Newt On Fire! Hammers ObamaCare and Media -video

[Cecilie1200]

I am now waiting to see how many pages it takes before someone actually talks about Newt's healthcare policy proposal, rather than "I know he's THIS sort of person", and "his marital history is THIS", and "I'm sure THIS is what he thinks about healthcare, because look at this soundbyte". I'm betting it's at least three pages, given how many of the people currently discussing on this thread seem to be allergic to real, substantive discussion of issues.

I think you're missing the point Cecilie. The reason we're not talking about his proposals is that we have no idea if he'll have the same views a year from now when he (assuming his nominated and elected) takes office. Credibility and consistency have to be there before campaign promises and proposals can be taken seriously.

I think YOU'RE missing the point. There's a huge difference between being "inconsistent" and changing your opinion over a period of years because you've realized you were wrong about something. I wouldn't WANT to vote for someone who had reached his sixties and held the exact same opinions and views the entire time, because I would seriously wonder if he had matured at all in his lifetime.

I should point out that Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat and signed a very liberal abortion bill into law as Governor of California. Does that make him "inconsistent"? Should we have worried when he was elected that he was going to change positions on a whim at any moment? Bullshit.

One thing no one has ever accused Newt Gingrich of that I am aware is making empty campaign promises, and then neglecting to at least try to follow through after being elected.

The reason we're not talking about Newt's actual policy positions and proposals is that it's more fun to speculate, gossip, and backbite like a bunch of old biddies at a hen party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If Newt gets the nomination I'm betting Reps lose and there is another collapse in the party. It's really sad to see some people want to beat Obama so bad that they are willing to put one of the biggest Progressive liberals on the Republican stage up against Obama.

If you guys really think Newt will destroy Obama you have to understand Obama will destroy Newt before they even get on a stage to debate and all Obama has to do is campaign all newts old positions for him and break his own support from Republicans.

If Republicans are stupid enough to listen to that sort of bullshit and decide it's better to allow Obama to have a second term, then they deserve to lose and live in the shithole that they will have allowed our country to become with their shortsighted childishness.

"Ooh, look! He once held a different opinion and then changed his mind! That makes anything he says now worthless!" Horseshit. It's no virtue that Obama is still clinging to the same simplistic, puerile ideas he's always had, instead of growing up and learning how the world works.

 

[dblack]

If Republicans are stupid enough to listen to that sort of bullshit and decide it's better to allow Obama to have a second term, then they deserve to lose and live in the shithole that they will have allowed our country to become with their shortsighted childishness.

"Ooh, look! He once held a different opinion and then changed his mind! That makes anything he says now worthless!" Horseshit. It's no virtue that Obama is still clinging to the same simplistic, puerile ideas he's always had, instead of growing up and learning how the world works.

Actually, Obama is cut from the same cloth. He was opposed to the insurance mandate when he ran for office, and then changed his mind! (with the help of heavy health insurance lobbying). That doesn't necessarily mean anything he says now is worthless, but it does make it hard to trust what he says he'll do in the future.

With regard to Newts flip-flop on mandates, it isn't simply that he changed his mind that bothers me. It's that his basic values led him to conclude that government should have that kind of power over us in the first place. That raises deep questions about his respect for liberty that he's never answered.

In any case, I don't consider it childish to vote for the values you believe in. The values of Newt Gingrich and Obama are essentially the same from my point of view. It's more important for me to make a statement in favor of what I actually believe in than to worry about which one of them wins the election.

 

[Greenbeard]

Here's a thought. How about we discuss his official, proposed plan for healthcare NOW, rather than a couple of misinterpreted soundbytes?

Okay. Newt offers thirteen points on his website (I wouldn't call it a plan since there's no detail but I'll take it as philosophical points about what he'd like any plan to include).

1. Tax credits for buying insurance in the individual market and price competition in the health insurance industry. This is already happening. See ACA §1201, §1311, §1333, § 1401, §10104.

