Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Trump is not perfect but who is? He's bombastic but it's working for him and I think he's a realist and probably one of the more reasonable people in the GOP field.
At a cocktail or dinner party, I'd find his remarks entertaining and even stimulating for the sake of conversation. As a man asking for my vote, they are just empty. Such an individual needs more gravitas than is good fodder for party chit chat. Heck, I've heard more gravitas at myriad such parties. I'm a D.C. native, after all; politics is nearly always a topic at social events, be they swanky ones or just casual gatherings of family and close friends, and there is always a pretty good batch of folks of the various political persuasions, . It's unavoidable. Even the folks in the highly disadvantaged neighborhoods in which I mentor young kids talk politics.
Red:
Obviously nobody is. I don't require perfection. As goes the topic of the OP for this thread, really a direct answer would have been more than enough. Mr. Trump spend the majority of the time following the question talking about his paying for his campaign costs...as if that tell anyone what he will replace O-care with or how he'd change it.
Other:
As for his remarks about being self-funding. I understand fully that the point of that line is to establish himself as clearly not being a political insider, so to speak. Well, for many folks that may ring true, but the reality is Mr. Trump has for years been the very worst kind of insider. He's been the kind who used his money to "buy" the favor of folks who hold political power. He openly said so on several occasions.
I don't know about everyone else, but in my book, offering what amounts to a bribe is no better or worse than accepting one. The former shows a willingness to manipulate; the latter shows a willingness to be manipulated. I don't want to knowingly support (vocally, financially, or with my vote) either kind of person.
I don't care to do so unknowingly either, but if I look for clear evidence of it, which I do, and can't find it, there's not much for me to credibly think about it. And I'm talking about clear evidence, not hints and innuendo that may or may not be truly indicative of moral/ethical malfeasance or turpitude.
To illustrate the sort of integrity I'm talking about....Some years ago, I had an international telecom exec with whom I have been somewhat closely acquainted since college ask me to come in to do a study with the aim of showing that an initiative he wanted to implement would be cost effective. I asked him what if our research indicated it would not e cost effective. His reply was showing that it would be is what we were to do. I declined to take on the engagement. He found a competing firm to to the work and they found as he wanted. Five years later, he got ousted in large part because the initiative didn't meet its targeted financial objectives. I could have done the same thing my competitor did, and I and my firm would have collected tens of millions in fees, that is, until the client sued, which they did sue the other firm. And then where would my career have ended up? More importantly, how could I have lived with myself for such a lapse in integrity?
The situations and circumstances may differ in the course of a Presidency and Presidential campaign, but that's the level of integrity I expect of someone who asks me to vote for them. If they didn't exhibit it before asking for my vote, they had damn sure find it by the time they do.
Actually Trump did give an answer. You've already analysed this with another poster. What he said was except for a couple of changes the ACA stays.
Perhaps I misheard the interview/conversation. I didn't hear Mr. Trump say ACA stays. Making one change hardly rings with tones of "disaster," which is what Mr. Trump did say. Indeed, Mr. Trump began his remarks with "I have been so against Obamacare from the beginning." Really, so against it that all he has to offer as a change or revamping is removing the "borders?" That's the only specific thing he identified that he'd alter.
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
People who have nothing much in mind for next week speak instead about the next year or the prior lustrum.
― George F. Will, The Woven Figure: Conservatism and America's Fabric [adapted]
- Vague: not thinking or expressing one's thoughts clearly or precisely
- Ambiguous: capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways
- Ambiguous Fallacy
In what universe does that response constitute a statement of what one wants to offer as a replacement for Obamacare?
The "borders" he referred to is one specific aspect of Obamacare he wants to change. Okay; I get that. Is that all?
- The private sector is already involved...what sector do you think provides health care services most of the time for most people? What sector provided insurance for most people? If that's what he wants to do, he needs to be specific so we can understand clearly what "involve the private sector" means in his vision. That phrase means one thing to you, means nothing to me (it's too vague and ambiguous), and may mean something else to another person.
