Gingrich Calls GOP Medicare Plan 'Right-Wing Social Engineering'

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gingrich Calls GOP Medicare Plan 'Right-Wing Social Engineering'

Published May 16, 2011
| The Wall Street Journal
Print Email Share Comments (1896)
Text Size


AP

In this image released May 15 by NBC News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press" in Washington.
White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering," injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party's efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.

In the same interview Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama's health law.

The former House speaker's decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate.

The moves suggest the Republican primary contest, which will include both men, could feature a robust debate on health care, with GOP candidates challenging the Democratic law while defending their own variations.

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. "Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs," he said.

Mr. Gingrich also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches. But he said he should apply to all Americans.

The Republican presidential field is beginning to take shape after an unusually long delay, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee saying he would skip the 2012 race and the other candidates beginning to engage in substantive policy debates.

Mr. Huckabee declined to endorse any of the remaining candidates. His decision opens the door for other Republicans to court the Christian conservatives who fueled the former Baptist minister's 2008 campaign.

Mr. Gingrich, who has fashioned himself as a policy wonk in recent years, instantly roiled an already controversial debate over the U.S.'s long-term budget picture. He said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that seniors should not be required to use a new Medicare program, as envisioned by the House GOP, but should be persuaded to voluntarily migrate to a better system.

"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," he said when asked about a Medicare plan championed by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) as an element of the party's 2012 budget proposal. He said he was against "radical change" on the right and the left.

The House GOP budget would privatize Medicare for Americans under age 55. When they reach retirement age, they would receive a government subsidy to buy a private insurance policy instead of participating in the existing government-run system. The subsidies' value likely would not rise as quickly as health care costs are expected to rise.

Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney said in response to Mr. Gingrich that Mr. Ryan's plan is the only serious proposal for Medicare, which faces long-term financial crisis as health costs rise and Baby Boomers join the program's ranks. "The most 'radical' course of action on Medicare is to continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo," he said.The GOP budget cleared the House as part of a budget outline without a single Democratic vote, and Democrats have sought to use the policy as a line of political attack with voters.

Republican leaders have said they do not plan to write legislation that would flesh out details of the concept. But they also say the Ryan plan remains their position in budget talks with the White House and the Senate.

Other Republican candidates for president, including Mr. Romney and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have applauded Mr. Ryan for showing leadership in putting together a budget plan, but have declined to endorse its elements.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced Wednesday that he will seek the Republican nomination for president. Video courtesy of Fox News and photo courtesy of Getty Images.
.In the interview with the Journal, Mr. Gingrich also said that in advocating for big changes to Medicare, House Republicans have failed to both come up with the right policy, and to properly sell it to the country. He said bad salesmanship was part of President Obama's problem in pushing his own health care plan. "Republicans should learn. There's a big lesson there," he told the Journal.

Mr. Gingrich also stuck with his past support for the central plank of the Obama health plan—the mandate to buy insurance.

In 1993, Mr. Gingrich said Americans should be required to have health insurance just as they are required to have automobile insurance. Back then, he endorsed the use of vouchers to help everyone buy insurance. He also endorsed the use of income-based vouchers to help everyone buy insurance.

On Sunday, Mr. Gingrich said he opposes the Obama plan because it creates a "Washington-based model, a federal system" with exchanges that try to "replace the entire insurance system."

He also contended that people should be required to buy coverage or post a bond to cover their costs should they need care and lack insurance. Like Mr. Romney—and Mr. Obama—Mr. Gingrich spoke of the "free rider" problem: those who go uninsured and then don't pay their bills when they get sick, spreading the costs across the system.

"All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care," he said Sunday.

When Mr. Gingrich endorsed the mandate in 1993, many Democrats were pressing for a government-run health system without private insurance companies. The mandate—a badge of individual responsibility—was seen then as a conservative alternative.

In 2012, Mr. Gingrich may find these views problematic in the Republican contests, where a large number of voters view the Obama health plan as Exhibit A in government overreach. A lawsuit brought by mostly GOP governors argues the Obama mandate is unconstitutional.

"I'd like Speaker Gingrich to show me in the Constitution where the government has the right to force people to buy health insurance," said Debbie Dooley, state coordinator for the Georgia Tea Party Patriots. "That's going to hurt him among tea party activists, extremely."

Newt's a hoot..

[boutons_deux]

Kama Sutra for policy wonks: Newt Gingrich takes multiple positions on Medicare repeal

Yesterday, he came out against Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare as we know it because he said it was too "radical."

The thing is, a week earlier, he had declared his support for the plan. And long before that, he'd proposed a plan which would have worked pretty much the same way as the Ryan plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/16/976479/-Kama-Sutra-for-policy-wonks:-Newt-Gingrich-takes-multiple-positions-on-Medicare-repeal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[boutons_deux]

Newt Gingrich Swiftly Takes Back Critique Of Ryan Plan, Renounces Individual Mandate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/newt-gingrich-individual-mandate_n_862404.html

[boutons_deux]

Despite Criticism Of Paul Ryan, Gingrich Proposed Nearly Identical Plan In 1995

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/16/newt-gingrich-voucher-medicare/

[Winehole23]

Newt was for medicare vouchers and an individual insurance mandate before he was against them.

[DarrinS]

boutons is absolutely orgasmic over this. Must be a great thread. :lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Newt's Oscar is definately missing it's Meyer.

[Winehole23]

...crass sexual innuendo -- a DarrinS specialty.



(Zero clown points, one Ed McMahon point awarded for forced hilarity)

[boutons_deux]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/groovynewt_500.jpg

[Winehole23]

Newt's Oscar is definately missing it's Meyer.Newt's all over the place, as usual. My working hypothesis is that he can't keep his story straight because he basically has no core beliefs and can't resist any chance for self-promotion.

[boutons_deux]

I heard somebody say he's positioning himself as an "ideas man", but of the 100 ideas he has every day, 99+ are bad.

His self-delusion and egomania are amusing.

[MannyIsGod]

"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently, where there's some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable."

-- Newt Gingrich, on Meet the Press yesterday, acknowledging his previous support of the individual mandate.

"I am completely opposed to the ObamaCare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and a half years."

-- Gingrich, in a video released today.

[MannyIsGod]

Gingrich is nothing but a liar. The fact that he is getting serious run for a nomination is a god damn shame. The media deserves to be roasted for their inability to call this guy exactly what he is every time he's on air whether the network be Fox News, MSNBC or NPR.

The lying going on at the current time by several GOP politicians is the worse I've ever seen in politics. Thats a tough standard to meet.

[MannyIsGod]

http://politicalwire.com/images/5-16-11.jpg

That cartoon exemplifies everything is wrong with the GOP right now. They're not leading at all. Whether it is the individual mandate or cap and trade, issues they were for in the past for actual good reasons are now items they argue against for political reasons. And while thats always been something that politicians do, the complete inability to lead an explain why you were for these issues in the past and why they still make sense today is as gutless as it gets.

I never understood what the point of getting into office was if you had to sell out on all the issues you actually believed in to get there. Well, I do understand it, but being thirsty for power merely for the sake of having it is not a good indicator that I want that person in office to begin with.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs offer nothing contstructive, only obstructionism and opposition to everything Dem, even if the Repugs supported the Dem position sometime in the recent past.

[Winehole23]

The Dems still have the Senate and the Presidency.

