Posted on 12/28/2011 8:36:07 AM PST by TBBT
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich faced a “tougher question” in Decorah late last night about his past support of a health care mandate. The question came from a man in the crowd. “It’s not going to be mean, but it’s going to make you justify an answer,” the man told Gingrich. “Throughout the GOP debates you were strongly against RomneyCare and tonight you also said you were against ObamaCare, but back in 2006 I believe it is when the Massachusetts health care bill was passed, a newsletter under your name called Newt’s Notes came out and said that you fully supported that Massachusetts health care and then went further to say that the goal should be 100 percent coverage for all citizens. How can you reconcile that apparent contradiction?” Gingrich responded by saying the goal is laudable, it’s just figuring out how to get 100 percent coverage for all citizens “in a constitutional way.”
(Excerpt) Read more at radioiowa.com ...
The 100% goal shows Newt’s underlying statism. Romney or Newt...what a choice.
Socialized medicine can no more function without a mandate to purchase health insurance than social security can function without confiscating wages off the top from everyone in the workforce.
It is NOT the Gov’ts job to ensure everyone has health insurance. Or can get health coverage. Or that everyone has corn to eat once a week. Or to make sure that everyone who has a cat can find the right food for it.
Do we have ANYONE to elect that knows ANYTHING about what the Constitution, you know, that document that says what the powers of the Gov’t are and are NOT, what the Constitution says?
ANYONE?
Isn’t every state’s goal to have all drivers have car insurance? Absolutely anyone can end up in an emergency room and receive medical treatment. If they don’t have insurance, then the rest of us have to pay for it. That’s socialism. Having a goal that the individual pays for their own health care is laudable. Realistically, most can’t do it unless they have insurance. Wanting to get there in a constitutional way is necessary. It’s no different than saying our goal is that no one in America will go hungry.
The fact that Newt is still trying to weasel in a way to get the government involved in healthcare, and trying to pervert the constitution to do it, should tell you everything you want to know about him.
And this is when he’s trying to court the conservative vote, mind you. Katie bar the door when he campaigns in the general and skews WAY left to please “moderates”, and God help us when he gets power and can do any damn thing he wants.
I won’t be voting FOR anyone for the Presidency, I’ll be voting AGAINST Zer0. I sure as hell don’t have much of a choice this year. :-(
Pardon my French, I’m really really pissed off at the GOP right now.
Newt is a skillful communicator and he believes he is superior to all other people so, of course, he can talk them into voting for him which is the best thing they could possibly do!!! in his mind.
Newt, is narcissistic and really believes about himself that only he can say what he says and sway people as he can.
NO! to this UN loving internationalist being President. He might be okay as a cabinet head.
Father God, save America from those that mean ill or evil to America, lead us in the way we are to g, and forgive us our foolish ways, in Jesus name, amen.
“The 100% goal shows Newt’s underlying statism.”
I heartily disagree. What is it about the notion of “in a constitutional way” that you don’t understand?
Newt is not making a distinction here between whether a solution would come from the state or the federal government, so the U.S. constitution is not necessarily an issue here. The solution to expanding health insurance may be deregulation and giving the states more control. That seems to be part of what Newt’s health care policies are as shown on Newt.org.
BFD.
Romney INVENTED and Supports ROMNEYCARE/OBAMACARE/DEATHCARE.
Do they mandate that every citizen must also own a car?
No, they do not.
Useless analogy.
“...he believes he is superior to all other people...”
“...is narcissistic...”
“UN loving internationalist”
And you know this how?
(I do agree with your prayer.)
What do you mean “get” the government involved in health care? It is already intimately involved in health care and has been since before most of us were born. I believe something like half of all health care spending comes through the government now. Whether the solution is deregulation or modified regulation is an open question. But doing nothing leaves a status quo of having the government remain intimately involved in health care, even if you repeal Obamacare.
Therefore, the candidates have to discuss the issue and have a policy on health care. For example, Newt wants to allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines, which would be a major deregulation of a decades-old rule. That sounds like it would, through the free market and free will of people, expand health insurance coverage.
> Isn’t every state’s goal to have all drivers have car insurance? Absolutely anyone can end up in an emergency room and receive medical treatment. If they don’t have insurance, then the rest of us have to pay for it. That’s socialism. Having a goal that the individual pays for their own health care is laudable. Realistically, most can’t do it unless they have insurance. Wanting to get there in a constitutional way is necessary. It’s no different than saying our goal is that no one in America will go hungry.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Having a driving license is a privilege that the states can revoke and place rules and restrictions on. That’s why they can charge you fees, make you take tests, make you buy things (like auto insurance) as a condition of this privilege.
Last I knew, having a living body is a God-given right, affirmed by the constitution. The state has NO power to force me to buy something to maintain it. NO. RIGHT. WHATSOEVER. Anyone who tries to twist the constitution to say that the state has that power is a state-loving liberal. Period.
Its not the governments job to provide everyone with health care...its the governments job to see that its available by not putting obstacles in the way in the form of bureaucratic restrictions or outrageous costs. We have the best medical care available in the world and it will stay that way only if the pointy headed progressives get out of the way. They DO NOT KNOW BETTER than the average citizen.(about anything)
Newt is a statist, and I decline to write you a brief on the Constitution. I charge clients for that. Moreover, whether something is Constitutional doesn’t make it non-statist. How about the income tax, for example? But since you doubt old Newtie is a statist, do you really want to defend his record on global warming or other issues where Newt shows what a statist attention whore he is? Have you even been in a private meeting with Newt?
He is better than Obamalini, and marginally better than Mittens, I think. But that is about it. I’ll vote for him if he is the nominee.
People here need to put down the cheerleading pom poms for their candidates du jour and think.
OY!
The Gov’t doesn’t belong in it Period. Fed, or state.What about food? How can I get all the Food I want/need? I have a right to that I tell you. And a car too, we need those.
Oh, I know, I can get a job to PAY for those. Funny, healthcare is the same. It is a commodity that is purchased, the extent of which is between my doctor and myself. You don’t have the money? Well, you get what you can pay for. A doctor is not a slave, to me or anyone else. Were I one, and Obama care not repealed, I would close shop and let my patients know why.
Newt or any other Gov’t pinhead do-gooder doesn’t belong in it. Healthcare policies? How about HANDS OFF.
Both seem to agree that State constitutions do.
If People in Mass have a problem with it, they can vote to dump it or move.
The government does mandate that people receive health care in emergency rooms. If it doesn’t find a way of paying them for that, it’s an unfunded mandate. It’s a welfare program that the taxpayer and insurance-holders pay for. I’m not satisfied with that status quo. Anyone who’s footing that bill should agree that we should have a goal of 100% insurance coverage, unless you like funneling your hard-earned money into welfare programs.
You can say I support statism all you want, but unless you’re going to pass a law denying people coverage in emergency rooms unless they present health insurance documentation on arrival, then you support an unfunded welfare program and wealth redistribution.
Newt is wrong!
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.