PDA

View Full Version : Elections Gingrich says all have a responsibility to pay for healthcare


Chocolate Hog
05-15-2011, 06:29 PM
JFC Republicans are becoming about as spineless as Democrats.

http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/05/15/newt-shocks-conservatives

BucEyedPea
05-15-2011, 07:11 PM
Yes Newt, you do see eye-to-eye with Pelosi.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qi6n_-wB154" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
05-15-2011, 07:12 PM
Not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties!

Simplex3
05-15-2011, 07:18 PM
Well, he just dug his own grave.

alnorth
05-15-2011, 07:37 PM
we all pay for healthcare anyway. If something is wrong with you, you'll just go to the hospital, run up a million dollar bill, go bankrupt, and stick the taxpayers with the bill.

What we need to do is figure out how to pay for health care without allowing people to be useless freeloaders by choosing not to be insured when they could have bought it. If you are "uninsured", you really are not uninsured. I am paying for your damned "insurance".

JASONSAUTO
05-15-2011, 08:04 PM
we all pay for healthcare anyway. If something is wrong with you, you'll just go to the hospital, run up a million dollar bill, go bankrupt, and stick the taxpayers with the bill.

What we need to do is figure out how to pay for health care without allowing people to be useless freeloaders by choosing not to be insured when they could have bought it. If you are "uninsured", you really are not uninsured. I am paying for your damned "insurance".
They should find a way to make it more affordable.
Posted via Mobile Device

alnorth
05-15-2011, 08:07 PM
They should find a way to make it more affordable.
Posted via Mobile Device

You need either a magic wand, or you need to change the law to say that expensive life-saving treatments are no longer a right. Don't even bother talking about malpractice reform, thats a drop in the bucket.

If you cant get the voters to forgo having a right to expensive treatment, then the only option left is to force them to pay for it, because allowing people to strategically not buy insurance, then become useless freeloaders if they guessed wrong and got sick, is unacceptable.

JASONSAUTO
05-15-2011, 08:11 PM
You need either a magic wand, or you need to change the law to say that expensive life-saving treatments are no longer a right. Don't even bother talking about malpractice reform, thats a drop in the bucket.

If you cant get the voters to forgo having a right to expensive treatment, then the only option left is to force them to pay for it, because allowing people to strategically not buy insurance, then become useless freeloaders if they guessed wrong and got sick, is unacceptable.

Yeah I don't know how to do it. But how do prescriptions cost so much less in canada or mexico?

We bought a hyperbaric chamber for our daughter. 22 thousand dollars. Didn't cost 10% of that to produce.
Posted via Mobile Device

Dave Lane
05-15-2011, 08:20 PM
OK well that's 2 Republicans down in as many days.

alnorth
05-15-2011, 08:51 PM
OK well that's 2 Republicans down in as many days.

Not that I'm a Gingrich fan or anything, but what are we looking for here? A dishonest politician who will lie and say the things you want to hear even though its impossible?

dirk digler
05-15-2011, 08:53 PM
He's basically right and it is something a lot of us on the left have argued for the last couple of years.

alnorth
05-15-2011, 08:55 PM
Yeah I don't know how to do it. But how do prescriptions cost so much less in canada or mexico?

We bought a hyperbaric chamber for our daughter. 22 thousand dollars. Didn't cost 10% of that to produce.
Posted via Mobile Device

fair enough.

In the case of Canada and Mexico, the federal governments strong-armed the drug companies, basically saying "we understand some medicines you make are cheap and some are expensive, but you are forbidden to to charge more than $X for ANYTHING. If you will not do this, then we will forbid you from selling ANYTHING at ALL in our country, and we know you'll agree to our demand because the money you lose on cancer and aids medicine will be made up in being able to charge a little more for cheaper widely-used medicine."

Given our strong free-market hands-off tradition in our country, that would be kinda hard to do.

That is just medicine though, that doesn't get into expensive treatments. Other countries don't mitigate those costs, they just have high-as-hell taxes to pay for it.

dirk digler
05-15-2011, 08:56 PM
Not that I'm a Gingrich fan or anything, but what are we looking for here? A dishonest politician who will lie and say the things you want to hear even though its impossible?

He is dishonest and a multiple cheater.

cdcox
05-15-2011, 09:05 PM
Anyone who thinks very deeply about this subject is going to come to the same conclusion as alnorth.

The Republicans had to drop the Medicare overhaul provision form the Ryan plan because it flatly just wouldn't work.

Chocolate Hog
05-15-2011, 09:53 PM
Not that I'm a Gingrich fan or anything, but what are we looking for here? A dishonest politician who will lie and say the things you want to hear even though its impossible?

Gingrich isn't an honest guy though.

alnorth
05-15-2011, 11:01 PM
Gingrich isn't an honest guy though.

In this case, it seems to me that Gingrich is telling a truth that you refuse to hear, and you are stubbornly waiting for some other politician to lie to you. Even though that lie will require magical money conjured out of thin air or a lot of people benevolantly choosing to forgo expensive treatment, that they are entitled to for the good of the country.

How stupid or naive do you have to be to believe this will happen? If the people want high-quality health care, (and they obviously want it at any cost), than they must pay for it!!!

BucEyedPea
05-15-2011, 11:05 PM
He's basically right and it is something a lot of us on the left have argued for the last couple of years.

No he's not. It's just his opinion. If it's a responsibility where does the Constitution say the "all have a responsibility to pay for healtcare?"



NOWHERE


And costs used to be kept down although most could afford it at one time even if it wasn't dirt cheap.

BucEyedPea
05-15-2011, 11:11 PM
Given our strong free-market hands-off tradition in our country, that would be kinda hard to do.

We have this?

alnorth
05-15-2011, 11:14 PM
No he's not. It's just his opinion. If it's a responsibility where does the Constitution say the "all have a responsibility to pay for healtcare?"



NOWHERE


And costs used to be kept down although most could afford it at one time even if it wasn't dirt cheap.

fair enough. It is fair to put to a vote what level of care we should be entitled to.

I suspect it will be a level lower than Europe, but much, much higher than you'd expect. Some will vote against mandated insurance simply because they want a chance to "game the system" and "cheat" by not buying insurance, than forcing the public (all the rest of of us non-free-loaders) to "insure" them if they guess wrong.

Well, if we took that "free-loader" option off the table, I suspect our population would vote for a system that is far more equal for health care than what we have today.

BucEyedPea
05-15-2011, 11:25 PM
fair enough. It is fair to put to a vote what level of care we should be entitled to.
If it's not in the Constitution, then I don't see the need of putting it to a vote. The Constitution was written to restrain the Federal govt's role by limiting it to certain areas as well as to prevent majoritarianism. The latter which the Farmers discussed as a tyranny. This is why we were not founded as a democracy. We give other countries that.

cdcox
05-15-2011, 11:28 PM
fair enough. It is fair to put to a vote what level of care we should be entitled to.

I suspect it will be a level lower than Europe, but much, much higher than you'd expect. Some will vote against mandated insurance simply because they want a chance to "game the system" and "cheat" by not buying insurance, than forcing the public (all the rest of of us non-free-loaders) to "insure" them if they guess wrong.

Well, if we took that "free-loader" option off the table, I suspect our population would vote for a system that is far more equal for health care than what we have today.

The "free loader option" needs to be you pay cash before treatment or you bleed out on the street after a car accident, wheeze to death at home from a treatable case of pneumonia, or die from an appendicitis.

Too many people want freedom from responsibility.

BucEyedPea
05-15-2011, 11:31 PM
The "free loader option" needs to be you pay cash before treatment or you bleed out on the street after a car accident, wheeze to death at home from a treatable case of pneumonia, or die from an appendicitis.

Yeah, too bad, back in the days before govt involvement in healthcare that didn't happen. That is people being turned away.
Meanwhile, many die in socialist healthcare systems and many more died before modern medicine achieved it's miracles—all of which came because of the free-market in healthcare. Remember people were vying for socialized medicine during the earlier Progressive era too. Where would be be if that ever happened. Probably many more of us would be dead.

Too many people want freedom from responsibility.
Exactly what people wanting govt enforced healthcare to want.


BTW, the free-loader system back in the day was doctors had lower rates for the poor or did outright charity and church hospitals handled those who could not afford.

cdcox
05-15-2011, 11:38 PM
Yeah, too bad, back in the days before govt involvement in healthcare that didn't happen. That is people being turned away.

