Posted on 03/27/2015 8:01:43 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he doesn’t think Obamacare is “repealable,” and contends that many of his fellow Republicans don’t really want to walk back the entire law.
The one-time Georgia congressman who often went toe-to-toe with former Democratic President Bill Clinton said parts of the law will be addressed and possibly repealed, but not the entire law. He said the law probably has more support than many Republicans are willing to acknowledge.
“I don’t think it’s repealable,” Gingrich said. His comments were published by USA Today Thursday after he spoke at a Washington health-care conference on Wednesday.
Gingrich, however, was critical of the Affordable Care Act. He said that although he once supported a mandate requiring all individuals to buy insurance, he now is opposed to it, saying it’s too “authoritarian.”
He adds that the number of people added to insurance rolls through Obamacare exchanges is relatively small, compared with the rest of the population, and that a large portion of those now covered under the law came via Medicaid expansions.
“That was always an easy, short-term fix,” he told USA Today’s Jayne O’Donnell in an interview held before those attending the conference. He said the cost to pay for getting many Obamacare recipients is high.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Constitution vs BIG $$$... BIG $$$ win$ every time. :(
But we shouldn't make the people pay for a stupid Congress did and many who didn't have actual health insurance but needed care, not just emergency, are now reliant on Obamacare. Granted they shouldn't be but they are. So just pulling the rug out from beneath them is not the best answer, better to spend a minuscule fraction of Obamacare cost to transition those people.
Newt was always the “hail Mary” candidate - most potential, but also the most risk. We all kind of knew that.
But had he won in 2012 - I don’t think he would think this way. If he had won, everything would have been different. The Congress would be different too.
It’s probably not repealable at his point. That would cause unbelievable financial chaos. The best thing is to set up and alternative system, making it and Obamacare voluntary. If the new system is attractive enough, Obamacare will die like a girdled tree.
oh, and thanks for ping.....as infuriating as he was......I had not seen this.
And SOTC: this is the “bad Newt” ping to you.
....there was a time that people were being suspended from Free Republic for criticizing Newt.
Obamacare, or something like it, became necessary as a logical, inevitable result of the structure of Medicare.
Medicare created a hole in the Federal budget with consequences that are, even now, barely understood. By promising to cover ALL “necessary” expenses, without limit, and by then applying a static analysis (expenses 1955-1964), a gigantic and mostly useful industry was created, that never would have come into existence without the guarantee of Federal payment.
This has, in succession, ruined the money, ruined the credit system, made Congress unable to pass a budget, and set gargantuan borrowing and money-printing requirements as far as the eye can see.
Yes!
Newt’s just being Newt!
ANYTHING to grab a headline implying “See how smart I am!!!”
Ha! When has the Constitution even been in the debate re: OCare??
Even if it’s a TAX, Congress still have NO authority per...Let alone the 5th, 9th, 10th, 13th, etc. Yet, SCOTUS couldn’t think/see past the 1st part of that statement (I had no disillusions re: Congress).
Gingrich sure as sh!t is of the same mold: It’s not Fascism when OUR side does it
Good reminder. There was ZERO risk with Romney, absolutely zilch. It was 100 percent sure that had he won, he'd have sided with the Democrat agenda every time. I know you voted for him, but it is why I voted third party. "Risk is the price you pay for opportunity." There was zero risk with Romney, hence zero opportunity. Indeed, a vote for Romney was a vote for turning the Republican party hard left, absolutely zero risk, totally certain outcome.
*sigh*
He’d be a tremendous NSA or Secretary of State. He could be the best in history if anyone would give him the job.
Seems to me they don’t want to DO much of anything, but talk.
Well, I’d phrase it just a little tiny bit different....but I agree in general. With Mitt, it was all risk because there was ZERO REWARD - in the risk/reward equation, there was no win possible.
He was not going to run a rewarding campaign against Obama. Obama won the election the day Mitt scorched the earth with negativity in Florida. Wasn’t obvious at the time, but in retrospect, that’s what happened.
Love to send you my book....about 2012. PM me if interested.
The problem was that:
1) MOST of those people telling us not to trust Gingrich were saying so out of emotion rather than an informed comparison point of view -- VERY few had actually investigated Gingrich's campaign website and the positions he took and plans he presented.
2) MOST of the people telling us not to trust Gingrich were putting up Santorum as the "better" candidate, and those same people had NEVER taken the trouble to read both Santorum's and Gingrich's websites. I read every single word of both so I could make an informed decision as to which one was the better choice for limited government.
In short, the vast majority of folks telling us that Gingrich couldn't be trusted, were pushing candidates even inferior to Gingrich in terms of limited government, and doing so from an uninformed place.
I disagree with your assessment of what happened in 2012, and say that what happened in 2012 will happen again in 2016 if the GOP continues to take the defense strategy.
What happened in 2012, simply is that Americans who give a damn enough to vote or not vote, saw what a sucker's bet it was, that they were required to vote FOR more tyranny either way, and they said, "forget it." So Obama "won" by default. What happened is that Americans were, on balance, TOO SMART to be conned into voting FOR the very thing they want to end.
Ted Cruz is on offense. He's not wasting his and my time telling me what I already know -- how bad the Democrats are -- but instead is telling people what they don't yet know but WANT to know -- how to FIX things. He is going on OFFENSE, and that is the ONLY thing that will advance freedom.
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.