Skip to comments.Gingrich: Republicans have 'zero' health care ideas
Posted on 08/15/2013 7:36:39 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
No big huge raving fan of Gingrich anymore, but when he's right he's completely on the money:
Boston (CNN) Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reprimanded his fellow Republicans in unusually harsh terms Wednesday, blaming GOP members of Congress for developing "zero" alternatives to President Obama's health care reform law.
(please see link for full article)
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
We are fighting against it.
Do not be just against something. Fight FOR something.
Gingrich is right.
What is the GOP alternative?
A wild hog finding an acorn.
Really Newt?? There’s a bill on the floor. But Boehner and Cantor and company, probably won’t allow a vote.
1. Reduce government perverting the healthcare marketplace through regulation and legislation. 2. Leave it to the marketplace.
Can’t fight something with nothing.
Since the overwhelming majority somehow expects government to “fix it”, he’s probably right.
ROMNEYCARE is socialized medicine IS ObamaCARE.
Don't be so naive. WHATEVER the GOP does, whether offering an airtight, fiscally sound alternative, or doing nothing at all will be demonized effectively by the Marxist Left and their compliant eneMedia.
We can't win with these degenerates, so we shouldn't even try.
Very simple. No free healthcare for just showing up.
Prefer to spend your money on spinners for your car, fine.
Maybe you can sell them in time to save your life.
Why should one person pay for three others to ride?
The only other big soundbite issue involves coverage for the pre-existing conditions, and that had already been in law for those with 'continuous' coverage. I don't believe that people should expect to ignore coverage before something bad happens, then immediately sign up and expect all bills to be paid for them.
Regardless: even if there is NO plan, that's certainly better than the status quo that's being imposed on us.
I don’t understand why people keep calling Obamacare a Republican plan just because Heritage Foundation and conservatives loved the plan at first does not mean we have to love it forever. We looked at the plan and thought this was great. When Obama delivered our plan, we looked at it again and decided it was awful. This happens all the time and people don’t get all in a pickle over it. Heck when Obama changes his mind, the media are all in love with it. For example, when Obama was against gay marriage the media was ok with it, but when he decided to support gay marriage, the media was ok with it too. The Republicans don’t receive the same courtesy I guess.
As it should be...the government needs to stay out of the “ideas” business, and leave those things to the private sector.
Get the federal government out of the health care business, period.
I understand now presenting a solution before the last election because it would have just given Obama something to Demagogue. Now, we need to at least present an outline...sort of an issue based Contract with America. Maybe not a bill, but outline the 4-5 key failures of Obamacare and outline a better solution. We’ll win the Senate and expand our House margins with this approach, and it would either force Obama’s hand or set us up nicely for 2016.
We should be fighting for the government to get out of the health care business completely.
This is a defining moment in our nation’s history.
The GOP is on the sidelines.
I completely disagree with the theory that the GOP should remain on the sidelines.
US healthcare has lots of problem. BIG BIG problems.
If we simply are on the sidelines complaining about the administration’s approach, we are a part of those problems.
GOP get with it.
What do you propose, if you oppose Obamacare?
It is fine to be opposed to Obamacare.
But. This is the critical other half of the issue?
Millions of Americans are not covered currently.
That is why Democrats got so far. Because the current system is just as big of a problem, as what Democrats are proposing.
What is the GOP for?
Does Newt not realize that the current GOP is 100% in the bag for the Obama/Democrat agenda?
A little show opposition is all they intend.
Here’s an idea.
Don’t exempt any health care from civil law. Don’t protect monopolies in the health care industries. Don’t encourage secrecy in public contracts. Don’t allow secrecy in efficacy results. Don’t allow “funny” accounting in the medical community between service providers and insurers.
Oh, most of these suggestions are protections from normal business practices, or the government protection of private company secrets that are to the detriment of the consumer.
Think that will bring down costs and bring back quality care between the doctor and patient?
Get out of the way and return to the concept of a limited Government that does not stick its hands in every venture.
I realize - this is never going to happen voluntarily. Washington D.C. is drunk on power, and they will always vote to increase their power and control. Nevertheless, 'zero' is what the Government should be doing with respect to the HealthCare industry.
