Up until very recently I found myself being somewhat of a fan of Newt Gingrich. I’ve always viewed him as being a pretty smart guy, and even though I haven't always agreed with some of his ideas, I found that I agreed with most. However, comments made this past Sunday have caused me to doubt myself to a certain degree. Statements made that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, have me questioning what it is that he truly stands for. After all, that is a position that has been rather enthusiastically rejected by a good many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination. So it was then that while appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire some form of health insurance. Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993, “I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”
I really don’t care much for the analogy of comparing health insurance to auto insurance. I just think it’s a very sleazy attempt to try to fool people, because the purposes for each simply aren’t compatible. Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor of Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured individuals purchase health insurance. Romney has already very clearly stated that were he to be elected he would work to repeal “Obamacare.” Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare. "I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..." Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation that was passed over the clear objection of the American people while using every method of political chicanery imaginable and that Barry "Almighty" then signed into law in 2010.
I just can't figure out for the life of me why somebody who is seeking the Republican Party nomination for president would stake out a position that is so clearly at odds with nearly all, if not all, of the leading conservative critics of Obamacare, and who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional. With the Barry "Almighty" administration currently facing three separate lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states, I'm not sure what it is that Newt hopes to gain by making some of these statements. Here we are at a time when next to the "War on Terror", or the "Oversea Contingency Operation," the single greatest problem that we are now facing is the rapid expansion of government power, as well as the ballooning of our national debt problem, both of which are greatly exacerbated by the enacting of "Obamacare" and an announced candidate for the Republican Party is stating that he is essentially in agreement with a law that is so obviously unconstitutional. It bad enough when those on the left busy themselves by trampling on the Constitution, but when conservatives join in the trampling it truly is a very sad day.
Very vocal conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S. Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right. Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States.”
Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law. “In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …" Look, in many cases, especially with younger folks who are in good health and usually living on tight budgets, forking over funds for something that they are unlikely to ever use is a waste of their limited funds. That accomplishes nothing more than taking money out of their pockets that could be better spent. So to make such a blanket statement doesn't seem to make any sense to me. It's kind of like swimming against the current. Yet Gingrich seems to be convinced that this mandatory purchasing of health insurance is the way to go. And I simply don't think it's going to garner much support for his candidacy. I mean how can you advocate pretty much the same policy as the man who you hope to defeat for the job of president? Where's the incentive to vote for you and not for him? You can straddle the fence and still hope to win. It just ain't gonna happen!
In what was another one of those inexplicable moments where Gingrich, in making comments that came as surprising to many conservatives, has stirred a lively debate is his apparent slamming of Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare. In what is sure to provide many in the state controlled media with some ammo for which to go gunning for Rep. Ryan, Gingrich's comments were perplexing to say the least. In what one popular conservative website described as Gingrich "tacking left," the now-declared presidential candidate dismissed a plan popular among many conservatives, describing it as a "radical change" that he suggested was dangerous for Republicans to embrace heading into an election year. I just don't see the describing of Mr. Ryan's proposal as being radical an accurate description. Rep. Ryan's plan is designed to move to a system where seniors receive vouchers to buy private insurance. It's also a plan that has been endorsed by the majority of House Republicans. But Gingrich said it was "too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options." "I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," he continued. "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
So I find myself asking, is this something that is once again simply about politics more than it is about what's best for the country? I understand that we need to win before we can have any hope of getting our train wreck of a country back onto the tracks, but we need to be upfront with the American people regarding the severity of our fiscal situation, and the measures, some being drastic, that are going to be required to get that feat accomplished. Dancing around the problem in an attempt to win election does absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem! Gingrich has instead called for a system that would preserve the current Medicare program alongside a voluntary, privatized version. But nothing he has said comes close to the blast he unleashed on his own party's top priority in Congress. "There are specific things you can do," Gingrich explained to NBC's David Gregory. " At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.”
Meanwhile, as a counter to Newt's comments, Rep. Ryan defended his plan during an appearance on the CNN program "State of the Union." "We have got to reform this program for the next generation if we're going to save it for the next generation and that's what we're proposing to do," the Wisconsin Republican said. Ryan's spokesman Conor Sweeney took issue with Gingrich calling the plan "radical", saying the Ryan budget "remains the only serious proposal put forward on either end on Pennsylvania Avenue that saves Medicare." "The solutions offered by Chairman Ryan and House Republicans make no changes to Medicare for those in and near retirement, while offering a strengthened, personalized program that future generations can count on when they retire," Sweeney told National Review Online's Robert Costa. "Far from claims of radicalism, the gradual, common-sense Medicare reforms ensure that no senior will be forced to reorganize their lives because of government's mistakes. The most 'radical' course of action on Medicare is to continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo," Sweeney said. So I already find myself wondering what Newt's game plan might be. Because I’ll tell you what, if he continues down this path he's not going to be very successful in his attempt to gain much in the way of support for his candidacy.
I just find it all more than a little unsettling that someone who not only is readily viewed as being a conservative and very loudly proclaims himself to be a staunch conservative, would then come out and make the kind of statements as Gingrich now has. It makes me wonder if there are any real conservatives left and if there is now any hope whatsoever of being to wrestle my country from the clutches of a man that can only be described as being a devout socialist. It is absolutely imperative that we defeat Barry "Almighty" in 2012. Our ability to continue as free nation quite literally depends on our defeating this man, and our failure to do so will most assuredly result in the end of America as we know it. He has already been able to inflict damage that may very well prove to be irreparable though the advancing of his leftist agenda that has thus far resulted in what can only be described as a massive expansion of governmental power and an unprecedented level of intrusion into the lives of every single American citizen. We need someone who is willing to step up and not be afraid to take this man on and proudly put forth conservative solutions for the monumental problems that we now face. And if Newt's not willing to be that guy, so be it! NEXT!
No comments:
Post a Comment