2. Give seniors the choice of private insurance plans. This has been law for over a decade. Contrary to Newt's suggestion, however, this hasn't lowered costs. The price of the privatized portion of Medicare has soared as the insurance lobby succeeded in getting the benchmarks used to calculate the government contribution pushed higher and higher. These have now been brought back down to a reasonable level, saving a boatload of money (see HCERA § 1102).

3. Block grant Medicaid. Unlikely to happen and it's unclear how this jibes with #6 and #7 on his list.

4. Cover the uninsured using high risk pools in every state. This is being done right now (see ACA § 1101). It's had some successes but clearly isn't a long-term solution to the problem of the uninsured.

5. Outlaw rescissions. This is already law (see ACA § 1001).

6. Promote HSAs. This one is a little tricky. Newt says everyone--on Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance--should have access to an HSA (which presumably still has to be coupled with a high-deductible health plan). But he also suggests ceding control over Medicaid to the states, so it's not clear how he would require this in Medicaid. Anyway, states can already use existing avenues in Medicaid to offer HSAs to Medicaid-eligibles; Indiana was recently circulating the draft waiver renewal application that will allow it to continue its existing Medicaid HSA experiment. Regardless, as far as private coverage goes (both in the exchanges and in the group market) HDHP-HSAs are likely to become more and more common in the future. See ACA § 90011401 and § 9001.

7. Reform Medicare and Medicaid to pay for quality. This is now law and is in the process of being implemented. See ACA § 2702-27006, § 3001-3008, § 3013-3015, § 3022, and § 3025.

8. Health and wellness incentives. Also now on the books. See ACA § 1001, § 1201, § 4002, § 4103, § 4108, § 4204, § 4206, § 4303, § 10408,

9. Move from a paper-based system to an electronic one; use that to fight fraud. Again, the nation is already transitioning away from a paper based system under the HITECH Act of 2009. Also see ACA § 10330 for modernization of the technology CMS is using. And note that the feds started using predictive modeling technology to go after fraudsters last summer.

10. Malpractice reform. Support for state-centered malpractice reforms is law. See ACA § 10607

11. Accelerate parts of the FDA approval process. That process has begun for certain biological products. See ACA § 7001-7002.

12. Price and quality transparency. Greater price and quality transparency of providers (hospitals and physicians), as well as insurance, is now law. See ACA § 1311, § 10101, § 10331.

13. Investments in health research. Can't argue with this one. More money for research! And if we want to compare the effectiveness of medical treatments, we now have a mechanism for doing that (see ACA § 6301).

All-in-all, not generally bad (with an exception or two) but nothing particularly new. It might've been pretty innovative back in 2008, though, before this stuff was passed.

However, it's good to see Newt's opposition to "Obamacare" is largely rhetorical, as most of his health agenda is now law because of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If Republicans are stupid enough to listen to that sort of bullshit and decide it's better to allow Obama to have a second term, then they deserve to lose and live in the shithole that they will have allowed our country to become with their shortsighted childishness.

"Ooh, look! He once held a different opinion and then changed his mind! That makes anything he says now worthless!" Horseshit. It's no virtue that Obama is still clinging to the same simplistic, puerile ideas he's always had, instead of growing up and learning how the world works.

Actually, Obama is cut from the same cloth. He was opposed to the insurance mandate when he ran for office, and then changed his mind! (with the help of heavy health insurance lobbying). That doesn't necessarily mean anything he says now is worthless, but it does make it hard to trust what he says he'll do in the future.

With regard to Newts flip-flop on mandates, it isn't simply that he changed his mind that bothers me. It's that his basic values led him to conclude that government should have that kind of power over us in the first place. That raises deep questions about his respect for liberty that he's never answered.

In any case, I don't consider it childish to vote for the values you believe in. The values of Newt Gingrich and Obama are essentially the same from my point of view. It's more important for me to make a statement in favor of what I actually believe in than to worry about which one of them wins the election.

Yeah, well, saying one thing during the campaign and another when elected is rather different from saying something in . . . what was it, 1993? . . . and saying something different in 2011.

