Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ez
I guess you missed my several posts where I asked how Gingrich proposed to achieve universal coverage with "no individual mandate" and "no employer mandate."

I think the answer is clear. Unless Gingrich is now accepting Paul Ryan's "right-wing social engineering" and moving toward some form of refundable tax credit, the only way to pay for everyone to HAVE INSURANCE (which is not to be conflated with people who can't pay for medical care having it provided to them by the government), is to have massive tax increases.

If the individual won't be mandated to pay for insurance, and employers won't be mandated to pay for insurance for their employees, but everyone will be able to have insurance coverage -- who is paying? And why isn't Gingrich spelling it out here?

Perhaps Gingrich is using "universal coverage" interchangeably with "universal healthcare" (which is about what we have now). But that seems like a pretty big leap. Especially since, given Obamacare, Romneycare, Hillarycare, there's a heightened sensitivity about that term.

If there's no individual mandate, and no employer mandate, but what would have been paid under those mandates and MORE is imposed as taxes, this is not bold reform.

From here:

What financing mechanisms could influence universal health coverage? They broadly fall into four categories – tax-funded integral services where tax payers in a country pay a tax that is used to fund health care for the poor; social health insurance, community health insurance and private or voluntary health insurance.

This is classic Gingrich: "universal coverage" is a term the Left uses and the Right does not. So, in his inimitable mixed political metaphor way, Gingrich links a term used by the Left to a principle demanded on the right. And comes up with something like, "No individual mandate and FREE STUFF TOO!"

I'm sure he has an explanation to fill in the blanks, or he'll pull one out of his hat. But, as it stands now, that's not fair advertising.

173 posted on 12/12/2011 8:03:51 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]


To: fightinJAG; ez

“I guess you missed my several posts where I asked how Gingrich proposed to achieve universal coverage with “no individual mandate” and “no employer mandate.”

Jag is a Romney bot talking out his arse. Gingrich said no such thing.

I’ve challenged him to prove his claim, and it was a FAIL.


177 posted on 12/12/2011 8:09:28 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: fightinJAG
If the individual won't be mandated to pay for insurance, and employers won't be mandated to pay for insurance for their employees, but everyone will be able to have insurance coverage -- who is paying? And why isn't Gingrich spelling it out here?

Just read what you posted "For those who nevertheless choose not to purchase coverage and then become too sick to do so, high risk pools will provide access to coverage." No mandate, you are free not to purchase coverage and if you don't, high risk pools will provide access to healthcare.

181 posted on 12/12/2011 8:19:41 PM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson