• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Look who used to be in favor of universal health care.

I love the fact that the idea of everyone having medical care and not going bankrupt because they are sick makes you a monster in the GOP...." what I would never say that I would sleep with my sister before I said that".
 
Well, to be fair, Newt did say somewhere in all that linkage that he preferred more market-based initiatives, whatever the hell those might be. Maybe somebody will post the original Newt Notes.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think they're all really the same person, perhaps all manifestations of George Bush.
Click to expand...

Only W.

Not Herbert Walker.

Herbert Walker was a bad-ass mother****er who's too good to have his toes licked by these guys.
 
samsmart said:
Only W.

Not Herbert Walker.

Herbert Walker was a bad-ass mother****er who's too good to have his toes licked by these guys.
Click to expand...

He did have the sense to kick Hussein butt, and then go home and not start a nation building project.
 
Dittohead not! said:
He did have the sense to kick Hussein butt, and then go home and not start a nation building project.
Click to expand...

Yep, and he had the balls to raise taxes when it became apparent that it was necessary, after having sworn that he wouldn't.
 
While I'm not saying I can read Newt's mind.....heck I'm all for everyone to have 100% coverage. That's not universal health care as the definition implies. I would love for everyone to have coverage, pay for it, like I have to. And you'll have it just like me!

I'm not "against" anyone getting health care. I'm against ANYONE getting free health care. Or anyone making me pay for even a tiny portion of their health care.
 
Last edited:
More on Newt's position on a health care mandate:

“I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation. You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare and I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional. ”
Click to expand...

Seems he's OK with it as long as it's acceptable to post a bond instead of actually having insurance.
 
Higgins86 said:
I love the fact that the idea of everyone having medical care and not going bankrupt because they are sick makes you a monster in the GOP...." what I would never say that I would sleep with my sister before I said that".
Click to expand...

Frankly, it does not make one a "monstor in the GOP", and it is seen as a valid concern by many Independents as well, without whom no GOP can win.

Just as with Immigration, Gingrich knows that "tough ****" is not the answer. And while he has modified his positions at times, he's still got the biggest balls in the field.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
While I'm not saying I can read Newt's mind.....heck I'm all for everyone to have 100% coverage. That's not universal health care as the definition implies. I would love for everyone to have coverage, pay for it, like I have to. And you'll have it just like me!

I'm not "against" anyone getting health care. I'm against ANYONE getting free health care. Or anyone making me pay for even a tiny portion of their health care.
Click to expand...

Ina nay risk pool you are paying for someone else's health care be it private insurance or public.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, he hasn't changed his mind. Now, that's interesting. What does he say to the members of his party who say the #1 priority is to repeal "Obamacare"?
Click to expand...

Obamacare and what Romney proposed and had passed are apples and oranges. Just because it has the word health attached, you want to make mountain out of a molehill.
 
coolwalker said:
Obamacare and what Romney proposed and had passed are apples and oranges. Just because it has the word health attached, you want to make mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

Is the requirement that everyone have health insurance a mountain, or a molehill?
 
LuckyDan said:
Well, to be fair, Newt did say somewhere in all that linkage that he preferred more market-based initiatives, whatever the hell those might be. Maybe somebody will post the original Newt Notes.
Click to expand...

Which, at the end of the day, makes his position back in '06 hardly any different from Obamacare.
 
coolwalker said:
Obamacare and what Romney proposed and had passed are apples and oranges. Just because it has the word health attached, you want to make mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges??? wow. How so? They are about as similar as two pieces of legislation authored by different bodies can get. They are apples to apples, perhaps Delicious to MacIntosh, but they are not widely divergent.

PolitiFact | Romney says his health care bill affected far smaller percentage of people than Obama's

For those without reading skills or patience, Polifact rated the "apples to oranges" metaphor a "pants on fire" lie.

Sorry, Mitt owns this one with Barrack. They are healthcare buddies.

Personally, I don't believe in making a mountain out of the molehill that is healthcare reform. Given that our healthcare exceeds 16% of our GDP, the highest in the world (for a medical system ranked about 24th) and is a major impediment to a healthy economy, something had to be done. Somebody had to do something. Barrack and Mitt had the guts to do it (all be it, its only a molehill; a modest result toward a major problem)

http://www.kiplinger.com/infographics/health_care_spending/map.html
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
He did have the sense to kick Hussein butt, and then go home and not start a nation building project.
Click to expand...
no he didn't. Thatcher had to give him the backbone to stand up to Saddam, and then not pushing to Baghdad was a policy failure
 
AdamT said:
Yep, and he had the balls to raise taxes when it became apparent that it was necessary, after having sworn that he wouldn't.
Click to expand...

i think what you mean is "was naive enough to believe congressional democrats when they promised they would cut spending if only he raised taxes first."
 
cpwill said:
no he didn't. Thatcher had to give him the backbone to stand up to Saddam, and then not pushing to Baghdad was a policy failure
Click to expand...

Then you think he wouldn't have gone into Kuwait without the prompting of Thatcher? That one is new to me. It could be, I don't know.

As for the opinion that not going into Baghdad was a policy failure, we only have to look at the events since the mission was accomplished to know that we should never have invaded Iraq.

Of course, that's an opinion too, but it has a lot to back it up.
 
jgarden47 said:
Both Romney and Obama were right to support universal healthcare, but have since buckled under the pressure mounted by "special interests."

The fact that the US currently ranks 50th (Canada ranks 12th) in the world in terms of average life expectancy should speak volumes.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Click to expand...

Special interests = the health insurance industry. They do wield a lot of power in Washington, don't they? Either that, or the US voter likes paying more and getting less.
 
cpwill said:
i think what you mean is "was naive enough to believe congressional democrats when they promised they would cut spending if only he raised taxes first."
Click to expand...

No, what I meant was that he faced the fact that Reagan left him a debt that could not be sustained by existing tax revenues, so he manned up and and agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts, in direct opposition to the lunatics in his own party who were scampering around Congress screaming their little heads off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom