Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained

Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good, a little over 10 percent, but they should be part of the replace document.

~ Newt Gingrich on ObamaCare

A good con always has an element of the truth. It’s essential. Not only does it make the con easier to pull off, even the best of con men can only lie so much without giving themselves away.

When I wrote that Newt Gingrich was more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House [and that I could prove it] I took readers down memory lane, pointing to all of the radical “progressive” votes and positions Newt has taken since 1979, many he still holds today. But my main focus was Newt’s incredible skill as a con man.

Newt is absolutely one of the best we’ve ever seen. This cat can look you in the eye, tell you his position on a particular issue, which is normally far left of mainstream America, then convince you that you didn’t just hear what you just heard.

This is a man who, when news came out he had been paid somewhere around $1.8 million from the corrupt Freddie Mac organization, was able to convince many of his followers that it was for “history lessons!” [and do it with a straight face]

One of the biggest cons Newt is pulling, is his on going effort to make people think he doesn’t support pretty much everything included in ObamaCare.

Newt constantly says he doesn’t support the individual mandate “in ObamaCare” and this is the truth. Newt does not support the individual mandate in ObamaCare but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the individual mandate!

This is how smart Newt is. And make no mistake, Newt is highly intelligent. Newt knows that he can ramble on and on about the individual mandate in ObamaCare and only the most observant, only those who actually know Newt’s real position on the matter will call BS. The average voter just hears Newt is opposed to individual mandates, and moves on.

Worse than that, after hearing Newt doesn’t support the individual mandate [in ObamaCare] when presented with the facts that Newt actually DOES support individual mandates, as long as it’s in HIS plan, victims of Newt’s con get angry, and will often call you a liar. Or they go into a long explanation telling you that Newt gave a long explanation about it all.

Newt can talk longer, and say less, than anyone in politics today.

Even when shown video proof of Newt supporting individual mandates on many occasions, including as late as May of this year, victims of Newt’s con will tell you that you are wrong.

That’s how good Newt is, and why he must never be allowed back in elected office.

Newt absolutely supports individual mandates. Newt teamed up with Hillary Clinton back in 2005, not only pushing for government mandated health insurance, but showering Hillary with praise in the process.

Now I think Newt is a true believer, just as he is in the man-made global warming hoax. That said, the $37 million he has been paid by various drug and insurance companies, all with a keen interest in seeing mandated health care insurance become law, wasn’t for “history lessons!”

Newt says he’s against a “single payer system” of health care. This is likely true, at least as I and many others think of single pay systems, which generally means government run health care, where all of the doctors, nurses, etc. are employees of the government, and the government owns all of the hospitals and controls all of the health care.

The government determines who gets care, and at what level. Those death panels Sarah Palin pointed out, the panels of government drones who determine who gets life saving care, and who is deemed “expendable.” Come to mind.

While continuing my research on Newt, I came across yet more evidence of the con.

Talking Points Memo notes that Newt claims he doesn’t want a single payer system, but champions his mandates as a “300 million payer system.” Newt is very good with words, and this sort of seemingly off the cuff, throwaway line, is just another intricate part of the con.

Newt understands that Americans fear government controlled heath care, and rightly so. He also knows that when most people hear “single payer” they think government controlled health care. So, in one supposed throwaway line, Newt can say he’s against government run health care, while still supporting individual mandates, and get away with it! The only thing people hear is he doesn’t support government run health care.

This is brilliant. I mean absolutely brilliant.

The more you study it, you can’t help but realize what an elegant con this is. If Newt was using his skills for good, rather than evil, one could really admire the skill in which Newt is pulling this off!

And before anyone goes off, just let me remind you, government mandates of this kind ARE evil. They are also immoral, and unconstitutional. Government mandates, such as those Newt is supporting, have already been ruled unconstitutional in the lower courts. We’re only waiting on the Supreme Court to make the final call.

As a matter of fact, Judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, based on the mandates, in January of this year, five full months BEFORE Newt was last giving his complete support for … individual mandates!

For such a supposed brilliant man, you’d think he’d have backed away from such a high profile issue.

Not sure if he’s just earning that $37 million, or if he’s such a true believer, he doesn’t care what the courts, or the Constitution, say. With his record of supporting radical “progressive” policies, who the hell can be sure what is true. Hey, it may be a bit of both.

From TPM:

Newt Gingrich has attacked Mitt Romney on the issue of the individual health insurance mandate, while chalking up his own past support for the idea as an indiscretion in the 1990’s. But as it turns out, those 1990’s stretch all the way to 2005 — and beyond, to 2008 — when Gingrich gave as passionate an explanation of the mandate idea as any current supporter could ever muster.

On his own web site, Gingrich’s campaign explains: “In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.

However, in a YouTube video flagged by Health Care for America Now, as recently as 2005, well beyond the 1990s, Newt was vociferously championing the mandate — just a few years before Democrats took it up, and in the process reversing pretty much all past support for it among some Republicans.

At a forum in 2005, alongside then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), Gingrich explained the tradeoffs that both the right and the left would have to make in health care: For the right, some transfer of wealth is involved in providing health care for the working poor, the disabled, and other groups. And for the left, individuals should still have control over their health care, rather than total government management.

I mean, I am very opposed to a single-payer system — but I’m actually in favor of a 300 million-payer system. Because one of my conclusions in the last six years, and founding the Center for Health Transformation, and looking at the whole system is, unless you have a hundred percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care, and you can’t have a rational system, because the cost-shifts are so irrational, and create second-order problems.

This led Gingrich to a few conclusions of how to implement such a system: Convert Medicaid into a health insurance voucher system as it applies to the working poor (on the rationale that the creation of food-stamps do not involve the government running its own grocery stores); Create very large risk pools for individuals to purchase insurance (i.e., exchanges); and minimize insurance companies from cherry-picking customers.

I know I risk not sounding as right-wing as I should, to fit the billing,” Newt said at one point, which did indeed trigger some audience laughs.

Notice Newt actually takes a shot at the “right wing” here. A con man enjoys the con, he revels in the lie. He will often take great pleasure in actually letting his victims know they are being conned, without actually telling them.

It’s perverted, a sickness. Interesting to watch, and even admire, but a con man like Newt is dangerous if ever put in a position of power.

If listen to what Newt is saying, and the manner in which he says it, he comes off as reasonable and confident. He uses praises like “principled conclusion” to declare his dislike of mandates in HillaryCare. Newt goes so far to call these mandates “unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare,” While at the very same time pushing …. you guessed it …. INDIVIDUAL MANDATES!

You know those movies where you almost find yourself admiring the bad guy, the crook?

Folks, individual mandates are individual mandates. It doesn’t matter which “progressive” is trying to shove them down your throat. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Newt Gingrich all want the same end result. They all want to force you to do something.

Remember the key words from Newt though:

…. unless you have a hundred percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care, and you can’t have a rational system, because the cost-shifts are so irrational, and create second-order problems.

Note the words “rational” and “irrational” to make his case FOR the individual mandate.

Who wouldn’t think it wasn’t irrational to propose a system to cover every American, that didn’t FORCE every American to pay into it. A Big Government scheme like this can ONLY work if everyone is forced to participate!

Now in a FREE society, with market driven services, including health care, one has the right to choose if they want to purchase any product, or not, including health insurance.

In a society that places a premium on individual Freedom and Liberty [like ours] we also realize the need for personal responsibility. In other words, its up to you. Of course, we are a compassionate society, so just because someone decides they have better uses for their money, than having insurance in the event they have major health issues, we don’t just turn our backs on them.

Though Newt claims to be against single payer, he is most definitely NOT against government run health care. In fact, he’s looking to “tranform” the system we have now. Even though Newt might not want to see the government completely take over health care, i.e. own the hospitals and pay the staff, he is very much advocating government control the industry.

Here’s Newt in the video we’re discussing:

Notice that right off the bat Newt uses the phrase “transfer of funds.” Certainly more articulate than Obama and his commie buddies shouting “share the wealth!” But it means the same.

Folks we are watching one of our nation’s greatest con artists practicing his craft with precision and even grace!

Newt Gingrich is giving a full throated support of individual mandates and government controlled health care, while denouncing the other guy’s plan for individual mandates and government controlled health care!

Again, it would be a beautiful thing, if it wasn’t so downright evil!

