Gingrich Says He Doesn't Regret Supporting Medicare Drug Plan Which Is Now a $7.2 Trillion Unfunded

CNS NEWS ^ | 3/18/11 | Nicholas Ballasy

[Nachum]

(CNSNews.com) -- Former House Speaker New Gingrich (R-Ga.), a likely 2012 presidential candidate, told CNSNews.com today that he does not regret supporting the enactment of the Medicare prescription drug plan which now presents the federal government with a $7.2 trillion unfunded liability.

An unfunded liability is a benefit the federal government has promised to pay that is not matched by tax revenue to fund it and thus represents an anticipated increase in the national debt.

[AZFolks]

I hate entitlements, just loathe them. This is one I cannot complain about. When I went to Med School, I was “taught” that more than 2-4 meds were unecessary. No longer - we have one of the worst life styles on the Planet and a long life expectancy. It is due, in large part, to medications. I only wish we could lower costs for everyone.

[nascarnation]

I know what you’re saying. When we had to start taking care of my MIL, I discovered she was on 16 or 17 different meds.
My amateur medical opinion was that amount of medicine could screw up any healthy person.

I think seniors who see a multitude of specialists wind up getting a lot of scripts.

[TopQuark]

Unfortunately, in absolute terms, they are.

That is exactly the point. That is precisely how the leftist media manages to anger the public. "ExxonMobil made $10B --- wow, that's a lot of money --- my money," think Joe and Jane.

Firstly, profit is not profitability. That is not profitability. Sure, $100 is excellent profit if you invested $200, but it's a lousy one if you invested $1,000,000. Neither pharma nor oil companies are particularly profitable --- as measured by return on investment.

And they cannot be particularly profitable. If they become such for a couple of quarters, people start buying more stock, the price of stock increases, and profitability falls.

Secondly, it is unfair to point to a particular year. Look at a decade of any pharma company or an oil company and you'll only confirm what I said. I don't recall people sending donations to ExxonMobil a decade ago, when oil was $11/barrel and the oil companies were loosing money. Nobody worried, "All those poor tens of thousands of people that are going to be layed off -- may be we should pass special tax cuts for oil companies." What I do remember is how people, even "conservatives," were urging special taxes on oil companies when gas was $4 and "record profits (absolute, of course) of ExxonMobil" was all over the newspapers. So, please take multi-year averages, as one should in such cases (more precisely, take total dollar profit in 10 years and divide by the initial price of the stock).

Finally, as you pointed out so well, it is not the profitability itself but risk-adjusted profitability that is the only correct criterion. Why do people buy a stock that grows 5% on average rather than another stock that grows 8%? Precisely because the latter is more risky.

So, do the writers in the media not know these basics that every finance or MBA student learns in his introductory course? Of course they do. But you never here any of that in the news. By hiding relevant facts and deliberately misusing the measures --- reporting profits rather than profitability --- the media is deliberately and grossly misleading.

What distresses me personally, is that they are winning even among the "conservatives" --- judging by the routine bashing of corporations, Wall Street, CEOs, bonuses, etc. without any basis in fact or reason. Just post something --- it does not matter what --- with the words "Goldman Sacks" and watch the sparks fly.

[TopQuark]

Please accept my apology if I misread your comment: the sentiment it appeared to express is all too comment of FR. Like you, I blame the government --- for the socialized drugs and health-care, the bailout of Detroit, the housing bubble, etc. But at the same time, I try to remember that "corporate coffers" are not in the basements of corporate buildings but in the living rooms of tens of millions of Americans who own those corporations.

Thank you again for your clarification.

[karnage]

Go away, Newt. You had your day. It started out great (Contract With America). But it didn’t end well.

[9YearLurker]

So are you really saying that pharma stocks are not particularly profitable, because they are priced too high?

[mlocher]

I think we are of the same mind on this topic. I agree with you that there sometimes is a sentiment on FR that one should use Big Government to do "Conservative Things", which of course is an oxy moron, so to speak.

At this very instant, I cannot think of a single social or economic problem in the US whose origination, or magnitude, is not directly linked to government rules and regulations.

