And so does Trump. For all his Pragmatism rejecting acting on principle as a matter of principle he has not escaped absorbing the altruist-collectivist premises all around him as an unacknowledged standard for deciding what "works".

From "Trump: My Healthcare Plan Is Going To Cover Everybody"

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvesp...

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” [quoted in Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...]

In 2000, @realDonaldTrump released a book called "The America We Deserve" where he advocated for universal healthcare and single-payer. http://pic.twitter.com/k25Wsawf66
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 13, 2017
...

For quite some time, Trump has been in favor of government-funded health care. He admitted to it on CBS’ Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes in September of 2015:

Scott Pelley: What's your plan for Obamacare?

Donald Trump: Obamacare's going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what's going on with premiums where they're up 40, 50, 55 percent.

Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

Donald Trump: There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, "No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But--"

Scott Pelley: Universal health care.

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

Donald Trump: They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably--

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

Well said, ewv. Obamacare, like its Social (In)security, Medicare, and Medicaid predecessors, is based on the principle of altruism and presumes that we are our brother's keepers.

So do I!

Yes I wish Lets Shrug well, she and some of our thoughtful newer members would enjoy getting to grips with each other.
That was one hell of an exit-speech.!

Rand Paul is opposing a mandate that everyone must buy health insurance.

I agree, AJA. It's my life. It's my decision.

"Mandated" anything is my issue entirely. I do not need anyone to tell me whats good for me let alone tell me what I must have or must not have to enjoy my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Mandating is infringement - care or insurance. Determining if someone receives or does not receive care based on costs (policy) and compliance does blur the line though.

That's government mandated health insurance, NOT health care. The faster we die the better they like it, as long as they get all our assets before we go.

2nd that.

Independent thought means understanding for yourself what something means and why it is true. It does not mean a requirement to disagree with someone else.

Ayn Rand's rejection of religious conservativism is true, not "anti-individual".

Not caring about "consistency" or "giving a rat's ass" about what Ayn Rand thought, in the name of "individualism", is not an argument

I have also seen what he said contradicting freedom in healthcare and elsewhere. As time passes, the Republican national healthcare plan moves more to compromise with Obama, "keeping" the "popular" parts. As with Pelosi, you know what's in it after "The Deal".

Did you read Trump's policy paper on health care reform? It's not perfect, but it contains many pro-freedom elements including some that improve on where we were pre-Obamacare.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/HCRef...

I should have been more clear. No need to apologize. I respect Ayn Rand for a great many things she wrote but she wasn't right about everything she wrote, even if it was consistent. Some here can't stand that I am a conservative and that's fine but I do find their constant jabs to be anti-individual. My view, we all have every right to believe as much or as little as we want about anything we want. I'm no-one drone. I think for myself.

Nothing to be sorry about for someone who says he doesn't "give a rats ass" for what Ayn Rand thinks.

sorry thought you were referring to Ayn Rand...

You do realize that the Rand I was referring to was Rand Paul. Rush is foremost a republican, as is Gingrich. Rush saw the train and hopped on board.

Personally I could give a rats ass what she or anyone else thinks/thought of me. I'm a Constitutional Conservative.

i agree wholeheartedly....

Ms Rand despised Conservatives worse than the liberal/fascist/socialists....and her observation that he who held the most philosophically consistent position ended up the winner...right or wrong...Conservatives have no consistently pro-freedom and pro-liberty position...case in point...in their rush to repeal Obamacare, they try to reassure everyone that they will REPLACE it with something else to the Repub/Conservative liking...Obamacare is anti-freedom and anti-liberty...it is wrong on principle...it is anti-Constitutional

Rand forbid we consider possibilities, eh?
Yeah, take this point too.
Sheesh. I miss Lets Shrug.

Oh, no...I wasn't indicating Mr. Paul. My comment was a generality leveled at that segment of the population that believes there is no living without government assistance.

That is the phenomenon we are seeing of efforts of reform, in reaction to collectivist activists, which results in a zig-zag pattern within a downward trend over time. Without a philosophy of reason and individualism as what we are for, it not enough to oppose the worst in an atmosphere of intellectual leadership that says 'me too but slower'. Conservatism with its appeals to an historical Constitution, faith and family, has never been capable of stopping collectivism-statism. Opposing forced redistributionism as a political principle isn't enough either to fight underlying premises of altruism and irrationalism.

It is a possibility. Its not entirely out of the question considering what he's proposing.

But Rand is a libertarian? Conservatism can't fail unless people no longer value what Conservatives are trying to preserve. Society in general has eroded what it is to be a Conservative. There was a post not to many days ago discussing Definitions of words (and terms). There has been a full court press to make conservative a bad name. The Constitution is worth conserving no matter what I'm called and I will not give up the fight until I no longer breath.

You think Rand Paul is trying to maintain unneeded gov't jobs just to avoid layoffs?