And a lot of people have noticed that it is pretty different in some fundamental ways

from his past comments about healthcare.

We're gonna go through his history in just a little bit but before we get to that, he

was just on ABC.

And he faced some hard questioning about the difference between his past rhetoric on healthcare

and his current plan.

>> I'm a little bit confused about where you stand.

First, I want to play clips from two of your ads where you talk about healthcare.

>> We need to move towards Medicare for all system where every American has access to

quality and affordable services.

>> His ideas are a blueprint for a new wave forward.

A healthcare system with Medicare-For-All.

>> But I've looked at your healthcare plan.

In fact, I've got it right here.

And this plan does not call for Medicare-For-All, in fact, it doesn't even have a public option.

So why the decedents here?

>> We need to move towards universal healthcare that's high quality and nearly cost free for

Americans around the country.

But reality is, we have millions of Americans who are in private insurance right now.

And taking those plans away from them very quickly would be untenable for many many Americans.

To me the goal of the government has to be to demonstrate that we can out-compete private

plans.

And then push them out of the market over time.

>> So we have a little bit more on that in just a little bit but it was pretty immediately

apparent when he released his plan.

Understand he's releasing his plan months after other candidates have and after we've

had, whole new cycles, weeks of news about.

Some of the candidates in the Democratic primary backing off of their past promises.

To do Medicare-For-All or to do it along a certain timeline and he has talked a lot actually.

So in that, they showed a few of his ads.

I checked to see if he had specifically tweeted anything about Medicare-For- All.

And there's a lot, so we just got a couple, so we can bring this up, he says, we need

to provide high-quality healthcare to all Americans.

And a Medicare-For-All system is the most efficient way to accomplish that in July.

He says, people are always asking where are you going to get the money for healthcare,

which is completely incorrect.

We're spending twice as much and you can see there in that tweet.

Medicare-For-All, will get a massive burden off of families and businesses, that was in

May.

August of the previous year, 70% of Americans are now for Medicare-For-All.

Let's make healthcare a right of citizenship once and for all, which I love.

But it is pretty far from, well, we need to eventually get there by out-competing the

government plans.

And then just naturally forcing them out because they can't compete, that's I mean, that's

not even like a four year roll-out period.

That's, hey, maybe it happens someday.

>> Yeah, so I'm known for liking outsiders, it's true, I do.

I think they have interesting new ideas like Andrew Yang does.

Mentioned democracy dollars, dozens, maybe hundreds of times.

How its innovative and wonderful and that Andrew Yang has a lot of great ideas and a

lot of different directions.

I don't agree with all of them but I think it's great that he's got those and it's different.

And I think the current inside of system sucks and then here we have a snarky reporter from

mainstream media.

Jonathan Karl being snarky to Andrew Yang.

So if I'm going to follow form, I will tell you Yang is right and Carl is wrong.

Except, I'm not gonna do that cuz facts matter and Carl is right and Yang is wrong, that's

just the reality of it.

And so if all we cared about is our political perspective, in this case, outsiders.

I would just be biased and blindly tell you that Andrew Yang is right but he isn't.

Carl is right, the plan does not have Medicare-For-All and Andrew Yang did support Medicare-For-All.

In fact, he said it several times on the Young Turks, so I think this is a disastrous step

for him.

And I think that they probably got, they spent too much time in politics.

I've seen polling that shows that Universal Healthcare poll's better than Medicare-For-All.

So now all of a sudden Andrew's talking about Universal Healthcare and backing away from

Medicare-For-All.

Don't do that, don't do that.

And so that's not why you're interesting, that's not why people are excited about you.

>> No.

>> Nobody's, nobody, there's a Yang gang, there's no Biden gang.

There's no Biden gang because he does the same polling and goes with-

>> Focus groups and- >> Focus groups and the donors and all that

stuff.

That's wow, so this is a really bad turn I wish he hadn't taken.

>> Yeah, and look, maybe he'll come back on the Young Turks and he can talk about it.

Yeah, and I look to see if since yesterday if he had talked at all about this.

I couldn't see any of the sort of clarification or anything like that and I understand for

some people are supporters of his.

