WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new study that examines some major health care proposals from the presidential candidates finds that Donald Trump would cause about 20 million to lose coverage while Hillary Clinton would provide coverage for an additional 9 million people.
The 2016 presidential campaign has brought voters to a crossroads on health care yet again. The U.S. uninsured rate stands at a historically low 8.6 percent, mainly because of President Barack Obama's health care law, which expanded government and private coverage. Yet it's uncertain if the nation's newest social program will survive the election.
Republican candidate Trump would repeal "Obamacare" and replace it with a new tax deduction, insurance market changes, and a Medicaid overhaul. Democrat Clinton would increase financial assistance for people with private insurance and expand government coverage as well.
Former President Bill Clinton saw U.S. voter anger brewing.
In an interview with CNBC's "On the Money," Clinton said a few years ago he shared with his wife -- former Secretary of State and current Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton -- his view of the mood of the electorate.
"Way before Hillary declared, I said you've got to get prepared for this," the 42nd president told CNBC at the Clinton Global Initiative, held in New York City.
"There's a lot of populism, because there's a lot of road rage. People believe the political and economic order have let them down."
Clinton called his wife "a sort-of 'answers person' not an 'anger person.' I mean you feel anger, but, you've got to be yourself," he said. "Just go out there and try to be the grown-up in the room."
The suspect in the shooting at a mall in Washington state that left five people dead was taken into custody Saturday evening, according to the Washington State Patrol.
The suspect was identified as Arcan Cetrin, 20, a resident of Oak Harbor, Washington, located about 28 miles southwest of the mall where the shooting happened. Police released his identity and mugshot Saturday evening. read more
The editorial board of the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton on Saturday, urging the newspaper's readers to vote for the former secretary of state as the person best suited to confront "bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march" across the globe.
"In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity," the editorial reads.
The Times, a reliable supporter of liberal politicians, brushes aside Clinton's "occasional missteps," which -- along with relentless Republican attacks and tough media coverage -- have contributed to "distorted perceptions of her character."
I am late weighing in on this election -- late in more ways than one. Monday brought my ninety-sixth birthday, and, come November, I will be casting my nineteenth ballot in a Presidential election. My first came in 1944, when I voted for a fourth term for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, my Commander-in-Chief, with a mail-in ballot from the Central Pacific, where I was a sergeant in the Army Air Force.
It was a thrilling moment for me, but not as significant as my vote on November 8th this year, the most important one of my lifetime. My country faces a danger unmatched in our history since the Cuban missile crisis, in 1962, or perhaps since 1943, when the Axis powers held most of Continental Europe, and Imperial Japan controlled the Pacific rim, from the Aleutians to the Solomon Islands, with the outcome of that war still unknown. read more