as a Repub, or just that it’s Trump?

    1. “but with Obama, you folks thought these things were cool.”

      Cite or cites missing.

      1. See, e.g., the infamous turnout of some Reason writers in support of Obama in 2008.

        1. “See, e.g., the infamous turnout of some Reason writers in support of Obama in 2008.”

          As I recall, there were something like two of them, and I don’t recall either of them doing better than holding their noses and picking the best of a bad lot.
          Quite a ways from “but with Obama, you folks thought these things were cool.”

          So, cite or cites still missing.

      2. Yeah, the only things anyone here thought might be cool about Obama was his talk of transparency and rolling back executive power, which were obviously bullshit from the day he took office.

      3. really? The votes of Welch and Nick are unknown to you? And it’s not like they were the only ones at Reason who bought into the bullshit.

        1. But were those the reasons they voted for him? I thought it was the things i mention above, plus the historic opportunity to elect the first half white president.

          1. I’m saying those criticisms were just as applicable to Obama as they are to Trump. It’s like a principles vs principals question.

            1. And anybody who believed that a product of the Daley machine was going to be transparent and give up power was an idiot. Obama has behaved exactly the way a crooked urban Dem machine politician acts: punish your enemies, dismiss anyone who isn’t a supporter, and live a lavish lifestyle on the public tit.

              1. Or was acting like a fool, anyway. I never bought it, but those were the things about Obama that might have appealed a bit to libertarians (had they been true or even plassible).

        2. Neither Welch nor Gillespie voted for Obama in 2008.

          https://reason.com/archives/200…..ur-vote/15

          (Matt’s is on page 16, Gillespie is somewhere around page 5 IIRC)

          1. Seems like the only actual reason staffers who were voting for Obama in 2008 were Weigal (big surprise) and Cavanaugh (it’s possible i missed some, I don’t have time to read it all now). Otherwise is was occasional contributors and columnists like Chapman who everyone hates anyway and people I’ve never heard of who said they would vote for him. Some people seem to have false memories of who said what in that piece.

            1. Also =

              was a McCain vote supposed to be the ‘better choice’?

              Bob Barr wasn’t exactly mr wonderful either.

      4. Reason’s “Who I’m voting for” from 2008

        No Suderman. Did have Doug Stanhope though. And Dave Weigel, who was planning on voting for Obama (try to contain your surprise).

        1. Can’t believe I actually saw “I want a black President” in that list. Also, I find the “punish the party” line stupid. Considering that government has continued to grow, that logic would just lead you to continue supporting the out-of-White-House party every 4 years.

          1. The choice was between McCain and Obama. “I want a black President” is as good a reason as any to choose one over the other.

    2. What do you mean, “you folks”?

      1. portions of the writing staff.

    3. Only the last one applies to 2008 Obama.

  12. Being opposed to OCare, saying its a failure, and needs to be repealed and replaced, is not necessarily inconsistent, at all, with saying we should have single payer.

    The way Baier (who is usually not a complete idiot) conflates OCare with single payer was disappointing.

    1. I hate this whole “Repeal and replace” nonsense. When you remove cancer you don’t replace it.

      1. Not even with cancer ‘that works’?

        1. “Working cancer in our lifetimes!”

          1. If you like your cancer, you can keep your cancer.

      2. more than anything else, it puts the lie to the notion of the GOP as being interested in limited govt.

      3. Untrue. They fill in the vacancy with silicon prosthetic dog testicles.

        1. *takes notes*

        2. California says silicon prosthetic dog testicles may cause cancer.

          1. And moonbeam says climate change causes silicon prosthetic dog testicles! It’s a wake up call!

      4. I hate this whole “Repeal and replace” nonsense. When you remove cancer you don’t replace it.

        That’s true of statism in general. You don’t fight cancer by removing 90% of the tumor.

  13. I’m hoping Trump brings the same leadership to the nation that he brought to the USFL.

    1. I miss the USFL. Old school run and shoot, Herschel Walker, good times.

      1. And playing in the spring, until Trump got his hands in.

  14. Breaking news: Senator Charles Schumer formally opposes Obama’s crappy Iran deal, supports World War III.

    1. because a deal 100% prevents WW3, and not having a deal means there will be WW3

    2. I guess Obama now considers Schumer the equivalent of a hard-line Iranian Mullah.

    3. As noted in the story = Schumer waited to chime in only after it became clear Obama had secured enough votes to clear the thing.

      Its just signaling for the sake of some old donors on park avenue

  15. “, I’d say there’s really very little that he gets better than anyone else?except, it seems, how to appeal to the current mood of the Republican party. Trump is not only leading by double digits, he has captured the largest share of the polls of any GOP candidate so far.”,

    Pete,

    What this should be signaling to you as a political-observer, is not that Trump has his finger on the pulse of America….

    …but that, in August of 2015, the people being polled are either drunk, or picking Trump as a general “Fuck You” to the media.

    If Trump is still in the lead in November, then I think there’s something to actually be concerned about. In the meantime, i think his candidacy is providing Americans some much needed dinner-table laughs.

    1. What this should be signaling to you as a political-observer, is not that Trump has his finger on the pulse of America….

      …but that, August of 2015, the people being polled are either drunk, or picking Trump as a general “Fuck You” to the media

      You have WAY too positive of an opinion of the American public. His schtick is working … for now, because people are stupid with 8-second attention spans. But many of these people will see through Trump when they see him make the same ridiculous statements, and then say the opposite ridiculous statement a few minutes later. Familiarity, as they way, breeds contempt.

  16. “-at least for the moment, the essence of Trump reflects something?perhaps something essential?about today’s GOP.”

    All the calls over the years for the candidates to provide a clear mission statement and just like before, the believers rally behind incoherence. Because FEELZ.

  17. Support for Trump is just social signaling. Nobody really wants him to be President, but its one way to show your disgust with our current political and media Master Class.

    And that’s healthy. If any of the other candidates could figure this out, they’d be polling much better.

  18. “If you want to understand the essence of Donald Trump, which, granted, may not be a life goal to which you aspire.”

    The essence of Trump?

    Donald Trump doesn’t care what you think unless it is about him.

    That’s his essence.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k96sAezF-VE

    Now can we talk about abortion or something?

    1. Actually, I think Donald cares very much what people think of him. People who insist they don’t care what others think usually really really care.

  19. “Even when Trump happens to stumble into a point that is perhaps partially right, he is so incoherent that it renders anything he says completely useless.”

    I’ve heard an alteration of Trump’s comments from liberals about health insurance. Where they say they hate Obamacare because it’s too corporatist, so we need single-payer. That doesn’t seem as incoherent, and maybe Trump still believes single-payer could work in America but realizes he’s in a Republican election.

    1. “they hate Obamacare because it’s too corporatist, so we need single-payer.”

      Yeah! Let’s run people’s healthcare the way the Pentagon runs acquisitions! That will be so less “corporatist”

      Shocker = Obama’s nominee to run Medicare? Comes straight from largest-corporate-beneficiary of Federal Healthcare spending in the US

      1. I love how liberals endlessly pissed themselves over cheney’s former Halliburton connections…while this guy’s conflicts of interest don’t even merit a mention in any major newspapers.

  20. the blustery, incoherent essence of his campaign.

    To match the blustery, incoherent essence of the average American. I smell victory.

  21. Obviously, a market based healthcare system is preferable to a single-payer. But, in my opinion, single-payer is better than the fascist system we got from Obamacare. The government is least destructive when it does nothing, but it’s most destructive when it picks winners and (by extension) losers in the market.

    1. But wouldn’t it pick itself as the winner via 1-payer?

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  23. Start generating cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8612 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    http://www.Start-Online44.com

  24. What is it about single payer system that is worst than obamacare? Both are run by the gov’t, both are on the backs of those who pay but may not use it as much, one makes sure insurance companies make big bucks with little or no loss by reimbursing them. I’m not for single payer, I’m for Singapore’s health care system (google it, it has very little gov’t intervention while it covers over 90% of the populace). A lot of our law makers know of this system but I believe the reason they don’t promote it is because it leaves too much gov’t out of it and places health care in the hands of the people. THAT is why they don’t promote it, repugnicans as well as democraps. God forbid gov’t should be be in every part of your life.

  25. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  26. Suderman acts like Trump is the only guy on the stage who doesn’t have a firm grip on heathcare issues. More importantly. Suderman is clueless as to why Trump has been so popular. That is incredible ignorance – anyone can se why he’s been so popular – he says what he thinks and
    doesn’t care what others think and he demands action of those outrageous things that the other politicians are merely discussing and showing no tendency to take action. People want ot hear someone with guts and determination.

  27. Suderman acts like Trump is the only guy on the stage who doesn’t have a firm grip on heathcare issues. More importantly. Suderman is clueless as to why Trump has been so popular. That is incredible ignorance – anyone can se why he’s been so popular – he says what he thinks and
    doesn’t care what others think and he demands action of those outrageous things that the other politicians are merely discussing and showing no tendency to take action. People want ot hear someone with guts and determination.

  28. Trump is the result of a stupid fest the GOP has been relishing in since angry, reactionary, dumb people bought hook line and sinker the “Axis of Evil” speech that the Cheney administration perpetrated to enrich the war profiteers. Now, after better than a decade of disparaging science, education and rational thinking people are surprised at this result.

    Even this group can not be that stupid.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.