New York Times' Maggie Haberman: "Trump generally believes that everybody should have health care"

[Goprox]

I found this jewel from an interview published yesterday in The New Yorker with Maggie Haberman, the New York Times reporter whom Donald Trump loves to speak to:

D.R.: What does that mean? We’re on from coast to coast, as they say. What does it mean to have inherited, to some degree, Ed Koch’s view of New York?
M.H.: Or at least his view of the role of government in people’s lives. I think that he believes that regulations are a restriction and a hindrance. Koch, while he did not openly talk about that the same way, certainly fumed at the limitations that government put on what he could do and stymied him. But I think that Trump generally believes that everybody should have health care, or that most people should have health care. I think he fundamentally believes that the role of government is to provide for people. What exactly that looks like, I think, is where you end up getting into a bit of a different place with him. But ultimately this is a guy who grew up in a city where the government was hugely accountable—for policing, for getting the garbage off the streets, for the buildings you build—and I think the role of government in people’s lives in New York City in the nineteen-eighties was pretty liberal.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conversation-with-maggie-haberman-trumps-favorite-foe

That's right. The man who just wanted (but failed) to strip millions of health insurance wants everybody to have insurance according to Maggie Haberman. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conversation-with-maggie-haberman-trumps-favorite-foe

[marybourg]

1. I heard her say that on an NPR program

this morning.

[Solly Mack]

2. Trump wants a win (no matter how). He wants constant praise. He demands obedience.

(that he calls loyalty)

But anything else he might want, and that's a dubious might, will always come in last to those three needs.

Always.

Everything else isn't even a consideration to those three needs.

[Stinkfoot007]

6. Totally agree

Trump will sign anything and declare victory

[Solly Mack]

10. He would - and no amount of how deep, deep down he thinks this - is worth the time to say it.

It's meaningless, even IF true, in the face of everything else about Trump.

Nothing comes before his ego and his brand is his ego.

[Egnever]

3. I am sure he does

Thing is he is not concerned about that right now. He doesn't even know what is in the health care bill in the Senate. He likely knows less than you and I.

All he wants is to say he repealed Obama care. He is wounded to the core that Obama is a bigger man than him and he wants to piss on his legacy. He is unconcerned with the details.

[JI7]

4. but not if it means giving Obama credit for it

[Hieronymus]

5. It's what he promised, but

he's broken all those promises.

[Doomy_Tunes]

7. Trump eats his burger sans bun

Why doesn't Mr. President Donald J. Trump propose an excise tax on carbs to pay for health care?

The old saying goes "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

What's good for the goose may not sit well with the Coke Brothers though.

[emulatorloo]

9. I think you mean the Crotch Brothers?

[torius]

8. Sure, meaning everyone

should be rich like him so they could buy healthcare. When he says government should provide for people, he means they should provide tax cuts for large real estate purchases.

[LenaBaby61]

11. Maggie Haberman is another incompetent, know-nothing ....

Dimwitted tRump-loving reporter.

She couldn't carry Molly Ivans snotty tissues.

[still_one]

12. This is one of the reasons I no longer subscribe to the NYTimes. They have a pattern of

setting up false equivalencies whenever the need arises.

Here is just a small sampling of what I am referring to:

"How G.O.P. Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science
CORAL DAVENPORT and ERIC LIPTON"

This is mostly a standard fare story, how big money influenced republicans to paint climate change as a "hoax"

However, the Times just can't seem to resist invoking a false equivalency of the republican extremism by saying that it was "Democratic hubris in the Obama years", that helped push the republicans over the edge:

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."

Then they proceed to make excuses for the republicans by saying "most republicans do not believe climate change is a hoax"

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The Times does this frequently in their articles, believing I suspect, that it makes them appear "balanced". What it actually does, is distort the true picture of things.

The hiring of Bret Stephens is a perfect example of that philosophy:, "see how objective we are, we give equal voice to those who have different views, regardless that the Science on the subject has already spoken


In February they reported on a Democratic Member Quiting the Election Commission, and by invoking this so-called "balanced approach, left readers with the impression that both sides do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html

It was a completely distorted picture of what was happening in that committee. The Democrats on that committee were willing to compromise, and work with their republican counterparts, but guess which side would not meet half-way?

The article gave such a distorted picture of what was really occurring, that the Democrat who resigned from that committee followed through with an editorial to present an actual picture of things:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/dysfunction-and-deadlock-at-the-federal-election-commission.html

With the Judy Miller's shoddy reporting of the WMDs graced the NYTimes, did many realize at the time that this pattern of shallow reporting would be an all too frequent occurrence at the "gray lady"

[Stinkfoot007]

14. I think this happens quite a bit

There is so much pressure on media outlets to appear "balanced" that they will give credibility to ideas and views that are complete nonsense.

[briv1016]

13. They don't view the poor as people. So when they say "everybody" they really mean "the rich."

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. And he generally has no idea how much it costs

having given figures of $12 a year, or $15 a month, for someone young and healthy. When you're as clueless as that, it's not surprising that you can just toss of an opinion of "everyone should have healthcare". He is the most ignorant president there has ever been. He has lived his life in the bubble of the entitled rich, with someone else to take care of all his needs.