-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
-
The Wheels Come Off Obamacare
April 15, 2013 | 159 comments
The Right Prescription
Newt’s Health Problems
The malady is far more serious than a mere affinity for mandates.
When I read that Donald Berwick had resigned from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), I nearly shouted for joy. The cheer died on my lips, however, when my eye caught the following headline among those retrieved when I sent my search engine after more information: “Gingrich-Endorsed Health Care Expert Don Berwick Forced to Resign.” Surely, I thought, the gods cannot be this cruel. But they are, of course, as another search confirmed. Newt has indeed lauded Berwick as a pioneer in the quest to improve American health care. The former Speaker is already on record as a supporter of insurance mandates, and it has lately come to light that he endorsed stepped-up end-of-life counseling. Combined with those afflictions, Gingrich’s praise of Berwick will send his health care credibility straight to Forest Lawn.
The Berwick boost was included in an opinion piece that Gingrich wrote in August of 2000 for the Washington Post. The column begins with an absurdly over-the-top metaphor equating day-to-day hospital operations with a Concorde crash that had occurred a week earlier: “Imagine that we had an airline crash every day, taking the lives of more than 250 Americans… a tragedy of similar proportions is occurring right now in American hospitals.” Gingrich based this grotesque analogy on a highly questionable report by the Institute of Medicine titled, “To Err is Human,” which claimed that as many as 98,000 preventable deaths occur in U.S. hospitals each year. This study, which is still cited by Obamacare supporters, was denounced at the time by the Journal of the American Medical Association as “exaggerated” and “shrill.”
That Gingrich accepted this highly controversial study at face value is bad enough, but his response to its questionable conclusions was even more naïve. He wrote that the unnecessary slaughter allegedly occurring in American hospitals could be stopped by implementing what is often referred to in the hospital industry as the “automagic” solution. The basic idea is that automation can be used to impose a manufacturing approach to quality control in health care. That’s where Newt’s praise of Berwick comes in: “Don Berwick at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has worked for years to spread the word that the same systematic approach to quality control that has worked so well in manufacturing could create a dramatically safer, less expensive and more effective system of health and health care.”
If that passage didn’t inspire a head palm moment, this will: Gingrich has also been on the wrong side of the “end-of-life-counseling” controversy. In 2009, he wrote another Washington Post column in which he echoed a refrain often heard from people who believe we should ration care to the elderly: “More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life.” Rationing advocates like Berwick typically bring this particular datum up to demonstrate how much money we can save by not providing expensive treatment to people who are soon going to die anyway. Oddly, they rarely mention the inconvenient fact that many people receive the same expensive treatments and live for far longer than two months, or even two years. Gingrich’s column also fails to note this reality.
Though hardly a supporter of the draconian rationing regimen favored by Berwick, his column did recommend the “successful end-of-life” approach used by the Gundersen Lutheran Health System. “The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care.” Unfortunately for Newt’s current political prospects, Gunderson aggressively promoted an Obamacare provision that was later yanked from the bill pursuant to public indignation about “death panels.” Essentially, it would have provided extra payment for physicians who “engage patients and their families regarding end-of-life planning.” About a year ago, the soon-to-be ex-administrator of CMS attempted to slip the provision back in via regulatory fiat, but was forced to back down when faced with a new public outcry.
Newt’s endorsement of Gunderson’s program, combined with his praise of the egregious Dr. Berwick, creates problems for him that are only exacerbated by his long-standing support for insurance mandates. As Quin Hillyer recently put it, “Gingrich has supported an individual mandate for almost 18 years, has written in favor of it as recently as 2008, and even several times this year has defended it in concept.” Indeed he has. He put it most clearly in the Des Moines Register: “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance… and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” He made matters worse when he explicitly added that any large-scale health reform legislation should contain an “individual mandate.”
This affinity for mandates might not be so deadly if Newt’s health problems ended there. However, when combined with comorbidities such as his seeming endorsement for government-financed end-of-life counseling and the accolades he has given the man most Obamacare opponents consider public enemy number one, it is probably fatal. When these things become generally known, and the “news” media will assure that the word gets out, even his long history as a conservative leader will probably not render him immune from erosion in his support among rank-and-file Republicans, particularly the Tea Partiers. Even if Newt survives long enough to get the GOP nomination, he will have no more credibility on health reform than Mitt Romney. And, if he can’t go after the President on Obamacare, he will lose the election.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (99) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/newts-health-problems
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Deborah D | 11.28.11 @ 6:26AM
Sigh...So, are you saying we're stuck with Romney? I'm ready for Sarah to come back.
c. j. acworth| 11.28.11 @ 6:54AM
No, we aren't stuck with Romney, or anyone else for that matter. Let's not forget that while our system gives a great deal of power and influence to the one in the Oval Office, it is Congress that actually makes the law. A president can want wharever he wants, campaign for it, cajole and twist arms as much as he wants to get it, but if congress has gotten the message that the individual mandate is as toxic with Americans as say, gun control has become, the issue will die. Just remember folks, even if we get a Republican president and both houses of congress, we cannot sit back. It will always be up to us to hold their feet to the fire.
c. j. acworth| 11.28.11 @ 6:57AM
Like we shoulda done with W.
Cosmo| 11.28.11 @ 8:29AM
Union Leader endorsed McCain...
How did that work out for you?
Herman| 11.28.11 @ 8:52AM
Union Leader editor is jealous of Romney, for
some reason....Romney is the best man for the job and he is going to be a very pleasant surprise for conservatives as president.
Sam Vaughn| 11.28.11 @ 9:25AM
In any other 47 of 50 states Romney would be considered a Democrat.
ENOUGH ROPE| 11.28.11 @ 10:02AM
If the Republican nominee is Gingrich or Romney, are any of you who object to either one going to vote for Obama?
ENOUGH ROPE| 11.28.11 @ 10:32AM
Obama's Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA) will be in full force on 1/1/14. Per a Washington Post article "FATCA will cause the departure of an estimated $14 trillion of private foreign investment, destroying as many as 10,000,000 jobs in the United States."
http://www.americanthinker.com.....onomy.html
C Smith| 11.28.11 @ 12:12PM
Will never vote for Newt and his "bedside" manner:
Newt? The guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior.
Quartermaster| 11.28.11 @ 7:47PM
She wanted him to come see her to talk about it. I dislike Gingrich intensely, but I won't lie about him.
C Smith| 11.28.11 @ 9:14PM
Quartermaster, you say: "She wanted him to come see her to talk about it"
Her "documented" testimony is to the contrary:
“He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.” (Jackie Gingrich, "Washington Post," January 3, 1985).
Quartermaster, please document your sources before you call someone a liar.
C Smith| 11.28.11 @ 10:24PM
Quartermaster, here is another documented source:
His wife [Jackie Gingrich], who had started treatments for uterine cancer in 1978, underwent surgery in 1980. A day after the operation, Mr. Gingrich came to the hospital.... Once there, according to friends who knew them both, he began talking about the terms of the divorce. She has said she threw him out of the room....
A few weeks before Mr. Gingrich filed for divorce, he called his political aide and friend Mr. Carter to talk about his marriage. Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why he wanted a divorce. "He said: 'She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.' It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him knows it's perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he says."
(Katharine Q Seelye, "The New York Times, "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals," November 24, 1994)
inspectorudy| 11.30.11 @ 11:02AM
Smith, why don't you educate yourself before making bold statements about some thing you know nothing of. If you read Newt's daughter's book you will see that his wife was doing just fine and that the divorce had been amicably decided upon MONTHS before this visit. They were discussing the possessions and how they were to be split. The conversation was friendly and with no rancor. I guess you take a myth and run with it like the msm does everyday to conservatives. As for not voting for Newt think how much you will enjoy the next TWO SCJOTUS that Obama will appoint. 2nd, amendment bye bye. 10th amendment, welcome to the new US Constitution where the gov. can do anything it wants. Yeah, have your f**king principles and we will all be slaves in twenty years.
Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 8:49AM
It's Ron Paul or Romney take your pick. It always has been. Will the elites force another old Wall Street hack and warmonger like Romney on us, to lead us over the cliff once again, or will we finally have a chance to turn this country around?
Ron and Rand for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 9:37AM
Jack,
When you do wake up, I hope you don't hurt yourself.
chuck| 11.28.11 @ 9:42AM
He reminds me of the movie "Rain man".
I'm a very good driver, very good driver.........
It's Ron Paul or ruin, Ron Paul or ruin........
Time for your meds, then a nice nap.
Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 9:48AM
Ron Paul has been right on the issues and the solutions for decades. He is the only one with sane plan to get this country out of the hole it is in. His proposed budget would get us back to fiscal solvency in 3 years. End the wars. Slash spending, 1 trillion immediatly. End all foreign aid. Close up the all the foreign bases that are sucking us dry. Audit the Fed. Then end the Fed.
DTOM. what the hell is the program of all the others but more of the same.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:38AM
Herman Cain is pretty far from the others' programs.
And another reality is that when you change direction, you must still start out from wherever you already are, which is normally referred to as 'here.'
Since we cannot just teleport ourselves to a different reality - implementable policy must always start from 'here' and consequently often looks not too different from 'here.'
sirbourbon| 11.28.11 @ 1:00PM
One thing is for sure that the Paul detractors cannot hide and that is that Ron Paul is a doctor. The predictions he made before the GSE (government sponsored enterprises) like the FDR's mortgage giant Fannie Mae and the GOP supported Freddie Mac going belly up and distrupting the economy were largely ignored by the media.
The good doctor diagnosed the problem correctly and offered the correct remedy- abolish Fannie and Freddie and allow the forces of the free market work for everyone's benefit. The Dems and GOP took the socialist poison pill instead and contributed to the mortgage bubble bursting. The result of their actions has cost people lost their homes due to their quackery.
They still aren't listening to Dr. Paul.
Jack in Wi, I doubt this gang that piles on you will ever see the light. They are too infatuated with GSE's to see the benefit of the free market to bringing an abundance of services at a cheaper price. Despite their chatter they still cling onto socialism like a child clings to his security blanket.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:16PM
NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 20 YEARS OF LEGISLATION.
Compare that to Obama's legislative record. They are actually quite similar, except Obama actually co-sponsored a couple of bills.
Your good Doctor did NOTHING. He did not lead anybody anywhere, except his diehard fans into the land of irrelevancy. Sorry, but there it is.
sirbourbon| 11.28.11 @ 8:36PM
Through his efforts, Paul secured 100% of the GOP senate and House members to back his bill to begin an audit of the Federal Reserve. In addition 1/3 of the democrats co-sponsored Ron Paul's bill to look into the nefarious dealings of the Fed. What has been discovered about the Fed is not "nothing," but a whole lot of something. We found out as a result of Paul's bill that a bank in Libya was the recipient of US bank loans, that the Fed has been making easy credit loans to foreign banks.
