Gingrich for insurance mandate 4 all Americans

[ugonow]

and against republicans plan for medicare privatization. ---"White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering," injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party's efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.

As Mike Huckabee exits, Newt Gingrich takes a shot at Paul Ryan's plan, and like Mitt Romney, supports the concept of a mandate to buy insurance.
.In the same interview Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama's health law.

The former House speaker's decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate.

The moves suggest the Republican primary contest, which will include both men, could feature a robust debate on health care, with GOP candidates challenging the Democratic law while defending their own variations.

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. "Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs," he said.

Mr. Gingrich also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches. But he said he should apply to all Americans."online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325350084379360.html

[Bluerobin]

I love hypocrisy. I can't wait to hear him tout "family values".

[ugonow]

I find it interesting that 3 presidential candidates are for the mandate.

[cme1201]

Gingrich for Insurance Mandate at State Level, would be more realistic title.

From Article in OP "Mr. Gingrich also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches. But he said he should apply to all Americans."

[ugonow]

"But he said he should apply to all Americans." --- How do you accomplish this on the state level? Maybe a more realistic title would be... Gingrich for insurance mandate on all Americans?

[cme1201]

This message has been deleted.

Because it's rediculous to argue over semantics.

18 months roughly before elections, you'se guys may want to pace yourselves, keep dropping these "bombs" for those who do ot follow politics, when the days get closer your going to run out of ammo.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2011 9:00:07 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

May 16, 2011 8:14:17 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"But he said he should apply to all Americans." --- How do you accomplish this on the state level? Maybe a more realistic title would be... Gingrich for insurance mandate on all Americans?

How about the title of the article which is not about mandates

"Gingrich Blasts House GOP's Medicare Plan"

How about "Gringrich's Positions on Health Care"

[Bluerobin]

This message has been deleted.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

As I said, this is the problem for Gingrich-- you have to have an attention span, which of course the throngs of "low information voters" required to win an election, do not have.

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. "Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs," he said.

Mr. Gingrich also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches. But he said he should apply to all Americans.

At the state level is where the mandate could be implemented Constitutionally. The problem is there's no authority for the federal government to do this.

This article is a great example of the terror that the Gingrich candidacy has struck into the hearts of the far left. Attempts at dividing Republican and TEA Party voters with this pathetic attempt at painting Gingrich as opposed to Ryan's budget and for ObamaCare are clear inidcators of their strategy.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2011 9:33:08 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

This article is a great example of the terror that the Gingrich candidacy has struck into the hearts of the far left. ...

Damn that Wall Street Journal and its far left propaganda.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 16, 2011 8:14:17 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"But he said he should apply to all Americans." --- How do you accomplish this on the state level? Maybe a more realistic title would be... Gingrich for insurance mandate on all Americans?

He thinks it "should", but again- the problem for Gingrich is you have to have a brain, and be able to use it.

That's a far cry from saying the federal government has the authority to mandate it.

Here's the bottom line: The headline is false. In no case can you find Gingrich supporting the ObamaCare individual mandate. That's the impression the OP is attempting to convey, and it's deliberately deceptive and false.

[Bluerobin]

Somewhere I remember reading in the Constitution that Congress has the authority to make any laws it deems necessary.

[billisonboard]

"The Federal Government has no right to force me to buy health insurance. On the other hand, State Government forcing me to buy health insurance is cool with me."

I hear that a lot.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

This article is a great example of the terror that the Gingrich candidacy has struck into the hearts of the far left.

Oh, noez! Please don't run that hypocritical has-been for President! Presumptuous, as usual.

In no case can you find Gingrich supporting the ObamaCare individual mandate.

"Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance"
www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/396426

...

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

Gingrich was a United States (not state) Congressman at that time. Or once it has anything to do with Obama, it's bad, i.e. Gingrich is for the individual mandate, but not for ObamaCare individual mandate. Let's say Gingrich loves hamburgers with pickles, mayonaise and mayo. If, for some reason, it was called an Obamaburger, newt, like most contrarian Republicans, wouldn't touch it and declare it awful. Looks like that ploy is backfiring on them. I guess the Republican think tank better get back to the drawing board in regards to their "attack! attack! attack!" strategy.

If Newt is playing the state/national healthcare game, it's only because he thinks he found that sweet spot where he can have his cake both ways.

[ugonow]

Here's the bottom line: The headline is false. In no case can you find Gingrich supporting the ObamaCare individual mandate. That's the impression the OP is attempting to convey, and it's deliberately deceptive and false.