He left like enough of a, well, I care about the spirit of Medicare-For-All and someday

we're going to get there.

That you can hypothetically say he's not backing off but I mean, you've been around for this

primary.

When Elizabeth Warren started changing some of what she was saying about the timeline.

That was a huge issue Buttigieg, how much did we go over his past tweets about Medicare-For-All.

And that was current plan, isn't the same and Buttigieg's plan is more Medicare-For-All

than Yang's plan as of right now.

So although I like Yang, I've interviewed Yang, he seems like a really nice guy.

I love that he's in the race, he does have a lot of good ideas, we're not gonna pretend

that this is a good one.

It's not at all, it is as far as I can tell right now and there are certainly there are

details about cost cutting.

You can look at his plan, it does have some good stuff but a lot of it is in those other

plans which also get to Medicare-For-All.

It appears to be basically the most conservative healthcare plan that has been offered in the

Democratic primary.

>> Yeah.

>> And if you're gonna be last, you shouldn't, you're supposed to be first or best or whatever.

But he's last and not best, not by a longshot, not in this.

>> Yeah, I don't know what's happening in these presidential candidates.

Tulsi comes in as a progressive, winds up as the most centrist or conservative candidate.

What the hell happened there, right?

And now Andrew Yang comes in as the biggest outsider, anti establishment guy for Medicare-For-All,

all throughout.

Now he has the most conservative plan on healthcare that doesn't make any sense at all.

Stop listening to pollsters and consultants, okay?

Okay, that's my guess I don't know what happened internally but look, here's the second part

of this interview.

It doesn't get any better, let's watch.

>> Your ad is explicit, your ad says Medicare-For-All.

Your plan is not Medicare-For-All.

It's not even Medicare for some because in your plan there's not even a public option.

>> Our plan is to expand a Universal Healthcare system to all Americans.

Medicare-For-All is not the name of a bill, Medicare-For-All-

>> Well.

>> Is Universal Healthcare for all Americans.

>> But Medicare-For-All is Medicare-For-All, right?

I mean.

>> Well, our healthcare plan would be based on Medicare and expanding it over time.

>> And just to clarify, Medicare-For-All it's in Bernie's, it's in the title for Bernie's

Bill.

It is expanding Medicare so that everyone gets it.

Look, Universal Healthcare, that's fine we have a conversation about that but they're

not interchangeable, they're different things.

>> So, Yang is wrong in three different parts there.

So first of all, there is a bill there called Medicare-For-All, it's Bernie's Bill, it's

in the title, so just flat out wrong.

Number two, there is a thing called Medicare-For-All, a phenomenon, an idea that is not ubiquitous.

So this is the same thing that close you are says.

Well, I kind of like Obamacare, does that count?

Yeah, I'm from For Medicare-For-All, no, no that doesn't count, that's not Medicare-For-All.

So that at least the point number three which is why isn't it Medicare-For-All?

Why is it important that Medicare-For-All means something rather than just vague?

Well I'd like to get more people healthcare eventually, right?

Because Medicare-For-All removes premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Completely changes the system, if you have a public option, which Yang doesn't even have.

But if you had a public option that a lot of the corporate Democrats want, it doesn't

remove co-pays, premiums and deductions.

You still have to pay that to the government, so it doesn't really change the system.

All it does is creates the government as another insurance provider.

With all of the same problems of co-pays premiums, deductibles bankrupting you.

And if you don't, can't pay those things and you get cancer, you die, so it doesn't fundamentally

change the system.

Medicare-For-all, fundamentally changes the system and there is no, well, I mean, if I

increase Medicare a little bit.

Or I lowered the retirement age a little bit or ever kind of a public option, somewhere.

>> Mm-hm.

>> That doesn't get you on the road to Medicare-For-All, it just doesn't.

That's just a giant lie that the conservative Democrats and the corporate media has been

saying all along.

And they obscure the details so that you don't realize that it's a lie.

So when I see an outsider like Andrew Yang, now aiding and abetting that, don't do that,

for God's sake, we like you, don't do that.

It's not correct and it's a wrong path for campaign like the one he was running