"No" is also a positive vote when the "yes" votes go to fund big government are they not? He votes "no" to the warfare and welfare state.
Too bad the rest of the congress votes "yes" to fund Planned Parenthood, foreign aid to Libya and Pakistan and the terror state of the Palestinian Authority. The majority of "yes" votes go to fund the anti-American UN.
Yes, yes, yes for: appropriating funds to the Energy, Education departments and EPA.
Paul votes No as would the founders of this nation were they to return and see the mess the Yes voters have made of America.
You can't even address the point I made about the fact that Ron Paul called the recession years before it arrived. It shows the weakness of your argument that you divert my orginal point to votes in congress that for the most part have been to build big government. If that is what you like then own up to the fact that you favor big government, high taxes and the out of control spending!
chuck| 11.28.11 @ 2:44PM
sir,
For most of us here, it is not his domestic agenda that we object to, it is his head-in-the-sand mentality concerning those who wish to do us harm.
Prove to me that he will defend this country,AND our interests and allies around the world, and I may reconsider Ron Paul.
Quartermaster| 11.28.11 @ 7:56PM
Can you prove that Romney, Gingrich, or any of the others will defend the country? I wish you luck on that. You may believe they will, but that's all you can do.
I don't like Paul's foreign policy either, and I think he will be forced to change it once he is in office, but he is the only one that saying what needs to be said about FedGov and its usurpations. The rest are, at best, status quo types, and Romney and Gingrich are part of the establishment. They will change little or nothing.
Even if Romney or Gingrich win, we've lost. They simply aren't different enough to matter.
sirbourbon| 11.28.11 @ 9:27PM
Fair enough.
Defense of the nation means a strong Navy (aircraft carriers, nuke submarines fitted with nuke warheads; a modern Army and Airforce. aside from these national defense basics the bases need to be here in America where those soldiers will spend their money not overseas.
What would you prefer: a megaplex military installation in Amarillo,Texas or in in any of the western states or the one being built in Baghdad?
Does it serve our interests as taxpayers to bust our federal budget to pay for the defense budget of Japan, Germay and Korea?
Paul would not intervene should Israel see the need to knock out a miltary nuke installation in their region be it in Iran or Iraq that threatens stability in the region or may be used against them. In the past RonPaul has been one of a few congressmen willing to side with Israel when push comes to war. The big talkers in Congress wanted to condemn Israel but he stood in the well of the House to say that the US government should not intervene in Israel's affairs.
US military presence in the middle east
By way of analogy: a man or a woman has been told that walking at night through a certain neighborhood is dangerous but despite the warnings proceeds to walk through it at night.This person is robbed and nearly dies from a beating. The hardheaded person who ignored people's warnings is not to blame; the muggers are to blame. But the mugging and the beating could have been avoided by simply walking home via the safer and shorter route.
The CIA and the 9-11 Commission Report and various experts on the middle east have written on violent attitude of radical Muslims; that our presence there in the region with military bases incites passions that radicals use to recrit sucide bombers.
Paul is not saying that we ignore Iran but to let Israel with their 300 nukes keep an eye ball pealed and deal with it. Is there any reason to pick a fight that will stir up the neighborhood and blowback' on us? Why go looking for a fight when maybe all that is necessary is give the Iranians a chance to overthrow the religious fanatics and replace them with a friend of the US. We used to have one until Jimmy Carter and his people stirred up the Iranians to overthrow him. What Iran ended up with was the series of Ayatollas.
The interesting part of that is that the real power in Iran llies with the emams not with that tieless, bearded fool Mamoud Ahmadinejad who is touted as the latest boogyman by the media. He gives speechs at the Council on Foreign Relations and at the UN and says all kinds of nasty things about Israel and we fund the podium that he uses! US taxpayers fund a so-called "peace " organization that is used by radicals to incite hatred against the US and the few allies we have left in the world!
Paul has co-sponsored bills to defund the UN and to get out of that pro-war, pro-radical outfit. The Dems and the establishment GOP continue to provide a forum for incendiary rhetoric that is televized world wide!
Paul says to keep out but to keep our powder dry just in case.
For an Official Ron Paul perspective on national defense go here:http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/
chuck| 11.28.11 @ 10:35PM
sir,
You raise some good points, and present them very intelligently. I'll have to consider this more carefully.
Thanks
inspectorudy| 11.30.11 @ 11:06AM
Man, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Sure Paul is right some of the time but his overall policy of pulling back to our borders is just plain stupid. If Iran gets the A bomb, why we will just have to be friendlier with them! Talking about putting lipstick on a pig!
Chalkdust| 11.28.11 @ 9:00AM
"Stuck with Romney" you say? We should be so lucky.
I've seen/heard enough at this point to be about 90% solid with my vote for president, with a 10% room for doubt.
Newt, deep in his Washington, DC heart, hates Conservatives. "Right Wing social engineering" he calls it. I believe Newt (1/2 liberal, 1/4 Republican, 1/4 Conservative) is the smartest candidate, the most informed. Jimmy Carter also believed he was, likewise for Barry Obama. Being the smartest the kid in the class is egg-zacty what we don't need at this point. We need a very good manager, a guy who can get work done through other people, a good judge of other peoples abilities and a guy with good core values, who can see the big picture.
Mitt Romney is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan, but he if you squint a little, he fits the mold. Having said all that, I'll vote, in the general election, for the last man/woman standing. Can we all say the same thing?
