Rubio went after Trump on his plans for healthcare in the 10th GOP debate, and the way I see it, his attacks were completely ineffective. The main criticism he tried (and failed) to level is that Trump’s plan lacks substance. Unleashing the benefits of a free market on a coddled, largely protected industry (the health insurance companies) is not short on substance. Not at all.
What you saw if you watched that debate was a difference of opinion on what “substance” means. The two candidates are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Marco Rubio: the younger of the two, the bought and paid for professional politician, defines it as lots of words, as smart sounding (but meaningless) details. That’s Marco’s definition. Make it convoluted, harder to grasp, so that you’ll be able to say you’ve got “substance”, and never mind that doing so will make any of those plans impossible to implement.
Donald Trump: in contrast, the more successful and competent of the two clearly seems to define it as something that will have a meaningful (i.e. substantial) positive impact. Something that is simple, direct, realistic, and effective. Something that cuts through all the bullshit political jargon & that details can be built around.
Rubio apparently doesn’t understand the old acronym “K.I.S.S.”: keep it simple stupid. And for anyone who wants to act like Trump hasn’t put anything solid out regarding healthcare, he recently brought all of his position statements and policy ideas into focus, with room to add and revise as needed moving forward, in his recently published position on Healthcare Reform.
The funniest part? Rubio accused Trump of not having any actual plans for it. You go to Trump’s site though, and you can read through overviews of his positions and policy ideas, which now includes a healthcare reform plan based on the idea of competition in a free market, on capitalism – not corporatism or crony capitalism, but true capitalism. If you go to Rubio’s site…
Well, you get a few bullet points, a good chunk of which are just talking points designed to convince the reader that his ideas (slightly better expressed in the next few bullet points) are credible and that he can be trusted to implement them. Neither of which are notions he is ever going to sell me on. After all, this is the guy who ran for a Senate seat promising to stop illegal immigration, and then went on to help author a bill for amnesty with the “gang of eight”.
So Trump’s plan has substance, and is based on uniquely American ideals of capitalism, on the existence of a free market that ultimately benefits consumers and forced insurance companies to compete as they should in a capitalist economic environment, ideas that tie into and dovetail with each and every other policy idea and position he has, and how he wants to achieve certain results is pretty clearly explained. Marco’s plan… has tax credits, and lip service to a few notions.
That’s about it.
Sure, Marco gives lip service to a few vague ideas (reducing costs, promoting innovation), but apparently doesn’t know how to enact any of it, unless he plans on copying Trump’s proposed approach to the healthcare industry. Because Trump’s would actually do most (or all) of that.
(alt. title: Simplicity & the Free Market in Healthcare Reforms)