[mlocher]

I think we are of the same mind on this topic. I agree with you that there sometimes is a sentiment on FR that one should use Big Government to do "Conservative Things", which of course is an oxy moron, so to speak.

At this very instant, I cannot think of a single social or economic problem in the US whose origination, or magnitude, is not directly linked to government rules and regulations.

[heye2monn]

*FDR and the Dems gave us SocSec.
*LBJ and the Dems gave us Medicare.
*Bush and the GOP gave us govt drugs.
*Obama and the Dems gave us Obamacare.

DEE—PRESSING

[Yaelle]

Maybe Callista is insecure because she knows that marriage never stops him from clearing his desk with a new babe on top of it. (why, women? Why?)

[heye2monn]

A a great man once said, government is the source of our problems, not the solution.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I have a plan that will save all kinds of money and we would be a healthier society, too.

Simply stop taking all these drugs. They cause more trouble than they cure.

At our house, we take NO drugs and we are senior citizens are we are doing much better than those our age who are continually going to doctors and the drug stores.

Take a drug and run into side effects, which requires another drug to counteract that drugs, etc., etc., etc.

[ExpatGator]

Just one more reason why I WILL NOT VOTE for this elitist Washington insider turd.

[therut]

should have never happened. There was no need. The poor elderly already got Medicaid to cover their meds. Now all those on Medicare no matter what their wealth get almost free medications. This was soooooooooooo stupid.

[napscoordinator]

100 percent in agreement with you. It is amazing how many scrips doctors give to patients. It is definitely an endless cycle. I am so glad that you are healthy. Have a great weekend!!!!

[OldPossum]

*LBJ and the Dems gave us Medicare.

To be sure, LBJ did press this entitlement to the Congress but the real force behind it was his vice president, Hubert Humphrey. It was Hump's baby.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

The mindset that all drugs are good and that more drugs are better is patently false. Drugs should only be used as a last resort.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Yeah, Newt.

You should throw your hat in the ring for 2012.

Go back under your rock, Newt.

And you don’t have to worry about getting cold. All this gloBULL warming (AGW) you believe in will keep you nice and warm.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Well said!!

Here I am, searching out page after page of the breaking news for “gingrich” so that I can throw replies onto the threads pointing out his RINO-ism...and worrying I was the only one!

Let’s not forget that this guy was on tour with leftists talking about global warming and how it was the fault of human activity.

Now he wants to be a candidate in 2012 so he takes pot shots at Obama...as if that will make conservatives forget about his relationship with lefties.

I agree, FUNG.

[nathanbedford]

What distresses me personally, is that they are winning even among the "conservatives" --- judging by the routine bashing of corporations, Wall Street, CEOs, bonuses, etc. without any basis in fact or reason. Just post something --- it does not matter what --- with the words "Goldman Sacks" and watch the sparks fly.

This tendency distresses me too because this sort of rank populism is employed by the left to undermine the entire capitalist system which conservatives ought to be defending.

This is a thread about Newt Gingrich and his support of the drug bill but if one bothers to actually view all of the videos on the YouTube thread starting with this report, one will see Gingrich criticizing the government's czar rolling back bonuses which he believes are inappropriate. No one says it better than Gingrich and no one can argue the case better than Gingrich.

Gingrich understands and can articulate that we are confronted by a concerted and calculated attempt to dismantle our capitalist system and our system of representative democracy.

For those conservatives who proclaim to the heavens that they will not vote for Gingrich, let them say for whom they will vote, and why, and why he or she has a better chance of winning than Gingrich, and whether such adamant refusal to vote for Gingrich extends beyond the primary to the general election?

Look at Gingrich's record while in office, consider his public statements since then, compare them to the rest of the field, eliminate those who cannot win, and tell us who is more conservative?

Gingrich is not perfect and he is not without baggage God knows, but as the man answered (to use an infelicitous analogy) when asked, "how is your wife," he said, "compared to whom?" Gingrich must be compared not to Ronald Reagan who is not available to run, but to the field and the field must be partly judged on ability to win. Neither Michele Bachmann nor Sarah Palin have a realistic chance to win. That is the regrettable but unavoidable reality. I would prefer either to Newt Gingrich but I cannot have them.