Don’t be disingenuous. Heritage never supported Obamacare or anything like it. They did propose an individual mandate almost 20 years ago during HillaryCare debates, and then reversed that long before anyone outside of Hyde Park Chicago even knew the name Barack Obama.
The mandate is probably the least insidious aspect of Obamacare. It puts the government in charge of dictating exactly how our entire medical system operates, from coverage to profit margins to deciding when services are ‘cut off’ to save tax dollars.
Are you serious? Price, Coburn, Ryan, and several other Reps have presented healthcare plans multiple times.
The Republican Party needs to advocate for free market solutions and absolutely not fall into the trap of putting forward a plan that increases the size, scope and power of government in unconstitutional ways.
Government does NOT need to have a plan, other than to dismantle the beast that Government [0bama] created.
Newt, where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government needs to provide health care ideas?
I just hear that brought up a lot from various people in the media of course. My point is why can’t we change our minds like the libs do all the time.
Who needs an “alternative”???
Just get the hell out, period. No gummint rules, no mandates, no nuthin’.
What I propose is what all true conservatives propose; let the market determine healthcare availability and costs. The mess we have now is DIRECTLY caused by government meddling.
But, such a "do nothing" approach, although the most sane and effective, will be cast exactly as "do nothing heartlessness." So, are we going to let the radical Left dictate what we "do?" Are we going to give people unearned, undeserved goodies just because the left says we should?
That being said, one thing different that conservatives can propose is opening up the markets even more by allowing insurance shopping interstate. The competition would drive down prices immensely. But, this has already been proposed, with the Left screeching about the solution nevertheless.
So we should just resign ourselves to losing?
Reagan didn’t think that way.
My idea is simply this: The GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN HEALTHCARE.
The Republican alternative is to give government backed loans to individuals that request them for medical procedures.
A person takes out a loan, shops the medicine available in the market and makes a decision. Then they pay the loan back according to their ability to pay. The loan can be backed by any / all / none / some combination of assets.
Individuals will keep the costs down because they don’t want to borrow more than is absolutely necessary. The taxpayer wins because at the most, we are on the hook for actual procedures performed rather than “insurance for everyone.” Fits on one page. 1 new agency (or fold it into Fanny / Freddy )
So? Is this an unprecedented "tragedy?" Absolutely not. Many more were uninsured in the past, and we made it very well to the future.
Many are not covered, by their own choice! Many make bad decisions, the ramifications of which more responsible Americans shouldn't pay for. Show me some poor soul who "can't afford health insurance" and I'll show you a mental juvenile who can't do without his smartphone, his $159 monthly cable t.v./internet service, his new $5,000 rims for his pimpmobile, a $200k house that he can't really afford, and thousands spent on body piercings and tattoos, cigarettes, and booze.
Actually,there was a problem. I’m self employed and I couldn’t buy health insurance for over 30 years because I had had a melanoma removed - when I was 29. It required no follow up treatment, nothing, and I asked if I could get a policy excluding even that particular thing. The insurance companies told me it would be too costly for them to diagnose it in order to exclude it.
So, yes, there was definitely a problem. But the Clinton/Obama plan was NOT the solution.
Yes just saying we are going to have medical savings accounts and tort reform is not a plan.
IMO the American public has to be weaned off the $10 co-pay every time they run to the doctor. Insurance should be for major medical and you pay for the flu yourself. When I was a kid you went to the doctor you paid the doctor. They did not have to file a bunch of paperwork with an insurance company. That keeps the cost down.
My doctor charges my Mom $124 for an office visit because she has Medicare. He charges me $40 because I write a check.
Tom Coburn: In May 2009, I introduced my own health care reform solution, the Patients Choice Act (S. 1099) which would accomplish these goals. The Patients Choice Act would put individuals in charge of their health care decisions and would increase access, affordability, and choice of health care plans. This proposal is a clear market-based reform that seeks to strengthen the relationship between the patient and the doctor.
On October 1, 2009, Congressman Phil Gingrey introduced the Health Care Bill of Rights. The Health Care Bill of Rights outlines 10 straightforward principles that the House must abide by when passing any health care legislation. Congressman Gingrey's plan increases the ability of every American to access affordable, quality care, and is a simple two-page bill, not a 1900 page bill like H.R. 3962, the health care legislation that passed the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009.