Newt can look you in the eye and tell you that he doesn’t support the individual mandates in HillaryCare and ObamaCare, and he’ll be telling you the truth.

It’s important for him to tell you this, and even believe it himself, or the con wouldn’t work. As good as he is, he’d give himself away, even to those who don’t really pay attention to exactly what he is saying.

On the other hand, while he’s denouncing the other guys, his on plan produces almost identical results. HillaryCare, ObamaCare, and NewtCare all end up with the federal government controlling you and your health care. All three plans DEMAND that you purchase insurance, or risk penalties. All three take away personal Liberty and Freedom.

We do need some health care reforms in this country.

Common sense reforms.

Things like law suit reform, that shuts down the ambulance chasing lawyers. This is a huge problem that drives the cost of health care through the roof. Doctors are forced either pay outrageous malpractice insurance premiums, or quit. Many unnecessary tests are run, as a bit of CYA for the doctors who remain.

One of the few things Rick Perry got right in Texas was championing law suit reform.

Before major reforms, Texas was home base to all of the ambulance chasing lawyers, and the entire system was out of control.

Now all of the ambulance chasers have moved on to friendlier ground, and almost 10,000 doctors have moved to Texas seeking refuge from law suit happy attorneys. Our health care is world class, and doctors are free to practice medicine without having to practice CYA medicine as well.

There are other factors, like the 10s of millions of illegal aliens who receive free health care, often by showing up in emergency rooms, where hospitals are required to treat them, regardless of ability to pay.

A common sense solution to our illegal alien problem would go a long way toward reducing the costs of medical care in our country. We have a moral obligation to treat those who need life saving treatment, whether they are here legally or not. Fixing the illegal problem is essential.

It is my great hope that readers will take this look into how Newt cons the American people, and apply it to his other positions.

Newt really is a brilliant man, when it comes to supporting radical “progressive” ideas, while claiming he does not. He may be the very best we’ve ever seen. But in the end, a con man is still a con man.

Newt is a con man, a liar, and a highly corrupt influence peddler who has been paid 10s of millions of dollars for his efforts. He is the exact sort of life long political insider Conservatives are trying to drive from politics forever.

And with Newt, we better be successful too!

A reminder of what Ronald Reagan said of people like Newt:



Filed under In The News, Politics

21 responses to “Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained

  1. First, let me say that I’ve appreciated your posts on this topic. You’ve brought a number of Newt’s flip flops to my attention. This will be valuable information in the event that I’m ultimately forced to choose amongst people like Newt, Romney, Huntsman, etc.

    However, I’m curious why you are so upset that Newt made a bunch of money from Fannie Mae? I agree that Fannie and Freddie were corrupt. However, at the time, Newt wasn’t draining my pocket to fund those two entities…he was simply being paid for services rendered. So long as those services weren’t illegal or unethical, I don’t see what the problem is.

    • Gary P

      I appreciate that.

      I object to Newt taking money from Freddie Mac on a couple of levels, including the fact he’s lied about taking it, until caught, and then tried to shim-sham everyone by claiming it was for “history lessons.”

      Worse though, what Newt was REALLY doing was trying to stop Congress from regulating Freddie at the exact same time we were fighting the left the hardest.

      At the time Newt was taking their money and shilling for them, John McCain was standing up in the Senate demanding action. President Bush was demanding action. During the Bush Presidency Republicans tried over 30 times to stop both Freddie and Fannie. To regulate them.

      They were ALWAYS met with shouts of racism, and worse. Some of the worst of the worst testified before Congress trashing Republicans, and saying there was nothing wrong. This while the entire economy was about to implode, because of Fannie and Freddie!

      Newt is always working to support the left. ALWAYS. Though he’s not now, or never will be a Conservative, he has enough people conned, that when they see Newt, they think Conservative. What Newt constantly does is give aid and comfort to the hard core left. The socialists and communists that are destroying America.

      That pisses me off.

      It’s OK to make money, it’s even OK to lobby Congress, but when you are doing it in support of corrupt organizations, organizations that are destroying the American economy, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

      If I had my way, guys like Newt would be in prison, not running for president.

