Posted on 12/27/2011 11:20:59 AM PST by nickcarraway
If anybody actually cares about integrity and freedom, this latest news should be big trouble for Newt Gingrich. Somebody (I need to find out who) dug up this old memo from Gingrich praising Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan in fulsome terms, and especially praising its individual mandate to buy health insurance:
The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. … In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
On one hand, this isn’t the most astonishing news: Gingrich has been quoted for 17 years in favor of some sort of individual mandate, and this 2006 citation isn’t even the most recent one. On the other hand, Gingrich has insisted that his proposal was something a little different — some sort of “bond” that rich people would put up — and, also, that he really started moving away from even that “bond” mandate after a while because, really, the reason he was for a mandate was in order to have a conservative alternative to Hillarycare in 1994. At other times he has tried hard to play down or soften the edges of his support for a mandate. But this is unequivocal, and it is within the past six years, and it shows not a single hesitation about undermining individual liberty. Indeed, Gingrich’s only complaint is a class-warfare-inducing lament: Romney stuck the mandate on lower-middle-income earners, whereas Gingrich only would apply it to middle-middle-income earners. Gee, what a relief! (Not!)
Even worse, Gingrich is to the left of Romney on Romney’s own health plan. Romney at worst has only tentatively recommended Romneycare as a whole as a model for the nation; and this year, he has become like a broken record saying he would never impose a mandate via the federal government, and that Romneycare was an example of state-level federalism in action, unique to the circumstances of Massachusetts. Gingrich, on the other hand, wrote this: “The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.” Those lines led directly into his discussion of the mandate, which Gingrich described as an example of requiring “personal responsibility.”
All of which leads back to what I said in my May 17 column here on this site, namely that Gingrich and Romney both flunk conservative political philosophy. I repeat now what I wrote then: “[T]he issue here isn’t utility, but liberty. Mussolini ‘made the trains run on time,’ but that should never have justified his authoritarianism. Essential liberty must never be sacrificed on some central planner’s altar of efficiency.”
Or, for that matter, on some former Speaker’s warped notion of what does and doesn’t qualify as “personal responsibility.”
I can't stand Romney. Newt is just like him. There, fixed it.
I don't think getting rid of our Constitution is the radical change we need. (That's what Gingrich's mentor Toffler suggests)
If 80% of America has health insurance, and if the average family is 4 people, and if a family policy costs 15 grand, then America is spending about a trillion a year on medical coverage, or about 3700 a person per year on average, a manageable number.
So, the real problem is not the average cost per person. The real problem is the guy who has a million dollar illness versus the hundreds who have no illness at all that year and cost nothing to anybody, including themselves.
Then it is time to rebel and mean it. I see to many self professed conservatives who are giving into the GOP by stating anybody but Obama.
We have to do better than that, because Anybody but the democrat is partly what got us Obama in the first place.
And giving full authority to the government will solve that? If you think it’s expensive now, wait until then. I, for one, do not support that.
The very worst I’ve heard about Santorum to date is that he took one for the republican team, by supporting eventual turncoat Arlen Specter; that folks “feel” his facial expression is wrong during debates; and that he lost a race for Senate after winning 2 in a row.
Those aren’t exactly the worst gripes against a candidate that I’ve ever run across...but they might find a place among the dumbest.
I didn’t say I’d give any authority to the government.
I’d just have a law that said, “It is theft to use a hospital, doctor, pharmacy, or medical facility without paying.”
Does that qualify as “a government solution” or is that similar to saying “you can’t shoplift at the 5 and dime”?
If I were feeling a little more generous, I might write it to say, “You can’t receive medical care in any facility receiving any kind of government funding without having either insurance or an independent means of paying.”
Actually, I think the media is trying to convince me that Romney is my “only choice”. I figure the media has had an advance peek at Romney’s second (and third?) “secret wives”, who will be “revealed” by the DNC after Romney is annointed by the GOP. Bye-bye, Mitt...
Regarding your comment, “A vote for Gingrich is a vote for Pelosi”, I respectfully disagree. As Speaker, Gingrich DID balance the budget, you know. When did Pelosi do that?
Anyway, we have to play the cards we hold and Ronald Reagan is NOT a candidate for 2012. Our other candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) would also be better Presidents than Obama, but, IMHO, they do not have the debating skills to stand up to Obama.
IMHO, Ron Paul has allowed himself to become a puppet of George Soros. Paul shares Soros’ “Blame America First” mid-set. And Paul, like Soros, wants to legalize drugs.
So I am not at all surprised that Ron Paul’s campaign is very well-funded. It CAN damage the anti-Obama effort from the “inside”. Would Soros fund a “dirty trick”? You betcha...
So, you agree that someone making 65 grand “should not” walk out without paying? Is that correct?
If I’m still alive in Nov 2012, and if Romney or Paul are the nominees, I’ll be working hard to defeat them.
I’m a conservative. Not a republican.
The media is trying to convince us that we have a “choice” between Romney and Gingrich. I’m not going to take either of their choices.
If I understand you correctly, you think that Gingrich thinks our Constitution is obsolete and needs to be dumped.
I don’t agree with you at all.
Did you listen to any of the debates?
I believe this story has been proven to be mostly BS, but even if it weren’t why would I vote for Romney because he and Newt agree on health care.
It is a ridiculous argument.
So we just say other than health care which is best for America.
I still go with Newt.
Yes, I remember a similar choice in the GHW Bush vs Clinton vs Perot election.
People who were disapointed that Bush “raised taxes”, voted for Perot to “punish” Bush.
Was that BRILLIANT! Or what? Oh, yeah, s-u-i-c-i-d-a-l.
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.