Going into office, this was probably his road map to medicine and healthcare:
They’re right.
*“There is always a well‐known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” – H.L. Mencken, 1917
*…just to get it completely right.
Yeah, fuck those elites and all their knowledge and understanding and experience. Who needs it?
I suspect his version has less bones. Who wants bones, anyway? You can’t eat them! They are bad! Baaaad! Bad! Bones! I like my chicken boneless anyway. Why would you want bones in you chicken burritos?
It also implies national defence, immigration, education, the justice system … all these things seemingly aren’t complicated. Phew!
Trumplestiltskin
Trumpty-Dumpty-[del]Sat-On[/del]-Promised-A-Wall
Trump just bloviates whatever comes into his tiny brain. “Who knew it could be so complicated” comes from the same place that promised to replace it with “something terrific”; also the same place that blames Obama for all the leaks from Trump’s own administration, blames Obama for all the discord at Republican town halls, and blames Democrats (or possibly Obama again, personally) for the hate crimes that his own gang of white supremacists have been enabling.
The funniest thing that seems to have escaped the attention of the ignoramuses that still support this guy is that the alleged complexity of the ACA has been the main focus of wingnut criticism since its inception, routinely alleging anywhere from 13,000 to 33,000 pages of laws and regulations. Maybe Trump thought all the pages were blank. In 2013 Mitch McConnell claimed that there were “159 new government agencies, boards and programs busily enforcing the roughly 20,000 pages of rules and regulations already associated with this law”. Here’s a picture of the Great Turtle himself standing beside a stack of said laws and regulations that is taller than he is. There are no words for anyone claiming to be surprised that “it’s complicated”.
Both things are true: the ACA is incredibly complex, of necessity, and so is Medicare, while single-payer is comparatively very simple. The reason at its core is that the political powers in America insist that health care economics should be based on the principles of their beloved free enterprise, which is using an outrageously inappropriate tool whose entire set of drivers and incentives is diametrically opposed to the necessary mandates of health care. Trying to accommodate some semblance of reality and humane compassion within this framework is like trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole, or more precisely, it’s like trying to build a modern house and the only tool you’re allowed to use is a large rock. It’s going to take you a long time and most of it is going to be pretty messed up.
If you are including the people. Because the US seems uniquely hesitant to increase taxes to increase services. One of the biggest complaints about the ACA was the individual mandate.
It seems that, for half the country, lowering taxes is itself an inherent good. There is no balance on getting the best for the money.
Except at the individual level, where the best is actually “I pay no taxes but everyone else pays them.” You can’t get any better than getting all the services of the government for free. It just doesn’t work at scale, and is not an equilibrium.
I fail to understand how you can post - apparently in earnest - what you originally posted, but also be able to agree with my sarcasm.