• 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.

Gingrich's opinion of the health care mandate

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If I see somebody who's earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who was ever on welfare. Because what they've said is, a) I'm gambling that I won't get sick, and b) I'm gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors.

Now when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectables are people who have money, but have calculated that it's not worth the cost to collect it.

And so I'm actually in favor of finding a way to say, if you're above whatever - whatever the appropriate income level is, you oughtta have either health insurance, or you oughtta post a bond. But we have no right, we have no right in this society, to have a free-rider approach if you're well off economically, to say we'll cheat our neighbors.

The Gingrich of 2005, the Romney of Michigan, and Obama all agree that there should be a health care mandate.

Now, if we could get the 2011 version of Romney and Gingrich to agree, it would be unanimous.
 
actually he just said the same thing the other day on a video i was watching
 
I hope you do. I had no idea. I thought the Republican mantra was "repeal Obamacare".

he still said to repeal obama care but he was talking about someone well off that chose not to purchase insurance and what to do with them if they got hurt. he was mentioning it as a question what to do do we make them purchase a bond or get heath care
 
I hope you do. I had no idea. I thought the Republican mantra was "repeal Obamacare".

they dont have the interview on cnn's youtube channel but i will still try to find it. i believe it was on the interview the other day when he was with the black gentleman"i cant remember his name" that hosted his speech in south carolina the other day.
 
Gingrich has a health care policy center (another paid "consulting" group) that was pro-mandate as recently as last week. Not sure if they've changed their website yet.
 
See this is why Obama needs to throw everything out the window.

He should support tax cuts for the rich to the amount of 0%, he should demand all gun regulations whatsoever are repealed, he should demand that all social services including medicare, medicaid and social security are to be dismantled and the Republican fields heads would explode and they'd be forced to pass tax hikes for the rich, implement stricter gun controls and would institute universal healthcare.

Reverse physchology.
 
they dont have the interview on cnn's youtube channel but i will still try to find it. i believe it was on the interview the other day when he was with the black gentleman"i cant remember his name" that hosted his speech in south carolina the other day.

Mandated coverage is the core of "Obamacare". I'd be surprised if Gingrich or any of the other Republican wannabes supported the idea today, in 2011.

I do get surprised sometimes by the stances that candidates take, however.
 
Mandated coverage is the core of "Obamacare". I'd be surprised if Gingrich or any of the other Republican wannabes supported the idea today, in 2011.

I do get surprised sometimes by the stances that candidates take, however.

i think the word mandate is being defined by each side differently!

Newt wants some assurance like a bond purchase to be used for those who dont purchase health care but make a certain amount of money as opposed to making everyone purchase healthcare!
 
i think the word mandate is being defined by each side differently!

Newt wants some assurance like a bond purchase to be used for those who dont purchase health care but make a certain amount of money as opposed to making everyone purchase healthcare!

It would be much like the bond that can be put up as a substitute for car insurance. Doing so costs far and away more than the average person can afford. No, it would be a mandate, and there should be a mandate. The freeloaders are costing us all money.
 
i think the word mandate is being defined by each side differently!

Newt wants some assurance like a bond purchase to be used for those who dont purchase health care but make a certain amount of money as opposed to making everyone purchase healthcare!
A bond purchase to cover personal medical cost is no different than a health savings account.

Since the individual mandate only applies to those who can afford health insurance but don't purchase it, I'd say Gingrinch supports current health care law. He's just playing politics here. His bond concept is merely playing semantics because when you get right down to it he supports people taking responsibility for their health care cost same as the individual mandate would otherwise direct.

So really, what's the difference? Put up a medical bond? Enroll in a health savings account? Buy a health insurance policy? They all meet the same end - individuals taking personal responsibility to insure themselves or otherwise pay for their own health care.
 
Last edited:
It would be much like the bond that can be put up as a substitute for car insurance. Doing so costs far and away more than the average person can afford. No, it would be a mandate, and there should be a mandate. The freeloaders are costing us all money.

A bond purchase to cover personal medical cost is no different than a health savings account.

Since the individual mandate only applies to those who can afford health insurance but don't purchase it, I'd say Gingrinch supports current health care law. He's just playing politics here. His bond concept is merely playing semantics because when you get right down to it he supports people taking responsibility for their health care cost same as the individual mandate would otherwise direct.

So really, what's the difference? Put up a medical bond? Enroll in a health savings account? Buy a health insurance policy? They all meet the same end - individuals taking personal responsibility to insure themselves or otherwise pay for their own health care.

hell you dont have to preach to me im with ya on it lol

i was just stating the differences and why they will say its not a mandate, because thats a dirty word to the GOP!
 
Totally agree with you, if in 2011 all of them would come up to a unanimous decision it will help deal with this whole situation wonderfully. Check out the current average cost of health insurance to get a better idea of how skewed are the cost getting. High time we need a better healthcare plan.
 