      • It looks like many of you don’t actually READ the news or do research before throwing around charges. Perhaps you were recently converted from MSNBC or NPR – but the actual FACTS about Freddie are that Newt indeed FOUGHT AGAINST their business model and policy and did not do any lobbying as reported HERE:

        Really guys, you some accuracy in your arguments. YOu’re all acting like idiots who do know REAL research of their own, and just repeat what you hear on the radio.

      • Gary P

        Are you kidding? Man I do extensive research.

        As for Newt on Freddie, Newt is lying. Remember, until caught, Newt denied he even worked for them, then claimed $300,000 when it was more like $1.8 MILLION.

        Please tell me you don’t believe this crap weasel was giving Freddie “history lessons”!

        What about the $37 million he took to shill for INDIVIDUAL MANDATES? Or was Newt just giving Big Pharma and big Insurance “history lessons” too?

        I know it’s “radio” but even Rush Limbaugh ripped Newt a new one for that crap.

        Newt is the exact sort of lying, corrupt career political hack we are trying to run out of politics forever. The kind Sarah and Peter Schweizer’s book talk about.

        Newt is the absolute worst of the worst. I have made it my life’s mission to make sure he never gets in the White House.

        And for your information, this is a position I have held for over a decade. You see, I’ve been watching this lying crapweasel for decades.

  2. Yes, Newt is terrible. Except for THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, and most other conservative leaders at the time who agreed this was the best way to combat HillaryCare in a time of unprecedented US prosperity.

    He is also as dangerous as RONALD REAGAN who signed the SIMPSON MAZZOLI amnesty bill.

    Newt is not the devil. Pieces like this that SKEW the facts to make it look like he is all liberal are dishonest and have no place in the debate without balance. Newt battled the GOP Establishment and the Clinton Democrat Whitehouse to take advantage of a weakened President, balancing the budget, reforming welfare and specifically putting a national campaign to retake the House and Senate for the first time in 50 years. Hardly a “liberal” trackrecord.

    My biggest problem is not with the glaring Gingrich failings isn’t his record which has been pretty consistent for what ALL of us knew then. It’s disingenuous to start assuming the mindset we have in the Tea Party today was prevalent back then. It wasn’t. Gingrich didn’t align himself with ThinkProgress or the Ford Foundation. Heritage was for mandates for God’s sake.

    I have a 3 part series on Newt’s RED CARD plan on It has problems. But Newt can be changed.

    But who else would you suggest in Newt’s place? There simply is no other alternative who can articulate (most) conservative causes, and has the ability to unify at the party AS WELL as actually GOVERN which he has proven he can do.

    • Gary P

      You must be joking.

      Reagan signed an amnesty bill, actually trusting the democrats to do what they promised. Reagan was an honorable man, so he thought he was dealing in good faith. He later came to say it was one of his worst mistakes.

      Newt on the other hand has said, even knowing what he knows now, would do it again.

      BTW, Newt IS The Republican Establishment™. He’s a corrupt, influence peddling, Big Government liberal. Always has been, always will be.

      Newt is an articulate speaker, so what. So was Mussolini, Lenin, and Hitler. [yeah, I went there]

      Newt is an accomplished con man. Newt supports almost everything Obama and his bunch do. He is FOR individual MANDATES and has been paid $37 MILLION by various insurance and drug companies to make sure it happens. If Newt is president we’ll get the “conservative” version of ObamaCare.

      We’ll also get cap and trade, amnesty for illegals, and who knows what else. All I know is a vote for Newt is a vote AGAINST Liberty and Freedom. Period.

      • Gary, I’m not trying to be argumentative here – we are on the same side of wanting a conservative (not just a Republican) in the White House.

        You are factually incorrect on many things here – and I read your blog every time you post – you are definitely more intelligent than the arguments you are making.

        You don’t now much about American history if you make the claim he is “establishment”. Newt has NEVER been establishment GOP. He was hated as a Jr. congressman, locked out of meetings especially when he began to actively support Reagan in the Reagan revolution. And he was forced out as Speaker PRECISELY because he was NOT establishment. They hated him and turned on him (including McCain, Dole and others). Get your facts straight. YES. He has been a politician for a very long time therefore HE HAS A TRACK RECORD. Have you ever looked at Ronald Reagan’s track record As California Governor before running for President? You should. Goldwater made the same slanderous accusations against him that you are making against Newt.