Reagan was for limited government. If this means doing NOTHING to keep it from growing bigger, this was Reagan’s plan.
What is the GOP alternative?
How about keeping the governments filthy hands out of the insurance industry and out of our medical records? How about that?
The only alternative is to KILL the BILL.
Easier said then done. The government has been in the health care business for 50 years beginning with Medicare. There are 60 million on Medicaid. All Obamacare did was take over what was left.
that is exactly right, and yet if you mention even tiny Medicare cuts to the same people on this thread who are barking about Obamacare, they become irate.
The FreeRepublic conservative is basically someone who LOVES government entitlement programs, never wants to see them cut, ever, but just doesn’t want to pay for them.
No ideas because government has no business in it what so ever. Stay out. I don’t want their ideas except to repeal NObamaCare.
The CONSERVATIVE alternative would be to get government out of the healthcare business entirely.
The REPUBLICAN alternative will undoubtedly be Obamacare Lite.
How about this you RNC idiots!!!!!
Get rid of the asinine can’t cross state borders for insurance, and then limit the lawsuit amounts!
Bam! 2 ideas in 10 seconds!
Gov’t should get out of insurance and medical fields. Once out of the way, if you don’t like the way insurance companies operate, you can start your own company and do it the “right” way. If the market agrees w/you, you’ll make a killing. If, on the other hand, you’re a naive dummy w/pie in the sky ideas that don’t work, your business will fail.
I think that’s called the free market or something I learned about in Ancient History.
The problem with the Healthcare market *is* the government.
This is actually a huge problem, one that I have never seen discussed. It explains why the Congressional GOP won’t REALLY do anything to stop Obamacare, and also why they have no other ideas - because there ARE no other ideas.
Starting in 1965, we (I started medical school in 1972) have built a gigantic edifice of modern medical care, certainly the best in the world by far - using OPM - other people’s money - (people other than the patients or their families).
Look at the video depiction of the hospital where Vito Corleone was taken after being shot in the Godfather - that level of sophistication is what a true free market is willing to pay for. By “true free market”, what I mean is what willing patients and their families will pay out of pocket at the point of service.
Everything else - MRIs, CT scans, joint replacements, implantable pacemaker/defibrillators, mobile ICUs, heart surgery involving bypass, modern (safe) anesthesia, GI endoscopy, laparoscopic surgery, cures for lymphoma and certain leukemias - all of that would require tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket at the time of illness, and most people could not or would not do that.
Enter Medicare and Medicaid. They pay, using OPM, for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that we, our medical device manufacturers, and translational research can think of (and they pay for the research, too). Yes, there is excess, and yes, given the general competence of government workers, there is fraud, too.
But most of this cost is fixed and most of it is beneficial. Imagine you live in rural NH, and you wake up at 1am on a snowy night in February with chest pain. You dial 911. Within 15 minutes, there is a mobile coronary care unit in your driveway. Within 20 minutes, your EKG is sent via either a cell tower or satellite to a heart center 60 miles away. The PA in the truck has orders within a half hour to administer a cloned protein that costs $10 000 via an IV. It doesn’t work, so you roll to your local hospital helipad, where a chopper picks you up. You are at the heart center by 3am. The entire cardiac cath team meets you and goes to work. By 3:45am, they see that angioplasty is not an option, so you go down the hall to the OR, where the surgical team is waiting for you. Using a small incision and microsurgical equipment invented here in the last five years, they bypass your 95% lesion, and your heart is free of damage as you watch the sun rise.
Now, the cost of all this stuff on standby, just waiting for you or your neighbor, replicated as it is all over the country, is in the trillions. The simple overhead dwarfs the cost of the actual treatments. And all of it - every single bit of it - exists because of Congress’ promise to print or borrow enough money to pay for it, since they know people can’t pay for it themselves and are not willing to pay taxes at a level sufficient to nationalize it.
That’s what Obamacare is all about - it’s a way for Congress to escape from the cost monster that they themselves created before everything comes crashing down. And they have very cleverly offloaded the responsibility for who gets what to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will shortly be offloading it to hospitals and doctors.
The alternative? Go back to 1964. The guy in rural New Hampshire gets up, takes Mylanta, calls his doctor who thinks it’s too snowy to go out, and he makes it or he doesn’t. (By the way, the odds of him making it are pretty good, around 85%).
