Posted on 12/11/2011 12:55:16 PM PST by Sub-Driver
That’s not a position, it’s a statement of fact.
Conservatives were willing to settle for a mandate.
****I frankly was floundering trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills, while still leaving an out for libertarians to not buy insurance.****
That is called examining the problem and attempting to encourage citizens to assume responsibility for their lives and to limit the role of government.
What a concept - and the man admits to floundering. Diogenes - we have found him!!!
lol.
Nothing “conservative” about complete capitulation
This man is willing to go halfway with the Dems on anything.
Abandon capitalism to save capitalism I guess
I remember Health Care Savings Accounts (as does Santorum).
I remember allowing small companies, groups (churches) and individuals to pool together to increase buying power.
I remember tort reform.
But I sure don't remember any stinkin' "mandate"!
Newt may not be Mittens, but not by much. He'll spin a yarn at the drop of a hat.
What conservatives and how come the average voter did not know this?
Spin is spin..
Perhaps you should check with the Heritage Foundation. It was their idea first. They since decided it was not a Conservative idea.
“I never remembered mandates coming up as a “conservative alternative” to Hillarycare.”
Newt’s efforts to rewrite history are downright dishonest.
Now he pretends to be a reaganite but at the time he said that if George Bush ran as a continuation of Reagan he would lose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZyevTo8nhU
And according to him, FDR was the greatest president in US history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgdzZJePL04
Newt is a progressive republican. Deal with it.
He will destroy the GOP along with the country.
Newt is a progressive. What else is new.
Worth repeating.
“On Saturday, however, said: “It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional.””
I would call it the evolution of ones thoughts. In this case in the right direction. I believe Newt is speaking openly about his ideas on the subject and how he came to the conclusions as to where he is at today. Of course his detractors will just call him a liar.
“He has more positions than China has rice...”
Yes, but thanks for posting anyway. That explanation he during the debate was factual, even though Newt seems to me to try to swim with what he perceives to be the tide of history, rather than fight it.
The GOP was destroyed long ago.
I fear you are correct. I thought the tea party could right things but that is looking less and less likely.
I searched Heritage's website and found this:
Why Conservatives Need a National Health Plan
This version is not exactly paragraph-friendly so here's the PDF version of it. Look on page 6. That sounds like an individual mandate to me.
The Obamacare mandate is a hybrid between the more-market-oriented sort of mandate that Heritage floated as an alternative to Hillarycare, and full-on socialized medicine. Call Obamacare “fascist medicine”: state-designed and regulated everything, still provided by a vestigial market.
The several states might well try various and sundry types of health-insurance mandates and some variant might “work”, though it is hardly a small-government classically liberal idea. A Federal mandate is unconstitutional on the face of it (and if SCOTUS finds otherwise, that’s an argument for a Constitutional amendment to force a strict construction of the commerce clause and all other enumerated powers provisions).
He offered a conservative solution to a liberal problem.
I’d like to see him offer a conservative solution to a conservative problem. Like the deficit for instance.
He will be soon for the mandate to defeat Paul Ryan reforms.
I don’t care where the idea came from, it’s still a horrible plan that will ruin healthcare.
Thankfully, Heritage has changed it’s position.
All of us, including conservative organizations, will make mistakes, but let’s stay away from the ones who make too many mistakes.
imo, Newt has made too many mistakes, but he is better than Romney, Paul or Huntsman.
I agree that many conservatives were in favor of a mandate in the early nineties, but there was nothing in Newt's proposal that limited the role of government. It expanded it to include policing the purchase of insurance or establishment of a bond.
Any attempts at either necessarily accuse everyone of being deadbeats who cannot be trusted to pay their debts.
HEY YOU! YEAH, Nanny-State Newt, YOU IDIOT!
A “Conservative” CONSERVES! What is being “conserved” when your jack-booted, Nanny-Government forces us at the point of the Federal Gun to buy some Medical Insurance, or anything else that you “mandate”, that we do not want!
Apologize for calling yourself a “Conservative” or drop out of this Primary Race!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW Newt, we simply can’t afford you, as we are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.
Well, the Left certainly took that and ran with it; didn’t they all the way to the bottom, of course, with their own little touches.
NAFTA was suppose to be a good idea too.
And did anyone notice how he tweaked his amnesty position? Now, he's for a "guest worker program." How original.
Thank You. Putting things into context makes a world of difference. :)
Gingrich stopped Hillarycare, how did the current pubbie leadership do with Obamacare.....?
Your memory is faulty. The mandate concept started at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. It’s well documented. Obama’s Justice Dept has even tried to use their past support to defend ObamaCare in court. In response, Heritage filed brief that the Justice Dept was misrepresenting its current viewpoint.
Gingrich already saying there are parts of ObamaCare he wants to keep.
Hillarycare was defused, no “Conservative” mandate ensued.
Seems like it was more a device than a goal
>> Gingrich already saying there are parts of ObamaCare he wants to keep
The index, cover pages, Medicare cuts? There are no specifics as far as I know.
“Fueled by the support from conservatives and the Tea Party, Gingrich is ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by nearly 20 points in South Carolina. The winner of that state’s primary has gone on to capture each GOP nomination since 1980.”
Read the entire post... it’s even worse than you think!!!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818986/posts
Come on folks, you need to work harder and faster, if you’re going to bring down Newt before the nomination votes begin in only 24 more days. To help Romney win the nomination, you’re going to have to push and push even harder.
>> “Gingrich is ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney”
>> Come on folks, you need to work harder and faster, if you’re going to bring down Newt before the nomination
Are you a Romney guy?
Very good point. Some folks here have a problem w/ reality. The fact is that Clinton was pretty popular, & even more convincing at the time. Ultimately, the individual mandate, as proposed by The Heritage Foundation, was never implemented, but it did serve it’s purpose in at least being a part of the defeat of Hillarycare.
The Heritage Foundation has long had some very, very bright CONSERVATIVE minds within it’s confines. They’re not RINO’s! They were looking for solutions just as Newt & others were. It turns out their ideas were off. They scrapped them & went a different direction. Bright minds do that, even Reagan.
With that being said, Newt has promised to repeal Obamacare & to not introduce an individual mandate. Does anything else really matter?
This made me laugh. Gingrich's defense is all smoke and mirrors. Appeal to authority, everybody was doing it. The FACT is he's no less flawed on this issue than Romney.
LMAO
Of course, there was an alternative staring the HHS in the face:
Since Medicare is mandatory - any medical debts could have been garnisheed from future Medicare reserves.
OH dear - there are no Medicare reserves. Dang!!
The index, cover pages, Medicare cuts? There are no specifics as far as I know.
Gingrich on Obama’s healthcare law: ‘About 300 pages are pretty good'
So-called conservatives, but we, the people were NEVER aware that that was an option they were pushing! I’ve heard that Heritage was promoting it, and at that time I did not hear that. But, had we heard that we’d have let them know that it was NOT an option that we’d support! He comes off sounding like the country was for it when we (the voters) were not aware that it was being considered. The “elites” were considering it, maybe, but we’d not been brought into this discussion, and had to come to light, we’d have probably sent him packing, ourselves.
By what, setting up more government machinery to implement and enforce a mandate?
Let's face it - when the rubber meets the road, most of the Republican Party's "upper management" is FOR various forms of Big Government, in direct contradiction of the small, limited government rhetoric it spouts off every election.
One only need look at the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush years, six of which were marked by Republican control of both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal government with a tie in the judicial branch, for an example. That the Democrats support bigger, more activist government is a foregone conclusion; that the Republicans should do so too is more shocking because of their feigned allegiance to the opposite.
The heart of the matter is that the only real difference between the two parties is which departments of the Federal government grow faster under their tenures.
The heart of the matter is that, next year, just like many elections past, Fedzilla wins and middle-class Americans lose. Whether Obama wins or either of Gingrich or Romney wins, there will be bigger and bigger government, with more and more unkeepable promises made, debt stacked on top of debt, lies stacked on top of lies, until the whole house of cards comes crashing down. And, believe me, when the music stops, ordinary middle-class Americans won't have chairs to sit in, but the folks right here in the Federal swamp and its suburbs will.
Thanks Sub-Driver.
“The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit”. He, The Spirit owns the body, no government or any other organization...”ye are not your own”,
....not the government, or a hospital, or an insurance company, an insurance lobby behind bank bonds, not the pharmacia companies, not a bureaucrat, not the ritalin enforcers in education, a teacher or principal requiring a student to be “medicated” before the age of accountability vs. parents, not a doctor of medications, a so called “health secretary”, an investment lobby that attempts to call itself “insurance” and an “industry”, an agency, a foundation, or any other individual or organization.
Nor do any of the above have speech rights on mandates of the body. For the Spirit dwells within, speaks within,
“He whom the Son sets FREE, is free indeed.”
Same old story: The Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument and the Republicans respond with a plan to do it in three stages.
‘Medicine is the Keystone in the Arch of Socialism.’
—V.I. Lenin
I doubt that is true. I think he means that Republicans were willing to settle for a mandate.
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.