        Newt is no Reagan. I’m not making that argument. But he IS NOT a RINO, Liberal as you are making him out to be. That is a falsehood blatantly demonstrated by his GOOD track record. My point about Reagan is that Newt also supported causes that Reagan also ended up being wrong on. Immigration is a sore point and – if you would take the time to study the issue – there are many good things and two very bad things in Newt’s immigration policy. I take him to task on it here: (and in part 1 I object to his “heartless” comment and give good newt/bad newt in part 3)

        Newt testified AGAINST Cap and Trade the same day Al Gore testified for it. HARDLY something to fear and your portrayal is scandalous. I am actually IN THE GREEN TECHNOLOGY business (as a conservative) and even I wasn’t able to get a handle on the data until recently. It is something we have to hold WHOEVER is going to be our nominee. (My article on Newt and Global Warming here –

        Newt was the single most important factor besides Rush Limbaugh in retaking the House and Senate and he did by PROCLAIMING CONSERVATIVE VALUES in Contract With America. Not only is Newt no longer for individual mandates – at that time in the 90’s it was the only way that conservatives (INCLUDING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION WHICH RUSH LIMBAUGH HEARTILY ENDORSES) thought they could politically survive the national groundswell to combat HillaryCare. The point is HE fought against HillaryCare adamantly and helped stopped it. Heritage and even JACK KEMP didn’t think they could win a “no healthcare” battle because there was plenty of money in the budget. No – it wasn’t a great conservative stand although IT WAS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OF ANY OTHER NATIONAL FIGURE AT THE TIME.

        Those of you who suddenly pretend that YOU have been like Milton Friedman for the past 20 years are hypocrites. You offer no better candidate and don’t take into context the era in which some of these “liberal” views were taken. Much less is that people who actually HAVE a track record have more to attack than those who have none (Like Cain and Obama). Do you HATE George Washington and William Jefferson because they had slaves? Why not? Do you CONDONE slavery?

        People forget that even Sarah Palin (who would have been my choice for President) was FOR a Bridge to Nowhere until she learned more about it well into her administration. NO POLITICIAN is perfect.

        And you still have not given us the alternative. Cain? Who doesn’t now the Chinese have nukes? Perry who absolutely make Dan Quayle look like William F. Buckley Jr when debating Obama?

        You do a disservice by spreading blatantly mistruths about a “better than average” conservative. And if you are going to respond – please do so with actual FACTS and VOTES instead of invective. WE are not liberals and we actually care about being truthful and intelligent.

      • Gary P

        Jim, Newt is a liar and a con man.

        I’m posting the man’s OWN WORDS.

        It’s a tribute to Newt that his great skills as a con man have you fooled.

        In 2007 Newt was pushing cap and tax.

        After Obama was elected he also teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to try and push an “energy tax.”

        If Newt is a “conservative” then so is Barack Obama. How many times does Newt have to team up with hard core lefties and push hard core lefty ideas before people start to understand?

        My God, Newt teamed up with Al Sharpton, and Education Secretary Arnie Duncan, a Chicago SOCIALIST in 2009 to push OBAMA’S education plan. You know, the one he formulated while working as chairman of murdering domestic terrorist Bill Ayer’s Annenberg Challenge group.

        I don’t get it. People trash Mitt Romney for being a progressive and a flip flopper, and rightly so, but Newt’s record of lying and flip-flopping is 10 times worse.

        Past that, I don’t find any actual corruption or influence peddling around Romney. Newt had been selling his soul to the left since he was forced out of Congress.

        I’m not saying Romney is the answer either. But if it comes down to those two, I’d vote for Mitt all day long.

        The man has taken $37 million from the drug and insurance companies alone, to shill for government MANDATED health care insurance.

        Jim, Newt was shilling for government mandates THIS YEAR.

        I bet you’ll tell me he hasn’t, even though he’s on tape, MSNBC, May 15, 2011, doing EXACTLY that.

        I value all of our readers, and all of their comments, but wake up man, Newt is a con man, not a potential president!

        A vote for Newt would be like granting Obama a second term!

  3. By the way – do you all think the most conservative newspaper in NH – the one that endorsed Reagan when no one else would, really would endorse a liberal?

