Gingrich and health care

I find this whole topic funny. It is common knowledge that Gingrich and all the rest of r's only want the rich to have medical care and the rest of use are just supposed to die along with granny.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

neptunechimney wrote: I find this whole topic funny. It is common knowledge that Gingrich and all the rest of r's only want the rich to have medical care and the rest of use are just supposed to die along with granny.

:VeryScared:

This granny doesn't want to die....who in the Republican party do I talk to about that?????

Seriously though.....there is always Mitt Romney to deal with too.....how does he sell his plan in Mass if he runs for president? Will Republicans be OK with it since he did this at the state level?

archer wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: I find this whole topic funny. It is common knowledge that Gingrich and all the rest of r's only want the rich to have medical care and the rest of use are just supposed to die along with granny.

:VeryScared:

This granny doesn't want to die....who in the Republican party do I talk to about that?????

Seriously though.....there is always Mitt Romney to deal with too.....how does he sell his plan in Mass if he runs for president? Will Republicans be OK with it since he did this at the state level?

They are both toast. I guess you should talk to Newt. If the HufPo thinks he favors mandatory health care, it must be true

Here's a good read on Romney's chances:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/8 ... lth-reform

<snip>Unfortunately, that citation also speaks to Romney’s essential political dilemma. If you read the Affordable Care Act and turn to section 2713(c), you’ll find a provision calling upon Medicare to experiment with—wait for it—VBID. And if you paid attention to President Obama’s deficit reduction proposal a few weeks ago, you may recall that Obama proposed letting the agency in charge of Medicare introduce VBID more quickly.

Does this make Romney a closet socialist? Hardly. Does it mean he wants to give government the power to ration? Please. I'm not even sure Romney intended to endorse the idea, let alone the version in the Affordable Care Act.

No, his mention of VBID simply means he’s a problem-solver with moderately conservative values and an open mind about policy. But try telling that to the Republican base, which has decided that anything that looks remotely like Obamacare is evil.

Actually, that’s what Romney did on Thursday. He tried to explain why his problem-solving in Massachusetts shouldn't offend the conservative electorate. But a quick look around the web makes me think conservatives remain offended. As Karen Tumulty noted in her writeup for the Washington Post, “His greatest achievement is also his biggest liability. It is the kind of paradox that would test the most agile of politicians, of whom Mitt Romney is not one.”<snip>

Not only does Gingrich need to explain his health care position, but how are conservatives going to deal with this? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54

[youtube:230nklqt][/youtube:230nklqt]

archer wrote: Seriously though.....there is always Mitt Romney to deal with too.....how does he sell his plan in Mass if he runs for president? Will Republicans be OK with it since he did this at the state level?

Seriously archer, Republicans are OK with a sovereign state deciding to bankrupt itself in this manner, provided the rest of the members of the compact aren't required to bail them out of their folly. That is the purpose of having 50 sovereign entities manage the domestic affairs for themselves. You get to have 50 mini-experiments all being conducted at the same time in the best practices of self government. When a good program is found it will be adopted by others. If a program ends up doing more harm than good, it can be avoided by the others. When there is only one program that all must participate in, what ends up happening is that the general welfare of all of the states are harmed when the program ends up having a serious flaw. Hence our current obscene debt and our even more obscene unfunded future liabilities.

That is the principle reason that consolidating into a single entity the sole power of governance is such a horrendous idea and has repeatedly failed every time it has been tried regardless of the principles upon which the government was formed - democratic or totalitarian. Think of the progress that could have been made if there were multiple, instead of a single, experiments going on as to how best to ensure that people had some measure of security when their working years were done and how best to provide for their increased health needs. Think of how a state could attract workers and businesses by having a better program than their neighbor state, or the liberty that the people would have to leave for a state with a better program than where they were currently living.

The problem I see with that TM is that people move....from one state to another for work, for education, because they like mountains better than sea shore yet their health care does not follow them. Before I was on medicare it was difficult to find health insurance that I could use in both CO and AZ....my choices were severly limited. I had to give up the plan I had because it wouldn't cover me in AZ except for emergencies and I luckily qualified then for a plan that worked in both states, however it cost me several hundred dollars a month more for the luxury. If I were not on medicare now, and had to move to another state and give up a CO plan, where would I find a company to cover me in the new state with several pre-existing conditions.

That's why I look for there to be some kind of national reform, even if there is no individual mandate. I believe in state's rights to a point....we are still one country, citizens still have the right to move from state to state if they so choose....they shouldn't have to stay put just for health insurance.

That's why the interstate commerce laws need to be adjusted to accommodate health insurance. You know as well as I do that the current reforms are payoffs to the insurance companies and screw the consumer. That's the problem with lobbyist driven health care reform.

I have no love for the current law, except for a few provisions....like removing pre-existing conditions and not cancelling people because they get sick. But if we are going to have such provisions then they have to be paid for...

We have been giving gifts to the Insurance companies for decades....the Medicare Rx plan was a huge one.....

Yep, another wonderful example of lobbyist driven reform. Those few provisions could have easily been added to the existing system without the massive overhaul that took place. Has anyone had any dealings with Healthcare compacts? I have heard that they may be an answer for some states but have no first hand knowledge.