Steelfish
|
Hmm ...
And Nanny State Newt wants to keep 10 % of Bolshevik Chairman Obama’s Obama”care.”
But . . . but that’s different. When Romney proposes government solution to health care, it means it’s coming straight from the antichrist himself. But when Gingrich proposes government solution to health care, it means that we are to embrace him as our conservative savior, the second coming of Reagan, and that we should anoint him as our candidate.
Experience is the best teacher
But here’s what makes me burn:
It’s always teaching me the things
I do not care to learn.
Sigh.....
Here is the Newt kissing up to Kerry. Really like to read his book on global warming before the election. But that won’t happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgbHbzq40s
Rombots prematurely celebrating on this thread I see.
This is very easy to take way out of context.
Look ONLY at what the candidates have done and clearly support.
And remember ANYTHING is upside over Obama and ObamaCare.
Don’t take my word for it — read the Obamacare legislation and see what goes into effect in 2013!! (after the election of course). You will not beat up on either Romney or Newt after you read the guts of the Marxist timebomb (Obamacare).
Clue: That is why the Dems HID the bill and did not let ANYONE read it before they voted — and did not let the Repubs participate in its creation.
It is VERY UGLY.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the individual mandate was not the worst idea that ever happened. The problem it was attempting to solve was that free health care is being given out in emergency rooms and the taxpayer and insurance-holders get stuck with the bill. It’s not easy to come up with a solution to that problem. The individual mandate was an anti-welfare idea that attempted to make people personally responsible for their own health insurance costs. Just like it was used to combat Hilary-care in the ‘90s, it was used to “water down” the original Obamacare so that it didn’t become a completely single-payer state-run health system. The far-left opposed having it become the basis for Obama’s plan. The real problems of Obama’s plan include the thousands of pages of regulations, government controls and the big exemptions to the mandate that ends up with the government footing the bill for people’s health care anyway.
Here is Newt’s campaign’s health proposal:
http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare
“We must repeal and replace the left’s big government health bill with real solutions that will lower costs and improve health outcomes.” – Newt Gingrich
The big government Obamacare approach does not address the root causes of America’s health care crisis. Instead, it creates layers of new taxes, regulations, and bureaucracies that will ultimately make our problems worse, not better. Newt proposes a “Patient Power” plan that will save lives and save money.
Newt’s plan to save lives and save money
Make health insurance more affordable and portable by giving Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount and by allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, increasing price competition in the industry.
Create more choices in Medicare by giving seniors the option to choose, on a voluntary basis, a more personal system in the private sector with greater options for better care. This would create price competition to lower costs.
Reform Medicaid by giving states more freedom and flexibility to customize their programs to suit their needs with a block-grant program similar to the successful welfare reform of 1996. With that block grant, each state can focus on providing the assistance to low-income families that they each need to buy health insurance.
Cover the sickest with a High Risk Pool set up by each state to cover the uninsured who have become too sick to buy health insurance.
Protect consumers by reinforcing laws which prohibit insurers from cancelling or charging discriminatory rate increases to those who become sick while insured.
Extend Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) throughout the health care system. Everyone on Medicare and Medicaid should be free to choose an HSA for their coverage. All workers should be free to choose an HSA in place of their employer coverage if they desire.
Reward quality care by changing the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement models to take into account the quality of the care delivered and incentivizing beneficiaries to seek out facilities that deliver the best care at the lowest costs.
Reward health and wellness by giving health plans, employers, Medicare, and Medicaid more latitude to design benefits to encourage, incentivize, and reward healthy behaviors.
Stop health care fraud by moving from a paper-based system to an electronic one. Health care fraud accounts for as much as much as 10 percent of all health care spending, according to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. That’s more than $200 billion a year. Compare this to the 0.1% fraud rate in the credit card industry thanks to its high-tech information analysis systems.
Stop junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of medicine with medical malpractice reform.
Speed medical breakthroughs to patients by reforming the Food and Drug Administration.
Inform patients and consumers of price and quality so they can make informed choices about how to spend their money on care. Patients have the right to know this information, but finding it is virtually impossible.
Invest in research for health solutions that are urgent national priorities. Medical breakthroughs—ones that prevent or cure disease rather than treating its symptoms—are a critical part of the solution to long-term budget challenges. More brain science research, for example, could lead to Alzheimer’s Disease cures and treatments that could save the federal government over $20 trillion over the next forty years.
With these Patient Power reforms, healthcare can be transformed from an anchor on our economy to an engine. From a broken, fragmented system to a coordinated, innovative system that delivers more choices at lower cost for all Americans.
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 supporters believe that Gingrich really has turned away from his big government progressive ways because he says he has. On the contrary, they refuse to believe Romney has sincerely changed his ways when he says he has. For me, I don't believe either of them and don't consider either of them conservative.
There’s a full text of Newt’s criticism here at the bottom of this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/26/gingrich-in-2006-romneycare-is-exciting-and-has-tremendous-potential/
It’s no secret that Gingrich was for an individual mandate back in 2005-2006—this was originally a conservative idea back then. This was conceived as a solution to the free rider problem—i.e., what do you do about people who have the money to buy health insurance, but make a calculated decision not to, and then later rack up huge hospital bills which they can’t pay?
But the devil’s in the details of the implementation, and it doesn’t sound here as if Newt was particularly favorable of the Romneycare plan on that front.
It would probably be good to see what Gingrich thinks of individual mandates now in 2011 before assailing him on it. Last I heard he no longer supports them and gave an explanation why as to why these were found to be unworkable. If anyone has a link to him explaining this, do post.
There’s a full text of Newt’s criticism here at the bottom of this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/26/gingrich-in-2006-romneycare-is-exciting-and-has-tremendous-potential/
It’s no secret that Gingrich was for an individual mandate back in 2005-2006—this was originally a conservative idea back then. This was conceived as a solution to the free rider problem—i.e., what do you do about people who have the money to buy health insurance, but make a calculated decision not to, and then later rack up huge hospital bills which they can’t pay?
But the devil’s in the details of the implementation, and it doesn’t sound here as if Newt was particularly favorable of the Romneycare plan on that front.
It would probably be good to see what Gingrich thinks of individual mandates now in 2011 before assailing him on it. Last I heard he no longer supports them and gave an explanation why as to why these were found to be unworkable. If anyone has a link to him explaining this, do post.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum
for gawd sakes, most republicans are socialists. We’re doomed
yes he did and both are from the good ol boys club. just more of the same.
yes he did and both are from the good ol boys club. just more of the same.
If one cant be on both sides of an issue they shouldnt be in politics
So in other words, Mitt-bots feel vindicated that some old progressive war horse like Newt likes Romney’s Socialist health care plan or parts of it? LOL
Oh well, all of this is like comparing two pieces of rotten fruit.
Both are rotten, and I can’t see wasting the energy on which piece of fruit is more rotten.
All this appearance that we are actually going to get a contest is merely to amuse us while leading us to believe the process isn’t really as rotten as the fruit.
