Skip to comments.The Full Mandate: Gingrich Not Just for a “Bond” (Gingrich & Romney Were Always on the same Team)
Posted on 12/27/2011 11:20:59 AM PST by nickcarraway
If anybody actually cares about integrity and freedom, this latest news should be big trouble for Newt Gingrich. Somebody (I need to find out who) dug up this old memo from Gingrich praising Mitt Romneys Massachusetts health care plan in fulsome terms, and especially praising its individual mandate to buy health insurance:
The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
On one hand, this isnt the most astonishing news: Gingrich has been quoted for 17 years in favor of some sort of individual mandate, and this 2006 citation isnt even the most recent one. On the other hand, Gingrich has insisted that his proposal was something a little different some sort of bond that rich people would put up and, also, that he really started moving away from even that bond mandate after a while because, really, the reason he was for a mandate was in order to have a conservative alternative to Hillarycare in 1994. At other times he has tried hard to play down or soften the edges of his support for a mandate. But this is unequivocal, and it is within the past six years, and it shows not a single hesitation about undermining individual liberty. Indeed, Gingrichs only complaint is a class-warfare-inducing lament: Romney stuck the mandate on lower-middle-income earners, whereas Gingrich only would apply it to middle-middle-income earners. Gee, what a relief! (Not!)
Even worse, Gingrich is to the left of Romney on Romneys own health plan. Romney at worst has only tentatively recommended Romneycare as a whole as a model for the nation; and this year, he has become like a broken record saying he would never impose a mandate via the federal government, and that Romneycare was an example of state-level federalism in action, unique to the circumstances of Massachusetts. Gingrich, on the other hand, wrote this: The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system. Those lines led directly into his discussion of the mandate, which Gingrich described as an example of requiring personal responsibility.
All of which leads back to what I said in my May 17 column here on this site, namely that Gingrich and Romney both flunk conservative political philosophy. I repeat now what I wrote then: [T]he issue here isnt utility, but liberty. Mussolini made the trains run on time, but that should never have justified his authoritarianism. Essential liberty must never be sacrificed on some central planners altar of efficiency.
Or, for that matter, on some former Speakers warped notion of what does and doesnt qualify as personal responsibility.
It even more disgusting that they get us to go against Newt by saying he is “just like Romney” when they love Romney
It might not be a perfect measure, but its probably the best available.
Romney and Gingrich is each far, far better than Obama.
As I see it, Romney is the GOP’s “establishment” guy. Gingrich is willing to challenge that “establishment.
Therefore, I’d say that if you think radical changes are needed in Washington (as I do), you should vote for Gingrich in the primaries.
If you think that a little “tinkering” is all that Washington needs, then I’d say vote for Romney in the primaries.
Do not forget that Romney and Gingrich is each far, far better than Obama.
I’m not a fan of Newt, however I hate Romney more. Conservatives need to stand up to the GOP and say “NO MORE” to all of these half-assed candidates.
Newt is better than Obama, Romney is just the same but paler.
“Do not forget that Romney and Gingrich is each far, far better than Obama.”
That is damning with faint praise! Any of the squirrels in my yard is better than Obama.
But you have to consider, if Romney or Gingrich take over the GOP there will be 2 socialists parties and 0 conservative parties. It wouldn't matter if if 90% of U.S. citizens are against Obama/Romney/Gongrichcare, once they take control, there isw no fighting it. Gingrich is pretty much Carter II.
Newt is saying here that we should require some people to have health insurance rather than having them get their bills paid by ME and YOU.
He said in 2006 that folks making 54 grand a year or more should foot their own damn bill IF they’re going to be using a medical facility. 54 grand in 2006 is probably the equivalent of 60-65 grand in 2012 dollars.
So, do you think some clown making 60 grand should walk into the hospital and get to walk out paying nothing?
I’m beginning to think that the best answer is to get rid of all health insurance and force everyone to pay out of pocket.
Everyone on their own....pay your own way.
A vote for Gingrich is a vote for Pelosi. A vote for Romney is a vote for Dukakis. The media is trying to convince you those are your choices. I’m trying to convinve you you came to FR to get away from those choices. Don’t settle for a socialist.
A vote for Gingrich is a vote for Pelosi. A vote for Romney is a vote for Dukakis. The media is trying to convince you those are your choices. I’m trying to convince you you came to FR to get away from those choices. Don’t settle for a socialist.
Conservatives have been. You can bet on it.
The problem is the GOP is taking on the characteristics of the Democrat Party in they just don't give a damn and will do as they see fit, paying no heed to the will of The People.
The BS in Virgina is a prime example and I expect to see more of it, not less.
If the GOP can not be brought under control they must be eliminated via defunding and internal conservatives. As it stands right now, the reputation of the GOP is worthless.
I think that putting our government in charge of healthcare is insane. No matter what. This is the same logic they used to justify federal income tax and everything after it. I think you are suicidal if you want to do that. Gingrombacare is deadly for our freedom.
I agree with that. That would be a much better solution. But Gingrich and the other socialists don't want that.
.....or for a lefty, crazy old man named Ron Paul....!!!
If so having him in the WH instead of someone ideologically disposed to socialist doctrine - Romney, or marxist doctrine - Obama, would be an immense improvement.
Of course I'd rather Santorum was polling higher, but he's not.
Don't you realize when you are being played? Of course, I don't want to pay for this gut. But in the meantime, it's better than becoming property of the federal government and letting them take over every facet of the economy? I don't want to pay that hospital bill, but it's not worth giving up my freedom for. These people will make LBJ and FDR look like hardcore libertarians. Don't fall for it!
It would help if you actually read what Newt is saying here. I don’t want to pay for the health care of those who can afford health insurance but chose not to get it, then go to the emergency room. Later they don’t pay the bill, and that drives up our cost. Read, he is right.
I can't stand Romney. Newt is just like him. There, fixed it.
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.