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 ...
Same problem every four years!
You really use a broad brush to paint with.
This sounds nice in theory, but as a matter of policy, it’s wrong. Medicare Advantage has 25 percent of the market in part because, prior to Obamacare, the government paid 14 percent more for a senior in Medicare Advantage than for one in traditional Medicare. (Obamacare significantly trimmed this subsidy.) Medicare Advantage has many qualities, but it has not reduced Medicare spending at all.
This sounds nice in theory, but as a matter of policy, it’s wrong. Medicare Advantage has 25 percent of the market in part because, prior to Obamacare, the government paid 14 percent more for a senior in Medicare Advantage than for one in traditional Medicare. (Obamacare significantly trimmed this subsidy.) Medicare Advantage has many qualities, but it has not reduced Medicare spending at all.
LOL!
Go with the second half, you will be glad you did. This is true if you are fiscally AND socially conservative.
The fact that almost every Newt-basher has no facts, but only sound bites or falsehoods to go on, says America needs the Old Fat Guys still.
How would that change the fact that Gingrich’s plan on Medicare will not address the problems?
This was the only thing I disagreed with the author on: that we can do better at this point.
Obviously, he means Romney. But there’s a lot about that dog that won’t hunt, either.
So does that mean that all the facts in the article about Newt’s record and behavior is just fabrications?
Actually, the numbers are wrong.
CMS looks at what Medicare spent THREE YEARS AGO, and divides that figure by the number of beneficiaries in each geographic area.
The Advantage Plan has to “eat” inflation.
Yes, I am IN THE BUSINESS and I am an expert, more so than the author.
Actually, the numbers are wrong.
CMS looks at what Medicare spent THREE YEARS AGO, and divides that figure by the number of beneficiaries in each geographic area.
The Advantage Plan has to “eat” inflation.
Yes, I am IN THE BUSINESS and I am an expert, more so than the author.
Who are the Bush Bros. that got elected POTUS?
Newt did not “push through welfare reform.”
President Clinton vetoed the bill when first passed.
What happened next?
Newt and the GOP caved. They added in billions and billions in NEW entitlement spending, including federally-funded childcare benefits, new Medicaid eligibility, job subsidies and so on.
With all this NEW entitlement spending, President Clinton then happily signed the “improved” bill.
Who won that round, please?
Newt didn’t push through anything. The GOP got this “legislative victory” the old-fashioned way: they bought it. Anybody can do that.
And then President Clinton got to claim that he reformed welfare AND raised entitlement spending! Sweet!
NOT.
Obama is the problem.
Wow, after reading many posts here and on other FR threads I am more convinced then ever that Zero is going to walk away with a big win next year.
It is hard to believe that the GOP is pitched a major soft ball in 2012 and we will blow it big time.
I doubt the GOP will hold the house ... forget the Senate.
2012 is going to be a terrible year ... and so will be 2013, 2014, etc...
There were two of them, both named George. A third one, now dead, was a Senator from Connecticut, if I'm not mistaken. Ask a "college professor" for details.
Here's the summary of Newt's policy on healthcare reform from his website:
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.
Gingrich's goal is to achieve what "even Obamacare could not achieve": UNIVERSAL COVERAGE.
I cap that term because it's one that most Republicans would not and never use, precisely because it is so often a code word for Socialized Medicine.
Newt says everyone will have insurance, but individuals won't be forced to buy insurance and employers won't be forced to buy insurance for their employees. So who pays? What in the world is he talking about here?
Yes, some people claim that Paul Ryan's plan -- the one that Newt destroyed as "right-wing social engineering" -- provides for de facto universal coverage through a refundable tax credit. So I guess Newt is now cribbing off the plan that he formerly dissed (and whose momentum he killed at precisely the worst time)?
But Ryan and others have specifically stated that their plan is not "universal coverage." It's more like universal access to coverage through an incentive (tax credit) rather than mandated universal coverage.
My point is this: read that paragraph again and ask yourself if it's not claiming Newt is going to out-Obamacare Obamacare and do it somehow (magically?) with direct tax dollars and voluntary participation, as opposed to individual and employer mandates.
No way. I missed that.
Is the Ministry of Funny Walks far behind?
(Sorry. Levity was needed, though perhaps inappropriate.)
How I hate the Dr. Phil psychobabble that runs in torrents down our fair forum.
This reminds me of gays, who often claim that those opposed to homosexuality are simply “threatened” by it. What a crock and a poor excuse for an argument.
You know, sometimes people just think a guy is a jerk. Or whatever.
Doesn’t mean their mom was mean to them when they were five and now they feel threatened by men who look like schoolteachers.
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.