I watched the video (http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/29/2005-flashback-video-newt-backs-individual-mandate); he said:
“If I see somebody who’s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I’m looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare. Because what they’ve said is, A, I’m gambling that I won’t get sick, and B, I’m gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors. Now, when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectibles are people who have money, but have calculated it’s not worth the cost to pay. And so I’m actually in favor of finding a way to say, whatever the appropriate level of income is, you ought to have either health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no right in this society to have a free rider approach, if we’re well off economically, to cheat our neighbors.”
That was back in 2005—AFAIK, he hasn’t walked that position back. This isn’t the same individual mandate per Obama/Romneycare.
He’s obviously right to say that there is a free rider problem here, and it isn’t easy to resolve. Now, you could say, “well, hospitals should have the right to refuse care.” Sure, that sounds easy enough—but it unleashes a pandora’s box of all kinds of litigious possibilities. So, what then?
I left a link to an article that links to a March 2011 statement.
LLS