Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich: Grading The Big Health Care Speech
Posted on 09/09/2009 6:30:09 AM PDT by 84rules
Speaker Gingrich provides us with an excellent litmus test to see how well Obama has been listening to the American people.
Check it out:
Grading The Big Health Care Speech
September 9, 2009
Just need a little sign to put on our TV screen.
Despite the intransigence on the Left, bipartisan health reform supported by a huge majority of Americans is still possible.
The question is whether the President can reach out to the majority of us.
So to understand the President's speech tonight -- his most important speech since his Inaugural address -- do these three things:
Forget the details.
Forget the rhetoric.
And ask yourself this:
Is this a speech designed to bring together Americans to pass bipartisan health reform?
Or is this a speech designed to appease the Left?
Here's a ten-point checklist to help you decide for yourself. Print it out and use it to judge the President's speech tonight.
- In his proposals for reform, does the President include litigation reform, which 84% of Americans believe will help reduce costs and which is the number one goal of doctors in any health reform?
- Does he include a section on saving money by stopping payments to crooks who are bilking the taxpayers for $70-120 billion each year in Medicare and Medicaid fraud? For 88 percent of Americans, this is the first place they would look to find savings in our health care system. Is President Obama willing to look there?
- Does his speech reject higher taxes, which the vast majority of Americans believe will make the current economy even worse and increase unemployment even more?
- Does it reject all government rationing of health services which the American people have vocally opposed at town hall meetings across the country?
- Does it reject any government run, bureaucratic health plan?
- Is President Obama open to four or five bipartisan bills which could pass with big bipartisan majorities? Or does he insist on a single omnibus bill of 1000-plus pages like the one that failed when Mrs. Clinton tried to pass it in 1993-1994?
- Is he for sustaining the Senate rule of 60 votes to ensure a bill that has wide, bipartisan support? Or is he prepared to destroy long-standing Senate tradition and ram through a radical bill with 51 votes?
- Does President Obama give any indication he is for increasing the power, information and choice of the individual and their doctor or is he giving more power to the government?
- Does he focus on health, wellness, prevention, early detection and health management to avoid or control the severity of chronic diseases? Or does he spend his time talking only about acute care?
- Does his plan invest in science and technology in order to increase innovation and accelerate the discovery and adoption of new discoveries and breakthroughs in diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes?
“ram it down our throats”
They have control of the House and Senate and need no republicans. The question is - will they be able to twist hands of all skeptical Dems to vote in-step. August made many Dems worrying for their re-election chances.
A simple question must be answered: with all best intentions, how the government will be able to add more people to the medicare-like program when the existing medicare has a ton of problems and is running out of money quickly? How can it be done without increasing taxes and rationing services? This is not a trick question but something people were asking all over the country at the town hall meetings.
Seniors are the first to be hurt. They vote. Can they be safely thrown under the bus? Can Dems get away with it?
We shall see. I think that they will but I greatly hope that I am wrong. A simple question must be answered: with all best intentions, how the government will be able to add more people to the medicare-like program when the existing medicare has a ton of problems and is running out of money quickly? How can it be done without increasing taxes and rationing services?
Simple question and the answer is basic economics 101: It is impossible to cut cost in socialized medicine unless you drastically cut services, cut doctors salaries, and cut hospital payments. In other word lower cost health care = very low quality heatlh care. I think that a majority of Americans know this simple fact and that is why they oppose socialized medicine.
You formulated basic economics 101 very well. I agree, of course, that they are selling the impossible. Now, can Dems con seniors in staying with them if they will hurt them de-facto?
They have a good history of hurting blacks de-facto and fooling them into voting for them. Will seniors prove to be less gullible?
The $300k was just a kickback for getting a large government grant, so you could say that it did actually contribute to health care -- i.e., no kickback, no grant.
That's not to justify it, of course.
I agree with you, but I'm not so sure this is the worst that could happen, because it will be perceived as having been "rammed down our throats", and will result in the Dems being out of power for a long time, in my opinion.
The government takeover of health care would take long enough to implement that I believe it would be reversible, especially if you consider the fact that the public, already polled and having said they are quite satisfied with the way things are, will want it reversed.
The eight months of the Obama administration can be summed up in two words-overreach, and backlash. Forcing Obamacare on a reluctant public would be the ultimate overreach and would result in an unprecedented backlash.
So, do I understand correctly-—we are taxed immediately if it passes but no plan goes into effect until 2013?
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.