Posted on 05/15/2011 6:07:07 PM PDT by libstripper
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
He spent too many years breathing fumes given off by all those libs in academia. Rotted his brain.
You’re kidding, right? I was around during the rise of Reagan. The MSM pilloried him routinely. Remember Bedtime for Bonzo? That’s your idea of them picking him? (head shaking slowly in disbelief).
Not that Newt has much support here. But it is worth noting that Obama specializes in political hits of his opponents.
Ping to post 49....
Nyet to Newt!
Newt is also pushing amnesty using the rationale that we can't deport them. Newt is a legend in his own mind. He thinks he has a giant intellect. Newt is part of the problem, not the solution. How the hell did we get into our current state of bankruptcy and lack of an energy program? The political/ruling class that Newt is a member of has failed this nation. They would rather play Santa Claus and get reelected than make the hard decisions to save the country.
And I won't even describe Newt's lack of character in his personal life.
BURNT TOAST, to be exact.
The reason why I mentioned West is that he such a contrast in character when compared to Obama. He refutes the media’s belief that all blacks MUST be liberal.
In West you have a man who cares about America, wants to defeat her enemies and wants to preserve and strengthen the institutions and beliefs that made her great.
The media fawns all over Obama, saying he’s an historical figure because he’s black, blah blah blah. But there is no substance behind Obama, other than a desire to tear down America and throw her under the bus. Like Rush always says, “Obama has a chip on his shoulder.”
West is a man of character, grace and decency, attributes sorely lacking in Obama. Palin / West or West / Palin would shake up the political scene.....we don’t need any more elderly RINOs.....we need an exciting ticket.
That’s why I support Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Supreme Court.....not because she’s a woman or a black woman, it’s because she has a brilliant conservative legal mind.
Gingrich favors a health care mandate for insurance. The Ryan plan wants to retain private insurance and expand it for use by Medicare recipients (those below 55). He would use a form of means testing to determine the amount of government subsidy for Medicare recipients. The individual would select his/her own health plans in much the same way that federal employees do now. Ryan also supports giving bloc grants to the states to fund Medicaid.
Gingrich has not said how he will reform Medicare, which will go broke in 5 to 9 years. It is unsustainable as currently structured. With the number of retirees doubling in the next 20 years, i.e., by 2030 one in every five residents of this country will be 65 and older. And by 2030, there will be just 2 workers for every retiree. Our current entitlement programs represent an unfunded liabillity of $100 trillion to keep the promises made. It is impossible to sustain these programs.
Newt's slam against the "radical" Ryan plan that was approved by almost every Rep in the House was a dastardly move to make Newt more acceptable to the mushy middle. Newt is trying to create the impression that he is a centrist. I would move him more to the Left despite his pretense of being a conservative.
Gotcha! We agree. It’s just that the “race” thing has gotten so out of hand and so insane, that it bothers me when ANYONE brings it up as a reason for anything. I do understand exactly what you are saying though, and on the merits, couldn’t agree more.
I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?
Regarding rational health care, about 35 years ago several of us approached a major health insurance company with an idea. They gave use their annualy medical payout records on over 1,000 customers. Upon analysis we found that 1 tenth of a customers were responsible for 9 tenths of the cost. We then proposed an experiment wherein the high cost group would be offered the opportunity to receive health counseling and nutritional and dietary education. We figured that some would be willing (the experimental subjects), and some would be uninterested (the controls). The two groups would then be followed up for a year or two to determine if there was a significant reduction in the health care costs of the experimental group. Unfortunately, the insurance company decided not to do the study.
Meanwhile for the next 35 years I followed good dietary and health practices and taught them to my family and others, with very good results. For example, my 40 year old son has NEVER had a cavity. My father who suffered severe spring hay fever for 30 or more years, was cured in one month following my advice and never suffered again during the 20 years to his death at 90. I had a long conversation with a woman social worker about therapeutic nutrition. Two years later she wrote me a note saying she had done my recommended reading and helped about 70 or 80 people.
These are practical low cost methods of dealing with symptoms, but the medical and drug industry establishment will always resist putting them into widespread practice. We could probably afford Obamacare if this approach were followed, but it ain’t likely to happen, McGee.
I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?
Beyond that, unless and until someone defines what level of health care is a right (if any) and what health care is above that benchmark, no national plan can work. Do you have the right to have webbing between your toes removed by a plastic surgeon so you won't be embarrassed in gym class? I've heard of people forcing insurance companies to pay for that sort of surgery, is that a right? In some places, courts have ruled both oversize and undersized breasts to be psychological burdens in order to force insurance companies to pay for reduction and enlargement surgery, will that be covered? Viagra? Ritalin? Sex change surgery? And so on.
There's no way to make good decisions about universal coverage with or without “lifestyle training” (not pejorative, just what folks around here have called the sort of training you mentioned) until after we deregulate health care for about two decades and find out just what economies and efficiencies are really possible.
JMHO
What the hell happened to this man? Do they still have the fingerprints and photos to the dead boy they found in his bed or something?
I don't want to hear his crap in a debate, and I certainly don't want to see him as a nominee.
Yeah, if you like hearing a debate from the perspective of a progressive, uberliberal unconstitutional conservative-wannabe.
Another one bites the dust.
“I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?”
2 other people had address the legal difference between a State and The Federal goverment, as well as the difference between regulating an existing intrastate action(even if you uses some twisted logic to call it interstate) and calling into existence a new action.
I will also point out that Until 1986 hospital rooms could refuses people who did not demonstrate their ability to pay. The Democrats forced thou at the last minute the COBRA bill which made it illegal for a hospital to turn away anyone for not paying. The Effect was naturally a lot of hospitals going into backroom and a massive consolidation of the healthcare provider industry.(Which in-turn led to a consolation of the insurance industry)
The reason we can’t do that is because Congress passed a law in 1986(COBRA standing for: “Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act”) effectively mandating hospitals give out free goods and services. This is also in no small part the reason for the high cost of healthcare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.