Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich is brilliant. He is creative when it comes to public policy. He also will never be President, unless he runs as a Democrat.
Gingrich has decided that ObamaCare’s insurance mandate isn’t such a bad idea. Gingrich, along with former MA governor Mitt Romney, think that requiring citizens to purchase health insurance is a perfectly acceptable solution to our nation’s health care woes. Good riddance to both men.
We simply cannot allow the federal government to dictate one more aspect of our lives. IF the GOP decides to nominate Gingrich (or Romney), millions of conservative voters will (and should) abandon the polls on Election Day, 2012, or vote for a third party candidate. Neither is a bad idea given the alternative of a potential Republican President who respects individual liberty no more than Barack Obama.
14 comments:
Newt is a doofus. But you guys all kill me with this "gov. dictating our healthcare". The uninsured jack up healthcare costs as it is. Seems to me you would want the "lazy freeloaders" to pay up in some form. You have an absolute right to care when you show up in the emergency room. Seems to me this also means you have a responsibility to pay into the system that provides care.
"IF the GOP decides to nominate Gingrich (or Romney), millions of conservative voters will (and should) abandon the polls on Election Day"
That is some is bad advice there. Have you lost your mind? At least Mitt did suggest Healthcare on a state by state basis. Either way Romney or Newt would be far better than Obama! I held my nose and voted for McCain but I did vote.
726-Then explain how after Romney passed a near identical bill in Mass., that medical inflation in that state has outpaced literally every other state in the Nation? It hasn't saved Mass. any money, and won't save our nation any money.
Can somebody please explain to me why it is ok to require that you buy auto insurance, but not ok that you are required to buy health insurance? I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this.
LadyLiddy, the difference between auto insurance and health insurance are pretty stark. The government requires you to carry auto insurance in case you cause damage to someone else. It's not insurance to protect you -- it's insurance to protect other motorists. Also, you only have to have auto insurance if you are using government roads. If you want to drive on your own property, you are free to do so insurance-free. And if you really want to avoid the mandate, then don't drive.
The health insurance mandate, on the other hand, is a mandate that you have insurance to protect yourself. It is mandatory for anyone and you can't escape it.
Big differences between the two, LadyLiddy.
Requiring health insurance does not only protect yourself, but balances the system so that everyone is paying into it. I don't think you can honestly say that you will never need healthcare, therefore are entitled to opt-out. Is anybody else sick and tired of paying an un-godly amount for healthcare when many people just use the system? I have never gone without health coverage. My spouse was hospitalized this year and we still paid $4,000 out of pocket for care. Sorry, but that frustrates me.
Also, If I only carry liability insurance and I am culpable in an auto accident - no one is going to go ahead and fix my car and hope they get paid someday. I'd be SOL.
Question: How should hospitals treat people who CHOOSE not to have insurance when they show up in an ambulance with a heart attack and no insurance? How about when the one who shows up is a 3 year old with a broken arm whose parents have no insurance? Should we all just suck it up and cover them? I know the wet pants liberal complaints will start flying, but you can't have it both ways. Either we require insurance, or we subsidize those who choose not to have it. And no, we can't and won't turn people away who are seriously injured or sick. That is not an option.
Mike -
On the surface what you say is true. However, we need to remember the lessons of the last 15 years. If we elect Republicans who are not conservatives then we will be saddled with Obama-lite.
There are some states where it is better to elect a less-than-conservative candidate because that is the best you can do. However, the nation as a whole is right-of-center and we CAN elect a conservative President.
*****************
Lady Liddy -
I understand where you are coming from. However, two wrongs don't make a right. We are better off cutting off people without insurance (or other means of payment) than we are giving up more liberty by agreeing to mandated health insurance.
G.A. I understand what you are saying. We all have a very difficult choice to make. There are no easy answers here. I can understand cutting off adults without the ability to pay, but we must care for the children who have no choices in their situation.
LOL at GA,
How's that for some compassionate conservatism. "Don't lose your job, else your kids might die if they get sick".
Lady Liddy -
You are correct. That is one reason why we have programs like SCHIP (as flawed as it is).
*********************
Anon 1015 -
I didn't say that we should cut people off from care, I simply stated that we are better off doing that than surrendering more of our God-given liberty to the Leviathan state.
LadyLiddy, the cost of uncompensated care in the U.S. is pretty low. There is a negligible cost to the rest of us from those who use health care but don't have insurance. There are better ways to deal with this small cost-shifting than imposing an unconstitutional health insurance mandate that causes far more problems than it solves.
The reason our health insurance costs and general health care costs are so high isn't because a bunch of uninsured people are using the system and not paying their bills. The massive government involvement in the health care system, the lack of any time of real market for health care services, and the health insurance system itself are all much bigger drivers of health care inflation than uncompensated care.
Marc, Your explanations for the high cost of health care are a little to broad to win me over. I agree that government involvment is usually a losing proposition. They can't handle what they already have going on. We have social programs with no regulation and oversight. The last thing we need is another social program to go down the same road. Yet the fair market system is never really fair. All the de-regulation we have seen in industry in the past has come back to bite us in the rear end. Thanks for broadening my perspective though!
Post a Comment