Marco Rubio's Hypocrisy In Two Tweets

Marco Rubio happens to be one of the more slimier, corporate Republicans, this is even after Trump fooled his voters with his "Drain The Swamp" falsehood. Pictured above, you are able to see Rubio adopting the usual Republican position when it comes to making sure people have health care, as they all hear the words "government-run" and shudder at the fact this will annoy their private industry donors, Mr. Rubio is clearly no different.

Time for a quick debunking of Rubio's right-wing talking points. Firstly, the current cost of implementing the Affordable Care Act is $49 TRILLION over the next 10 years, with a Bernie Sanders style Single Payer system costing $17 Trillion LESS. So we're saving money by having a government-run system. Don't believe it? Allow sitting US Representative Ro Khanna to explain here.

A quick summary of the video could also be put into a few sentences:

• Khanna: Single-Payer will cost roughly $32T over the next ten years, helped by not having to deliver a profit to health companies.
• Fox News Host: The plan you speak of is simply too expensive.
• Khanna: But I've just stated how it costs $17T less, how is that expensive?
• Fox News Host: The free market solves everything, you're wrong, thanks for being with us today Ro Khanna.

I'm paraphrasing of course, but that is roughly what was said during Khanna's interview. Score one to the Left.

Now, let's move on to the amount of people that would be insured under Bernie Sanders' health care plan. Currently, with the ACA as it stands, roughly twenty-eight million people have no health insurance and an estimated forty-five thousand people pass away every year. Under "TrumpCare" the CBO estimated that a further twenty-two million people will become uninsured by 2026. As the Republicans tried to repeal the ACA three times without success, guess who voted 'Yes' on all three versions of the repeal bills? Yep, Marco Rubio. Oh, and as for the number of people without health care under Bernie's plan, that number is zero. Score two for the Left.

To bring the score to 3-0 for the Left, we look at a country which has a version of a single-payer system and the costs associated with it.

In 2017, UK healthcare spending was just over £140 Billion as you can find located on page four of this IFS Study. Now I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that £140B times ten is much less than $49 Trillion, just a wild guess. Of course the US has a higher population so costs will be relatively higher, but not as much as the Affordable Care Act or TrumpCare. Score three to the Left.

Basically, you pay less, more people are insured and it costs the government less. Now comes the moving of the goalposts, the concerns are now waiting times and quality of care. To debunk those concerns quickly, the UK has waiting times for elective procedures, whereas the US prioritises care based on the size of your wallet. As for the quality of care talking point, America does offer a better quality of healthcare - should you have the money to pay for it. The 28M who are currently uninsured do not have that luxury.

There wouldn't happen to be another Marco Rubio tweet showing his blatant hypocrisy, would there?

Oh.

All you have to do in order to not have Marco Rubio vote to cut the government programmes that you need to survive is extremely simple - be Marco Rubio's mother. Otherwise, you're screwed, sorry.