[Winehole23]

Too bad for their own constituency they didn't get more done when they had the House as well. Maybe they were too busy pretending, like board libs nowadays, that the GOP was still in charge.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs ACT like they are in charge, and the fucking Dems and Barry let them BE in charge.

[Winehole23]

So then blame the Dems for giving away the store.

[Winehole23]

It's not the GOP's fault Obama and the Dems are spineless.

[boutons_deux]

"blame the Dems for giving away the store."

they kept giving the Repugs and sick-care industry compromises, which really screwed up the act, and the Repugs still didn't vote for it.

[MannyIsGod]

WH, I don't see how your posts address the fact that the GOP is pretty much arguing against its own positions.

[Winehole23]

Already addressed upstream. Opportunism and no values. Now I'm tormenting boutons. Why are you interfering?

[Winehole23]

...they kept giving the Repugs and sick-care industry compromises, which really screwed up the act, and the Repugs still didn't vote for it.So either the Dems are really stupid, OR they were in bed with the "sick care industry" every bit as much as the GOP.

[Winehole23]

...or both.

[MannyIsGod]

Already addressed upstream. Opportunism and no values. Now I'm tormenting boutons. Why are you interfering?

LOL my bad

[Winehole23]

No worries.

[Wild Cobra]

Lies, lies, and more lies.

I only got to the second post so far. In the original post, it says Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering."

Fucking liars...

Newts words were "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering." He did not say they were doing it. He was answering a hypothetical question.

In the second post, it says he came out against Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare as we know it because he said it was too "radical." He didn't say that. He said "I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," in response to a question that may or may not be accurate.

If the rest of this thread is like this, reading any and all fantasized negativity, then it is a loser thread.

[Wild Cobra]

George...

Did you even listen to the video, or did you just believe the lies from the author of the article?

[Winehole23]

I only got to the second post so far. In the original post, it says Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering."

Fucking liars...

Newts words were "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering." He did not say they were doing it. He was answering a hypothetical question.The political context is clear. Pretending that Newt was addressing some abstract hypothetical courts falsehood IMHO.


In the second post, it says he came out against Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare as we know it because he said it was too "radical." He didn't say that. He said "I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," in response to a question that may or may not be accurate.Converting Medicare to a voucher system is radical in the straight-forward sense of the word.

The shoe fits: Newt, probably in a craven attempt to pander to seniors and the AARP on a Sunday news show, was referring to the Ryan plan. With a 100% probability. Your attempt to spin it otherwise only shows how biased you are.

[baseline bum]

WC's not very good at probability, WH.

[LnGrrrR]

Newts words were "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering." He did not say they were doing it. He was answering a hypothetical question.

I don't think posting idiotic messages on Spurstalk is helping anyone. I also don't think being deliberately obtuse is confusing anyone.

[Wild Cobra]

The political context is clear. Pretending that Newt was addressing some abstract hypothetical courts falsehood IMHO.
Converting Medicare to a voucher system is radical in the straight-forward sense of the word.
Then show me the quotes in the transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43022759/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-may/) where I am wrong.

The shoe fits: Newt, probably in a craven attempt to pander to seniors and the AARP on a Sunday news show, was referring to the Ryan plan. With a 100% probability. Your attempt to spin it otherwise only shows how biased you are.
I'm thinking the 'Ryan Plan' was misrepresented here. If you have a copy of it, please show us. I don't know where it is, but that is not what I heard about it.

Bottom line, there are clear lies in the article. Therefore, how can any reasonable person trust what they want from it?

[Wild Cobra]

Found the "Ryan Plan (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=8520)' and the article misrepresents it also.

[George Gervin's Afro]

George...

Did you even listen to the video, or did you just believe the lies from the author of the article?

Lies from the Wall Street Journal?..

mmmmkk.

[TeyshaBlue]

Found the "Ryan Plan (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=8520)' and the article misrepresents it also.

It does not. The article represents it as vouchers for private insurance which is exactly what Ryan proposes.http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/#Healthsecurity
Direct Assistance. Providing low-income families with dependent children the financial assistance to purchase high quality private plans will end the two-tiered health care system that exists today. In addition to the health care tax credit, this individual Medicaid payment will provide Medicaid beneficiaries with nearly $11,000 that can be applied to health care costs. Additional assistance is provided for pregnant women and families with children younger than 1 year old. This will ensure families stay together within one provider network and foster coordinated and personalized health care as well as promote new and innovative care models for patients.

[TeyshaBlue]

The political context is clear. Pretending that Newt was addressing some abstract hypothetical courts falsehood IMHO.
Converting Medicare to a voucher system is radical in the straight-forward sense of the word.


Then show me the quotes in the transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43022759/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-may/) where I am wrong.


MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...
REP. GINGRICH: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.


I'm thinking the 'Ryan Plan' was misrepresented here. If you have a copy of it, please show us. I don't know where it is, but that is not what I heard about it.
Stop thinking. You're not very good at it.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/#Healthsecurity
Direct Assistance. Providing low-income families with dependent children the financial assistance to purchase high quality private plans will end the two-tiered health care system that exists today. In addition to the health care tax credit, this individual Medicaid payment will provide Medicaid beneficiaries with nearly $11,000 that can be applied to health care costs. Additional assistance is provided for pregnant women and families with children younger than 1 year old. This will ensure families stay together within one provider network and foster coordinated and personalized health care as well as promote new and innovative care models for patients.




Bottom line, there are clear lies in the article. Therefore, how can any reasonable person trust what they want from it?

Bottom line, you completely fail at intellectual honesty. You wouldn't recognize a reasonable person or position if they bit you on your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

Lies from the Wall Street Journal?..

mmmmkk.
Yes. Outside of the hard facts of any publication, opinion is colored by those who write it. The journalists who write for the WSJ are as human an infallible as any others in the media.

Please...

Don't tell me you think they are unbiased.

I ask again. Did you actually watch the video? I did.

[boutons_deux]

any health care plant that

- doesn't kill Medicare Advantage (+12% more costly than non-Advantage),

- doesn't kill the Repug regulation that prevents US govt from negotiating drug/device prices

- doesn't define the US govt as (hard-assed) single-buyer for drugs/devices/etc for Medicare, Medicaid, VA

... is not serious about reducing the (medicare/medicaid) deficit.

btw, the Ryan (what are his qualifications for dreaming up his fantasy?) vouchers are wildly below what (exorbitant, gouging) sick-care costs are:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/05/11/news/economy/healthcare_costs_family/chart-healthcare-costs.top.jpg

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/11/news/economy/healthcare_costs_family/index.htm

[Wild Cobra]

btw, the Ryan (what are his qualifications for dreaming up his fantasy?) vouchers are wildly below what (exorbitant, gouging) sick-care costs are:

So...

The current idea of $1,100 in monthly vouchers, and more for lower income isn't enough for buying one's own insurance? And it is indexed to medical inflation.

We have to draw the line someplace financially. Where would you draw it at?

Don't forget. The outline released from the democrats is more cutting, and immediate... not giving anyone time to adjust!

[boutons_deux]

"Where would you draw it at?"

The problem is framed all wrong, as the Repugs/VRWC dishonest lying always is.

The solution is to reduce sick-care costs, not limit treatment (get sick and die early) while allowing the sick-care predators to increase their prices at 3x the cost of inlation.

A hard-core public insurance option open to every citizen, as adult countries have, paid for as a percentage of salary and capital income, no cap.

Govt doctors as salaried, overhead-free employees, free to practice medicine rather than stuff their pockets with fee-for-service racketeering. They would get no percentage of the costs of the treatments they order.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So...

The current idea of $1,100 in monthly vouchers, and more for lower income isn't enough for buying one's own insurance? And it is indexed to medical inflation.

We have to draw the line someplace financially. Where would you draw it at?

Don't forget. The outline released from the democrats is more cutting, and immediate... not giving anyone time to adjust!

So to critcize Ryan's proposal as endangering the ability of older Americans to afford insurance is real and should be feared... nice analysis

[coyotes_geek]

Medicare turning into some kind of voucher system is inevitable. It's a system ripe with fraud, the ratio of those receiving benefits to those funding them is only going to get more out of kilter, and government is completely incapable of controlling rising HC costs. As the amount of money medicare can pay doctors to treat medicare patients becomes less and less, more and more doctors will simply stop treating medicare patients. The only solution from that point is for medicare to become a voucher program where the government is forced into just giving people a check for whatever amount the income from payroll taxes allows and saying "good luck".

[boutons_deux]

"government is completely incapable of controlling rising HC costs."

but it's a "free market". Now you want the govt to control HC costs?

UCA is richest country in the history of the universe, but its health care is so expensive, even its health insurance is so expensive, that 10Ms can't afford it, and those that can are getting sucked dry.

"good luck" is the best you can recommend? Why even bother with useless vouchers? How about, fuck off, Darwin says You Die.

People will pile into already-overloaded public health facilities that are paid for by taxpayers anyway.

Universal public insurance option and govt doctors and clinics is the only way to provide least-cost health care. Nobody would cry if the for-profit sick-care system shrank by 75%.

[LnGrrrR]

I thnk a certain idiot Trailblazer fan should refrain from posting until he engages his brain first.

[coyotes_geek]

but it's a "free market". Now you want the govt to control HC costs?

Huh? I said government is incapable of controlling HC costs. How do you read that and come away with the impression that I want the government to control HC costs?


"good luck" is the best you can recommend? Why even bother with useless vouchers? How about, fuck off, Darwin says You Die.

It's not a recommendation, it's a prediction. Just like social security, medicare is merely another ponzi scheme entitlement program that is destined to fail. Just like every other ponzi scheme, people are going to end up getting screwed badly. In this case, the ones getting screwed badly will be anyone foolish enough to have believed that medicare would take care of them.


People will pile into already-overloaded public health facilities that are paid for by taxpayers anyway.

And when those overloaded public health facilities can't handle any more people, they'll start showing people to the door, telling them "good luck".


Universal public insurance option and govt doctors and clinics is the only way to provide least-cost health care. Nobody would cry if the for-profit sick-care system shrank by 75%.

A public option in this country is nothing more than a fantasy. Neither party is interested. Nor is there any logical reason to believe that one would become anything other than another governmental clusterfuck.

[ChumpDumper]

Even Fox News knew Newt bagged on Ryan's plan.

[Wild Cobra]

So to critcize Ryan's proposal as endangering the ability of older Americans to afford insurance is real and should be feared... nice analysis
The costs are real. Where would you draw the line?

Solutions rather than criticism please.

[Wild Cobra]

Medicare turning into some kind of voucher system is inevitable. It's a system ripe with fraud, the ratio of those receiving benefits to those funding them is only going to get more out of kilter, and government is completely incapable of controlling rising HC costs. As the amount of money medicare can pay doctors to treat medicare patients becomes less and less, more and more doctors will simply stop treating medicare patients. The only solution from that point is for medicare to become a voucher program where the government is forced into just giving people a check for whatever amount the income from payroll taxes allows and saying "good luck".
I agree.

One reason for the rising health care costs is the lack of accountability. People who pay little or no co-pay don't care how much it costs their insurance company. When you put individuals in charge of the costs, they shop for the best they can find. Their comes a point when everyone must live within their means. The tax payer dollar is not endless.

[Wild Cobra]

I thnk a certain idiot Trailblazer fan should refrain from posting until he engages his brain first.
Do you even try to understand my point, or blow it off because of your personal bias and lack of open mind?

[LnGrrrR]

Do you even try to understand my point, or blow it off because of your personal bias and lack of open mind?

Lack of open mind? Did you ASSume I was talking about you? I was actually talking about Tlong. Why do you immediately judge me before knowing what I was actually thinking?

[boutons_deux]

"the lack of accountability".

bull fucking shit. You right-winginers are always blaming the citizens, not the gouging sick-care system.

What (working) people have the time to make and attend medical appointments? Maybe a few hypochondriac women, but men are notorious for not going to the docs, quite the opposite problem from too much health care.

This LIE of widespread gratuitous consumption of medical care is just like the LIE of widespread voter fraud.

[Wild Cobra]

Lack of open mind? Did you ASSume I was talking about you? I was actually talking about Tlong. Why do you immediately judge me before knowing what I was actually thinking?
I didn't know Tlong was in this thread. What post did I miss?

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't know Tlong was in this thread. What post did I miss?

He wasn't, but I didn't limit my statement to just this thread. You just assumed that's what I meant, the same way others assumed that Newt was talking about Ryan's plan being "radical".

[Wild Cobra]

He wasn't, but I didn't limit my statement to just this thread.

Then you misplaced this reply, unless you included this Trail Blazer fan. I am the only one in this tread that is a Trailblazer fan.

Why are you lying?

The probability your remarks were not aimed at me are very remote.


You just assumed that's what I meant, the same way others assumed that Newt was talking about Ryan's plan being "radical".

My assumption is based on the placement of your remakes, and I would think it highly probable to be accurate. There is no comparison to my assumption and the assumption of Ryan's misrepresented statements.

[LnGrrrR]

Then you misplaced this reply, unless you included this Trail Blazer fan. I am the only one in this tread that is a Trailblazer fan.

Why are you lying?

I didn't say the dumb Trailblazer thread was in this thread, did I? I merely voiced a comment.


The probability your remarks were not aimed at me are very remote.

And some would say the probability that Newt's comments about a "radical" plan weren't aimed at Ryan's plan would be "very remote". Yet you seem to think it's credible.


My assumption is based on the placement of your remakes, and I would think it highly probable to be accurate. There is no comparison to my assumption and the assumption of Ryan's misrepresented statements.

Why not? In both cases, someone made a comment that seemingly dealt with a topic on hand. Why is it credible for Newt to be responding to hypothetical plans (and not the one just brought up) but it's not credible for me to be citing hypothetical posters?

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't say the dumb Trailblazer thread was in this thread, did I? I merely voiced a comment.

But...

You didn't say "dumb trailblazer thread." You said "certain idiot Trailblazer fan." Singular, not plural.

When will you stop lying? I thought you were someone to be respected, but I now have second thoughts.


And some would say the probability that Newt's comments about a "radical" plan weren't aimed at Ryan's plan would be "very remote". Yet you seem to think it's credible.
Yes, those who didn't verify the lies presented.


Why not? In both cases, someone made a comment that seemingly dealt with a topic on hand. Why is it credible for Newt to be responding to hypothetical plans (and not the one just brought up) but it's not credible for me to be citing hypothetical posters?

Obviouusly, you didn't follow the breadcrumbs like I did. I verified before responding. I researched the quotes.

[LnGrrrR]

But...

You didn't say "dumb trailblazer thread." You said "certain idiot Trailblazer fan." Singular, not plural.

Is Tlong not a certain idiot Trailblazer fan? Prove me wrong.


When will you stop lying? I thought you were someone to be respected, but I now have second thoughts.

You're the one who assumed I was talking about you. Prove I was.


Yes, those who didn't verify the lies presented.

So you've proven that Newt wasn't talking about Ryan's plan? How did you prove that?


Obviouusly, you didn't follow the breadcrumbs like I did. I verified before responding. I researched the quotes.

You tried to say that Newt was responding to a 'hypothetical' plan, and not Ryan's, and you also tried to say that his "right wing social engineering" comment wasn't about the Ryan plan, even though that was exactly what was just being discussed. Why would he be taking the time to discuss a hypothetical plan that no one had brought up? That's kinda like me dissing a poster that isn't even in this thread.

[fraga]

Bad move Newt...really bad move...

[boutons_deux]

Newt Gingrich: ‘Any Ad Which Quotes What I Said On Sunday Is A Falsehood’

I want to make sure every House Republican is protected from some kind of dishonest Democratic ad. So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood. Because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate and I’m prepared to stand up… When I make a mistake — and I’m going to on occassion — I want to share with the American people “that was a mistake” because that way we can have an honest conversation.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/18/gingrich-any-ad-which-quotes-what-i-said/

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Noot must think he's lecturing a bunch of college freshman with 8th grade oral comprehension (actually, tea bagger Congress freshman probably about the same grade level).

[TeyshaBlue]

Obviouusly, you didn't follow the breadcrumbs like I did. I verified before responding. I researched the quotes.

Dude.http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[DMX7]

Newt said that because he knows the Paul Ryan Plan is not popular with the American people, but he's in the primary season, so he can't trash it because it's become part of the republican identity.

[Winehole23]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55171.html

[boutons_deux]

Gingrich and Ryan are both playing the Sarah Palin victim role now with Gingrich claiming the liberal media distorted his comments out of context, and Ryan by accusing Democrats and the White House of calling his Medicare plan a privatization scheme. Ryan also claims Gingrich unfairly labeled his proposal as radical. Although the comments about his plan are all true, crybaby Ryan’s victim position will play well to ignorant Republicans who lack objectivity in assessing the nature of the comments. On Monday, Ryan seized the opportunity to defend his radical proposals to slash entitlement spending and privatize Medicare in a speech in Chicago before the Economic Club.

In typical Republican fashion, Ryan attempted to characterize the drastic entitlement cuts by reframing them as “strengthening welfare for those who need it.” Regardless of Ryan’s reframing, his plan still calls for eliminating Medicare and replacing it with a voucher that will shrink in value as health care costs rise leaving seniors with insufficient coverage. As the costs rise, seniors will end up paying more out of their own pockets and they acknowledge that Ryan’s scheme will force them to forego procedures and prescriptions because vouchers will not cover the most basic health plan. Ryan also accused Democrats who attacked his proposals of engaging in class warfare. The Ryan/Heritage plan escalates the Republican war on seniors by taking Medicare funds and giving them to the wealthy and corporations in the form of tax cuts and corporate entitlements.

Medicare in its present form is popular among seniors by covering necessary health care costs for all beneficiaries as an affordable single-payer program. In spite of its popularity and efficacy, Ryan attempted to characterize the distinction between his privatization scheme and the current Medicare program as a disagreement. In a prepared statement he said, “Our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to inefficient providers. Their plan is to give government the power to deny care to seniors.” If the government plan denies care to seniors as Ryan claims, they would be flocking to the Republican voucher plan; but they are not. The outrage that seniors expressed at Ryan’s proposal indicates their satisfaction with Medicare, and their knowledge of health care costs in the private sector informs them a voucher will be insufficient to meet their health care needs.

Republicans will never stop attempting to privatize Medicare or Social Security. They have made numerous attempts since Reagan was president and although there are different players making the proposals, the end result is always the same. Republicans propose a scheme with a misleading label like Ryan’s “premium care” that replaces Medicare with a voucher for health coverage on the open market. It is an old tactic that Republicans dust off every two or four years and propose to the American people who promptly reject it as a radical proposal that will prove to be insufficient compared to the existing Medicare program. The current incarnation is no different than past proposals, but Republicans will keep trying regardless of the consequences.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/paul-ryan-newt-gingrich

[TeyshaBlue]

lolz

[MannyIsGod]

LOL LOL

"So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood."

-- Newt Gingrich, in an interview on Fox News, backing away from comments that Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget plan was "right wing social engineering."

[coyotes_geek]

Go away Newt. Just go away.............

[Wild Cobra]

Dude.http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png
When his prior words saying he agree with accountability of health care, he said that all people should have insurance, bonded, or otherwise be accountable for their own health. He did not make a claim of it being mandatory. Just that people should be able to pay their own way.

[boutons_deux]

"otherwise be accountable for their own health"

People w/o insurance will be cared for because somehow Americans decided long ago that to grant uninsured/poor people the RIGHT to health care in taxpayer-funded facilities.

Many poor people simply can't afford even rip-off catastrophe health insurance, so the worst are people who can afford it, but game the taxpayers' good faith by refusing to buy health insurance. The health insurance universal mandate tries to de-game that situation.

[boutons_deux]

Scott Brown: Oops! Really, I don't support privatizing Medicare


Sen. Scott "I'll tell you whatever it is I think you want to hear" Brown.

It was only yesterday that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) reiterated his support for the House Republican budget abolishing Medicare. Well, early yesterday.

Because later on yesterday . . .

WASHINGTON—Sen. Scott Brown on Tuesday refused to say if he supports turning Medicare into a voucher system, a key part of a House GOP budget plan and a hot-button issue in his 2012 re-election bid.

The Massachusetts Republican said in a statement that he favors the overall direction Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's budget takes toward reducing spending.

But Brown declined, through a spokesman, to say if he backs Ryan's proposed Medicare overhaul, or if he would vote for the Ryan budget plan.

Here's what he originally said, over the weekend: "The leaders will bring forward (Ryan's) budget, and I will vote for it, and it will fail." So I guess you could say he was for it before he was against it. That always works for politicians.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/18/977120/-Scott-Brown:-Oops!-Really,-I-dont-support-privatizing-Medicare?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

========

tea partiers begging not to be called out for supporting privatizing Medicare and voting for the House resolution, and many Repugs screwing around the positions repeatedly.

Plenty of Dem ammunition there.

[Winehole23]

He did not make a claim of it being mandatory. Just that people should be able to pay their own way.You must be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "mandate."


Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday outlined his strategy to combat rising health care costs — a plan of attack that includes insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year.

Gingrich called it “fundamentally immoral’’ for a person who can afford insurance to save money by going without, then show up at an emergency room and demand free care. He said those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it should be required to post bonds to pay for care they may someday need.http://www.healthinsuranceplansinfo.com/healthinsurance-health-news/pivot/entry.php?id=846w=my_weblog

[Winehole23]

As recently as 2008, in Gingrich’s book, “Real Change”, Newt called for everyone earning above a defined income level to be obligated to buy health care insurance or post a bond to guarantee their ability to pay for their care should they fall ill.


And that’s not all Newt proposed in the book. He also argued for tax credits or government subsidies for the poor to assist them in acquiring health insurance.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/05/13/newt-gingrich-long-time-supporter-of-health-insurance-mandates/

[Winehole23]

So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.



I just hope the lamestream media won’t twist my words by repeatin’ em verbatim

[Wild Cobra]

You must be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "mandate."

Do you always believe what the author of the article says? Did you even read the whole article you linked? This was part of it:

Gingrich said everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government.

Should is not a mandate. The author says "a plan of attack that includes insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year." The only Gingrich quotes I found that were close did not say that.

I say again:


Obviously, you didn't follow the breadcrumbs like I did. I verified before responding. I researched the quotes.
It is impossible to prove a negative. Therefor, I ask you show me a quote in context to support your contention. Please show me where he says mandate.

[Winehole23]

Did you even read the whole article you linked? This was part of it:

Gingrich said everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government. The AP and insurance industry periodicals, as well as Newt's own book, all got it wrong. A likely story.

Should is not a mandate. The author says "a plan of attack that includes insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year." The only Gingrich quotes I found that were close did not say that.Maybe you need to look harder. There are plenty of sources on this, if you care to look. Probably even some direct quotations.

[Wild Cobra]

The AP and insurance industry periodicals, as well as Newt's own book, all got it wrong. A likely story.
My searches never revealed the quote, but did reveal a combination if ideas.

Maybe you need to look harder. There are plenty of sources on this, if you care to look. Probably even some direct quotations.
If you know it exits, then find it for me. If it exists, it should be easy for you to find since you claim it does. You must know a key phrase to find it under.

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you always believe what the author of the article says? Did you even read the whole article you linked? This was part of it:

Should is not a mandate. The author says "a plan of attack that includes insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year." The only Gingrich quotes I found that were close did not say that.

I say again:

It is impossible to prove a negative. Therefor, I ask you show me a quote in context to support your contention. Please show me where he says mandate.

You weasle words like a fucking lawyer, WC. In the context of the discussion, stating that everyone "should" have insurance, (nevermind the syntactic "should" as an auxiliary function to express obligation, or propriety) is the functional equivalent of "required". If you had one ounce of intellectual honesty, you would've conceded this point pages ago. But since you don't, I offer these:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/guess-who-else-liked-the-individual-mandate-newt-gingrich/
In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”
And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.
In 2008′s “Real Change,” he wrote, “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.”
In 2005′s “Winning the Future,” he expanded on the idea in more detail: “You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. … We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”
“People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance,” he continued. “Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible.”

[MannyIsGod]

follw the bread crumbs retard

[Wild Cobra]

You weasle words like a fucking lawyer, WC. In the context of the discussion, stating that everyone "should" have insurance, (nevermind the syntactic "should" as an auxiliary function to express obligation, or propriety) is the functional equivalent of "required". If you had one ounce of intellectual honesty, you would've conceded this point pages ago. But since you don't, I offer these:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/guess-who-else-liked-the-individual-mandate-newt-gingrich/
In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”
And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.
In 2008′s “Real Change,” he wrote, “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.”
In 2005′s “Winning the Future,” he expanded on the idea in more detail: “You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. … We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”
“People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance,” he continued. “Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible.”
I did find the entire transcript of the partial quotes you listed. Within that, at the end, he left open the allowing acknowledgement that people are not required to have coverage, but that they acknowledge its still their personal responsibility.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ok so he's playing both sides of the argument, which he does constantly. Still doesn't negate the point : He advocated a mandate. http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[TeyshaBlue]

If you know it exits, then find it for me. If it exists, it should be easy for you to find since you claim it does. You must know a key phrase to find it under.

Delivered. Now stfu and move along.

[TeyshaBlue]

BTW...a couple of pages ago, your initial premise was destroyed also. See a pattern?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5244457&postcount=39

[baseline bum]

uuo3dBP431k

[TeyshaBlue]

Newt's frustrating as hell. Sometimes he comes across like he actually has a clue. Other times I just want to grab his melon and yell into his ears "Is anybody in there?"

[RandomGuy]

Newt's a hoot..


"Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood."

bXmrOt9LVm8


:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

bXmrOt9LVm8


:lmao

I know. I couldn't have scripted this shit any funnier.:lol:lol

[RandomGuy]

BTW...a couple of pages ago, your initial premise was destroyed also. See a pattern?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5244457&postcount=39

Damn, you beat me to it.

He was directly responding to a question about the Ryan plan.

Instead of actually watching the interview to see the other side of the question, he just looked at the direct quote, and assumed that "the media" and libtards were lying and goes off.

Classic.

Predictable.

[Wild Cobra]

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay-- help pay for healthcare. And-- and I think that-- there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently-- where there's some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.
Accountability does not mean insurance. In my case, I would be indicate accountability by paying out of pocket as needed.

[RandomGuy]

I know. I couldn't have scripted this shit any funnier.:lol:lol


Also notable was something Jon Stewart noted:


Instead of standing by his statements, Gingrich placed the blame on "Meet The Press," saying it was a "set-up" and implying that David Gregory had somehow tricked him into saying Ryan's plan was radical. He even said, "any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/jon-stewart-newt-gingrich_n_864030.html

The guy was "ambushed" by a show he has been on 35 times?

Seriously?

[RandomGuy]

Accountability does not mean insurance. In my case, I would be indicate accountability by paying out of pocket as needed.

Meh. Medical bills don't go on your credit report (supposedly), and medical costs are one of the primary drivers of bankruptcy.

A personal statement of "accountability" means :jack

[clambake]

Accountability does not mean insurance. In my case, I would be indicate accountability by paying out of pocket as needed.

you don't have health insurance?

damn, we're gonna end up paying for this clown, again.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it so important for you to continue to be wrong, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

you don't have health insurance?

damn, we're gonna end up paying for this clown, again.
I have been without healthcare for myself and family at times. I have paid out of pocket. It's not as expensive as you think it is when the doctors get cash payment. They don't have to fill out all that extra paperwork that gets audited and kicked back for any stupid reason. Paid on the spot, their prices are amazingly less if you shop around.

[clambake]

I have been without healthcare for myself and family at times. I have paid out of pocket. It's not as expensive as you think it is when the doctors get cash payment. They don't have to fill out all that extra paperwork that gets audited and kicked back for any stupid reason. Paid on the spot, their prices are amazingly less if you shop around.

you think we're worried about paying for an office visit?

[Wild Cobra]

Why must you all change the goalpost?

I quoted Gingrich that clearly means having insurance is not a mandate by his ideas.

Do you guys lack the integrity to acknowledge that?

[boutons_deux]

Accountability does not mean insurance. In my case, I would be indicate accountability by paying out of pocket as needed.

You need a cardiac stent. You have $125K cash?

Something weird in your lungs. You got $25K cash?

Umbilical hernia, really boring, 100Ks done per year. $16K cash.

etc, etc.

People who are living from paycheck to paycheck, 10Ms of them, don't have $10Ks in their pockets.

[RandomGuy]

BTW...a couple of pages ago, your initial premise was destroyed also. See a pattern?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5244457&postcount=39

It is a long established pattern.

Topic of article:
Should impacts of reduced pollution on health costs be considered when calculating costs/benefits of proposed air pollution legilstation?

The main point of the article was that the CBO was considering doing this to make their estimates a bit more comprehensive.

WC's immediate take on that was that the AP journalist was biased, so we couldn't believe the article, despite the fact that the journalist directly quoted a CBO official.

When pressed on the fact of whether or not the articles depiction of the internal debate was accurate, he then went off on the definition of "pollution" or something similar, and then went even further fixating on one word in the article that was given as a plural when it should have been a singular to be more technically accurate.

This was then used as a logical reason to completely discount the entire thrust of the article somehow, and how silly liberals were to think that including health costs in calculation of the costs of air pollution should be considered.

I was left shaking my head at that one.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why must you all change the goalpost?

I quoted Gingrich that clearly means having insurance is not a mandate by his ideas.

Do you guys lack the integrity to acknowledge that?

It's not a lack of integrity on our part, WC. It's your appalling lack of intellectual honesty. I'll just post this again so you can continue your demonstration of an utter lack of comprehension. http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gue...newt-gingrich/
In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”
And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.
In 2008′s “Real Change,” he wrote, “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.”
In 2005′s “Winning the Future,” he expanded on the idea in more detail: “You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. … We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”
“People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance,” he continued. “Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible.

[RandomGuy]

I have been without healthcare for myself and family at times. I have paid out of pocket. It's not as expensive as you think it is when the doctors get cash payment. They don't have to fill out all that extra paperwork that gets audited and kicked back for any stupid reason. Paid on the spot, their prices are amazingly less if you shop around.

Which is all well and good until you get hit by a bus.

With the rapture coming up and all I would hope that all the bus drivers are sinners, cause I'd hate to be driving my ass down the street when the rapture happens, and some jackwad true believer vanishes in a puff of glitter and unicorn dust, leaving his out of control 15 ton-vehicle to smash into me.

[DMX7]

A typical person would have bailed out on page one.

But at this point, it's not possible for WC to make any bigger fool of himself, so I guess he's playing with house money here.

[TeyshaBlue]

A typical person would have bailed out on page one.

But at this point, it's not possible for WC to make any bigger fool of himself, so I guess he's playing with house money here.

Your lack of integrity is showing, DMX.:lol

[RandomGuy]

I have been without healthcare for myself and family at times. I have paid out of pocket. It's not as expensive as you think it is when the doctors get cash payment. They don't have to fill out all that extra paperwork that gets audited and kicked back for any stupid reason. Paid on the spot, their prices are amazingly less if you shop around.

The costs billed by providers to insurance companies includes overhead provisions that recover the costs of people who don't/can't pay.

They are giving you a price, which, if given to everybody, would make them go bankrupt.

You are getting a discount at below long-term costs, essentially.

Oddly enough you have touched on one of the benefits of a single payor system, i.e. efficiency of claims processing by providers.

[ChumpDumper]

The costs billed by providers to insurance companies includes overhead provisions that recover the costs of people who don't/can't pay.

They are giving you a price, which, if given to everybody, would make them go bankrupt.

You are getting a discount at below long-term costs, essentially.Why does WC insist on mooching off of responsible people?

[LnGrrrR]

An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”

Ha! See? He said should! That invalidates your whole argument! [/WC]

[TeyshaBlue]

Ha! See? He said should! That invalidates your whole argument! [/WC]

Dammit!:depressed










:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

WC still getting beaten over the head..where's darrins to bail you out?

[Wild Cobra]

You need a cardiac stent. You have $125K cash?

Something weird in your lungs. You got $25K cash?

Umbilical hernia, really boring, 100Ks done per year. $16K cash.

etc, etc.

People who are living from paycheck to paycheck, 10Ms of them, don't have $10Ks in their pockets.
I'm one that would be content to die if necessary.

I have different outlooks than most of you. I'm not afraid of dying. I am at peace with my soul.

[clambake]

I'm one that would be content to die if necessary.

I have different outlooks than most of you. I'm not afraid of dying. I am at peace with my soul.

hey, dumbass, EMT's will not (unfortunately) just sit and watch you die.

unfuckingbelievable that you still need the nanny state.

[Wild Cobra]

MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...
REP. GINGRICH: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.
Stop thinking. You're not very good at it.

Bottom line, you completely fail at intellectual honesty. You wouldn't recognize a reasonable person or position if they bit you on your ass.
Bullshit, you fail. You missed the verification part. Where is your critical thinking?

I not only read the transcript, but watched the video. I'm glad you posted this, but wish I noticed the inconsistency earlier. MSNBC is lying with that posted transcript!

I should have been more careful since that is their MO...


MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.
They added words he never said. Gregory went on without interruption. Watch this YouTube, starting at 5:54, you will see I'm right.

PrMWq41Byj8

If you lazy asses would actually verify these things, you might learn something.

[Wild Cobra]

It is a long established pattern.

Topic of article:
Should impacts of reduced pollution on health costs be considered when calculating costs/benefits of proposed air pollution legilstation?

The main point of the article was that the CBO was considering doing this to make their estimates a bit more comprehensive.

WC's immediate take on that was that the AP journalist was biased, so we couldn't believe the article, despite the fact that the journalist directly quoted a CBO official.

When pressed on the fact of whether or not the articles depiction of the internal debate was accurate, he then went off on the definition of "pollution" or something similar, and then went even further fixating on one word in the article that was given as a plural when it should have been a singular to be more technically accurate.

This was then used as a logical reason to completely discount the entire thrust of the article somehow, and how silly liberals were to think that including health costs in calculation of the costs of air pollution should be considered.

I was left shaking my head at that one.
But you are wrong. Look at my previous post and watch the video, advanced to 5:54.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not a lack of integrity on our part, WC. It's your appalling lack of intellectual honesty. I'll just post this again so you can continue your demonstration of an utter lack of comprehension. http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gue...newt-gingrich/
In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”
And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.
In 2008′s “Real Change,” he wrote, “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.”
In 2005′s “Winning the Future,” he expanded on the idea in more detail: “You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. … We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”
“People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance,” he continued. “Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible.
Did you break that link purposely so I couldn't read it?

Also, I couldn't find that quote at the Des Moines Register archives.

Another lie in transcript like the one I exposed a few posts back?

I suggest you find the original Op Ed and read it in context.

[ChumpDumper]

Bullshit, you fail. You missed the verification part. Where is your critical thinking?

I not only read the transcript, but watched the video. I'm glad you posted this, but wish I noticed the inconsistency earlier. MSNBC is lying with that posted transcript!

I should have been more careful since that is their MO...

They added words he never said. Gregory went on without interruption. Watch this YouTube, starting at 5:54, you will see I'm right.

PrMWq41Byj8

If you lazy asses would actually verify these things, you might learn something.I watched it.

Newt did say what is written in the transcript.

[ChumpDumper]

Did you break that link purposely so I couldn't read it?The search to find the link took 0.61 seconds.

See if you can do it.

[clambake]

what the fuck is this moocher even doing in this thread?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll refrain from calling you an outright liar and conclude you didn't hear Newt say "Right."

Is that the case?

[Wild Cobra]

I watched it.

Newt did say what is written in the transcript.
He did not say "Right" between Gregory's words.

[Wild Cobra]

The search to find the link took 0.61 seconds.

See if you can do it.
Just fuck of chump monkeybot.

I found it right after I posted that reply as well. Problem is, it's sections of quotes, not in context. He could have meant anything other than how it appears by it's layout.

How many times have I pointed out that context and accuracy is important?

Why are you OK with misconstruing the truth?

[ChumpDumper]

He did not say "Right" between Gregory's words.He said it just after Gregory started saying "seniors."

Is this really an issue to you?

He said the word.

It's in the transcript.

Either you didn't hear it or you are lying.

Which is it?

[ChumpDumper]

Just fuck of chump monkeybot.

I found it right after I posted that reply as well. Problem is, it's sections of quotes, not in context. He could have meant anything other than how it appears by it's layout.