    You give me Palin, DeMint or (possibly) Bachmann in a realistic scenario to win in 45 days in NH and I’ll argue FOR them instead of Newt.

    And by the way. Gingrich was the ONLY candidate to defend Palin during this entire run. Notice that SHE has been saying very positive things about him AND SHE DEFENDED HIM ON FREDDIE.

    Why do you hate Sarah so much that you would contradict her?

    • Gary P

      Now you are just full of shit.

      Sarah never defended Newt’s ties to Freddie Mac. Never.

      I guess Newt is telling his worshipers that now? I know he’s been pandering to Palinistas hard.

      And who cares that Newt defended her in 2008. When she was blood libeled by the media, Newt was out there taking their side. Sarah waited the proper time after the shootings to make a strong video statement defending herself and the Tea Party. Newt jumped in her shit. Took the left’s and Establishment Republicans™ position that she should sit down and STFU.

      The only high profile Republican to come right out and defended her was Mike Huckabee.

      Sarah has said nice things about every candidate, even back stabbing Bachmann, and Rick Perry, who she has called out for being a corrupt crony capitalist.

      When Greta asked Sarah what advice she would give to candidates, when they got to Newt it was for he, and Calista, to be truthful She repeated it a couple of times.

      When on Hannity, and asked basically the same thing, when they got to Newt, she changed the subject.

      Palin is staying out of this, for now. She hasn’t endorsed anyone. I don’t look for her to either.

      I do know this, supporting Newt Gingrich is an insult to Sarah Palin, and everything she and CONSERVATIVES stand for.

      Sarah Palin has fought corrupt, lying weasels like Newt for 20 years, since her earliest days in elected office.

      Sarah is NOT going to run for President. Paul Ryan is NOT going to run for President, and the best thing for Bachmann is to go away.

      We’ve got what we got, and it sucks to high heaven, but that doesn’t mean we support a guy who is worse than Obama! Newt holds the same positions Obama does on all the big stuff, and unlike Obama, has the skill to make them a reality.

      Anyone who supports Newt supports the end of America as we know it.

  4. Pingback: Devastating Anti-Newt Gingrich Ad: Serial Hypocrisy | A Time For Choosing

  5. Don

    Gary, you say we must provide life saving care to everyone. Who pays? It seems to me that politicians screwed this up when they forced hospitals to provide care to whoever showed up at the door whether they would pay or not.

    So, it seems the right answer is to repeal that law. Then people who can afford to buy health insurance will buy it, agree to pay or be forced to pay for treatment (garnishment, reduction in social security account balance, a lien on property, or some other method), or be refused treatment, they can decide if they want the treatment. (If paying for life saving treatment is not something an individual or family is willing to pay for, if they can pay for it, then why should the rest of us have to pay for that treatment for him/her?)

    There are lots of things that can be done to reduce the cost of health insurance so more people can afford it or be willing to pay for it: malpractice reform, allow cross state insurance purchases, real catastrophic policies perhaps with total coverage limitations, HSAs, full deductability of health insurance, HSAs, and unreimbursed medical costs over some high level. I am sure people who are smarter than I can add lots to my list.

    So, the questions remain how do you pay for life saving care for people who just can’t pay for what life saving treatment that you say must be covered? I believe hospitals did this on their own before the law was passed and government screwed everything up. What is your solution for covering the cost? Hospitals or taxpayers? (I wish I knew for sure why the law was passed. I remember some stories, I think from the 60s, where some hospitals refused to accept some accident victims who then were routed to other hospitals. Claims were made that the injuries were aggravated or people died because the first hospitals refused to take the injured. My guess is that these few incidents were used to justify the law which has led to so much government involvement which has messed up health care funding.)

    And, what to do to cover the cost of medical care which is not life saving? Why should hospitals be forced to provide this care for people who do not pay? Or, why should taxpayers have to pay hospitals for providing this care? If taxpayers have to pay for non-life saving care, why should we have to pay for it when the recipient chooses to get the care from the most costly provider (hospitals)?

    I object to the individual mandate and the mandate on hospitals. But, if you don’t object to the mandate that hospitals must provide requested treatment to people who won’t pay, then how are these costs to be paid for? Isn’t the individual mandate one way of ensuring that these costs are paid for if you accept the proposition, which perhaps Newt has, that the American people will not accept doing away with the mandate that hospitals treat everyone?

