LOL, did you read your own post? There is no individual mandate. Can you please tell what is wrong with universal coverage that occurs without a govenment mandate?
I think the answer is clear. Unless Gingrich is now accepting Paul Ryan's "right-wing social engineering" and moving toward some form of refundable tax credit, the only way to pay for everyone to HAVE INSURANCE (which is not to be conflated with people who can't pay for medical care having it provided to them by the government), is to have massive tax increases.
If the individual won't be mandated to pay for insurance, and employers won't be mandated to pay for insurance for their employees, but everyone will be able to have insurance coverage -- who is paying? And why isn't Gingrich spelling it out here?
Perhaps Gingrich is using "universal coverage" interchangeably with "universal healthcare" (which is about what we have now). But that seems like a pretty big leap. Especially since, given Obamacare, Romneycare, Hillarycare, there's a heightened sensitivity about that term.
If there's no individual mandate, and no employer mandate, but what would have been paid under those mandates and MORE is imposed as taxes, this is not bold reform.
From here:
What financing mechanisms could influence universal health coverage? They broadly fall into four categories – tax-funded integral services where tax payers in a country pay a tax that is used to fund health care for the poor; social health insurance, community health insurance and private or voluntary health insurance.
This is classic Gingrich: "universal coverage" is a term the Left uses and the Right does not. So, in his inimitable mixed political metaphor way, Gingrich links a term used by the Left to a principle demanded on the right. And comes up with something like, "No individual mandate and FREE STUFF TOO!"
I'm sure he has an explanation to fill in the blanks, or he'll pull one out of his hat. But, as it stands now, that's not fair advertising.