- There are already lots of alternatives...alternatives in terms of insurers, alternatives in terms of care providers. That not withstanding, watch the video and you'll see that his remark about alternatives referred contextually to there being many alternatives to Obamacare, not to the provision of health care and sale of health insurance.
Red:
That's fine because he wasn't asked "how." He was asked "what" he'd replace O-care with. To answer that question, he need only have identified what provisions his health care policy/program would have. It may be that all he wants to do is remove the so-called "borders." If that's so, all he needed to do was say something like "I would change O-care by replacing the "borders." I think that's all that's needed to fix it." Instead he called O-care a disaster. Surely, thinking it's a disaster, Mr. Trump has more in mind than just replacing "borders." So why the hell couldn't he just tell the man (and the rest of us) what the hell else he wanted to change.
I can't be friends with a man who blows hot and cold with the same breath.
― Aesop, Aesop's Fables
It's better than the AHCA which congress did not read before they passed it.
What "it?"
I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
'A man asks Mr. Trump "...You want to repeal and replace Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?" Mr. Trump's reply, "We're going to have great health insurance. We're going to bring the private sector in. We're going to take down the borders....We have lots of alternatives [to Obamacare]." '
In addition to being a lie, it's also ignorant and wrong.
The ACA already brings the private sector in – it's a republican plan, after all; health insurance is provided by private companies.
The fact is neither Trump nor any other republican has a plan to replace the ACA, their only 'plan' is to 'repeal,' rendering millions of Americans without access to affordable health care and health maintenance.
I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
We didn't get the real specifics on Obamacare even after it was passed, so this is Horse Hockey.I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
There are practical limits to "wonkishness", and a general level of unearned hubris in all political candidates. Their job is to look like they know more than they do, because the general public is too ignorant to evaluate anything concerning government. We treat political power like a consumer good, and we sell it to the public in exactly that way.I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
If a contractor were to go into high-level details would you understand what he was talking about? You would allow him to do a detailed inspection of the house before expecting high-level details, right?
I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
If a contractor were to go into high-level details would you understand what he was talking about? You would allow him to do a detailed inspection of the house before expecting high-level details, right?
I can't blame Trump on this issue because reform in this area is not entirely up to him. He'd have to have the support of Congress and he has no idea right now who's going to be there or if they'll support him. Why put an idea out there to be shredded when you don't even know if it's possible?
What parts are you not wanting to hear here?
He said he wants to bring in the private sector, take down the boarders and have lots of alternatives.
That means talking to lots of people from the experts on down and using all ideas and then getting a Health Care system that works for everybody.
He does not have a crystal ball or something to tell everybody how that will become a health care program without everyone evolved in it first.
That means everyone, like it should have been, not the pick and choose favorites system that the AHCA was based on.
Not just the Health Insurance and Hospitals plus some pretty ridiculous regulations, like the Affordable Health Care Act is based on.
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
If a contractor were to go into high-level details would you understand what he was talking about? You would allow him to do a detailed inspection of the house before expecting high-level details, right?
Red:
Yes. If I didn't, I'd ask him to explain in detail so I can that which I didn't. Moreover, I'd look for him/her to realize what elements aren't reasonably understood by a layman and proactively present that information without my asking him/her to do so. A contractor's showing that level of prescience about me, the person whose acceptance he seeks to gain, is among the things that would distinguish them from their peers; it shows a level of communication skill, which is a core skill required of anyone attempting to win another's favor.
Blue:
If I'm looking for details on what specific things need to be done to effect the renovation/rebuild, I'd certainly perhim him/her to conduct an inspection. The detail of it would be up to them, not me. If I merely want to understand what his intended approach will be to managing the process of the renovation/rebuild, no.
