... and dozens of Freepers get suckered once again.
If the media hates Gingrich this bad then that alone tells me he must be good for our side
The media wants Romney SO BAD I even saw “Reverend” Sharpton on MSNBC this morning praising Romney and how he is the best candidate for our side. You could tell he WANTS us to pick Romney. That alone tells me how bad he is for our side.
Newt Ping!
As the organized attack and news bombs have come out today, it is important to remember who’s writing the spin.
“The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.”
We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans,”
“We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System” "Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.”
"The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan."
”While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system.”
Gingrich also criticizes the law, but not enough to oppose it:
Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.
While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)
In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
I laugh when I read that Obama fears Romney in the MSM reports. Anyone with a brain knows this isn’t so.
First - Many conservative voters - like myself - will not vote for Romney in a general election - I will leave the ballot blank on POTUS. Romney is NOT liked by the base.
Two - Romney isn’t that different from Obama except maybe he is better groomed. Plus, his wealth will hurt him in the eyes of the electorate. Now IF the case could be made that DEMS would vote for Romney - THEN they might have a case - but we know this isn’t so. Plus, even “unafiliated” probably won’t vote for him either.
Three - Romeny vs Obama debates will be so boring that no one will watch. Romney isn’t a scrapper and he can’t beat Obama by being more pretty.
Four - Newt is the only candidate that has the smarts and command presence to eviscerate Obama in debates and make him look the fool he is to “Joe Public.”
Fifth - The MSM has been down playing the “Mormon” card about Romney. Watch how that will change when he runs against Obama in a general election.
Sixth - The MSM has done their best to ruin Newt. They are running out of ammo. IF he can get the nomination, he will build momentum and win.
They want Willard versus Barack so bad they can taste it! And clueless brainiac haters of Newt are falling for their LIBERAL scam.
We've had a problem with media bias since the 60’s, but it's never been as bad as it is today.
No such thing as integrity, or objectivity in the media today. It's as corrupt as it's ever been.
General public is too damn lazy to read past the headline and compoung the error by deluding themselves into believing they’re “informed”.....
Well, color me shocked. /s
Had a discussion on where Newt’s thoughts were on Health Care for the last couple of days with several people and Here is, again, my absolution.
Well we know that the media want Romney, so I assume the purpose of this is to hurt Gingich in favor of...Romney.
Well doesn’t Romney agree with Romney??
Then again, depending on the year and office he was running for, Romney may not agree with Romney.
"[Start of letter:] The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.Gingrich seems happier with the final product than Romney did. The assertion that Gingrich "entirely agrees" with Romney is obviously false; however, "enthusiastically agrees" would be accurate, and nearly equally devastating to me, as "I want to believe" in Newt.We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. [100% coverage necessarily requires government mandates -- ed.
{the part the article ripped out of context}
... While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.
Instead of it applying to whoever it was Romney was going to apply it to, Gingrich proposed applying it only to "those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year."
That really shows how radically different Gingrich's view of the individual mandate was from Romney's view -- Gingrich just wanted to force it on people after a different income cut-off than Romney's. Wow. /s
Got to give the Gingrich supporters credit, they are excellent at straw-grasping.
Newt agreed on need not on method.
I agree that Americans all need health insurance. I don’t want to pay someone else’s health bills. I’m stretched enough paying my own.
The only difference between Romney and Gingrich is 100 pounds of excess fat.
Will Romney and Gingrich both repeal Obamacare? Yes. So why has this issue about what they thought a few years ago really matter? All I care about is what the candidate will do NOW about today’s problems. We waste our time on listening to negative ads too. Where do they stand now? Who has the best chance of getting effective legislation through? That’s all that should matter.