How many times have I pointed out that context and accuracy is important?

Why are you OK with misconstruing the truth?Just what do you think a transcript is, WC?

[ChumpDumper]

Just fuck of chump monkeybot.

I found it right after I posted that reply as well. Problem is, it's sections of quotes, not in context. He could have meant anything other than how it appears by it's layout.

How many times have I pointed out that context and accuracy is important?

Why are you OK with misconstruing the truth?Accuracy isn't important to you.

You left out a word Newt said.

Why are you lying about it?

[Wild Cobra]

Accuracy isn't important to you.

You left out a word Newt said.

Why are you lying about it?
LOL...

I link the evidence, and you still say I'm wrong...

LOL...

LOL...

You are such a useful idiot for the left.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

I link the evidence, and you still say I'm wrong...

LOL...

LOL...

You are such a useful idiot for the left.Are you saying Newt never said "right" during that exchange (about 6:13 on the video)?

Yes or no.

[TeyshaBlue]

Look you ignorant fuck, Newt supported a mandate, period. No amount of whining and your pathetic attempt at heaping your demented world view upon it is going to change that. Fucking ideologues like you, Darrin, boutons, nbadan share one singular trait...you suffer from a pathological inability to be wrong. Fucking delusional.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying Newt never said "right" during that exchange (about 6:13 on the video)?

Yes or no.
Yes...

If you put your noise cancelling headphones on and listen carefully, the low volume sound you hear is "no."

[ChumpDumper]

Yes...

If you put your noise cancelling headphones on and listen carefully, the low volume sound you hear is "no."OK, if that's the case your "transcript" is inaccurate.

In addition, if it is "no," that actually supports the claim that Newt was expressing his dislike of the Ryan plan.

Either way, you're wrong.

I can live with that.

Thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

Look you ignorant fuck, Newt supported a mandate, period. No amount of whining and your pathetic attempt at heaping your demented world view upon it is going to change that. Fucking ideologues like you, Darrin, boutons, nbadan share one singular trait...you suffer from a pathological inability to be wrong. Fucking delusional.
Then show me.

Where are the transcripts, preferable video in full context. When you give me broken quotes, that's meaningless because the journalist can change the intent of the words.

Put up or shut up!

[ChumpDumper]

The Detroit Free Press went back in time to misrepresent Newt's abject hatred of heath insurance mandates.


In his keynote speech during the Greater Detroit Area Health Council's annual Health Trends Conference on Monday in Dearborn, Gingrich called for:

* A free-market system that encourages Americans to take more responsibility for their health care. He would require Americans over a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/456298/health_cost_savings_backed_gingrich_calls_for_nati onal_reform/index.html

[Wild Cobra]

The Detroit Free Press went back in time to misrepresent Newt's abject hatred of heath insurance mandates.



http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/456298/health_cost_savings_backed_gingrich_calls_for_nati onal_reform/index.html
Have a video to go along with that by chance?

[ChumpDumper]

A Nebraska paper did the same thing, but they only went three years back in time.


OMAHA — Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday outlined his strategy to combat rising health care costs — a plan of attack that includes insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year.

Gingrich called it “fundamentally immoral’’ for a person who can afford insurance to save money by going without, then show up at an emergency room and demand free care. He said those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it should be required to post bonds to pay for care they may someday need.http://www.healthinsuranceplansinfo.com/healthinsurance-health-news/pivot/entry.php?id=846&w=my_weblog

Diabolical!

[Wild Cobra]

Problem is chump that he has stated something to the effect "or take personal responsibility." Those words may not be all he said, and he may have said that each time. Without a complete and accurate transcript, preferable video, we are subject to the medias omissions.

Haven't you figured that out yet?

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.alegent.com/movies/Newt_AlegentHealth_61108.wmv

44:15

Asshole.

[ChumpDumper]

I think you've got to require everybody to either have insurance or post a bond.http://www.alegent.com/movies/Newt_AlegentHealth_61108.wmv

44:15

Asshole.

[ChumpDumper]

Does it sound different through noise-canceling headphones?

Does it take ten minutes to watch five seconds of video?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you choking on it?

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously WC, the question and Newt's answer took only four minutes.

Quit stalling.

[Wild Cobra]

Does it sound different through noise-canceling headphones?

Does it take ten minutes to watch five seconds of video?
LOL...

Idiot.

I just got back from stepping out, plus, my player or that video won't let me advance to that point. Some of my options are ghosted out. Must be embedded in the video. I had to let it play and play and play, but put it on pause to do something else too.

It's only at 28:17 right now.

[Wild Cobra]

After it completely loaded, it let me advance it. He doesn't include the "or take personal responsibility" on this older speech. That doesn't mean he isn't an advocate now. We all change out mind over time, and he did recently clearly add that extra point.

At least he wants it to be a 300 million payer system instead of a single payer system.

You have to remember. He is a politician, and in this case talking to an health care provider.

[MannyIsGod]

You're fucking unreal WC.

[Wild Cobra]

You're fucking unreal WC.

Are you saying he never recently added the personal responsibility?

At least be honest.

Look, he's a politician that won't fair well in the primaries. I will likely spoil my vote before voting for him if he takes the primary. Still, I have a hard time letting the liberal lies prevail.

[TeyshaBlue]

You're fucking unreal WC.

LOL. I've never seen such a spectacular display of willful ignorance. Bravo, WC.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Are you saying he never recently added the personal responsibility?

At least be honest.

Look, he's a politician that won't fair well in the primaries. I will likely spoil my vote before voting for him if he takes the primary. Still, I have a hard time letting the liberal lies prevail.

Ideologues like you do more damage to conservatism than a thousand liberal lies.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL. I've never seen such a spectacular display of willful ignorance. Bravo, WC.:lmao
What ignorance?

He did say as I said he did. If you wish to interpret something in it's worse light that's your problem.

Was I or was I not accurate on the specific quote mistakes I pointed out?

[baseline bum]

LOL. I've never seen such a spectacular display of willful ignorance. Bravo, WC.:lmao


Did you just mean for today?

[ploto]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-18-2011/fast-dive?xrs=share_copy

[Jamtas#2]

WC - you can by all means be a champion for the republican party..it doesn't mean you have to run a suicide mission in defense though man...Newt ain't worth it. The guy is a slimy politican who will cahnge his tune to whoever he is in front of at the moment. I cringed when he said in calling Paul Ryan to apologize "He is a close and personal friend". Out of all the BS flwoing through his mouth at the time, that line took the cake. How disingenious can one person be?

If you do want to stand by Newt, then take a lesson and admit "I was wrong and I'm going to be wrong again in the future"

[LnGrrrR]

Prove to me where Newt said it! Do it in video! With that exact combination of words!

Oh wait, you found that proof? Well, he probably just changed his mind, so no big deal.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

After it completely loaded, it let me advance it. He doesn't include the "or take personal responsibility" on this older speech. That doesn't mean he isn't an advocate now. We all change out mind over time, and he did recently clearly add that extra point.Yes, we can see that you changed your mind about what you are actually talking about. The point was he advocated individual mandates. You denied it until it was shoved straight up your ass, then you tried to say you didn't feel it going in.


At least he wants it to be a 300 million payer system instead of a single payer system.So you're in favor of Obama's (and Newt's and Romney's and the Heritage Foundation's) individual mandates.


You have to remember. He is a politician, and in this case talking to an health care provider.You have to remember you were wrong and you went to the mat claiming Newt never supported a individual health insurance mandate.