There is no correlation between what you've asked about a contractor inspecting my building and grounds and my allegorical use of a contractor to illustrate the problem with the relationship and communication Mr. Trump has made thus far with his "potential clients," that is us voters. The reason that aspect of is not relevant is because the information Mr. Trump and his campaign staff need is available publicly. The ideas he offers don't even have to be original to him; they need only be ideas he espouses and he need only articulate them.
For example, the American Enterprise Institute presented a high level description of an program with which Obamacare might be replaced. In answering that voter's questions, Mr. Trump need not have even fully ascribed to all the elements of their idea to directly answer the question. Of course, to have done so, Mr. Trump would have at least have bothered to think in detail about what is wrong about O-care's design and figure out what things would constitute a better design. All he'd have needed to do then was identify the elements of his replacement program, be they included in the AEI's proposal or of his or someone else's invention.
Has anyone in Mr. Trump's campaign bothered to consider the matter of with what Mr. Trump might replace O-care? I doubt it seeing as Mr. Trump didn't offer a damn thing to the man who specifically asked him that question about it. Has anyone bothered to consider the question? Yes, Scott Walker has. I don't even care if Mr. Trump agrees with the provisions of Mr. Walker's plan. Mr. Walker at least has a high level vision of what it is he'd attempt to implement to replace O-care. Is Mr. Walker's plan especially well thought out? Whether it is or isn't, it is still more of one than Mr. Trump offered, and its mere existence shows Mr. Walker has at least bothered to consider the matter in detail.
So what have Mr. Trump's campaign staffers done in terms of developing and researching a replacement for O-care? As best as I can tell, they've just determined that deriding O-care, along with Mr. Trump's celebrity and comedic insults/remarks, will be enough to sway uncritical thinking and/or poorly informed voters to his side. (Of course, there must surely be some exceptions to that overly broad characterization of Mr. Trump's supporters.)
No. There's a big difference between goals and plans.
He has never once outlined a plan.
He's fairly vague on his goals as well, often using terms like "we gotta figure out what's going on."
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
If a contractor were to go into high-level details would you understand what he was talking about? You would allow him to do a detailed inspection of the house before expecting high-level details, right?
Red:
Yes. If I didn't, I'd ask him to explain in detail so I can that which I didn't. Moreover, I'd look for him/her to realize what elements aren't reasonably understood by a layman and proactively present that information without my asking him/her to do so. A contractor's showing that level of prescience about me, the person whose acceptance he seeks to gain, is among the things that would distinguish them from their peers; it shows a level of communication skill, which is a core skill required of anyone attempting to win another's favor.
Blue:
If I'm looking for details on what specific things need to be done to effect the renovation/rebuild, I'd certainly perhim him/her to conduct an inspection. The detail of it would be up to them, not me. If I merely want to understand what his intended approach will be to managing the process of the renovation/rebuild, no.
There is no correlation between what you've asked about a contractor inspecting my building and grounds and my allegorical use of a contractor to illustrate the problem with the relationship and communication Mr. Trump has made thus far with his "potential clients," that is us voters. The reason that aspect of is not relevant is because the information Mr. Trump and his campaign staff need is available publicly. The ideas he offers don't even have to be original to him; they need only be ideas he espouses and he need only articulate them.
For example, the American Enterprise Institute presented a high level description of an program with which Obamacare might be replaced. In answering that voter's questions, Mr. Trump need not have even fully ascribed to all the elements of their idea to directly answer the question. Of course, to have done so, Mr. Trump would have at least have bothered to think in detail about what is wrong about O-care's design and figure out what things would constitute a better design. All he'd have needed to do then was identify the elements of his replacement program, be they included in the AEI's proposal or of his or someone else's invention.