There has to be an audit to make sure not one dime of my costs (either out of pocket or through my insurance) go to subsidize free loaders. If a hospital or doctor wants to provide charity, fine let them. But we have to stop them from overcharging me in order to fund their generosity. And we have to repeal the laws requiring emergency rooms to treat anyone who shows up.

Quite frankly, no one will have the stomach for real responsibility.

cdcox
05-15-2011, 11:40 PM
BTW, the free-loader system back in the day was doctors had lower rates for the poor or did outright charity and church hospitals handled those who could not afford.

No way that could cover 10% of the demand of the uninsured today. You might as well be talking about faith healing.

factortobe
05-16-2011, 12:10 AM
rochambeau watch "sicko" then argue about it!!!

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 06:45 AM
No way that could cover 10% of the demand of the uninsured today. You might as well be talking about faith healing.

Nope. Faith Healing=Govt Healing.


The market would just develop and shape itself in other ways. You might try learning about how markets actually work. Then again, academia has little knowledge of markets.

tiptap
05-16-2011, 07:57 AM
If you show me a market apart from human hands and it works in some manner than we can talk about markets as something outside of human invention. Now I concede that markets are not fully just ideas, that each market does have constraints related to the supply but the demand side is almost totally of human desire. Not that that is bad, but it is of human invention.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 08:10 AM
If you show me a market apart from human hands and it works in some manner than we can talk about markets as something outside of human invention. Now I concede that markets are not fully just ideas, that each market does have constraints related to the supply but the demand side is almost totally of human desire. Not that that is bad, but it is of human invention.
"Markets outside of human invention?" A market is not a mathematical abstract separate from human action. LOL! Markets are all about human action (invention) and govt intervention is another human action (invention)—one that is ham-fisted and distorts the market which is because they can't know what's right for every individual. Govt intervention cannot allocate resources efficiently and drives up costs. History is strewn with examples that you chose to ignore because of ideology.

You wouldn't recognize a market or a market outcome if it hit you in the face.You've bought all the demagoguery, disinformation and misinformation about markets. You can't teach someone about markets over previous false information.

Chocolate Hog
05-16-2011, 08:40 AM
In this case, it seems to me that Gingrich is telling a truth that you refuse to hear, and you are stubbornly waiting for some other politician to lie to you. Even though that lie will require magical money conjured out of thin air or a lot of people benevolantly choosing to forgo expensive treatment, that they are entitled to for the good of the country.

How stupid or naive do you have to be to believe this will happen? If the people want high-quality health care, (and they obviously want it at any cost), than they must pay for it!!!

I don't really care what he is suggesting is ridiculous. The Federal government has no right to force you to buy private insurance.

FishingRod
05-16-2011, 08:58 AM
I believe that the Government is inherently incompetent so they less they do and less involved in our lives the better. Unfortunately there are situations without any options that I like. For example a friend of one of my Daughters that works in a hospital. Her job is to help direct “charitable” monies to those that have received healthcare but do not have the means to pay for it. Without violating any privacy rules she did let me know that an unnamed person who has milked this system numerous time came into the ER yes the ER for a pregnancy test a couple of months ago. When it was suggested to this patient that this will run up thousands of dollars in bills the response was “I know”. It was further suggested that a very accurate test could be obtained from any Pharmacy for about $8.00 the response was “I don’t have $8.00” So what it all boils down to is that we as a society either need to be tough enough to refuse treat people that are unwilling or unable to pay or accept a more socialized version of our health care system. Neither option makes me happy.

donkhater
05-16-2011, 10:41 AM
The biggest driver of health care costs is the third-party payer system that we have. People just don't know what their healthcare costs nor do they care since Uncle Sam or their employer foots the bill (actually they do, but never see the actual bill). This fuels an entitlement attitude of over-treatment that impregnates the entire system.

It's not unlike the government withholding taxes out of your paycheck. If there was no withholding, or sales tax and every April 15th each American had to wirte a check according to what they owed, our representatives would be held a heck of a lot more accountable than they are now. Instead they get to actually blame groups of taxpayers for the problems that we find ourselves in isntead of looking in the mirror!! the unmitigated gall of Congress to behave this way is infuriating.

FD
05-16-2011, 10:46 AM
I don't know why his comments come as such a surprise. The bill that passed known as Obamacare is essentially the old Republican plan for health care reform. Just because the current congressional Republicans decided they wanted to make health reform Obama's "waterloo" no matter what form it came in doesn't change that. Newt is just sticking to his guns.

Simplex3
05-16-2011, 10:50 AM
So what it all boils down to is that we as a society either need to be tough enough to refuse treat people that are unwilling or unable to pay or accept a more socialized version of our health care system. Neither option makes me happy.

I have no problem saying the ER is there to stabilize people who are dying, anything after that you'd better be able to pay for. I don't see why anyone else does either.

donkhater
05-16-2011, 11:41 AM
I have no problem saying the ER is there to stabilize people who are dying, anything after that you'd better be able to pay for. I don't see why anyone else does either.

I agree. Immediate life saving measures (ER) or public health threats that no one is immune to (influenza for example) are examples of health care that can be a shared expense.

As the average age of the populace goes up, it is only natural that there are more occurances of cancer or other age-related disorders. Man wasn't meant to live forever. To think that EVERYONE deserves top flight medical care to the limit of their existance is impossible fiscally.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 12:23 PM
So what if some people get the flu. That's not that huge a threat unless one is old or compromised in some way.
JH what a nation of hypochondriacs. The govts go so many of us operating in alarmist mode.

|Zach|
05-16-2011, 06:06 PM
Gingrich is exposing the hypocrisy of entire GOP. Before Obama proposed it, mainstream GOPers supported individual mandate.

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 06:15 PM
On Fox news tonight they showed an exchange between Gingrich and an Iowanian shaking hands where the guy basically bitch slaps Newt for his comments. I expect it to make the liberal networks eventually.

/Newt

cdcox
05-16-2011, 06:34 PM
I have no problem saying the ER is there to stabilize people who are dying, anything after that you'd better be able to pay for. I don't see why anyone else does either.

I have a big problem paying for the ER to do anything. Everyone needs insurance or they need to pay. Kids excluded up to the age of 18. If people want freedom, they have to take the full responsibility.

Simplex3
05-16-2011, 06:35 PM
Gingrich is exposing the hypocrisy of entire GOP. Before Obama proposed it, mainstream GOPers supported individual mandate.

I've been a fiscal conservative for decades and don't recall this.

tiptap
05-16-2011, 07:40 PM
"Markets outside of human invention?" A market is not a mathematical abstract separate from human action. LOL! Markets are all about human action (invention) and govt intervention is another human action (invention)—one that is ham-fisted and distorts the market which is because they can't know what's right for every individual. Govt intervention cannot allocate resources efficiently and drives up costs. History is strewn with examples that you chose to ignore because of ideology.

You wouldn't recognize a market or a market outcome if it hit you in the face.You've bought all the demagoguery, disinformation and misinformation about markets. You can't teach someone about markets over previous false information.

Look I think your notions are great in analyzing the failings of inventions including past markets. The ideas are good for the post analysis. But your notions have never actually lead to a even tilled sustainable economic system. Instead it thrives on the collapse of markets. That is the invention. A survival of the fittest mentality. And resources are distributed many times outside a market mechanism. I am not against market economics as a tool. It just not the only tool I think we have to use.

Saul Good
05-16-2011, 07:47 PM
I have a big problem paying for the ER to do anything. Everyone needs insurance or they need to pay. Kids excluded up to the age of 18. If people want freedom, they have to take the full responsibility.

How do you know if a person bleeding to death can pay for the treatment?

The_Doctor10
05-16-2011, 08:43 PM
we all pay for healthcare anyway. If something is wrong with you, you'll just go to the hospital, run up a million dollar bill, go bankrupt, and stick the taxpayers with the bill.

What we need to do is figure out how to pay for health care without allowing people to be useless freeloaders by choosing not to be insured when they could have bought it. If you are "uninsured", you really are not uninsured. I am paying for your damned "insurance".

The rest of the industrialized western world has figured out how to provide its citizenry with health care. If you didn't make it a 'for profit' service, treatments wouldn't be nearly as expensive. Why is this so hard to understand?

cdcox
05-16-2011, 08:47 PM
How do you know if a person bleeding to death can pay for the treatment?

Take responsibility and tattoo your insurance card on your chest.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 08:57 PM
Look I think your notions are great in analyzing the failings of inventions including past markets. The ideas are good for the post analysis.
Irrelevant. What's worked before will work again. Learning from the past prevents the same bad occurrences in the future.

But your notions have never actually lead to a even tilled sustainable economic system.
Notions? No it's not just some notion. Please give me your own examples showing how markets don't lead to a sustainable economic system particularly over govt models like socialism, fascialism, quasi-socialism instead of your own "notions." You have cited nothing. No system is perfect but some do a better job than others.

How can it be that you would know future results doing things your way when what you recommend has actually failed in the past? There's enough examples. People get denied healthcare in Europe only it's denied by govt instead based on who they think should live. What's better about THAT?

Instead it thrives on the collapse of markets. That is the invention. A survival of the fittest mentality.
No it doesn't. The collapse of markets was caused by govt/fed unholy alliance and socialist intervention in housing which crashed real estate. Socialist/fascist interventions are exactly what the left relies on in order to crash capitalism in order to create a crisis that must not be wasted. Witness healthcare markets as they are today, financial crisis, the real estate mess and on and on and on. Never let a crisis go to waste says one of your own stalwarts named Emmanuel. Building socialism on the ashes of capitalism.

As for survival of the fittest markets benefit the poor contrary to progressive/left-wing disinformation. Yes, it is actually disinformation.

And resources are distributed many times outside a market mechanism. I am not against market economics as a tool. It just not the only tool I think we have to use.
I said allocate resources EFFICIENTLY—exactly what anti-market types don't like about it because they don't agree with the outcomes.
So NO, resources are not allocated EFFICIENTLY by govt intervention. They waste resources which is why budgets as promised expand beyond original projections. Even NASA doesn't allocate resources efficiently they overspend and drive up costs. They are allocated inefficiently whether it's done via crony capitalism, mercantilism or corporatism of social-democracy because none of these systems can make decisions for millions of individuals as to what is best for them....but instead rely on pity politics or who knows who in govt. When it's not someone's own money this is the result. Witness, the former USSR, NKorea, and Cuba—even Iran. They are all poor nations. Most of the world has not had the standard of living we Americans have had previously and which is in decline due to govt policies in markets. This includes the dotcom boom/bust as well as the real-estate boom/bust.

Market economics is NOT merely a tool. Everything you have that has contributed to your comfort level and improved standard of living you owe to the free-market capitalism that's been in our system and what is left of is keeping things going despite massive govt spending and intervention. I heard a lot of TARP money went to govt bureaucrats jobs, who don't produce anything than to the productive private sector. Meanwhile, I read this morning govt regulators were busy downloading porn on the job and doing meth. Nice allocation of resources there!

I think it's time you actually read an true free-enterprise economic system's book which lays the case out more than on a MB.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 09:00 PM
The rest of the industrialized western world has figured out how to provide its citizenry with health care. If you didn't make it a 'for profit' service, treatments wouldn't be nearly as expensive. Why is this so hard to understand?

Instead you have lines if you rely on govt. It became expensive because govt tried to make it affordable for over 30 years by mandating HMOs for one leading to a heavily corporatized healthcare system for one. But also because when you make it affordable demand increases which drives up the cost.

And we're not really that far from the industrialized nation as the left makes people think. We have much more hi-tech here and we lead in that area whereas they use more lo-tech in Europe ( something I actually agree with but to me it should be individual.) We had a health care system that was the envy of the world when there was even much less govt involved than now.

Please show me where the Constitution says the Federal govt provides healthcare?

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 09:16 PM
I've been a fiscal conservative for decades and don't recall this.

Gingrich has said before he is not a conservative. I do know that it was both Gingrich and Guiliani that wrote a program for Iraq's system and it was warmed over socialism complete with govt health built into it. I posted it during the whole Iraqi squabble here near the primary. Gingrich has said he wants beaurocrats to be made able to think like entrepreneurs. Only, now Newt's team is trying to run damage control by saying he opposes the mandate in Obamacare and thinks it's unConstitutional. But he is for some sort of govt system. Don't let him fool ya'!

Then there's Romneycare. While, we're at it lets' not forget that even Trump supported a universal healthcare system like Canada's once.