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 9:40AM
ROMNEYCARE!
ROMNEYCARE!
ROMNEYCARE!
Ronald Reagan, my foot!
If you squint that hard your eyebrows are gonna be south of your belly button!
Chalkdust| 11.28.11 @ 12:29PM
If you're going to be a one-issue Charlie, who in your world would meet the test?
Romney has said on many occasions he would shoot down ObamaCare on his first day in office, that's as much of an omission that RomneyCare was a mistake as you're going get. Anyway, all the Republican candidates have warts, but I for one will even vote for the nut-case Ron Paul if he's the LAST MAN STANDING
SCPOret| 11.28.11 @ 10:04AM
You don't have to squint to see he fits the mold of Teddy Kennedy.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:39AM
Roger that!
But Newt seems to be a better driver/diver.
Chalkdust| 11.28.11 @ 12:33PM
Really....Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy are cut from the same bolt of cloth. What are you 14?
Quartermaster| 11.28.11 @ 7:59PM
NO, but you need to take a hard look at why he lost to Kennedy in a senatorial election. He was a just a GOP echo of Kennedy. He was also a leftwinger as Governor of Mass as well. We made that mistake with Bush when he fooled people with that "compassionate conservatism" bunk, and got a moderate liberal as President.
Clint| 11.28.11 @ 7:12AM
"According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, Paul leads Obama among independent voters by a 48 to 39 percent margin – the only Republican to enjoy a lead among independents.
“This is yet another poll that clearly shows how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” Paul’s national chairman said in a statement. “Dr. Paul is making strides not just among Republicans, but independent voters as well. This broad base of increasing support proves that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Bob| 11.28.11 @ 7:13AM
The bell tolls for the Grand Old Pukes. I smell a third party revolt led by the Tea Bags and religious right-wing fanatics just in time for election day 2012 and we Democrats thank you. Who will adorn their thrown, Huckleberry perhaps or Frump Trump?
scythe| 11.28.11 @ 7:26AM
We still are in the process of determining who will "adorn our" THRONE. But we do know after the election who will be THROWN - we Tea Baggers, right wing fanatics, religious nuts, racists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, and misogynists will have THROWN that asshole you elected into the White House right out on his entitled ass along with that ugly lardassed mule of a wife. You know what they say about Tea don't you? It's good for you.
coal carrier| 11.28.11 @ 7:31AM
Great post.
Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 9:53AM
Nominate Gingrich or Romney and Obama is sure to win re-election. No body wants anything more of these wars. Obama will be running as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home. He will also attack the Republicans for their bailouts of the rich. How are 2 old chickenhawks and shills for the banks like Romney and Gingrich going to answer any of that.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.28.11 @ 8:12AM
How dare you. What you called the Queen, was uncalled for, and I feel compelled to come to her defence.
She is a WOOKIE, Sir. She is not a MULE. And, if you were even half the man that she is. You would APOLOGIZE to the Mules.
chuck| 11.28.11 @ 8:35AM
And you, Sir, should apologize to Wookies! Chewbacca certainly would have none of that.
My dad always referred to her as "the pet monkey".
Definitely not PC, but I still get a good laugh.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.28.11 @ 9:09AM
Touche'.
aj| 11.28.11 @ 8:36AM
Dear Tim:
For the love of Mike, please stop. My nose burns and the keyboard is a mess from the nasal coffee spray.
DV
AJ
Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 8:52AM
There are huge numbers of disaffected Democrats and Independents who hate Obama. They go for Ron Paul in large numbers. Ron Paul is the only electable Republican running.
Drunken Sailor| 11.28.11 @ 2:47PM
Ok Jack, now you have me confused. Your stating that large numbers of disaffected Democrats and Independents will vote for Ron Paul. In the past you said he was the most conservative. I just don't see disaffected Democrats (usually liberal) and Independents (left leaning) voting for the most conservative guy on the R side. Please explain your logic.
Quartermaster| 11.28.11 @ 8:03PM
Because he's rejected by the GOP elite. They may realize that he's poked a few of the elitists in the eye and they like seeing that.
Just my speculation, but seems reasonable to me.
scythe| 11.28.11 @ 7:18AM
Let's face it: whomever the right nominates, should they win, will have to watched just as carefully as the sleazeball we have now. The difference? Anyone on our side would be more responsive to our outrage and disapproval than the sleazeball. Until this country is on the right path again, trust no one.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.28.11 @ 7:20AM
The author has rightfully and painfully pointed out that there really isn't much difference between Obama and Newt on the major issues.
So why have an election?
richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 8:27AM
Are you serious? Not much difference between Obama and Gingrich? How about this for a big issue: Newt is for free market solutions to health care, not a government takeover filled with regulations that will kill the private free market system. With regard to end of life counselling, what exactly bothers you about that? A doctor sits down with a patient and his family. He explains what the treatment will mean for the patient. The patient is given the opportunity to make their wishes known. These wishes are documented in the patient record, and followed by the care team when the patient is critically ill. Problems??
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.28.11 @ 8:39AM
Perhaps you didn't read the article carefully.
Newt was for all this and now somehow he's against it.
The high tide of slime is upon us.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri.....-mandates/
Now, the media is getting around to examining Gingrich’s record on healthcare reform and are finding themselves shocked to learn that, as Governor Romney accused during one the recent if endless GOP debates, Newt was a big supporter of mandated health insurance long before he was against it.
Anybody who is similarly surprised by this has simply not been paying attention. As I wrote in a Forbes piece back in May of this year, there is a fairly endless record of Gingrich’s commitment to health insurance mandates.
Newt’s explanation for his now inconvenient history is that he only adopted his pro-mandate position in the early 90’s for the purpose of derailing Hillarycare (the failed Clinton administration effort to reform our health care system.)
And yet, he has left a long trail of mandate laden bread crumbs that clearly proves otherwise.
Appearing earlier this year on Meet The Press, Gingrich stood up for his long-held position that mandates were a good idea. However, upon realizing that his statements were causing him big problems with the Republican base, Gingrich recorded and released a video just a few days later wherein he announced:
richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 9:10AM
Yes, Newt has spoken highly of mandates in the past. And I believe mandates are in violation of our constitution. and I agree the erosion of our liberty is a huge deal. Attacking the individual mandate is a great legal tool to get the whole thing thrown out. But I think the specific harm this law will bring about is the regulatory nightmare that will essentially choke out the private system, leaving us with no escape from the government supplied garbage. That being said, the article also focused on the end of life counseling issue. I see no problem with paying doctors for this valuable service, and I applaud Newt for speaking up about it.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 9:49AM
So exactly why would you like a candidate whose response to a problem is to propose obviously non-constitutional measures?
That makes virtually no sense, none, not any, not even a little. Really. Think about it.
Government mandating that people buy a product means that the suppliers can charge whatever they want for it. Don't worry, the government that cannot even cobble together a budget for itself, will figure out what the true costs are and who should pay them. Oh, that'll work. Just ask the Soviet Union.
The stupidity is getting so deep and thick in this country that I am at long last beginning to lose hope. Aren't you?
richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 11:49AM
I'm not for the individual mandate. I'm simply saying that it is not the main problem with the health care bill, and that I am not ruling out Newt based on his PAST support for this idea. There were many other conservative thinkers who took the same position in the 1990s. The mandate (in and of itself) still allows for market competition between the private carriers. Freeing up interstate competition and meaningful tort reform would only decrease costs for consumers. Newt is for both. It is the thousands of federal regulations that would do the most damage. Newt is not perfect. He is an "ideas" guy. Many of his ideas are just plain bad ideas. That's why the president cannot rule the nation all by himself. But he is a very smart person, and has shown the ability to be flexible (see welfare reform) to get things done. He understands the ins and outs of congressional protocol (a dirty business) and would provide real leadership in getting the congress to actually do the right thing.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:27PM
So how much more should you pay for a gallon of gasoline to appease the anthropogenic global warming mob that Newt seems to accepted. Or was he flirting with Nancy Pelosi on that couch in that commercial?
And exactly what was he doing in providing historical consulting services to Fannie Mae?
Newt is the ultimate in ineffective political insiders. Yeah, he finally got the GOP the House in 1994 after 40 years wandering in the desert. But once there, he flamed out in just two years.
You may not have noticed that winning a national election by sounding like the smartest guy in the room does not provide much assurance that good governance will necessarily follow. I refer to 2008 as an object lesson for us all.
Quartermaster| 11.28.11 @ 8:06PM
He probably thought Princess Pelosi was hot.
DTOM| 11.29.11 @ 6:14PM
See! Gingrich has real judgement issues!
Clint| 11.28.11 @ 7:22AM
" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Mimi| 11.28.11 @ 7:33AM
Newt knows the jist of the Conservative objection to Berwick, death panels, and the mandate, in the health care legislation.
I can't believe he hasn't evolved his thinking since 2009....when the bill was passed!
Lets wait and see how he responds to this "HIT" piece! Yes David...The "NEWS MEDIA" just got helped!
coal carrier| 11.28.11 @ 7:40AM
You can cite all the polls you want. Paul will not get the nod. Here is a stark fact. If he runs as an Independent, Obama will be re-elected. Thanks, but no thanks.
Clint| 11.28.11 @ 7:57AM
Dr.Ron Paul Neither Needs Nor Wants To Run As An Independent.
" Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility
By Brent Budowsky - 11/21/11 10:04 AM ET
There are now multiple polls that show Ron Paul has gained support and has a legitimate chance to come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would now call Ron Paul one of three front-runners in both Iowa and New Hampshire alongside Mitt Romney and a third candidate, currently Newt Gingrich. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which he might, all bets are off. Also, most analysts miss the fact that many states have open systems where independents, and in some cases Democrats, can vote for a Republican nominee. This could give a further boost to Paul.
It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Gary B| 11.28.11 @ 7:58AM
Remember, one of the most important things a president does is nominate Supreme Court justices. It has consequences for a long, long time. This is one area where a president can really disappoint his base. Who among the candidates is most likely to nominate an actual conserative? Let me ask it another way. Who does the enemedia hate the most?
Intelligent Design| 11.28.11 @ 8:24AM
Speaking of Governor Perry, he's the best candidate for president.
chuck| 11.28.11 @ 8:39AM
He would make a good President, however he is a terrible candidate. He looks wooden, kind of like Algore, on stage.
Sorry, the Algore analogy was probably over the top.
POST American| 11.28.11 @ 8:26AM
"And notice, as always, as the election
approaches, the REAL issues disappear."
