David Bianculli

They don't call for abolishing the Affordable Care Act, but they want to roll back some of the provisions of it. And they want to move things back closer towards the private insurance market that we've seen. It's interesting. They point out the private insurance market has real flaws that depending on employers is not a good system. And yet they don't really offer an alternative.

They don't call for abolishing the Affordable Care Act, but they want to roll back some of the provisions of it. And they want to move things back closer towards the private insurance market that we've seen. It's interesting. They point out the private insurance market has real flaws that depending on employers is not a good system. And yet they don't really offer an alternative.

They don't call for abolishing the Affordable Care Act, but they want to roll back some of the provisions of it. And they want to move things back closer towards the private insurance market that we've seen. It's interesting. They point out the private insurance market has real flaws that depending on employers is not a good system. And yet they don't really offer an alternative.

They'd like to reduce Medicaid by turning into block grants to states, which can then spend the money But only up to a certain amount. That's something we've heard from the right before. They don't really offer much else along those lines. They want to also push Medicare more towards privatization. So they're fond of the Medicare Advantage program, which is a kind of hybrid program for Medicare.

They'd like to reduce Medicaid by turning into block grants to states, which can then spend the money But only up to a certain amount. That's something we've heard from the right before. They don't really offer much else along those lines. They want to also push Medicare more towards privatization. So they're fond of the Medicare Advantage program, which is a kind of hybrid program for Medicare.

They'd like to reduce Medicaid by turning into block grants to states, which can then spend the money But only up to a certain amount. That's something we've heard from the right before. They don't really offer much else along those lines. They want to also push Medicare more towards privatization. So they're fond of the Medicare Advantage program, which is a kind of hybrid program for Medicare.

Medicare Advantage does not save taxpayers any money. In fact, it often costs more. And there's not a measurable difference in outcomes. But in general, it's part of an ideology of moving things towards privatization and away from government running them.

Medicare Advantage does not save taxpayers any money. In fact, it often costs more. And there's not a measurable difference in outcomes. But in general, it's part of an ideology of moving things towards privatization and away from government running them.

Medicare Advantage does not save taxpayers any money. In fact, it often costs more. And there's not a measurable difference in outcomes. But in general, it's part of an ideology of moving things towards privatization and away from government running them.

That's right. And there are places where you can see how either they're trying to co-opt Trump or where Trump has co-opted the traditional GOP. But trade is one place where that conflict is still going on and where the sort of traditional free trade conservatives who have inhabited the right wing think tank sphere are not yet ready to give up.

That's right. And there are places where you can see how either they're trying to co-opt Trump or where Trump has co-opted the traditional GOP. But trade is one place where that conflict is still going on and where the sort of traditional free trade conservatives who have inhabited the right wing think tank sphere are not yet ready to give up.

That's right. And there are places where you can see how either they're trying to co-opt Trump or where Trump has co-opted the traditional GOP. But trade is one place where that conflict is still going on and where the sort of traditional free trade conservatives who have inhabited the right wing think tank sphere are not yet ready to give up.

So rather than come to a single position on trade, the Mandate for Leadership document actually just publishes two chapters, one of which is by Peter Navarro. who is one of Trump's advisors on tariffs right now and is driving a lot of the train there.

So rather than come to a single position on trade, the Mandate for Leadership document actually just publishes two chapters, one of which is by Peter Navarro. who is one of Trump's advisors on tariffs right now and is driving a lot of the train there.

So rather than come to a single position on trade, the Mandate for Leadership document actually just publishes two chapters, one of which is by Peter Navarro. who is one of Trump's advisors on tariffs right now and is driving a lot of the train there.

And the other is by a guy named Kent Lastman, who is the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is more of an old school free trade think tank on the right. And you see them debating which one of these would be better. And Lastman saying, look, tariffs are a bad idea. They will not achieve greater prosperity for Americans. It's going to make people poorer. It's not going to help.

And the other is by a guy named Kent Lastman, who is the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is more of an old school free trade think tank on the right. And you see them debating which one of these would be better. And Lastman saying, look, tariffs are a bad idea. They will not achieve greater prosperity for Americans. It's going to make people poorer. It's not going to help.

And the other is by a guy named Kent Lastman, who is the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is more of an old school free trade think tank on the right. And you see them debating which one of these would be better. And Lastman saying, look, tariffs are a bad idea. They will not achieve greater prosperity for Americans. It's going to make people poorer. It's not going to help.

While Navarro says the only way to take on the existential threat of China is to use tariffs.

While Navarro says the only way to take on the existential threat of China is to use tariffs.