On Wednesday, everyone’s favorite grandstanding CNN chief White House correspondent did some quick fact-checking on a tweet promoting an op-ed by President Trump and found it supposedly loaded with “falsehoods.”
In response to a tweet pushing a guest column by Trump published by USA Today, Acosta said even the promotional tweet contained two claims that were “false and false.” Acosta then chided USA Today, apparently disappointed the editors failed to provide the kind of high-level “fact-checking” he just offered to the public.
“This column may break the record for the number of falsehoods from a President ever published in a newspaper op-Ed,” wrote Acosta. “Just this tweet alone is false – ‘outlaw private health care plans’ and ‘letting anyone cross our border’ Huh? Fact check: false and false. Come on USA Today.”
But it didn’t take long for Acosta’s fact-check to get fact-checked, to disappointing results for the CNN star. As Twitchy notes, Washington Examiner Executive Editor Philip Klein responded to Acosta a few hours later by pointing out that Trump’s first “false” claim sounds a lot like an accurate summary of a section of Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare-For-All” plan.
“Sec 107 of Sanders Medicare for All act says ‘it shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.’ Private coverage would only be allowed for supplemental benefits,” wrote Klein.
Here’s section 107 from Sanders’ “Medicare-For-All” plan, which says exactly what Klein said it does and what Trump said in more concise terms:
SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE. 23
(a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date 24 described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—
(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided 3 under this Act; or
(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an 6 employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
(b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, including additional benefits that an employer may provide to employees or their dependents, or to former employees or their dependents.
As for the second supposed “falsehood,” there’s a reason Democrats have become widely known as the open borders party.