Posted on 12/09/2011 7:10:27 PM PST by Hoodat
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called for an immediate repeal of President Obama's healthcare law but would reinstate "a little over 10 percent" of it.
He made the remarks on Thursday in Iowa, when he introduced a new version of his "Contract with America."
Gingrich, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, listed "Repeal ObamaCare" as the first of his 10 part contract.
"The reason you have to repeal it is it's a 2,700-page document," Gingrich said. "You can't repeal part of it, because candidly you can't trust the staffs to tell you which part you ought to repeal."
But the former Speaker stressed that he had a "common-sense replacement" for the nation's healthcare system, and that some of that comes from the law he wants repealed.
"Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good, a little over 10 percent, but they should be part of the replace document," Gingrich said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The free market...why is this so hard?
And yet they donated to Obama's campaign.
Something stinks.
There is absolutely nothing good in ObamaCare. Newt is an unprincipled gadfly.
Look I had an MRI the other day..I was in the office 30 minutes, and the bill was $1400. If the free market was allowed to work and the insurance company wasn’t controlling the cost structure, that procedure would probably be around $250.
And you want to replace it with hoodatcare. Me, I prefer solsoncare.
The bottom line is that none of these candidates are worthy of your vote.
Cost, Quality, Competition, Coverage. Hmm. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!!! LOL!
This program is flawed from the get-go because like Obamacare and Romneycare, requires some type of centralized-government management. And anything government-managed that states it can produces upgrades in cost and quality is a joke. Government-management is synonymous with inefficiency.
Healthcare Management is not an inherent function of the Government. And because any Government Program usually starts out “inefficient”, the way most politicians try to fix that is by adding on additional amendments and provisions. Remember when you were griping about 9-9-9 becoming 12-12-12 or 20-20-20? Just like the liberals griped about No Child Left Behind, they would be griping about the inefficiencies of a Government-Run Healthcare System. Once ANY system was enacted, the desire to tack on would be there, ultimately resulting in an indivudal mandate or some other greater kind of government control.
The Federal Government needs to stay out of the business of Healthcare Management and let the private sector do it’s job.
If you pay close attention, you will recognize that it is Newt Gingrich in the video - not me. Listen for yourself. In Newt's own words: "Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good, a little over 10 percent, but they should be part of the replace document"
Why don’t you just listen to Newt’s ideas instead of inventing what you think his ideas would be based on what you think you know about him? His ideas are well documented, and he discussed them in great detail in the Cain/Gingrich “debate”:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Cain-Gingrich-Debate-Lincoln-Douglas-Style/10737425199/
Cain loved it!
Two things. Supply, and Demand.
Newts plan is common sense reforms. We know that costs are high because insurance creates inflation. Let the Market control costs by returning payment to individuals. State governments can help the poor with block grants.
These are too good of ideas to let slide.
Newt really is going to solve so many issues that the Libs.
I’ll withhold that judgement until I know what the 300 pages contain.
“... force doctors and hospitals to accept what people could afford to pay.”
Sort of like..”thanks for the new heart, Doc, here’s a beagle.” I suspect a lot of Doctors would retire or leave for another country.
Then what do you do when you just flat can’t get a Doctor? Maybe your beagle can save you.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called for an immediate repeal of President Obama's healthcare law but would reinstate "a little over 10 percent" of it... "The reason you have to repeal it is it's a 2,700-page document," Gingrich said. "You can't repeal part of it, because candidly you can't trust the staffs to tell you which part you ought to repeal."
OMG! NO Newt!
You posted:
"force doctors and hospitals to accept what people could afford to pay."
That is not the "free market". "Forcing" anyone to accept "what people could afford to pay" is Socialism if not Fascism.
If you can't afford to pay what I charge for my goods or services, you don't get them. I can't be "forced" to accept what you can afford, that would be involuntary servitude.
“Yeah, apparently you think you are “way more smarter” than me too, and should tell me who Newt Ginrich is and what he thinks.”
That’s one of the best responses I’ve seen on FR in 10 years!
Actually, there is a portion of the Obamacare bill that would become a pro-market reform (not of health care, but of health insurance) once it is shorn of the individual mandate and of the powers given the Secretary of HHS to micromange every detail of what a “qualifying plan” would be: the establishment of health insurance exchanges by each of the several states. I suspect that and the popular “slacker provision” that lets under 26ers stay on their parents plan would be about all that would survive.
The problem with a strict free-market reform of health care is that health care is, for reasons of quality control, actually provided by a government granted monopoly-guild: the physicians. Only licensed physicians can practice medicine — as it should be for reasons of quality control, but this means that prices for medical services, for which demand is quite inelastic, include a large share of monopoly rents. (Of course physicians suffer the predations of another state-created guild: the bar! Tort reform would go a good way toward containing medical costs.)
Most medical innovations are also sold by actual corporate monopolies, as they are patented. And, however much some FReepers may have bought into the delusion that a patent represents “property rights”, a patent is a state grant of a monopoly, period. (I regard the first modern patent law, the Statue of Monopolies of 1624 to have been the last good patent law, the plainly the one the Founders had in mind along with the Law of Queen Anne in granting Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents.)
I would be curious how you propose to create a free market in health care. Shall we abolish patents on medical advances? Let amateur physicians put out shingles? (Actually, I understand that in Iceland anyone can practice medicine so long as they market themselves as a “quack”, rather than a physician, or at least it used to be so.) Give tax breaks to anyone who will open a new med school? (Oh, wait, that’s government intervention, too. . .)
No big surprise there. If you sell a product and a POTUS enacted a law making forcing every American to buy your product, you'd probably be pretty happy with him as well (at least in the short run).
Ultimately this will put every health care carrier out of business when the government forces them to cover more and more services, but then caps what they can charge. The government will start out being the carrier of last resort, but ultimately end up as the only source of health care coverage...and everybody will be mandated to have it.
I agree with that. You are still misreading my post. The free market sets what people can afford to pay. If there was no insurance they would be forced to accept market rates instead of inflated insurance driven prices.
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.