Has anyone in Mr. Trump's campaign bothered to consider the matter of with what Mr. Trump might replace O-care? I doubt it seeing as Mr. Trump didn't offer a damn thing to the man who specifically asked him that question about it. Has anyone bothered to consider the question? Yes, Scott Walker has. I don't even care if Mr. Trump agrees with the provisions of Mr. Walker's plan. Mr. Walker at least has a high level vision of what it is he'd attempt to implement to replace O-care. Is Mr. Walker's plan especially well thought out? Whether it is or isn't, it is still more of one than Mr. Trump offered, and its mere existence shows Mr. Walker has at least bothered to consider the matter in detail.
So what have Mr. Trump's campaign staffers done in terms of developing and researching a replacement for O-care? As best as I can tell, they've just determined that deriding O-care, along with Mr. Trump's celebrity and comedic insults/remarks, will be enough to sway uncritical thinking and/or poorly informed voters to his side. (Of course, there must surely be some exceptions to that overly broad characterization of Mr. Trump's supporters.)
We disagree on what Trump said about health care. I think he didn't have a lot to say because he doesn't want to change much. He can't say that though. He told us what he wants to do, he wants to let insurers spread risk over a larger pool of people.
There's a lot of information available to the public, regarding health care so much that even with staff could you go through it all? If you could you still wouldn't have the luxury of CBO scoring your proposed changes. The subject is complicated enough that I think you really can't expect specifics until someone is in office and has had a chance to have a large staff who know enough about the subject to start making recommendations based upon their boss's agenda. Even then Congress is going to be knee deep in it which complicates things even further.
I think that Red/Blue thing you do is a great idea, I might steal that
So was Obama when he was running in 2008.
As has been stated before, Mr. Trump has the onus for articulating more substance because unlike every other viable candidate, he has no history of policy making experience. Were he to provide specifics about what he would and would not do as goes policy -- be it modification, repeal, or replacement of existing policy -- he would
show that he has analyzed the matter sufficiently to make his lack of experience a non-factor.
Would you hire a general contractor, one who's never once done so, to renovate/rebuild your home if all s/he said were things like "I'm going to make it great," or "I'm going to fix everything," and "You have a disaster here right now," yet when pressed for high level details of of what he'd fix and how, he has none to offer and instead begins to talk about how he finances his business? You and I both know you would not. Would you feel marginally better entrusting the job to a contractor who comes to you having a documented reputation of having done similar things on other homes? Of course you and I both would; we may not feel a whole lot more comfortable, but more comfortable we'd feel nonetheless.
That's basically where we are right now with Mr. Trump and his competing candidates, be they in his or the Democratic party.
If a contractor were to go into high-level details would you understand what he was talking about? You would allow him to do a detailed inspection of the house before expecting high-level details, right?
Red:
Yes. If I didn't, I'd ask him to explain in detail so I can that which I didn't. Moreover, I'd look for him/her to realize what elements aren't reasonably understood by a layman and proactively present that information without my asking him/her to do so. A contractor's showing that level of prescience about me, the person whose acceptance he seeks to gain, is among the things that would distinguish them from their peers; it shows a level of communication skill, which is a core skill required of anyone attempting to win another's favor.
Blue:
If I'm looking for details on what specific things need to be done to effect the renovation/rebuild, I'd certainly perhim him/her to conduct an inspection. The detail of it would be up to them, not me. If I merely want to understand what his intended approach will be to managing the process of the renovation/rebuild, no.
There is no correlation between what you've asked about a contractor inspecting my building and grounds and my allegorical use of a contractor to illustrate the problem with the relationship and communication Mr. Trump has made thus far with his "potential clients," that is us voters. The reason that aspect of is not relevant is because the information Mr. Trump and his campaign staff need is available publicly. The ideas he offers don't even have to be original to him; they need only be ideas he espouses and he need only articulate them.
For example, the American Enterprise Institute presented a high level description of an program with which Obamacare might be replaced. In answering that voter's questions, Mr. Trump need not have even fully ascribed to all the elements of their idea to directly answer the question. Of course, to have done so, Mr. Trump would have at least have bothered to think in detail about what is wrong about O-care's design and figure out what things would constitute a better design. All he'd have needed to do then was identify the elements of his replacement program, be they included in the AEI's proposal or of his or someone else's invention.