He did.

You have the reports.

You have the quotes.

You have the video.

[Winehole23]

Ross (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/the-lessons-of-gingrich-v-ryan/#more-13293):

But some of Gingrich’s more enthusiastic critics are failing the test as well, by behaving as if the Ryan budget represents some kind of sacred right-wing writ. Unless American politics changes beyond recognition, Ryan’s plan cannot and will not become the law of the land in its current form. And while it has many virtues, it has many flaws as well. Its example should call Republican presidential candidates to a greater seriousness about Medicare reform than most conservative politicians have manifested to date. But it cannot, and must not, become a rigid litmus test: That way lies intellectual sclerosis, and political disaster [bold mine-DL].
It’s still true that “greater seriousness about Medicare reform” is politically disastrous for either party. One reason is that the other party has every incentive to demagogue the issue for short-term gain. That was why Republicans demagogued health care legislation for its cuts to Medicare, and presented themselves as last-ditch defenders of the Medicare status quo. Politically, it worked. They carried the day with older voters, and maximized their midterm election advantage. The GOP rode the election wave to a majority in the House partly by defending the same “unserious status quo ante” that Gingrich was out there defending over the weekend. Gingrich deserves no sympathy, because he has tried and keeps trying to have it both ways, and he has jumped back and forth on more than one issue in the space of a few weeks or months this year. On the question of whether there must be major changes to entitlements or not, it’s important to emphasize that Gingrich gave the wrong but popular answer.



However, the overwhelmingly hostile conservative reaction to Gingrich is interesting because he is now being denounced for making the explicit political case against Ryan’s proposal that the entire party leadership endorsed less openly in the year before the midterms. This is instructive. This is how policy debates often function inside the GOP and the conservative movement. Once a position has become the party line, what came before it is irrelevant. Previously reliable people suddenly become deviationists because they fail to keep up with the shifting requirements of movement and party loyalty. This is how we end up with defenses of the budget plan of a supporter of Medicare Part D as a new unquestionable standard of fiscal responsibility.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/05/18/rigid-litmus-tests/

[ChumpDumper]

At least be honest.Really?

Really?

[Winehole23]

You have the reports.

You have the quotes.

You have the video.You weren't there. Video can be faked. So can newspaper articles. You can't prove it's not a media conspiracy.

Sorry, but I see no direct evidence here.

Why are you so libtarded?

[Winehole23]

Anyone who quotes Gingrich correctly is guilty of slander....

[Wild Cobra]

Prove to me where Newt said it! Do it in video! With that exact combination of words!

Oh wait, you found that proof? Well, he probably just changed his mind, so no big deal.

:lmao
So what He added an exception more recently. I showed that. That other video was what, four years ago? Maybe he realized his original thoughts were not comprehensive enough for people. Maybe he didn't realized originally that it was unconstitutional.

Do you only judge people by their past?

[Winehole23]

A foolish insistence on consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but surely the cure for the narrow-mindedness you complain of has to begin with a candid acknowledgment of the inconsistencies.

Glad to see you're starting to come around.

[clambake]

this life long nanny state loser has no business discussing healthcare.

he could have insurance and lessen the burden on us, but instead spends his money at strip clubs.

all the reasons she left keep adding up.

[ChumpDumper]

So what He added an exception more recently. I showed that. That other video was what, four years ago? Maybe he realized his original thoughts were not comprehensive enough for people. Maybe he didn't realized originally that it was unconstitutional.

Do you only judge people by their past?I judge a person's past by his past.

We were talking about a position Newt held in the past.

We all know he flip-flopped on the issue of a health insurance mandate that he supported as late as the year of the last presidential election. Even you have to know that now.

Do you know that now?

Yes or no.

[LnGrrrR]

So what He added an exception more recently. I showed that. That other video was what, four years ago? Maybe he realized his original thoughts were not comprehensive enough for people. Maybe he didn't realized originally that it was unconstitutional.

Do you only judge people by their past?


Priceless. If you're going to stand on your high horse and demand proof of something, acting as if proof will change your mind, and then you get said proof, the least you could do is admit you were wrong.

[TeyshaBlue]

Priceless. If you're going to stand on your high horse and demand proof of something, acting as if proof will change your mind, and then you get said proof, the least you could do is admit you were wrong.

He simply cannot. It's bizarre.

[TeyshaBlue]

GOP Donors deserting Newt Gingrich (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/gop-donors-deserting-newt-gingrich_n_863910.html)

See ya Newt.

[ChumpDumper]

Unbelievable.

gJlL2vfXnJg

[Wild Cobra]

GOP Donors deserting Newt Gingrich (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/gop-donors-deserting-newt-gingrich_n_863910.html)

See ya Newt.
It doesn't surprise me, but I won't bother reading the Huff~n~Puff article, especially since you linked it wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Link smack?

:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

It doesn't surprise me, but I won't bother reading the Huff~n~Puff article, especially since you linked it wrong.

Awwww.....here's a link from Politico. Is this better, little fella? http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55187.html

[TeyshaBlue]

Link smack?

:lmao

lolz

Here's a functioning link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/gop-donors-deserting-newt-gingrich_n_863910.html

[RandomGuy]

A Nebraska paper did the same thing, but they only went three years back in time.

http://www.healthinsuranceplansinfo.com/healthinsurance-health-news/pivot/entry.php?id=846&w=my_weblog

Diabolical!

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/diabolical2.jpg

[Winehole23]

You denied it until it was shoved straight up your ass, then you tried to say you didn't feel it going in.
Like throwing a hotdog down a hallway... you have to consider the the thousand or so times something similar has happened in this subforum.

[TeyshaBlue]

*bulk erases mental imaging centers of brain.*

[Winehole23]

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Like throwing a hotdog down a hallway... you have to consider the the thousand or so times something similar has happened in this subforum.

:rollin "hotdog down a hallway" :rollin

[boutons_deux]

Gingrich Walks Back Support For Poll Tests Just A Day After Reiterating Support For Them

Former GOP House Speaker and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich walked back his support for poll tests Friday, just a day after reiterating support for making young Americans pass an American history test in order to gain voting rights.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/20/gingrich-poll-test-flip/

[boutons_deux]

Gingrich Walks Back Support For Poll Tests Just A Day After Reiterating Support For Them

Former GOP House Speaker and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich walked back his support for poll tests Friday, just a day after reiterating support for making young Americans pass an American history test in order to gain voting rights.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/20/gingrich-poll-test-flip/

[clambake]

Accountability does not mean insurance. In my case, I would be indicate accountability by paying out of pocket as needed.

here you go asshole. stop lying in the other thread.

[Wild Cobra]

here you go asshole. stop lying in the other thread.
My god.

Your command of understanding the English language is pitiful.

I said "would." That is under a specific set of circumstances pertaining to his statement of responsibility. That does not mean that is how I do things now. I have had insurance for several years now, but paid full out of pocket when I didn't. I can show proof that's how I operate when I don't have insurance, and nobody is going to force me to buy a product I don't want.

I am sick and tired of your endless attacks for no good cause against me. Why don't you grow a few brain cells and start understanding that you are so wrong all the time. Maybe if you didn't try to attack me for any little thing you think you can spin, people would have some respect for you in life.

[clambake]

I'm one that would be content to die if necessary.

I have different outlooks than most of you. I'm not afraid of dying. I am at peace with my soul.

here you go, asshole. stop lying. thats why she left you.