Gingrich on Obama’s healthcare law: ‘About 300 pages are pretty good’ [300 out of 2,409]

The Hill ^ | 9/30/2011 | James Klatell

[Hoodat]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called for an immediate repeal of President Obama's healthcare law but would reinstate "a little over 10 percent" of it.

He made the remarks on Thursday in Iowa, when he introduced a new version of his "Contract with America."

Gingrich, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, listed "Repeal ObamaCare" as the first of his 10 part contract.

"The reason you have to repeal it is it's a 2,700-page document," Gingrich said. "You can't repeal part of it, because candidly you can't trust the staffs to tell you which part you ought to repeal."

But the former Speaker stressed that he had a "common-sense replacement" for the nation's healthcare system, and that some of that comes from the law he wants repealed.

"Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good, a little over 10 percent, but they should be part of the replace document," Gingrich said.

[fightinJAG]

I have to say I have been amazed at the number of people who misread your post, which I thought was pretty clear on proposing a free market solution.

Well, keep at it! :)

[fightinJAG]

Big Health Insurance also paid Mr. Gingrich huge "membership fees" to join his for-profit Center for Health Transformation, where, for their money, they got access to Mr. Gingrich, who then pitched their ideas to pols on Capitol Hill.

Here and here, for ecample.

[fightinJAG]

Well, we’re going to have to vote for one of them. But we don’t have to bill him as Reagan the Second when he can barely keep on track with stupid shiite such as man-made global warming and Al Sharpton tours.

[dixiechick2000]

“...force doctors and hospitals to accept what people could afford to pay.”

Forcing anyone to do anything is not the “free market.”

[dixiechick2000]

“You mistake my post...I mean let the market set the price. IOW what the people, as a whole, can afford to pay. Like the way we set the cost of a loaf of bread.”

The price of a loaf of bread is set by supply and demand.

“Insurance allows the hospitals and doctors to escalate their fees until ordinary folks could never afford to pay them.”

Insurance allows people to get sick without the cost of their treatment to bankrupt them.

Government regulations and lawyers have raised the cost of health care tremendously.

Reform that!

[fightinJAG]

The stench of bureaucracy oozing out of your post was downright oppressive.

[fightinJAG]

But Newt thinks Ryan is into “right-wing social engineering.”

[fightinJAG]

I can’t wait til 2013 if Newt wins and people start pretending they didn’t vigorously back him. “How do these RINOS get in power? How does the media keep choosing our candidates?”

Yep.

And upthread at #16 Newt's own words -- the ones where he said his plan was to provide "universal coverage" (which is a codeword for . . . what? Hmm?) -- were posted by a Newt supporter who is against Obamacare.

[fightinJAG]

So how does Newt propose to get universal coverage with no individual mandate and no employer mandate?

[fightinJAG]

This comprehensive approach—cost, quality, competition, and coverage—can solve the problem of the uninsured with no individual mandate and no employer mandate. Everyone would be able to obtain essential health care and coverage when needed. For those who are too poor to buy health insurance, states will have more flexibility to provide them with the assistance they need to buy it. 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. Once you have health insurance, you are assured you can keep it. By contrast, even Obamacare for all its trillions in taxes, spending, new entitlements, and new bureaucracy still does not achieve universal coverage. http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare

So, as stated, Gingrich's goal is universal coverage.

How is that achievable with no individual mandate and no employer mandate?

Help me out here.

[nathanbedford]

When you're great grandfather practiced, probably around the turn of the last century, he was no doubt dosing people with castor oil, painting their throats with turpentine, and prescribing laudanum. Today, we have multimillion dollar scanning machines and drugs that it literally costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring to market.

You may wish to go back to the free market in medicine of your great-grandfather's day but you must also find a way to pay for modern medicine. If you want to abolish the government's interference in the market, you must also repeal Medicare. If you want to repeal Medicare you had better disband the tea party because many of the more out there protesting cuts in Medicare. If you want to repeal Medicare I wish you the best of luck because there is absolutely no political chance that it can be done.

So how are you going to deal with government in the medical marketplace?

