Newt Gingrich calls for Individual Healthcare Mandates! He's not all bad!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
GINGRICH: Some aspect of the working poor has to involve transfer of finances. To ask people in the lowest paying jobs to bear the full burden of their health insurance is just irrational, it’s not going to happen…One of my conclusions in the last six years, funding the Center for Health Transformation, and looking at what our system is, unless you have 100 percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care and you can’t have a rational system. [...]

If I see someone who’s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance. I’m looking at someone who’s absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who is ever on welfare….I’m actually in favor of saying, whatever the appropriate income is, you ought to either have health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no room in this society to have a free rider approach if you’re well off economically to say we’ll cheat our neighbors.



http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...vidual-mandate-to-achieve-universal-coverage/
 
Hell Jarod. The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. In fact I think Newt championed the individual mandate back when the Clintons attempted health care reform. Repelicans only opposed it when a democrat in office made it part of his legislative agenda.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hell Jarod. The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. In fact I think Newt championed the individual mandate back when the Clintons attempted health care reform. Repelicans only opposed it when a democrat in office made it part of his legislative agenda.
Click to expand...

Yeah but when Bob Dole and the other Republicans came up with the individual mandate as the Republican alternative to the then-Democratic proposal, it was just for Massachusetts . A lot of people don't know that. But I well remember Bob Dole stating right on the Senate floor that the Republican plan was just for Massachusetts and they were hard at work coming up with 49 other plans. Newt was put to work on that because as we know, he gets about one idea a minute, and sometimes they come out so fast he can hardly get off the toilet and they're gone! So they had an aide following him around so the aide could write down all of his ideas which were then going to be turned into 49 more Republican health care plans. unfortunately, before they could complete their plans, Monica Lewinsky threw a wrench in the works by blowing the President. And they all had to very reluctantly give up working out 49 more health care plans in order to investigate that blowjob. Boy were they pissed! Especially newt, as the oldtimers will tell you.

And this is how it happened that years later, a man named Mitt was able to bring health care to the great state of Massachusetts. The only state the Republicans were able to finish before the great blow job investigations of the 1990's.

All true.
 
Who here is supporting Newt? Both Republican frontrunners have supported individual mandates for Health Care Insurance.
 
Jarod said:
Does this bother any of you righties?
Click to expand...

Not much...

We'll see in March whether it's constitutional for the Federal Government to tell you what to buy and whom to buy it from. The same considerations came up when a similar plan was offered back in the 90s. Is it okay for the federal government to provide a list of "winners" from whom you are required to purchase any product? If it is, which products is it okay for them to do this with?

If there is no limitation, what is to stop them from telling you exactly what must be in your fridge and who you can buy it from so they can defray health care costs brought on by unhealthy diets?

So on...

I'll let the SCOTUS decide.
 
Damocles said:
Not much...

We'll see in March whether it's constitutional for the Federal Government to tell you what to buy and whom to buy it from. The same considerations came up when a similar plan was offered back in the 90s. Is it okay for the federal government to provide a list of "winners" from whom you are required to purchase any product? If it is, which products is it okay for them to do this with?

If there is no limitation, what is to stop them from telling you exactly what must be in your fridge and who you can buy it from so they can defray health care costs brought on by unhealthy diets?

So on...

I'll let the SCOTUS decide.
Click to expand...

So you are all offended because President Obama wanted to do it, but with Newt its okay because you believe the Supreme Court will not allow it?
 
Jarod said:
So you are all offended because President Obama wanted to do it, but with Newt its okay because you believe the Supreme Court will not allow it?
Click to expand...

When did I say I was "offended"?

So. You are trying to build a strawman from dental floss?

No, I don't think they will. I pointed out that long ago there was the same objection, largely from people like me. You are better than this, quit playing stupid.
 
Damocles said:
When did I say I was "offended"?

So. You are trying to build a strawman from dental floss?

No, I don't think they will. I pointed out that long ago there was the same objection, largely from people like me. You are better than this, quit playing stupid.
Click to expand...

Are you not upset with President Obama for promoting this, even though you belvie the S.Ct will strike it down?
 
Jarod said:
Are you not upset with President Obama for promoting this, even though you belvie the S.Ct will strike it down?
Click to expand...

Nope. It isn't personal, Jarod. I don't believe that the Federal government has the power to tell me that I have to purchase something from you, nor do I think they should have the power to tell me to purchase something from <insert winning company here who paid lobby money to be on a list>...

Cronyism should not be a policy of government. This doesn't make me hate Obama. Unlike the Democrats I separate policy from the person. I think that Obama would be a fun person to hang around with, but is a disaster for the nation.
 
Republicans dont do the same thing?

I understand its not personal, but when a public official does something that I belive is an abuse of his power, I dont like his politics, regardless of what the supreme court says about it. You are the same!
 
Jarod said:
Are you not upset with President Obama for promoting this, even though you belvie the S.Ct will strike it down?
Click to expand...

I did not say, dislike president Obama personally. I said upset with him. I will expand for your benefit Damocles... Are you not upset with President Obama's politics, even if the S. Ct. strikes down the provision?
 
Jarod said:
Republicans dont do the same thing?

I understand its not personal, but when a public official does something that I belive is an abuse of his power, I dont like his politics, regardless of what the supreme court says about it. You are the same!
Click to expand...

I just like doing that because it drives Rana nuts.

Yes, I still wouldn't like it but would recognize that there is no further recourse. I'm hopeful that sanity will prevail and we can get on to building a unique and impressive solution that isn't a carbon copy of somebody's escape plan from centralized government care, not angry.
 
So what does it say to you that Preisdent Obama and Newt hold the same position relating to individual mandates?
 
Jarod said:
Honestly, do you belive Newt "grew beyond" it or do you belive the political situation is different now?
Click to expand...

I think a bit of both. Again, even the Heritage Foundation realized over time what an overreach it would be for the government to tell you how to handle your life by telling you what to buy and from whom.

It's nice to see the democrats coming around, too bad they are so slow that they come on republican ideas after they have been found to be untenable, not to defray costs, and likely an unconstitutional power grab.
 
Damocles said:
I think a bit of both. Again, even the Heritage Foundation realized over time what an overreach it would be for the government to tell you how to handle your life by telling you what to buy and from whom.

It's nice to see the democrats coming around, too bad they are so slow that they come on republican ideas after they have been found to be untenable, not to defray costs, and likely an unconstitutional power grab.
Click to expand...


That's hilarious. What's more hilarious is that you probably believe it.

The Republicans consistently oppose whatever the Democrats propose, whatever that may be, because the Democrats proposed it and the Republicans would prefer to do nothing.
 
Dungheap said:
That's hilarious. What's more hilarious is that you probably believe it.

The Republicans consistently oppose whatever the Democrats propose, whatever that may be, because the Democrats proposed it and the Republicans would prefer to do nothing.
Click to expand...

LOL. What's hilarious is you think I do and you miss the 'bit of both' or simply ignore it...

Anyway, as I said. It's for the SCOTUS to decide. I'm hopeful, not 'hateful' as so many want to push on me.

At least Jarod realizes that Newt doesn't currently support it and that he was being disingenuous in his previous question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top