Nope, When I read the article,I was sure it said he was 4 mandating insurance insurance for all Americans...no deception was intended.As a matter of fact,I still think it says that. I pointed out the mandate part because I felt him not liking Ryans plan was not news, very few do. It does suprise me that there are two republicans running that support insurance mandates of any sort. When you think about it,Ryans plan is sort of a mandate to buy insurance also. You will not have the option of keeping the current system.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 16, 2011 9:49:14 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Somewhere I remember reading in the Constitution that Congress has the authority to make any laws it deems necessary.

Necessary to fulfill its responsibilities-- its enumerated powers. It's so silly to me to listen to the statists explain why the Constitution contains enumerated powers at all, if Congress can do whatever they want-- but I'll be amused again: what's YOUR special brand of reasoning in support of "Government can do whatever it deems necessary"?

[Bluerobin]

Of course, congress would see its responsibilities differently than the average citizen. I really don't give a damn about the health care debate, as I have private insurance. I do however feel no one has the right to add to the public debt by not having the ability to pay for their healthcare needs. Like with car insurance, those with sufficient assets should have the ability to be self insured.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 16, 2011 12:37:31 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Of course, congress would see its responsibilities differently than the average citizen. I really don't give a damn about the health care debate, as I have private insurance. I do however feel no one has the right to add to the public debt by not having the ability to pay for their healthcare needs. Like with car insurance, those with sufficient assets should have the ability to be self insured.

It's interesting (Rush is busy ripping on Newt today, too, btw) that I think you agree with Newt and a lot of conservatives. Healthcare is not a "right". It's a good, or a service and you have to pay for it.

I still maintain that Newt is not supporting the ObamaCare individual mandate. If he is, then he's not my guy-- period.

[ugonow]

still maintain that Newt is not supporting the ObamaCare individual mandate. If he is, then he's not my guy-- period.

Personally I never said he was.I did say he was for mandated insurance for all Americans,just as the article states,not once,but twice. It would be silly to think he would publicly state he was for anything Obamacare.

[Bluerobin]

PBP, either you have insurance, or the public ends up paying for you. I would like to see everyone paying their own way. If it takes a mandate, so be it! Leave an option for self insurance.

[ugonow]

How about a mandate only for those that seek medical care?

[marshabar1]

A candidate for the desperate who want to bring back yesterday. Disgusting the way Gingrich positions himself on things. Politician first, last and always. NOT a statesman, ever.

[Bluerobin]

Marshabar, I just can't wait until he talks about family values. Isn't he the one who divorced two sick wives?

[marshabar1]

May 16, 2011 13:52:19 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Marshabar, I just can't wait until he talks about family values. Isn't he the one who divorced two sick wives?

One that I know of. He'll just say he made mistakes and move on. I don't think he stands a chance without the grand old party behind him. Who are his supporters?


Here is one supporter's explanation of his support:


And what is one reason I like Gingrich? He gets it; he has no interested in micro-managing the economy. He knows Hayek's concept of "The Fatal Conceit": "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

Gingrich puts it differently, calling arrogant those who look at the economy this way: "That they think that one person will somehow look at the entire world market and say, "I know."

He shares my goal of setting up an business environment that -- because of low taxes on income, no tax on savings and investment, a low level of government spending, a strong dollar, and free trade -- will end up creating jobs and prosperity.

What would I want from Gingrich, if not handouts? I would want him -- and his administration, including his court nominees -- to follow the Constitution, and as such, his first priority would be to keep Americans save from foreign and domestic threats. I want him to stand up for the rights that are guaranteed by that Constitution and granted by our Creator.

I want him to protect the unborn, traditional values, and the free market. The surest path to ruin for a country is to waver in the defense of any of those.

Another key difference is how realistic I am about the change Newt could deliver. I would not expect everything all at once, as many progressives did with the current President. To use a football analogy, conservatives are at our own 5 yard line. I don't have the expectation that Newt will throw a Hail Mary and complete a 95-yard touchdown on 1st down. I expect him to chip away, maybe -- extending the analogy -- getting a few first downs before he has to come out of the game. Then, his backup, be it Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or someone else, comes in fresh and gets us past the 50 yard line and forces the liberals to defend their own side of the field. Don't force anything, take what you can get.

While I am very enthusiastic about Gingrich and believe he is the best man to save America -- to borrow a phrase from someone -- it is not because I think he has the silver bullet to all our problems. It is because he will not get in the way of the person who comes up with the silver bullet. Or subsidize the equivalent of an aluminum bullet.

teamgingrich.blogspot.com/2011/03/difference-between-gingrichs-supporters.html

[Deleted]

I won't vote for him. Too many out there to waste time on controversy like this. Hope he drops soon.

[fairlycrazy23]

Well, I think that pretty much ends it for newt.

[ugonow]

It goes back too far for him to claim he is against individual mandates.---In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." An "individual mandate," he added, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."
And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.

In 2008's "Real Change," he wrote, "Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor."

In 2005's "Winning the Future," he expanded on the idea in more detail: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. ... We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system."

"