    I think a lot of the problem goes away if the requirement that hospitals provide service regardless of ability to pay is removed. If we accept your premise that life saving treatment must be provided to all, then we must find a way to pay for that treatment for people who just cannot pay (perhaps letting the hospitals eat it … maybe up to a certain amount since I don’t think it fair to require hospitals to eat the cost without limit).

    • Gary P

      Great thoughts, but someone still has to pay. It’s always been the hospital. Many cities have free clinics run by volunteers.

      I live in a hospital town. One of the top hospital in the country is here, as well as others, even a major VA facility.

      The big hospital has a plan for indigent people, and we have two city run free clinics, as well as one run by the big hospital, off site, in an area near our homeless shelter. These are all funded by charity as well as donations from those evil drug companies.

      Helping out people is as much of a moral issue, as it is anything else. That said, forcing people to do anything by government mandate, even if they aren’t engaged in any activity but being alive and living here is immoral, and unconstitutional.

      For all the money that lunatic programs like ObamaCare, RomneyCare, or NewtCare cost, you could pay for every low income person to get basic care, and have money left over.

      The big deal is lawsuit reform. Stop the ambulance chasers and you’ll be amazed at the improvements in both care and cost.

      Cure the illegal immigration problem, and you’ll be in good shape as well. The billions in tax credits that illegal aliens illegally collect every year would also make it possible to take care of those who have no way to either pay for insurance or care.

      The last thing we need is more layers of federal interference.

      • Don

        I think we are agreed the government / politicians create the problems. I agree with your comments about how to reduce current spending, lawsuits, illegals, regulations, etc.

        It seems to me if the government (we the people) tell hospitals that they must treat everyone, then we (the government) should be paying for the costs. Current government programs only pay a small part of the costs (so they claim, although many hospitals seem to have lots of high paid administrators … many of whom probably are there to deal with government regulations).

        I say it is just as immoral to force the hospitals to provide care without receiving payment as it is to make people do something they don’t want to do.

        I do agree that if we stopped the government from doing all the crap it does which it should not be doing or doesn’t really have to do, then a) more people would be able to afford things they need like health insurance, b) medical care would be less expensive, c) more people would have more money to contribute to providing care to the needy which is doing real good and benefits the giver as well (as opposed to being forced to do something by gov’t, such as pay taxes), and d) recipients of charity might be more likely to feel grateful for what they get knowing it was truly the charity from others rather than feel they were entitled to the services they get.

        So I suggest we kill all the mandates and get government out of health care. I’m not holding my breath.

  6. David

    The media (right & left) glaze over Newt’s “baggage.” If he gets the nomination, the left wing media will open the baggage to expose it as “dirty laundry” and keep the light on it until Nov. 2012… RESULT: 4 more yrs. of Obama.

    • Gary P

      Can you imagine! They just destroyed Herman Cain over the ALLEGATIONS of an affair, and sexual harassment allegations.

      Newt is a Clinton Class serial adulterer. If the stories I’ve seen are true [no way to back em up, so far] it wasn’t just the chicks he left one wife to marry the other, he had all kinds of hook-ups over the years.

      Look, Obama is the scum of the earth, but he’s been married to the same woman since day one, and has two cute kids. Newt is old and on his third wife, plus he’s chased half the skirts in DC.

      And guess what, the media will once again cover up Obama’s alleged affairs with Vera Baker, and Larry Sinclair.

  7. Pingback: Newt [illegally] Panders: Say’s He’d Pick John Bolton for of Secretary of State, Bolton Underwhelmed | A Time For Choosing

  8. Pingback: More Proof that Newt Gingrich Lies When the Truth Would Work Better! | A Time For Choosing

  9. Pingback: Flashback: Newt’s Passionate Support of Mandated Health Care Insurance, RomneyCare | A Time For Choosing

  10. Pingback: Sarah Palin Wins South Carolina Primary No Endorsement Moving Forward Wants More Ideas Discussed | A Time For Choosing

  11. Pingback: Rick Perry on Gingrich: If You Cheat On Your Wife, You’ll Cheat On Anybody: Why Newt Will Screw Us Over | A Time For Choosing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s