Posted on 12/12/2011 4:03:09 PM PST by Fred
Newt Gingrich’s rise to the top of the GOP polls is fueled, in part, by Republicans’ mistrust of Mitt Romney. Romney’s signature Massachusetts health-care law, the model for Obamacare, leads many to wonder whether Romney can challenge the president on this most important domestic issue. But any conservative who opposes Romney because of Romneycare should oppose Gingrich with thrice the intensity: Newt Gingrich is one of the principal abettors of the exploding health-care entitlement state we face today. Indeed, it’s not clear what would be worse for the cause of entitlement reform: Newt’s losing to Obama or Newt’s beating him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Just read what you posted "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." No mandate, you are free not to purchase coverage and if you don't, high risk pools will provide access to healthcare.
Nobody is fooling me. Frankly, there is not an electable conservative running for president. IIn cases like these, you have to run with who is the most electable and take what you can get. The alternative is another 4 years of 0.
I join you in that prayer!
And who is paying for the high risk pools? Is the individual mandated to pay at that point? What if the individaul refuses to participate in the high risk pool, as has happened already under Obamacare?
The bottom line is that there is nowhere to go here except back to the taxpayers.
That may, in the end, be a fact of life. But this is another example, in my view, of Gingrich shooting off his mouth, using a term with specific Lefty connotations and linking it to a principle on the right. without any qualification. Just “no mandate plus FREE STUFF!”
That is just a mess.
You haven’t answered my question. Simple syntax. What is Gingrich contrasting Obamacare with in that sentence?
>> How about discussing some of the points in the article? <<
Gee! What a revolutionary idea!
(But it might be a lot less fun than all the childish name-calling on this thread!)
I think Newt has made it pretty clear that he is not planning on an individual mandate or government run health insurance.
” - - - childish name-calling on this thread!) - - - “
But it is easier to type “Nanny” than it is to type “Modern, European-Style, Socialism.”
Besides “Mitt” is just a non-legal nickname, and WILLARD is way to formal for the MSM’s favorite RINO, so “Willy” sounded like a good, bipartisan compromise.
BTW, show me a Presidential Candidate that does not deserve ridicule, and I will try to not ridicule them.
Well, you’re right, I don’t know who is paying for the high risk pools, but in my state, the auto accident high risk pools are paid for by subsidizing them off the funds taken in by companies from paying customers. Each insurance co is legislated to provide coverage for a certain number of high risk or poor end users. You’re right also that it is a mess.
If this is your final word, that's great! Less bashing of others' preferred candidates and fellow FReepers.
.
I appreciate the warning.
“I took from your comment, above, that you were advocating that Graham, Hastert and I guess any other Republican who personally knows Newt and thinks he’s a jerk or a poor leader or whatever should just REMAIN SILENT.”
Absolutely not. I would never advocate such a thing. What I would like to see is Mr. Buckley give some of them a piece of his mind on their own “conservative” practices.
I know that Newt has made mistakes....know it very well. I also believe that he has changed a lot.....while Lindsey Graham and others have not.
If my choice is between Romney and Gingrich....I will obviously take Gingrich.
;-)
I also believe that he has changed a lot.
I think he's changed some. But I still see too much evidence of Bad Newt to take him back without severe hesitations.
If my choice is between Romney and Gingrich....I will obviously take Gingrich.
This seems to be the stand-alone response to any negative facts about Gingrich, as if that ends the matter. Not saying you think that way, but many do.
I don't. I think it's perfectly possible and reasonable -- and, in fact, necessary -- to understand what the movement and the nation is getting in Gingrich, without it being grounds for ridiculous accusations of being a Romneybot.
Again, not directed at you specifically.
Yes, all I'm saying is that I recoil when I see Gingrich, of all people, throwing around politically sensitive terms such as "universal coverage" without any qualification and with no explanation of, or even nod to, the hard (and perhaps unacceptable) things that would have to happen for that to work.
Also to see Gingrich completely destroy the momentum for Ryan's plan back when he called it "right-wing social engineering," and then Gingrich, in this paragraph we've been discussing, -- without mentioning the actual funding mechanism -- seems to crib Ryan's plan for some way of paying for access to insurance that doesn't involve an individual or an employer mandate.
Or maybe Gingrich truly does mean that, in place of a mandate, we'll just tax the heck out of people to pay for universal coverage?
Obama could have taxed people to pay for Obamacare and gotten away with it, constitutionally. They chose the mandate simply as a way to try to avoid political accountablity: like claiming "I did not have sex with that woman . . . Monica Lewinsky," the Dems figured by using the mandate they could claim they didn't raise taxes to pay for Obamacare. And, technically, they didn't. Now they have to live or die with their process and nomenclature before the Supreme Court.
Mainly, it just ticks me off that the smartest guy in the room, on the critical issue of healthcare reform, is so careless as to toss off that his plan will achieve "universal coverage" (whatever Gingrich means by that) and then create the illusion that he can do so without anyone being "forced" (by way of mandate) to pay for it. I'm tired of unicorn sightings on both sides of the aisle, and this careless nuanced statement simply creates a very unnecessary controvery. One Gingrich will eventually have to explain or walk back. UGH.
BTW, came upon this article this morning; a little perspective from the Left:
A health insurance pool consisting entirely of people too sick to qualify for private insurance is like a fire-insurance pool consisting entirely of pyromaniacs. The best that can be said for such groupings is that the hospitalizations (or the fires) probably won't all happen in the same month. Health insurance high-risk-pool premiums are typically 125 percent to 200 percent above normal premiums, but even so, a government subsidy is typically required to cover costs.
[snip]
The poor performance of Obamacare's high-risk pools aren't an argument against Obamacare. They're an argument in favor of it. High-risk pools are a Band-Aid to stanch a hemorrhage. Democrats don't kid themselves that the Band-Aid will do much to stop the bleeding, which is why they don't embrace it as a long-term solution. Republicans ought to stop pretending it can be one.
>> ridiculous accusations of being a Romneybot <<
Oh, c’mon! It’s a lot more fun to engage in “ridiculous” name-calling than it is to do something mentally challenging — like (as you suggested in a previous comment) reading the article that started this thread!
So let’s not deprive the Newt-worshippers of their fun and their temporary ecstasy. Their rhetoric-induced state of intoxicatory bliss will soon fade into the deep recesses of memory — once the Newtster manages inevitably to shoot himself in the foot two or three more times.
Ironically, those of us who truly accept the depth of the negatives about Newt will be more likely to try to (however grudgingly) salvage something out of his administration anyway, even if Bad Newt shows up.
Those new best friends of his who have convinced themselves he’s Ronald Reagan II may be the first to react in shock and horror, shouting that he’s a RINO and “why do we always let the media and the GOP elites pick our candidates for us??”
All that said, I hope I’m wrong and that Gingrich, if elected, governs as a steady conservative, regardless of how he gets there.
P.S. On a funny note, if you’ve read through the thread, you might have seen a post of mine that directly refuted an argument made by Unnamed Freeper. Whenever that happens, instead of engaging the argument or simply saying “regardless, I’m sticking to my version of reality,” Unnamed Freeper starts in how she can’t be bothered with me and my ilk, she’s moving on because she doesn’t have time for this, etc. Hilarious! Oh, and she usually calls me “low class” for some reason as well, which . . . FACEPALM. Guess she forgot that part of her schtick tonight, though. But, really, what kind of pseudo-elite-class-warfare insult is that anyway, “low class”? I tell you, I’m glad I have a sense of humor!
OTOH, Gingrich's website said that the goal and effect of his healthcare reform proposals will be to accomplish everything Obamacare was supposed to accomplish, but didn't. To wit: "universal coverage" (whatever Gingrich actually means by that). [I posted links upthread and won't repeat them here.]
If everyone is going to have health insurance, but individuals are not mandated to buy it and employers are not mandated to buy it for their employees (also prongs of the Gingrich plan), I'm wondering -- because he has yet to say -- how everyone will have insurance, but no one will be mandated to pay for it.
There are ways to do this (or at least universal ACCESS to coverage), I suppose, or get close. And there are even ways that *maybe* would be acceptable to conservatives.
But my problem with Gingrich's cheery website blurb is that he is getting an awful lot of mileage out of his new mantra of "no individual mandate," while at the same time he's so far getting a pass on answering the question: Well, then, okay: if, as you say, you're going to accomplish what Obamacare failed to accomplish -- i.e., universal coverage -- but without mandating indidivuals or employers to pay, please tell us HOW this will be paid for.
IOW, he seems to be dazzling a lot of people with his "no individual mandate" riff, but that's not the be-all and end-all of the issue.
[Who cares what NRO says about Gingrich?
So what if Gingrich will guarantee Obama reelection?
So what if Gingrich has many wives and tawdry affairs?
He’s not Mormon!]
And he isn’t the sponsor of Romneycare.
But you miss the point, Christians are saved by Grace, Mormons by Good Works. Mitt’s religion Guarantees continuing interference because he (must) believe he is better than all us sinners.
That creates a profound super ego problem for Mormons in places of power, something I have repeatedly experienced in heavily Mormon Nevada. Add in wacky beliefs (kolob, gold plates, White Horse, spirit wives, magic underwear, handshakes, ad infinitum). You won’t believe any of this until you’ve had a long discussion with a true believer trying to convert you and aren’t in their ‘hide the craziness’ mode.
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.