I find this to be a good argument- the quote from Newt seems indisputable as supportive of some type of individual mandate. I've watched all the debates and this is new information for me.

I am against mandating people to do anything- especially purchase a commodity. But I would support an individual mandate in the absence of everything else in the Obamacare bill. But I think there is a better way to handle the problem of insurable, financially stable people who are uninsured. I am a believer in rolling back existing legislation, rather than creating new laws. If we rolled back the requirement for hospitals and healthcare providers to provide the treatment in the absence of insurance or payment at the time of service (or at least limited it to life threatening emergencies and allowed more agressive collection efforts on any arrearage)- the party would be over for able bodied, financially stable freeloaders. The impetus would be placed on them to find a way to ensure their ability to receive needed medical care.

As long as the freebies are available, people will take advantage of them. But that problem is not best fixed by mandate. It is best fixed by leaving in place the potential consequence of not having insurance,. which is: You won't get treatment if you don't have it. This is the natural course of things, and is the way to go in terms of preserving a free market society. I'm tired of the goverment trying to protect people from themselves. It is insulting to me.
 
I find this to be a good argument- the quote from Newt seems indisputable as supportive of some type of individual mandate. I've watched all the debates and this is new information for me.

I am against mandating people to do anything- especially purchase a commodity. But I would support an individual mandate in the absence of everything else in the Obamacare bill. But I think there is a better way to handle the problem of insurable, financially stable people who are uninsured. I am a believer in rolling back existing legislation, rather than creating new laws. If we rolled back the requirement for hospitals and healthcare providers to provide the treatment in the absence of insurance or payment at the time of service (or at least limited it to life threatening emergencies and allowed more agressive collection efforts on any arrearage)- the party would be over for able bodied, financially stable freeloaders. The impetus would be placed on them to find a way to ensure their ability to receive needed medical care.

As long as the freebies are available, people will take advantage of them. But that problem is not best fixed by mandate. It is best fixed by leaving in place the potential consequence of not having insurance,. which is: You won't get treatment if you don't have it. This is the natural course of things, and is the way to go in terms of preserving a free market society. I'm tired of the goverment trying to protect people from themselves. It is insulting to me.

I agree that the govenment has no business protecting us from ourselves. They do have a role to play in protecting us from the bad decisions of others, however.

If the situation were changed as you suggest, if no one were under any obligation to treat an individual who couldn't pay, then you would have a point. As it is, however, those who can't/won't pay just add to the costs for all of us.

So, realistically, the choices are:

Continue to pay for emergency care for the indigent and uninsured, or
Allow people to die who could be treated and survive, or
pass a real universal heath care plan that covers everyone, or
mandate that everyone have their own plan.

or is there another choice I'm not aware of?
 
i think the word mandate is being defined by each side differently!

Newt wants some assurance like a bond purchase to be used for those who dont purchase health care but make a certain amount of money as opposed to making everyone purchase healthcare!

There's no difference between what Newt proposed and what's in O'Romneycare.
 
Found this on Gingrich's Health Care Policy site. It certainly appears to either endorse 100% coverage by a government program or 100% mandated coverage.
zzz placeholder.jpg
 
Found this on Gingrich's Health Care Policy site. It certainly appears to either endorse 100% coverage by a government program or 100% mandated coverage.
View attachment 67119047

Maybe he supports my health care proposal, which is universal private major medical insurance paid for by the US gov with the same funds that they already use for healthcare. Thats actually what his "21st Century Vision Principles" sounds like.
 
Maybe he supports my health care proposal, which is universal private major medical insurance paid for by the US gov with the same funds that they already use for healthcare. Thats actually what his "21st Century Vision Principles" sounds like.
Note the 6th point from the bottom of the chart. It eliminates the payer completely. Not sure how or where private insurance fits in that model.
 
The Gingrich of 2005, the Romney of Michigan, and Obama all agree that there should be a health care mandate.

Now, if we could get the 2011 version of Romney and Gingrich to agree, it would be unanimous.

I think it is one of these three things or a combination of them-

1.Its okay if we support it but not if our opponents support it.

2.We want mandated health insurance but only if our opponents are supporting something more extreme so we do not look like we are pushing as sinister.Like Gingrich did in the 90s. Its similar to slightly ugly chicks hanging out with uglier chicks to make themselves look better.

3.We want to be president so we will pretend to be patriotic and conservative.

Gingrich Supports 'Variation' on Obamacare-Type Health Insurance Mandate - YouTube
 
The healthcare mandate was a REPUBLICAN idea and only became part of the healthcare plan because not a single Republican and a handful of Bluedog Democrats would not vote for the much better proposed "public option". It is nothing more than pure hypocrisy to see the Republicans rail against the mandate when it was their idea to begin with.
 
I think everyone is missing the point. He's setting the debate parameters for the general election.
 
Back
Top Bottom