Donald Trump Still Confused About Life Insurance vs. Health Insurance

This is hardly the most important part of Donald Trump’s interview with the New York Times today, but still:

So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.

Trump still doesn’t know the difference between health insurance and life insurance. And yet, he says the senators he met with at lunch “couldn’t believe it, how much I know about it. I know a lot about health care.” Uh huh.

On a different note, this interview is just a long series of anodyne questions with no real attempt to pin down Trump on anything of substance. Aside from conversational stuff, here’s a fairly complete list of the questions they asked:

  • How was your lunch [with Republican senators]?
  • You are generally of the view that people should have health care, right?
  • Did the senators want to try again [to pass health care]?
  • Where does it go from here, do you think?
  • How’s [Mitch] McConnell to work with?
  • Will you go to Britain? Are you going to make a state visit to Britain?
  • A lot of people are curious about your conversation with President [Vladimir V.] Putin at dinner. Not surprising. But what did you all talk about…?
  • You asked them [Republican senators] about it [Don Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer] at lunch?
  • Sorry to interrupt. The email, though, said something I thought was really interesting, and I wonder what you thought of it. It said this “is part of Russia and its government’s support of Mr. Trump.” So whatever actually happened at the meeting—
  • So, what do you interpret that to mean, now that you have seen it?
  • I do want to come out, on the email, now that you have seen that email that said Russia’s government — I mean, how did you — did you interpret it that way?
  • Given what’s happened since then, though, was it a political mistake to have fired him [James Comey], given what’s happened?
  • But look at the headache it’s caused, you know?
  • Do you wish you had done it on Day 1?
  • What would be the line beyond which if Mueller went, you would say, “That’s too far, we would need to dismiss him”?
  • Did you shoo other people out of the room when you talked to Comey?
  • This is why I want to come back to that email, because, like — does it concern you? Let’s say that the election didn’t change because of anything Russia did, which has been your point, right? You point —
  • But did that email concern you, that the Russian government was trying something to compromise—
  • Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?

There aren’t more than two or three probing questions in the whole bunch. And the only attempt at a follow-up of any kind was from Peter Baker on the Don Jr. email. I get that it’s entertaining to let Trump ramble and free associate—and I admit that it does produce news sometimes—but a high school reporter could have conducted this interview. What’s the point of bothering with it if you’re just going to lob a bunch of Fox & Friends nerf ball questions and then let Trump blather?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate