Fact-Checking Trump’s Fake News ‘Medicare For All’ Op-Ed


Support The Show On Patreon:

Here's Our Amazon Link:

Follow Kyle on Twitter:

Like the show on Facebook:

Clip from The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio Monday – Friday 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Eastern time zone.

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Check out our website – and become a member – at:

Fact-Checking Trump's Fake News 'Medicare For All' Op-Ed

103 thoughts on “Fact-Checking Trump’s Fake News ‘Medicare For All’ Op-Ed

    • Are you dumb as hell? The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. They only care about corporate interests. Hell, Trump and Clinton were most likely working together. She set him up to be able to bulldoze over him, and it just didn’t happen. We owe that goblin Clinton for that dumbass Trump.

    • He could have had Pence’s job. But he turned it down. Not that I blame him. Even if I were a Republican, I could never imagine working with the Orange Imbecile.

    • whyamimrpink78
      Another addendum because something just came to me.
      If that really is the way some people came up with that number, then that is arguably worse than what I previously thought. Very bad and very sad. Can’t let people continue to use that point that way.

    • jojo, that is what they are doing. I know you read the study and you have been somewhat fair about this. But others aren’t. They are using the $32.6 trillion over 10 years and comparing it to what we spend now. It is why I say that many on the far left like Kyle dismiss the other side. They are ignoring what is actually in the study. They are ignoring the entire study and simply looking at one number. You can find a video of Kyle talking about the study back in August 2 where he cites that number.

    • +Marlon White again where’s your evidence at for your grotesque comment? Especially for Bernie being a bigger con man than trump, because you need logic, reason, and evidence for any of what you said to be true.

    • whyamimrpink78
      Hello again.
      *” In section 107 Bernie’s bill outlaws duplicate coverage. That is where I argue, and many lawyers will argue, that Bernie’s bill outlaws private insurance. Why? Well, in duplicate coverage that means coverage that Medicare already covers. To give an example, say you did not have insurance and I do. Say you need an MRI and I do as well. My insurance will cover the MRI where you will have to pay for it out of pocket. Now say Medicare for all is passed. Now Medicare will pay for your MRI and mine. I can’t use my private insurance for the MRI because Medicare covers it. Why does that law exist? Because if private insurance exists that covers it than the situation is created that hospitals will favor private insurance if it pays more or if it pays quicker compared to Medicare. Thus you still have the situation where people get cared based on the size of one’s wallet as Bernie will argue. That is what Medicare for all is supposed to prevent. That is the spirit of the law. So any private insurance that covers an MRI will be outlawed where you and I can get an MRI and one of us will have to wait regardless of our income. Is that fair? One can argue either way. But that is why the law is written the way it is.”*

      I will say you have an interesting argument that Bernie’s plan would limit what private insurers could cover. I mean just look at how much Bernie’s bill is supposed to cover. To be honest, the coverage is more comprehensive than any public insurance from Universal Healthcare countries. I mean just look at it…

      The Plan Covers
      “(1) Hospital services, including inpatient and
      outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day
      emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs.
      (2) Ambulatory patient services.
      (3) Primary and preventive services, including
      chronic disease management.
      (4) Prescription drugs, medical devices,
      biological products, including outpatient prescription
      drugs, medical devices, and biological products.
      (5) Mental health and substance abuse
      treatment services, including inpatient care.
      (6) Laboratory and diagnostic services.
      (7) Comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and
      newborn care.
      (8) Pediatrics.
      (9) Oral health, audiology, and vision services.
      (10) Short-term rehabilitative and habilitative
      services and devices. ”

      Private health insurance plans under this would be pretty limited to say the least. But nothing you said discredits the idea that the private insurance would be outlawed, because those many lawyers will still have to explain why the other sections of the bill I laid out are completely null and void. I’d definitely enjoy that argument.

      Though the more likely situation is that if a medicare for all bill would even get something like a hearing or review, there would be a lot of changes as to what it covers and more ironing out of the details as there tends to be with these bills that greatly effect the system.

      *”saying there are shortcomings in a study does not mean the study is pointless.”*
      See I never implied this. What I did imply is that there needs to be more to what you’re saying than there are shortcomings. It would be better to elaborate on…
      A. What those shortcomings are?
      B. How much these shortcomings would effect the data?
      …at least some kind of details.

      *”The study provides valuable information. But the issue is that there is a lot more to it than what one study can make.”*
      As is all.

      *”That is why no academic source creates healthcare rankings where special interest groups do.”*
      Well it’s a good thing this isn’t a healthcare ranking.

      *”No academic source will ever come to a strong conclusion like that because a researcher’s career will be questioned and attacked.”*
      I’ve read some papers. Usually for researchers to get around this kind of thing they will use words like suggests, strongly suggests, implies etc.
      But, as some point there becomes a moment where researchers in fields start to treat certain studied things as facts. Why is this if researcher’s never come to strong conclusions? And if the researchers aren’t coming to strong conclusions, then who is?
      I know this should be an easy answer since you’re a researcher and I’m interested in your answers.

      *”As for the 45,000 and comparing to other nations, of someone dies on a waiting list or due to lack of resources that is the same as dying due to lack of access to healthcare.”*
      Okay, but there is a difference between being uninsured and lacking access to healthcare. That’s why in a previous comment I criticized Kyle for saying ‘lack of access to healthcare’.
      *”You can’t say that number is zero in other nations because it isn’t.”*
      I can because if everyone is insured in a Universal healthcare nation. No one is dying due to being uninsured. You’re ignoring the difference between being uninsured and lacking access to healthcare(ie waitlines).

      *”You saying it is zero in other nations is you lowering the standards there and holding the US to a higher standard. On paper everyone is covered in other nations, but they are also covered in the US as well by law as the ER cannot deny anyone service regardless of income.”*
      It’s not me lowering standards. It’s me using the correct terminology as described in the study. It’s called being precise. I’d use the wait lines deaths instead, but as you would say I’d be dealing with an “empty-stat” as the US doesn’t provide those numbers reliably.
      And sure… the ER cannot deny anyone service. But the ER isn’t the only avenue for healthcare. The ER doesn’t count as “EVERYONE IN THE US HAS HEALTHCARE COVERAGE”.

      *”You need to set the same standard if you want to do comparisons which is difficult to do.”*
      Not too long ago you were making comparisons using two different types of stats…

  1. The NHS is a system I would never replace for anything even close to resembling the US system.

    Last week my mum was taken to hospital with chest pains, she had an ambulance ride, multiple chest x rays, 3 blood tests not to mention all the other cardio monitoring systems that are put in place while on the ward and she was kept in for the whole day carefully monitored and looked after by fantastic hard working staff and then discharged at the end of the day with medication in case the problem returns. Cost to her £0.

    Next month my tonsils are being removed. I have had multiple MRI scans due to back problems over the years and I’m not even 30 yet. Cost to me: £0.

    I know for a fact that if we lived in the States we’d have been debating calling an ambulance for her chest pains, and there is no way in hell I’d have had my MRI scans. The NHS is in crisis at the moment because of partisan political posturing by the ruling party and no other reason. The system is fit for purpose it just needs to be funded right.

    • Yep I love the NHS, i suffer from mental health problems and have to see hospital staff and get medication every two weeks and it doesnt cost me a penny. The american system is a joke; only supporting the rich.

    • While I would take the NHS to the US model, its actually grossly inferior to comparable EU health care systems. I suffered significant brainstem damage during an ms relapse, A&E refused to treat me despite going in and out every day. I was forced to wait 2 months on a waiting list to see a neurologist. Because I was misdiagnosed by GPs for 20 years.

    • The problem is underfunding though, and the fact that you can’t go straight to a specialist. In other countries this is not the case.

  2. It’s so weird to see both the DNC and GOP teaming up against Medicare For All while battling one another 24/7. They seemingly take breaks just to say flat out lies on the subject. Must mean they are terrified it is gaining a lot of steam.

    • +F Z I find that it alternates. They either say they’re for it and then flip when they have the power to support it, they say their for it but can’t do it “right now”, or they are truthful and say they say they’re not for it.

    • It means they tapped into money they swindled from unsuspecting average Americans that pay into it like the fucking thieves they are. Political ideologies be damned when it comes to billions.

    • That’s what needs to happen those youngsters to divide and conquer states like Wyoming and the dakotas yo name a few, but they rather live in big cities and be in a comfortable zone. Who is winning? I ask myself.

  3. I’m a registered Republican and have been for many years but honestly, I agree with you on universal healthcare. It’s just the right thing to do.

    • You’re talking about the same Republicans who are in bed with the mega corporations who last I checked are also in bed with the Democrats. The fact is that neither party’s leadership is actually following the will of the people. We aren’t living in a two party system currently we are living in an oligarchy ruled by the mega wealthy.

    • +E&J Family but which republicans aren’t in bed with corporations? At least in the dems some of them arent completely gone. And socially they are better than republicans. Equal rights, health care, less cuts on social programs

    • +E&J Family tp follow on from david, literally every single republican is an asvocate of trickle down economoics which is proven not to work. Deregulation and tax cuts for the rich is always the answer ever since Regan.

      I am honestly not wanting to be rude towards you. But by the standards you gave the republicans are awful

    • E&J Family, You’re right, but you’re the one who said he’s a Republican and even called them “my party” (they’re not your party, not even close). I never defined myself as a Democrat; I got better sense than that. So yeah, it’s a two-party system, with 2 parties that are near-identical. They both work for the rich and to screw over regular people. Just that the Republicans work harder for the rich.

    • Yeah he’s just really really dumb. I truly believe Trump thought he could change the system because he’s so politically ignorant he thought he had more power than the banks, military industrail complex and the intelligence agencies. Hahaha. He doesn’t have a clue what’s going on so the permanent state as in the people who don’t come and go with election cycles take full advantage of his ignorance. Hrs basically an over grown child who is very easy manipulated. I think he’s slimey and greedy and evil in the way he treats woman etc but he’s totally out of his depth in Washington. I don’t think he even thought he’d win in the beginning. He just wanted to add, ‘ran for president’ to his small sad list of accomplishments..

    • No. Trump knows that Medicare for All is the way to go. He even floated the idea when he first got into office. Before getting into office he spoke about being over seas and his friend got hurt and had to go to the hospital and praised their healthcare system. So he’s not ignorant(well, he is ignorant, but not in this instance), he knows what he’s talking about and he 100% knows he’s lying, but he counts on Americans having an extremely short political memory.

    • He’s not evil, he is corrupt and stupid. Evil is like Hitler or Sauron or Voldemort; Trump’s not that, he’s just an incompetent, corrupt, stupid guy who somehow got into the presidency by accident.

  4. This is the craziest issue I’ve ever seen. I’m from Australia, had my appendix removed, my tonsils removed, spent a week in hospital from an infection and had multiple tests throughout my life. Cost is $0. We have a long waiting list for non life threatening conditions, but can get private health insurance if we don’t wish to wait, which is tax deductible (meaning we don’t pay as much tax if we don’t use the public health system). It’s absurd that the richest country in the world can’t afford to look after their own people. It has gotten to the point where the rest of the world now feels sorry for American citizens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *