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

[Wild Cobra]

Look you ignorant , 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. ing ideologues like you, Darrin, boutons, nbadan share one singular trait...you suffer from a pathological inability to be wrong. ing 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/...orm/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/...orm/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....46&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_A...alth_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_A...alth_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 ing unreal WC.

[Wild Cobra]

You're ing 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 ing unreal WC.

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

[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.

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.

Did you just mean for today?

[ploto]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...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.

[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:

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 en lements 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...-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 lib ed?