USA Today Allows Trump to Publish Fake News

Illustration for article titled USA Today Allows Trump to Publish Fake News
Photo: Scott Olson

For some reason—possibly because USA Today is trying to get into the good graces of the president, or maybe they just wanted some press—USA Today allowed the Donald J. Trump to publish an op-ed that is full of mistruths that only become apparent when you’re done reading the lies.


In short, USA Today published fake news.

On October 10, the newspaper ran a piece titled: “‘Medicare for All’ plan will demolish promises to seniors” that surely was not penned by the president of the United States.

Seriously, why would USA Today publish a piece under Donald Trump’s name that he surely didn’t write? I know that every senior official does this. I remember when I was trying to get recommendation letters for an internship; it was quite common for folks to just say, “You write it and I’ll sign it.” But they could have at least given the illusion that the president had something to do with this.

One of the benefits of having a president that tweets all the time is we know his work. We know he can’t spell; we know he doesn’t understand the rules of capitalization or the appropriate use of exclamation points. We know that he struggles with basic comprehension and has difficulty understanding remotely complex subjects likes Medicare. Hell, he has trouble understanding non-complex subjects like consent, so I have a hard time believing that he understands anything remotely related to a single-payer health fund.

They could have at least included some run-on sentences or made up some kind of scary scenario in which some friend of Trump’s told him that he was doing well until he lost his Medicare benefits thanks to cuts in the program by those pesky Democrats!

It didn’t take long for real news organizations to rip Trump’s op-ed to shreds. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post debunk the entire article point by point.


The Los Angles Times notes:

Now, to the details. The target of the op-ed is the Medicare for All Act, a Sanders proposal to replace almost all private health insurance and public programs with government-funded health coverage modeled on Medicare. Sanders’ plan would eliminate private and public premiums, deductibles and other co-pays. It would provide universal coverage, including dental, vision and hearing care for everyone. The op-ed calls this “socialism.”


And from The Washington Post:

President Trump wrote an opinion article for USA Today on Oct. 10 regarding proposals to expand Medicare to all Americans — known as Medicare-for-All — in which almost every sentence contained a misleading statement or a falsehood.


It’s embarrassing that the president of the United States can’t fool readers with a self-authored op-ed because we all know that he struggles with big words and uses a fat pencil with no eraser even when he tweets. His thought process isn’t much beyond caveman sensibilities and his presidential acumen is limited to bashing survivors of sexual assault and talking about grabbing women by the pussy.

He needs to stick to those topics, or rallies in general, and leave the real president-ing to Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller, whose 3rd grade teacher confirmed our suspicion that he was, in fact, a glue-eater and who most likely authored this piece of “the barn is burning!” bullshit that we’ve come to know from this administration.

Senior Editor @ The Root, boxes outside my weight class, when they go low, you go lower.


Nunna Yorz - American Justice Is A Joke

Healthcare is something like the third or fourth biggest expenditure we have as a nation. Insurance prices have been increasing for decades with no end in sight. Having a single payer system would reign in those costs. Medicare for All would be a win for not only citizens, as it would expand affordable coverage to all Americans, but the financial benefits for all parties (except the insurance companies) would be massive as well.

By expanding the CMS and pushing for-profit health care out of the picture, providers save money. They would no longer have to pay extra staff to navigate various insurance companies’ approval processes for things like referrals and prior authorizations. The providers would save money and time fighting denied claims since they would be paid for services at one rate, instead of worrying whether one insurer will pay a claim for a procedure, while another insurer won’t. The big talking point against single payer has been using is that we shouldn’t want government coming between us and our doctors. The reality is, insurance companies do just that, in increasingly restrictive ways year after year. Single payer would make things simpler for the providers and lower their operating costs a lot.

And then there are the benefits to you and I, the patients. We would find ourselves in a much easier to navigate system. We wouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get a referral because of in network/out of network nonsense. We wouldn’t have to worry about one procedure being covered by one insurer while another insurer doesn’t cover it, leaving us with a huge bill to pay. We wouldn’t have to deal with employers switching insurance carriers to save money and finding ourselves suddenly not covered for services we need. We wouldn’t have to deal with constantly rising deductibles and copays. And we would have better access to providers since some currently don’t even accept certain patients based on the insurance they have.

The only negative side I can see to switching to a single payer system is that the insurance and medical billing industries are so huge, and employ so many people, that many would find themselves without jobs. The thousands of billing agencies and insurers across the US only exist because of how unnecessarily complex our current system is. They’re the middle men. They’re the ticks, getting fatter by sucking up our money and making it harder to obtain and afford good care. They’re the drain on our wallets and our economy. They create these arbitrary rules about pre-existing conditions and do everything they can to maximize profits for their shareholders. While I sympathize for the people who would lose work, they can always apply to the CMS, or take those job skills to other industries. And at least they’d still have healthcare while they’re between jobs.