Posted on 12/12/2011 4:03:09 PM PST by Fred
Please tell us more of what we don’t know, Captain Obvious.
“The GOP E does not like Gingrich because many of them know him personally and they . . . wait for it . . . don’t like him.”
Thank you.
...and that is a damn good thing.
Was the author correct that Medicare Advantage is subsidized by the federal government at a greater rate than regular Medicare?
” - - - almost every Newt-basher has no facts - - - “
Well, my FRiend, I’m impressed that you left yourself some wiggle room.
I am in your “almost” category.
Recent Nanny-State Newt verbal factoid: Nanny-Boy last week or so proposed his hair-brained Nanny idea that yours and my tax dollars be given to children to pay them for working after school.
The fact is that Newt said it.
The consequence is that Big Brother Newt will take care of all the children whose parents did not do the duties that Newt wanted them to do.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ponder for a moment Chairman Obama, if he had not had The Great Recession to deal with.
Now ponder Nanny-State Newt as President when the US Economy takes off like a coiled spring.
In my humble, but ALWAYS correct opinion, Newt would outspend Obama by 10 % per year. Not a fact, just an opinion.
BTW, what Facts do you know of to demonstrate that Newt has EVER done anything to make the US Federal Govern significantly smaller?
BTW, BTW, until the above facts appear, I remain a devoted “Newt-basher.”
Now you are in trouble, you can’t tell the truth here with out being called an idiot. We have weekly annointings, this week is Newt, so watch it.
But that’s all in the past, some say. What about Gingrich’s proposals for reforming health-care entitlements today? Gingrich, like nearly everyone in the Republican field, has endorsed block-granting Medicaid, and that’s great. But it’s Medicare that is the most difficult and most dangerous federal entitlement, and the one that anyone sincere about taming the growth of government must tackle.
And it is here that Newt, for all his sound and fury, signifies nothing. He proposes to give seniors “the option to choose, on a voluntary basis, either to remain in the existing program or to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector, with greater options for better care.” But that’s exactly what seniors have today: They can choose between traditional, 1965-vintage Medicare (Parts A and B), or choose a more market-oriented version called Medicare Advantage (Part C).
As the Wall Street Journal puts it, Gingrich’s approach to our most important fiscal challenge is “merely a gloss on Medicare Advantage, which has done some modest good . . . but without turning the fiscal battleship.” Indeed, in a Friday interview with Ben Domenech, Gingrich conceded that his program is designed as a modest tweak to Medicare Advantage, and decried Ryan’s plan as “suicidal”:
[snip]
This sounds nice in theory, but as a matter of policy, it’s wrong. Medicare Advantage has 25 percent of the market in part because, prior to Obamacare, the government paid 14 percent more for a senior in Medicare Advantage than for one in traditional Medicare. (Obamacare significantly trimmed this subsidy.) Medicare Advantage has many qualities, but it has not reduced Medicare spending at all.
Polls have nothing to do with the point I made.
I hope there is enough disk space on JimRob’s servers to hold the list you are going to provide us with the names of U.S. Presidents and other politicians who actually reduced the size of the federal government.
Then, sorry.
I took from your comment, above, that you were advocating that Graham, Hastert and I guess any other Republican who personally knows Newt and thinks he's a jerk or a poor leader or whatever should just REMAIN SILENT.
Like: not let the facts be known because that's NOT NICE.
My point was that many seem to have made up their mind that they are all in for Gingrich and that, therefore, any facts that militate against that decision should not be raised or considered.
If that's not you, my apologies.
Get over it Mr. Sensitives...
If you ankle biters had anybody better to support you would be supporting them and not ankle-biting Mitt Romney’s personal magazine at NRO.
Yes, there are some facts in here worthy of review, but nothing that points to Romney being a better choice.
If you want to come out and support Romney, do it...
FigJag “... Romney (and, believe me, a lot of people out there are going to be giving Romney a second look over the next weeks and months)”
LOL, we get it, Gingrich is a little too direct for you, so you think he is scarey (like liberals do) ...enough that Romney should be considered.
You are conflating universal healthcare with universal coverage.
Your comment about Medicaid has nothing to do with our discussion of Medicare.
The excerpt I posted to you directly refuted your argument. You extolled Newt’s Medicare plan and, embarrassingly, it’s by his own admission simply a “modest tweak” to the present catastrophe and it certainly is NOT, again by his own admission, as you said, all full of love for the Ryan plan.
And in typical Newt-basher fashion, you simply can't help posting lies fueled by your Newt-hatred. Newt did not suggest this program for children whose "parents did not do what Newt wanted themto do." He suggested it for poor children stuck in poverty for generations who never learn to develop a work ethic. Go spread your lies on some Facebook post or MSNBC chatroom where people are not sophisticated enough to tell the difference between what Next said, and what you twisted it into.
You do not comprehend what Gingrich said..but go to the spinners. Not wasting my time arguing with you. I do not argue with fools...they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience..ta ta
From Gingrich's website:
This comprehensive approach—cost, quality, competition, and coverage—can solve the problem of the uninsured with no individual mandate and no employer mandate. Everyone would be able to obtain essential health care and coverage when needed. For those who are too poor to buy health insurance, states will have more flexibility to provide them with the assistance they need to buy it. For those who nevertheless choose not to purchase coverage and then become too sick to do so, high risk pools will provide access to coverage. Once you have health insurance, you are assured you can keep it. By contrast, even Obamacare for all its trillions in taxes, spending, new entitlements, and new bureaucracy still does not achieve universal coverage.
Gingrich is contrasting his healthcare plan to Obamacare and saying that his plan, UNLIKE Obamacare, will actually achieve UNIVERSAL COVERAGE.
May I suggest that before you accuse someone of making stuff up, you ask for clarification or read through the thread?
Thanks.
“He’s got a lot of bullcrap to answer for and I say make him answer for it. Take him to task here, even in our little corner of the world. It’s not chopped liver.”
Agreed.
My question is pretty straight forward. If we have a better choice I want to hear about it. Who?
LOL, did you read your own post? There is no individual mandate. Can you please tell what is wrong with universal coverage that occurs without a govenment mandate?
Thank you, Dr. Phil, for the free psychoanalysis.
Cheers!
That’s one way out of a corner. lol
No. You are making things up.
Nowhere does Gingrich state he is for or plans to have Universal Health Care.
You have to make many assumptions to get from the words on his website to “Gingrich is for Universal Health Care”
Here is what you highlighted, “By contrast, even Obamacare for all its trillions in taxes, spending, new entitlements, and new bureaucracy still does not achieve universal coverage.”
You’re dreaming or inventing something that isn’t there. Read it again. All it says is Obamacare is a failure at its own objective. You’re wrong.
Gingrich will repeal ObamaCare and offer private competition as an answer.
That which is particularly perplexing about this controversy is the improbability that the eventual opponent of Obama is a close ally of any of the people who purport to champion him or her. Therefore, the vitriol directed at one candidate over another is counter-productive. We’re all acting like those dummy,”pundits” on those idiotic talk-shows; who imagine they can truly persuade us of the virtues of their particular candidate. that “purist” bullshit is old-hat. Let’s just defeat Obama! We are imperiled by him and his cronies. I’ll take anyone with a whit of conservatism, at this point!
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.