Both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress are partners in the something for nothing fantasy, and it looks like they are going to ride it all the way down to the ground.
The purpose of the US Federal Government involving itself in the US Medical Profession is to control and take the money that people will spend on their own health issues.
Basically, the US Medical Profession is viewed as a cash-cow for the US Federal Welfare State, which currently is totally supported by selling US Debt Bonds to strangers, and thus generates 40 % of the annual debt of the Total US Federal Government.
This article demonstrates that Gingrich, Obama and Republicans are ALL supporters of using the US Medical Profession to deliver cash to the US Federal Welfare State.
For example: “ - - - President Obama also accused Republicans of having no health care plan during a White House press conference last week, a claim that was met with disdain by House Republican leaders who circulated a series of health care ideas to reporters after the president’s remarks. - - - “ is a quote from this article from this thread.
Note how easily Obama leads the Republicans into the trap of public debt to Nationalize a cash-cow from the Medical Profession.
Does “Conservative” Gingrich chastise the Republicans or Obama for decimating the Medical Profession in order to support the bottomless money pit of the US Federal Welfare State?
Does “Conservative” Gingrich instead show that he is just another supporter of unlimited Public Debt to support the failed philosophy of the US Federal Welfare State?
Which Republican will be the first to propose that the US Federal Government’s main financial problem is due to Federal involvement in Medicare, Medicaid, and Obama’care?’
Which Republican will tell Gingrich to stop promoting Federal involvement in the US Medical Profession?
Is “Conservative” Gingrich just trying to Conserve Federal involvement and control of the US Medical Profession?
Name recognition and “favorites” aside, if we are to accurately choose leaders who will lead us back onto the right track, we MUST be brutally honest about the probable effects of the ideas from these leaders.
We need to call ‘em as we see ‘em, and from what I see, Gingrich is no Conservative on the topic of the Nationization of the US Medical Profession.
What say all of you?
The basic conflict is between those who want Liberty and those who want Totalitarianism.
For over a century various names have been applied by the advocates of Totalitarianism to their groups such as Progressive, Socialist, and Communist.
All such names are based on the King-Slave Style of governance.
The last King-Slave System practiced in America was the Plantation System which ended in a horrific Civil War, and consequences that we are still recovering from today.
Currently, the King-Slave Model has been sold to America as a Safety Net, and eagerly embraced by the 47 % who pay no person homage to their King.
The 53 % are being led by Republicans who are afraid of EFFECTIVELY opposing the King.
Hence, we have a watershed position in time rapidly approaching where we, the 53 % who pay our personal Federal Income Taxes, must choose between changing the Leaders of the Republican Party, or continue to financially support these same cowardly leaders.
Partial Government control is Socialism.
There is partial Liberty with Socialism.
Total Government control is Communism.
There is no Liberty with Communism.
Conservatives are dedicated to conserving Liberty.
The Federal politicians who support whole or partial Government control are either Socialists or Communists.
Conservatives should not donate money or time to these Socialists or Communists.
Will you LEAD, follow, or get out of the way?
Our sorry Democrats and RINOs in Congress have chosen to follow as America continues to not oppose The Man in The Big House at 1600 Plantation Avenue, in the District of Corruption.
What say all of you?
Why Gingrich feels the need here to embrace the Obama/Pelosi/Reed agenda for greater centralized power, may be a subject of debate. But it is a wrong-headed approach. Not only is it illegal, it is no accident that the soaring percentage of GDP that goes for health care in America, has directly coincided with the increased Federal involvement, at least since the days of LBJ.
Pretty simple, really. Sack Obamacare funding and leave things the way the are. No need to do anything else. Newt, and many here, have got their nickers in a twist about new ideas. New ideas cost more money. And Newt should go back to his babe and keep his mouth shut.
What is the punishment that Congress can mete out to violations of the US Constitutions?
“What is the GOP alternative? “
Does it matter? If Republicans had a plan, the Democrats would still say there is no plan and the media will parrot that. They did it with the budget, with immigration and with everything else Republicans proposed over the last 3 years.
Since this gets into questions of interpretation, the remedy is simply not to be complicit! Defund the takeover is a good start.
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.