Has anyone in Mr. Trump's campaign bothered to consider the matter of with what Mr. Trump might replace O-care? I doubt it seeing as Mr. Trump didn't offer a damn thing to the man who specifically asked him that question about it. Has anyone bothered to consider the question? Yes, Scott Walker has. I don't even care if Mr. Trump agrees with the provisions of Mr. Walker's plan. Mr. Walker at least has a high level vision of what it is he'd attempt to implement to replace O-care. Is Mr. Walker's plan especially well thought out? Whether it is or isn't, it is still more of one than Mr. Trump offered, and its mere existence shows Mr. Walker has at least bothered to consider the matter in detail.
So what have Mr. Trump's campaign staffers done in terms of developing and researching a replacement for O-care? As best as I can tell, they've just determined that deriding O-care, along with Mr. Trump's celebrity and comedic insults/remarks, will be enough to sway uncritical thinking and/or poorly informed voters to his side. (Of course, there must surely be some exceptions to that overly broad characterization of Mr. Trump's supporters.)
We disagree on what Trump said about health care. I think he didn't have a lot to say because he doesn't want to change much. He can't say that though. He told us what he wants to do, he wants to let insurers spread risk over a larger pool of people.
There's a lot of information available to the public, regarding health care so much that even with staff could you go through it all? If you could you still wouldn't have the luxury of CBO scoring your proposed changes. The subject is complicated enough that I think you really can't expect specifics until someone is in office and has had a chance to have a large staff who know enough about the subject to start making recommendations based upon their boss's agenda. Even then Congress is going to be knee deep in it which complicates things even further.
I think that Red/Blue thing you do is a great idea, I might steal that
Red:
If that's all he wants to change, that'd be fine with me. Frankly, I think that change would be a good one to implement. I, however, require a positive statement that makes it clear that's the limit of the changes he'd like to effect. I require that because calling O-care a disaster, to say nothing of his facial expression as he said that, strongly implies he thinks there's more than one attribute that needs "fixing."
If he were a man of integrity, and not a manipulative entertainer relying in part on ambiguity, he damn sure could say that, and he would, if only to ensure that the people who vote for/support him know exactly where he stands. Indeed, that's the whole point of running for public office. What is a politician but someone who sees problems in public policy and governance and think they have the solution to those problems? Is it really demanding too much integrity for us to expect/demand that they tell us what exactly it is they see as wrong and what they want to put in its place and how they want to fix what's wrong?
Blue:
There is a lot of info available. That's not to say one must read all of it. A meeting (or few meetings) with a sympathetic Congressman or Senator or Governor, the health care focused aide from their staff, an economist, an insurer's representative and a health professional would be more than adequate to get a clear sense on his own of what he would want to change and what not, assuming there is more than the "borders" element.
Purple:
How much, or perhaps how little, campaign staff do you presume Mr. Trump has? There are eight key members on his team in Iowa alone. It was in June of 2015 that Mr. Trump announced his candidacy. Do you not think between then and February 1, 2016 he could not have hired a swarm of staff to research an issue as significant as national health care? After all, he's not had to spend anything near his planned campaign budget; last I heard, he'd spent $15M of a planned $45M or something on that order. Forgive me I don't recall the figures exactly, but whatever it was, it was more than enough to assemble a dedicated team to research the issue and present him with some policy ideas. (I think in the video in this thread's OP he makes a vague mention of how much he's not had to spend that he'd originally anticipated spending.)
Green:
Thank you. You are certainly welcome to do so. I encourage it. I suspect it's an easier tactic to use than the splicing approach that I've seen you use thus far. I hope you like using it instead or in addition.
He is asked: "What are you going to do with the millions of people without a healthcare?"
And he replies: "I will take care of them..."
