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?
"the lack of accountability".
bull ing . 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.
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".
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.
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.
I didn't say the dumb Trailblazer thread was in this thread, did I? I merely voiced a comment.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, those who didn't verify the lies presented.
Obviouusly, you didn't follow the breadcrumbs like I did. I verified before responding. I researched the quotes.
Is Tlong not a certain idiot Trailblazer fan? Prove me wrong.
You're the one who assumed I was talking about you. Prove I was.
So you've proven that Newt wasn't talking about Ryan's plan? How did you prove that?
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.
Bad move Newt...really bad move...
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/...s-what-i-said/
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).
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 iden y.
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 en lement spending and privatize Medicare in a speech in Chicago before the Economic Club.
In typical Republican fashion, Ryan attempted to characterize the drastic en lement 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 en lements.
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
lolz
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."
Go away Newt. Just go away.............
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.
"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.
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/2011/0...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.
You must be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "mandate."
http://www.healthinsuranceplansinfo....846w=my_weblogFormer 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://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/20...ance-mandates/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.
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.Gingrich said everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government.
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.
The AP and insurance industry periodicals, as well as Newt's own book, all got it wrong. A likely story.
Maybe you need to look harder. There are plenty of sources on this, if you care to look. Probably even some direct quotations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
