Your points are valid EXCEPT you defined mandate as Obama’s mandate is structured. Newt denies he wants anything even remotely like it. His idea of mandate is that first, you give states the role of creating plans. Then, the states can choose how to get more people insured or at the very least keep them from walking away from medical bills they can afford to pay on. Newt’s big bugaboo seems to be people who make enough to afford insurance who refuse it, then use healthcare, then don’t even pay their bills.
Newt’s problem is that people get lost in the weeds on this and keep wanting to assume his mandate is like Obama’s. It really is nothing like it. He disagrees with the Federal mandate that forces everyone to purchase health insurance or face penalty. Yet you believe he supports it.
Hello. Newt. Problem...
Here is what ex-conservative Newt Gingrich actually said:
I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance."
If that isn't clear enough for you, here, again, in the former Republican's own words:
"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care,"
... But ... if YOU'RE STILL IN THE WEEDS on the subject, let's give Newt one last try to disabuse you:
I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."
Now, your assignment for the evening is to go and find anywhere in the Constitution of the United States where it says that the government has any authority to require citizens to either buy insurance or post a bond in lieu of coverage -- not as a result of any particular activity which involves implied consent, like automobile insurance -- but simply as a matter of breathing.
Good luck! When you wander out of the weeds, please post your findings.