Again, just because you're trying to be true to your core values doesn't mean you can't go astray and do the wrong thing. I point one more time to Ronald Reagan and his abortion bill. Both his pro-abortion and his later anti-abortion stances were consistent with his core values as he understood what they required at that time.

Vote for whatever you want, but frankly, spending a lot of time pissing and moaning about what he said years ago to the point of ignoring his actual proposals for his Presidency IS childish. If what you actually believe is "I can only vote for someone who has held the exact position I want him to have his entire life", then that's incredibly silly.

Let me know when you want to discuss something current.

 

[rdean]

OK, he can tear things down. What does he want to replace it with?

 

[dblack]

Here's a thought. How about we discuss his official, proposed plan for healthcare NOW, rather than a couple of misinterpreted soundbytes?

Okay. Newt offers thirteen points on his website (I wouldn't call it a plan since there's no detail but I'll take it as philosophical points about what he'd like any plan to include).

1. Tax credits for buying insurance in the individual market and price competition in the health insurance industry. This is already happening. See ACA §1201, §1311, §1333, § 1401, §10104.

2. Give seniors the choice of private insurance plans. This has been law for over a decade. Contrary to Newt's suggestion, however, this hasn't lowered costs. The price of the privatized portion of Medicare has soared as the insurance lobby succeeded in getting the benchmarks used to calculate the government contribution pushed higher and higher. These have now been brought back down to a reasonable level, saving a boatload of money (see HCERA § 1102).

3. Block grant Medicaid. Unlikely to happen and it's unclear how this jibes with #6 and #7 on his list.

4. Cover the uninsured using high risk pools in every state. This is being done right now (see ACA § 1101). It's had some successes but clearly isn't a long-term solution to the problem of the uninsured.

5. Outlaw rescissions. This is already law (see ACA § 1001).

6. Promote HSAs. This one is a little tricky. Newt says everyone--on Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance--should have access to an HSA (which presumably still has to be coupled with a high-deductible health plan). But he also suggests ceding control over Medicaid to the states, so it's not clear how he would require this in Medicaid. Anyway, states can already use existing avenues in Medicaid to offer HSAs to Medicaid-eligibles; Indiana was recently circulating the draft waiver renewal application that will allow it to continue its existing Medicaid HSA experiment. Regardless, as far as private coverage goes (both in the exchanges and in the group market) HDHP-HSAs are likely to become more and more common in the future. See ACA § 90011401 and § 9001.

7. Reform Medicare and Medicaid to pay for quality. This is now law and is in the process of being implemented. See ACA § 2702-27006, § 3001-3008, § 3013-3015, § 3022, and § 3025.

8. Health and wellness incentives. Also now on the books. See ACA § 1001, § 1201, § 4002, § 4103, § 4108, § 4204, § 4206, § 4303, § 10408,

9. Move from a paper-based system to an electronic one; use that to fight fraud. Again, the nation is already transitioning away from a paper based system under the HITECH Act of 2009. Also see ACA § 10330 for modernization of the technology CMS is using. And note that the feds started using predictive modeling technology to go after fraudsters last summer.

10. Malpractice reform. Support for state-centered malpractice reforms is law. See ACA § 10607

11. Accelerate parts of the FDA approval process. That process has begun for certain biological products. See ACA § 7001-7002.

12. Price and quality transparency. Greater price and quality transparency of providers (hospitals and physicians), as well as insurance, is now law. See ACA § 1311, § 10101, § 10331.

13. Investments in health research. Can't argue with this one. More money for research! And if we want to compare the effectiveness of medical treatments, we now have a mechanism for doing that (see ACA § 6301).

All-in-all, not generally bad (with an exception or two) but nothing particularly new. It might've been pretty innovative back in 2008, though, before this stuff was passed.

However, it's good to see Newt's opposition to "Obamacare" is largely rhetorical, as most of his health agenda is now law because of it.

Pretty much the same stuff, eh?