And, as far as health goes, some of those
REAL issues:
-the 12th year of saturating our skies with
Barium, Aluminium and Cadmium CHEM-trails
(Alzheimers, bronchial problems, cancer etc)
-the full-spectrum stealth saturation of the
food chain with organ and fertility destroying,
cancer engendering, MONSANTO et al
GMO
-the chilling world EUGENICS agenda and its
relentless press for forced injections, and
the unspeakable targeting of the very young
for 'special engineering' via the needle
-the CON-trol of our entire medical establishment,
not simply by sleaze-pot, crony profiteers,
but intergenerational EUGENISTS operating
out of ultra-rich, TAX FREE foundations
and NGOs
-the Globalist media cover up of the greatest
world nuclear disaster (and likely world depop
op) of all time -----FUKISHIMA
-the social implications of legitimizing, and
even financially empowering, via taxpayer
money, the 'A--BORE--SHUN' industry
-the latest UN figures, nonchalantly reported,
that but 2 in 20 young men are even functionally
fertile
Of course more kicks than our stage managed
FAKE opposition 2012 election ---will be
------------------HUAC/ Nuremberg--------------------
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.28.11 @ 8:27AM
Look. Unless we're picking Michelle Bachmann or What's his name, from Pennsylvania, we're gonna be holding our noses, next November. Romney'steadfast defence of Romney Care is bad enough. But, Gingrich's apparent ADULATION of Dr. Mengele, is worse.
I will vote for ANY REPUBLICAN, over The BEAST. All they need to tell me is that: They've ALWAYS been Proud of their Country. That, they would NEVER Apologize for this Country. And that there is NO SHAME in wanting to keep as much as you EARN.
I wanna hear them say that they will BUILD UP our Military. That NASA will, once again, be putting Men in Space. And that we will Drill for Oil, and Drill for Natural Gas, and Dig for Coal, wherever they may be, because that's why GOD put it there. HE didn't give us FOOD, to burn in our cars. HE gave us Food, to EAT.
The rest of us will REMIND THEM, that we're watching. And that they are on a Very Short LEASH.
Chalkdust| 11.28.11 @ 12:41PM
T.L.P.
I couldn't agree more.
John C.| 11.28.11 @ 8:59AM
The danger of a GOP congress and a liberal Republican like Flip Newt or Flip Romney getting elected is that there will be virtually no conservative opposition to their stealth liberal agenda as there is now against Obama -- remember the Bush/Kennedy No-Child-Left-Behind and all of the rest of Bush’s big government spending.
EL-Rushbo and his globalist clones will once again carry the liberal water for a one-world RINO president -- they already have by spinning for slick Newt’s amnesty doublespeak.
Pro-American Trump will run as an Independent and I will consider voting for him despite some reservations. We desperately need a patriot in the White House.
Dave | 11.28.11 @ 9:00AM
It was predicted early-on that the Republican Party would find a way to shoot itself in the foot and end up losing what should have been a slam dunk election. Sadly, and what I've observed so far, the forecasts seem to be right on schedule.
- Gingrich will end-up spending too much time denying positions he previously supported, while NBC, et al will never let go of the ex-wives issue, or his raking in of big bucks defined as ... *historical analysis/opinion fees. Or as its generally known along K Street as "fees for lobbying influence." They all do it, but his will be framed by scum balls at The Today Show as the second coming of Bernie Madoff.
1. Romney's just a slick RINO.
2. The media Mugging of Citizen Cain ... worked. So did the sliming they did on Sarah Palin, and continue smearing over Michelle Bachmann.
Meanwhile ...
3. Ron Paul a train wreck in training. His supporters are idiots.
4. Santorium is little more than a podium mannequin.
5. And Huntman ... ? Nothing.
The result? Well, that's a tough one, kids. With the general population's collective I.Q. hovering in the single digits, and the true conservative candidates being shredded daily by the Nightly News hacks and their brethren at the local "Times-Picayunes" ... the news gets worse: Reagan is still room temperature and not apt to try a comeback.
What'll we be stuck with? No doubt another John McCain, but one who mumbles less and has a better haircut. The outcome? If Obama gets another four years ... nothing else will matter. The new national border sign program will already have been funded and signs put in place ...
WELCOME TO NEW GREECEBURGH WEST
- The Welfare State-
-Elevation - sinking
-Population - brain dead
-National Flower - Cannabis
- HAVE A GREEN DAY.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.28.11 @ 9:11AM
Good comment.
Clint| 11.28.11 @ 12:23PM
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
George S| 11.28.11 @ 10:21AM
There is a huge difference between ObamaCare and Newt, and that is tyranny vs. entitlement. Newt is talking about how we must deal with an entitlement that affords people a service (medical care) that is provided for free with taxpayer dollars. Do we go all out and provide whatever is necessary, in terms of medical care, to all citizens? That is impossibly expensive and since medical care is an economic scarcity, it must be rationed. The free market rations scarcities with price, but when the scarcity is free it still must be rationed -- and the only way it can be rationed absent of price is by the supplier. So what criteria do we, the people, use to ration taxpayer subsidized medical care?
ObamaCare, on the other hand, is not about government rationing a scarcity -- it is about government controlling it and the most effective way of control is to first deny the ability to access health care with money (price). In other words, even if you can pay you are still subject to the political and bureaucratic rationing imposed by ObamaCare.
Criticizing Newt for borrowing the ideas of a Berwick is like criticizing NASA for relying on the work of the Nazi rocket scientists. The difference is how the ideas are applied. If we continue to subsidize the care of the elderly with Medicare, we have to pay for it. We cannot afford it, especially when the 70 million baby boomers are in the process of retiring.
