• 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!

Dick Armey slams Newt Gingrich

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,488
Reaction score
39,817
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
....,yikes. usually primary politickin is talking up the guy you choose to endorse, maybe one or two lighthearted comments to the side about a competitor (if asked), etc. Reagan's 11th Commandment and all that.

Newt, I think, wore out his forgiveness from the Party. He asked us to start by forgiving him again at the beginning of this cycle, and then immediately stabbed us in the back.

Sorry Newt. You're done.

A candidate who is timid on entitlement reform is not qualified to lead the country.


Medicare reform has risen to the top of the national agenda and will be the defining issue of next year's elections. The outcome of this debate will greatly shape America's fiscal future, because without substantial Medicare savings the budget cannot be balanced. Period.

The second largest federal program and the fastest growing—with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion—Medicare now threatens to bankrupt the U.S. government in the next few decades. The window is closing fast on our ability to reform it without touching current retirees' benefits.

Why, then, do some politicians want to keep putting off what everyone knows are needed fixes? The entitlement debate has long been plagued by Republicans who don't dare and Democrats who don't care. Fortunately, the House GOP now has members who do dare. Under the 10-year budget outline proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and approved last month by the House with the support of all but four Republicans, Medicare would be preserved for future generations by slowing its growth rate without reducing current benefits.

And yet this plan has been attacked by congressional Democrats as "dangerous" and "ending Medicare as we know it"—one TV ad literally shows grandma being thrown off a cliff—while Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich this past Sunday criticized it as "too big a jump" and "right-wing social engineering."

Whoa, that does sound like a pretty "radical" plan. But which part is the radical one? Is it the provision that guarantees that today's Medicare benefits and eligibility remain exactly as they are for seniors born before 1956, and for everyone else for the remainder of this decade? Or is it the part that gradually raises the retirement age to 67 from 65 over a period of 12 years starting in 2022? Or is it the section that gives all beneficiaries a lot more coverage options, similar to the array of health-plan choices currently enjoyed by members of Congress? ....

Under today's Medicare, seniors are subject to an individual mandate more subtle but just as coercive as ObamaCare's. By regulation, seniors must enroll in Medicare or forgo their Social Security checks. By law, they are denied the right to go outside of Medicare and buy the kind of private insurance they prefer. They are thus trapped within a single-payer government monopoly. Add budget pressures to the mix, and you have the perfect conditions for rationing....

The politics of spending has changed. Most Americans understand the math and recognize the challenge. They want to get behind bold, principled entitlement reforms that can save the country from a debt collapse while making the safety net stronger and individuals freer. The Ryan plan plus Medicare freedom is such a reform.

Any serious GOP presidential candidate must be absolutely clear on this issue. Kicking the can down the road is no longer an option. A candidate who is timid on entitlement reforms is not qualified to be president.

i did not know that about Medicare being mandated. that's messed up.
 
Last edited:
i did not know that about Medicare being mandated. that's messed up.
You're not alone in your ignorance of that fact.
Here is someone else who is ignorant of it to:Can I Have Medicare And Private Insurance At The Same Time?
Can You Have Medicare And Private Insurance Simultaneously?
The answer is yes. If you are on Medicare, and you decide to purchase private insurance as well, then you will not lose coverage from Medicare. However, what may happen is that Medicare will become your secondary payer, meaning that it will fill in the gaps that your private insurance does not cover.​
 
The medicare site seems to think that you can get private insurance while you have medicare too.

Maybe Mr. Armey is mistaken, mis-spoken or mis-quoted?
 
"denied the right to go outside of medicare"; they can't leave medicare. they can get something else too. i'd call that semantics; it's the forcing-you-into-medicare that would be the issue.
 
Newt was finished before he even began....the guy is a first-class hypocrite. He had way too much baggage to ever get elected President.


to win, I agree. but he could have been a useful part of the conversation. now he's all negatives.
 
....,yikes. usually primary politickin is talking up the guy you choose to endorse, maybe one or two lighthearted comments to the side about a competitor (if asked), etc. Reagan's 11th Commandment and all that.

Newt, I think, wore out his forgiveness from the Party. He asked us to start by forgiving him again at the beginning of this cycle, and then immediately stabbed us in the back.

Sorry Newt. You're done.



i did not know that about Medicare being mandated. that's messed up.

Something is surely messed up....where is it written into law that not taking medicare means losing your SS check?
I don't believe it.

medicare part A is free at age 65, but you don't have to use it if you have other coverage. I have retired friends with company health benefits that continue after retirement.
medicare part B is not free, for me it is $116 per month, BUT A and B combined will not cover every possible charge, so it is advised to get a supplemental policy, which is provided by commercial insurance companies. I must have gotten 50 invitations to buy a supplemental policy once I turned 64, all of them not knowing that I am retired military. That means I use Tricare for my supplemental policy, at no cost to me. medicare part D is not free, but I don't need it as I am retired military and can use military pharmacies.
Other options available to veterans is the VA hospital. I know 2 who are in bad shape, and have been using the VA.
One has medicare A and B, and he is retired Navy, so he has Tricare for Life for his supplemental coverage. But for some reason, he doesn't use medicare, he uses the VA. He is the friend who has had many chances to die but somehow keeps surviving. For the most part, they have taken good care of him.
The other is a veteran, but not a retiree. He was disabled long before reaching age 65 and did not sign up for part B, choosing to use the VA. Actually, you are signed up automatically for part B, you have to fill out a form and mail it in to opt out of part B.
He is now regretting that decision and is signing up during the next window of opportunity. He has had serious issues lately and it took the VA doctors some time to realize he was near death. Once they figured that out, tho, they started taking better care of him. Non VA doctors wouldn't have been so slow to admit him to the hospital.
 
Something is surely messed up....where is it written into law that not taking medicare means losing your SS check?
I don't believe it.

all i can figure is he got it from this?

The Obama administration insists Americans must accept Medicare, even if they don’t want it, in order to receive Social Security payments for which their paychecks have been raided for their entire adult lives. On Nov. 24, D.C. federal district Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered government lawyers to produce documentation for their extravagant claims of authority by next week. “She is literally calling their bluff,” Kent Masterson Brown, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Washington Times.

The five plaintiffs have paid Social Security and Medicare taxes throughout their careers and are willing to forfeit Medicare benefits in order to keep their private health plans. The government argues they must forgo Social Security payments if they give up Medicare even though the two programs are separate...

The main question in this case is statutory: Do the laws as passed by Congress allow the government to tie Social Security and Medicare together in this way? The answer is relevant to the fight over Obamacare. These plaintiffs “are now not allowed to pay privately for their own health care services,” according to their brief. “The federal government now determines the health care services they will receive. They have lost control over their own healthcare decision-making.”

The government ought to lose this challenge on statutory grounds alone, but the practical parallels to Obamacare lawsuits make the substance of this case all the more poignant...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom