Newt Gingrich: Conservatives Should Vote 'Yes' on Medicare

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, November 20, 2003 | NEWT GINGRICH

[presidio9]

Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation's health-care system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.

[.cnI redruM]

This is treason. It seems like Newt has 'grown', just like David Gergen.

[isthisnickcool]

OK! Anyone that has commited adultery shake hands!

Screw Newt! He says "it's inevitable". That reminds me of when Clayton Williams was running for gov. of Texas against Ann Richards. The weather was bad and Williams said: "The bad weather was like rape. ``If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.''

Gee Newt, the morons in Washington decide on more socialism which is taking my hard earned money and giving it to others and I'm supposed to "enjoy it"?

Gingrich is just another ex-politician turned hired whore for whomever will pay him the most money. Screw him!

[joesnuffy]

Newt's a third wayer...read his book

[Recovering_Democrat]

Newt is correct. Look, voting YES on this bill will get the ball rolling on making the Medicare program into a competitive arena.

Like it or not, Medicare is here to stay. It ain't goin' away. What needs to be done is to make it competitive--as more people choose PRIVATE plans, the need for pure government subsidies will shrink.

Now, this bill has a problem in that it pushes off for SEVEN years a plan for partial competition between Medicare and private plans. BUT this isn't the end of the story! The President knows private competition is the way to go: once he wins another term, and if there is a cooperative Senate (hint hint: www.nrsc.org), he will be able to revise this law and make competition happen faster!

Consider what the Democrat Party Operatives would want: confiscatory taxes, huge government subsidies, eliminating competition, and soaking the companies and people who put their capital at risk trying to find life-saving drugs. The Republican plan, as flawed as it is, moves us--gradually--away from the Socialism of the 1960s.

[buffyt]

He has been on my list for a long time. Since he dumped wife #2. I gave him a pass on wife #1, having divorce papers delivered to her in the hospital. Then he did it again. I just don't pay any attention to him anymore.

[buffyt]

What do you mean?

[reelfoot]

IMHO, this confirms that Newt has gone over to the Dark Side.

[JohnGalt]

Looks like the Neocon establishment is in full surrender mode.

Perle, yesterday helping the Ds, Newtie, and Frum last week coming out as an abortion advocate.

Strange days indeed.

[.cnI redruM]

There's nothing particularly 'Neo' about Rockefeller Republicans. Newt has had too many well-liquored nights on the town with the lobbyists. His newfound apostacy is an obvious argument on behalf of term limits.

[JohnGalt]

Newt is part of the neocon establishment, that was my observation. He sits on the Defense Policy Board and proclaimed FDR a great President and all that.

He is not a conservative by any means, hence the use of the designation.

[ken5050]

Like Winston..a great wartime leader..then dumped by the party when it took power after the war....we can't ignore what Newt did..perhaps the single greatest act ofpure political will in the last 100 years....covincingnthe GOP it could take Congress....anyone remember Bob Michel?

[William McKinley]

I disagree. I think he has it exactly right.

We need to get away from the third-party-payer system; I think all of us are in agreement on that. And we need to get away from the bureaucracy and towards competition; I think we all agree on that.

The question is how to get there.

One way would be to just end Medicare. The problem with this is we simply don't have the votes, and most conservatives understand that shocks to a system rarely are constructive. You move carefully.

Another way is what this bill provides, namely short term costs for long term gains. Introducing competition. Cracking the third-party-payer vice-grip. And as a bonus, helping to bring seniors over to our side, so maybe we will have the votes in the future for more serious reform, especially after our trial ideas in this bill have proven to be successes.

Gingrich is right.

[inquest]

One way would be to just end Medicare. The problem with this is we simply don't have the votes, and most conservatives understand that shocks to a system rarely are constructive.

First of all, one reason we don't have the votes is that people like Gingrich refuse to endorse the notion of ending Medicare. If they would start pulling in the right direction, then it's far more likely that we would have the votes, if not now, then at least somewhere down the line.

But secondly, if we just wanted to concentrate on incremental solutions for now, then there are plenty of ways to do that without introducing new features to the system that'll just end up making it more entrenched down the road. For one thing, we can repeal the recently passed obnoxious legislation that prohibits providers from caring for Medicare recipients outside of the Medicare regime, even if they receive absolutely no Medicare funds. The federal government has absolutely no business passing that kind of law.

Beyond that, we should incrementally cut back Medicare funding and along with it, the Medicare payroll tax. States, charity organizations, and individual families can make up for the shortfall, as it's really their responsibility in the first place to take care of the elderly - not Washington's.

[jedwardtremlett]

Let me ask you, though - why is this overhaul of Medicare bad? What's so terribly wrong with it that supporting it would be 'treason'?

J

[Fledermaus]

A "decisive shift to medical savings accounts"? Is Newt on acid. I don't find that anywhere in the bill.

I find "experiments" in 6 cities to give options to Medicare starting in 2010. That's all I see and even that has the Dems crapping in their Depends.

I hate this bill. I hate all of it. It's just more of an injection of big government and socialism into our lives. As Hillary knew in 1993 and 1994, if the government gets control of healthcare (after the media and the airwaves and the press...free press my butt) they can totally control our lives all the way down to what we eat and how much we excercise.

Fortunately, they'll screw up and ban beer and then there wouldn't be a gun law on the books to stop the revolution. ;-)

[Fledermaus]

Now, this bill has a problem in that it pushes off for SEVEN years a plan for partial competition between Medicare and private plans. BUT this isn't the end of the story! The President knows private competition is the way to go: once he wins another term, and if there is a cooperative Senate (hint hint: www.nrsc.org), he will be able to revise this law and make competition happen faster!

Here is the flaw in your thinking (although I have offered up this idea in hope); the GOP is incapable of governing and will mess it up. It sounds good to get more in the House and Senate and then change the bill which doesn't take effect until 2006. But you are talking about the Republicans...they are too inept to make it happen.

They'd rather appease idiots like Sen. Snow and Collins from Maine or Chaffee from RI instead of kicking them off committees and backing more conservatives to run agaisnt them.

Are they still afraid they'll all pull a Jim Jeffords? Well, if in 2004 the GOP gains 5-6 Senate seats, they'll switch anyway if they are given goodies by the jerks on the left.

[Fledermaus]

So what? What have they done with it since 1994 besides welfare reform the Dems successully take credit for now?

[kcvl]

There are also reforms that create choices in Medicare plans including managed care, preferred provider organizations, and fee for service.

the new Medicare bill includes a decisive shift to health savings accounts, which will allow every American to accumulate tax-free health dollars. HSAs allow account-owners to build savings and earn tax-free interest on their HSA contributions. HSA account owners can use their savings for tax-free spending on qualified health expenses, including health insurance premiums and deductibles, prescription drugs, and long-term care services including long-term care insurance.