Either raise taxes and provide health care or ration it. Newt is addressing the latter. Yes, death panels -- but the death panels in Newt's version are avoidable if you can simply pay for your own health care. Not so with ObamaCare.
jagscl| 11.29.11 @ 5:49AM
I see little difference between "control" and rationing; aren't they the same? How do you ration without some form of compulsion. I am of the age where this and the rest of you analysis has immediate consequences, but rather than doom my children to "rationed" health care, I'll give up all my right to government health care and take my chances on market forces to "ration" health care.
The Bishop| 11.28.11 @ 10:28AM
Newt is an illustration of how academia determining national policy is inherently flawed and results in negative unintended consequences. It's nice to theorize, but actions guided by principle is leadership. Where are the principles?
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:43AM
In the Constitution and in your Judeo-Christian faith, if you got any. That's where the founders got theirs, and they were pretty clear that the Constitution unsupported by that J-C faith was unsupportable.
That's why the secular humanism thing is truly seditious. There, I said it. Been thinking it for years, and I finally mustered up the gumption to spit it out.
The green thing is seditious, too. For the very same reasons.
Hoads| 11.28.11 @ 10:42AM
None of this surprises me. Newt is part of the "elite" who is privy to a steady diet of global intellectualism from the best and the brightest around the world. These groups offer global solutions that satisfy a small cadre of world leaders and institutions and routinely offend the instincts of us common folk. But, alas, it is the world in which we live. We have, however, reached a new level of "self-awareness" and are now better informed and equipped to defend ourselves from their shenanigans.
Let's face it, no one is becoming president of the US without a lot of nods from at least some of these world leaders and institutions, not to mention, the "very well connected" within our borders. This is the inescapable fact of life that we must attempt to lasso.
Bachmann is our most independent, most conservative candidate but look how much we are all even sub- consciously controlled by media. We look a gift horse in the mouth and reject it out of fear.
We are stuck with chameleon politicians that require extensive oversight and due diligence from the citizenry to hold their feet to the fire. However, the right ones can be retrained if we are up to the task-- and that is conjuring a healthy fear of citizens amongst our politicians.
Bill| 11.28.11 @ 11:06AM
Newt supported the individual mandate back in the 90s, he is going nowhere, a dead man walking.
Bill| 11.28.11 @ 11:17AM
Any candidate supporting a socialize health care program is a lame duck candidate, they are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. NO CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill| 11.28.11 @ 11:24AM
NEWT=ROMNEY=CAIN=RINO.
PERRY=BACHMANN=SANTORUM=CONSERVATIVE
loulou| 11.28.11 @ 12:24PM
Don't forget Herman Cain in the conservative column.
Jack London| 11.28.11 @ 11:51AM
And there was I thinking Newt was out because he'd sucked up several million in lobby fees from Freddie Mac and big pharma and others, as well as the little matter of a $300,000 fine by the house ethics committee. Clearly corruption doesn't matter here – but his genuinely progressive side does (and this article by this Catron character is devoid of facts, as usual - this 'death panel' stuff is tired old empty rhetoric from someone who clearly does not know what he's talking about).
Louis Jenkins| 11.28.11 @ 12:05PM
Follow your heart. We know who the Liberals are running in the next general election. Headline on Drudge Report today is Obama is giving up on the white middle class. Whether it's political or economical we've figured that out already. We can vote for any of the eight Republican candidates, or Obama. Not a hard choice. There's also a possible third party nomination in the works. It that occurs there will be no choice for conservatives.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.28.11 @ 12:14PM
Suddenly, Newt doesn't look so good to me after reading this article.
I wish people knew more about Rick Perry, but the media has ignored him for the most part.
And I DO NOT care what others might say...I want a knowledgeable, experienced, get 'er done kind of DOER in the White House.
Newt is a mixed bag of good and bad. Herman Cain simply doesn't have the experience to be president, though he seems to be a good person.
Mit??? NOOOOOOOOO!!!
Newt has become a worry to me. And I will not consider Paul because he is a non supporter of Israel (so throw your darts Clint). What he doesn't understand is that Israel is the key to world peace....
But I still have hope that the person we need right now at this time and place, will make it to the Oval office................and Obummer will be a footnote in history.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.28.11 @ 12:15PM
....so call me optimistic.
Notary Sojac| 11.28.11 @ 12:21PM
These policies endorsed by Newt leave me feeling uncomfortable.
But, by comparison with an alternative of unlimited tax increases to pay for unlimited Medicare spending through the generations to come, they are at least palatable.
loulou| 11.28.11 @ 12:27PM
Newt looks to government to solve problems.
He's also for amnesty for illegal aliens. Although he doesn't call it amnesty. The pro amnesty Republicans (Kristol, Linda Chavez, the WSJ, etc) are ecstatic.
Newt is useful but not as our candidate.
cicero| 11.28.11 @ 12:31PM
The presidential election is always about the lesser of two evils. No candidate is ever qualified for the position, except in retrospect.
The problem with American provision of healthcare has spawned the drive for universal mandates. The government requires that anyone who shows up for care has to be given it. If you decide not to buy health insurance for yourself or your family, there are all sorts of government programs that allow you to shift your responsibility onto the taxpayer. The simple solution would be for the government to get out of the business all together. As if by magic, the cost would plunge dramatically, as the doctors would have to treat people for what they could afford to pay. If they had privae insurance, so much the better. But if they did not, the market would adjust to compensate. To assume that the provision of health care is a scarce commodity is rediculous. We have been pumping doctors and health techies out like jellie beans over the past several years. Let the market work.
Whether it is Newt, Mitt, or whoever, none can seriously consider voting for the status quo.
Bill| 11.28.11 @ 12:32PM
Yes, Herman Cain is a RINO, no doubt.
Bill| 11.28.11 @ 12:33PM
Cain's 9-9-9 plan is as flawed as Newt's stance on immigration, health care, and global warming.
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:28PM
Especially if economics, like the jitterbug, just plain elude you.
1ConservativeUSA| 11.28.11 @ 12:54PM
Wait one second!
No one will convince me that Newt Gingrich or any Republican candidiate, warts and all, is not more eminently qualified to lead this nation, than Barack Obama.
Barack Obama may be an American, but he does not believe in this country's founding, or its principles, policies and culture that continue to make it great.
Despite their past and despite their differences, each of the Republican candidiates agree on a baseline of America's exceptionalism and in its unique position in this world . They all fiercely disagree with Obama's ideology and policy, which makes them more qualified and more worthy to be president.
Not to say the matter of a conservative getting elected will be easy. There are too many forces that seek to protect the "progressive" "progress" that has been made. Conservatives must improve and become more forceful at articulating their principles and policies, while debunking the false choices of the left.
Mark MacInnis| 11.28.11 @ 12:57PM
You guys are just pissin' in the wind.....doesn't matter WHO the nominee is...it only matters that we DEFEAT Obama.....any president can only sign legislation that makes it from the house and Senate to his desk....so our next president will be a rubber stamp for a Tea-party led assault on spending and the deficit....and if he shuts up and does his job, he'll go down as the second greatest president in history, after RWR....
DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:38PM
Mark;
I believe what we are all kicking and scratching about is the effort and desire to not repeat McCain 2008, George Bush (CINO extraordinaire) 2000-2008, Bob Dole 1996, and GH Bush 1988-1992 .
Defeating Obama with Mitt or Newt at the wheel could easily worse than Obama's re-election because either of those candidates would be painted as ultra-conservative by the mainstream media, no matter how far to the Left they moved. The Left gets a twofer! They get more of what they seek, leftward movement of the Federal government while getting to blame all of the ensuing disasters on conservative principles. Talk about a pretty foul smelling prescription for the future of our rights and freedoms.
Anybody catch John McCain's co-sponsoring a bill to permit US Military to arrest and detain US CITIZENS on US soil without warrants or charges? Yeah, we need more moderates.
Doubt me? Look here: http://www.infowars.com/senate.....out-trial/
Sure, I'm the crackpot.
And don't forget the impact a President has on staffing the Cabinet agencies and the Judiciary!
Bill| 11.28.11 @ 12:58PM
Be careful, what you wish for, Newt is Cain's friend, another RINO.
MyGirlFriday| 11.28.11 @ 2:51PM
Thank you Mr. Catron for bringing Newt's Health Care problem to our attention. While it is a big pill to swallow, I and others at least know the facts and must use them to carefully weigh our personal decision as to who we believe will be our best candidate to win in 2012. Having said that, I will add that Newt's baggage is filling up weekly and becoming heavier and heavier to carry.
idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:09PM
Good grief, did ANYBODY (including the author of this piece) actually read Gingrich's opinion piece? He was advocating computerized medical/prescription records, with appropriate privacy safeguards. He was NOT advocating socialized medicine, or anything even close to it. WHY are conservatives shooting each others' candidates with such trivial crap? Can we please focus on the real enemy here and stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with petty and inaccurate overreactions to our candidates?
Mimi| 11.28.11 @ 5:12PM
Yes..Yes..piling up indeed! Just like Perry, Just like Herman Cain....The dirt flys ...'TIL it sticks.
Their head just bops out of the WATER and the hand pushes it back under the WATER.
When are we going to stop reacting to the SMEAR JOBS....The Name of the GAME is CLEAR THE FIELD.... It is the favorite GAME of SMARTY PANTS...OBAMA ...
Look what they did to tarnish Herman it was the meanest, dirtiest thing to witness and we all fell off the bandwagon...That one broke my HEART!
Start to think, Yes they all need VETTING but most vet themselves before they get into the race ie Mitch Daniels he loved his wife too much to put her through this stuff and the country suffered.
Some say..."THATS POLITICS" but we all have to insulate ourselves.
Newt is an OPEN BOOK but this time it's now...He maybe meant this . He maybe thought this on and on...He's a PATRIOT something we could use in the WHITEHOUSE.
This was just a "HIT piece!!!
e pearse | 11.28.11 @ 8:53PM
The piece "The Mother of All Political Endorsements: Sarah Palin's" predicts that Newt Gingrich will be endorsed by Sarah Palin before the year ends. Reasons here: www.robbingamericachronicle.com
POST American| 11.28.11 @ 10:32PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
This may be the year to cast a blank ballot
---or to stay away from this CON-trived
CON-test altogether.
---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------
Buck Ofama| 11.29.11 @ 2:06AM
Newt's "health problems"?
What about the health problems of the USSA?
We are infected by the ravenous vermin in the white house. We need Newt NOW.
We must be RID of the vermin ASAP at any cost!
gennarino destefano| 11.30.11 @ 10:02AM
The following link is a must read comprehensive assessment of the RINO Mitt Romney. These are the choices folks. Til Jesus comes back nobody is perfect.
http://klsouth.wordpress.com/t.....scorecard/