Instead of bashing Gingrich over a remark that is being twisted out of all meaning on this thread, why not deal with the real problem in a realistic way?

[dforest]

I can’t handle this. Gingrich is to big government for me.

Sorry

[PubliusMM]

“You can’t repeal part of it, because candidly you can’t trust the staffs to tell you which part you ought to repeal.”

Newt! Newt! Newt!
First a goofy position on illegals. And, now THIS!

Here’s some advice from the hinterlands...if the staffer suggests ANYTHING but repeal of the whole damn thing, FIRE THE STAFFER.

The only acceptable pages in the whole document are the two that are marked “This page intentionally left blank”.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

“Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.” Newt Gingrich – April 24, 2007 Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, discussed his vision for transforming government into a 21st century organization at a recent meeting for Freddie Mac employees. In our feature interview, Gingrich explains the unique role of the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) model.

[driftdiver]

So who else do we have to vote for? man are we screwed

[littleharbour]

With all of your social security, medicare, medicaid funding problems, full public healthcare would be the death knell of America. It sucks up around 40% of Canadian provincial (state) budgets and keeps increasing as the baby boomers get older. I’ve been waiting over 3 years to get a family doctor because I moved from one province to another, and will likely still be waiting 3 years from now. Socialist control over medicine inevitably results in control of supply, i.e. rationing and governments deciding at what point in your life that you and your loved ones are no longer entitled to the cost of keeping you alive.

[chrisnj]

Newt sometimes speaks with the big picture in mind without going into details. People jump to conclusion about what he was saying.
Stay calm! Even if Gingrich is inclined towards some sort of ‘universal health’, he can’t do it without a conservative congress’s approval. He is NOT soetoro/obama/aka who constantly by-passes congress and bribes/arm-wrestles lawmakers into submission!
He has much more pressing matters to attend to - jobs, economy, remove ‘rule from the bench’ judges, foreign policies, protect our sovereignty...
Any of the R candidates will repeal obamacare!
When soetoro/bho/soebarkah/bounel/shabazz is gone, we will null and void all things signed by the usurper - obamacare is at the top of the list!
IF SOETORO/OBAMA/AKA STAYS, OBAMACARE STAYS!
DO YOU WANT TO KEEP OBAMACARE?
NO? Then vote against obama!
Do you want to keep his czars?
NO? then vote against obama!
Remove soetoro/obama/aka then we have a chance. Any of our candidates WILL afford us the chance! Stay vigilant and mold our future president!

[Dysart]

We already have rationing here in the good old States, and it’s been thus as long as I can recall. You can either enjoy govt rationing or the more or less for-profit health insurance carriers utilizing case managers sitting in a cubicle deeming you worthy of this or that level of service based largely on a cost-benefit calculation. It’s rationing whomever is running the analysis. Further, these pvt carriers typically follow or adopt CMS/HHS policies and trends over the long run.

And, not directed at you, but the notion of a pristine free healthcare delivery mkt is fantasy. My view is the optimum model would be a largely free enterprise system with minuscule govt oversight and licensing—though excluding artificial price controls(which is in no small part culpable for exploding healthcare costs due to cost shifting),explicit directives of patient care and other operating standards. Indv facilities and practitioners would be accountable to their patients (who may freely choose their provider) and professional member associations.

[driftdiver]

Don’t preach to me about the sofa sitting Big Govt RINO.

[Caipirabob]

There could be some good stuff in there. Once you repeal it and strip out every thing, there could be potential to couple some parts with deregulation to actually encourage and increase competition. I know there are many Freepers who have read the entire thing and could opine to that end. Personally, I think if they could provide incentives for insurance companies to drop penalties for existing conditions, it would help a great many Americans. I know cancer survivors who go through hell for this.

Either way, repeal and then reform. Gingrich care? If it's a mechanism for the free market to thrive and grow, we should consider any new ideas.

The fact is that obama has destroyed the current system and it's simply on life support. It may require major intervention to breath new life into it to encourage investors to take risks again in the near future.

But free crap? We are paying with the very soul of our nation right now. The commie crap needs to be shut down now.