Gingrich on the health care mandate

[PLC1]

If I see somebody who's earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I'm looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who was ever on welfare. Because what they've said is, a) I'm gambling that I won't get sick, and b) I'm gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors.

Now when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectables are people who have money, but have calculated that it's not worth the cost to collect it.

And so I'm actually in favor of finding a way to say, if you're above whatever - whatever the appropriate income level is, you oughtta have either health insurance, or you oughtta post a bond. But we have no right, we have no right in this society, to have a free-rider approach if you're well off economically, to say we'll cheat our neighbors.

The Gingrich of 2005, the Romney of Michigan, and Obama all agree that there should be a health care mandate.

Now, if we could get the 2011 version of Romney and Gingrich to agree, it would be unanimous.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Gingrich of 2005, the Romney of Michigan, and Obama all agree that there should be a health care mandate.

Now, if we could get the 2011 version of Romney and Gingrich to agree, it would be unanimous.

They were wrong before and now they are right. Meanwhile the Dems are still wrong.

 

[PLC1]

They were wrong before and now they are right. Meanwhile the Dems are still wrong.

But, if the Republicans get into power, then the Dems could flip flop, and the right be wrong, and the wrong right.

Except that Gingrich was right in '05. We can't afford the freeloaders.

 

[dogtowner]

But, if the Republicans get into power, then the Dems could flip flop, and the right be wrong, and the wrong right.

Except that Gingrich was right in '05. We can't afford the freeloaders.

there is more than one way to address this. the one forced down our throats is among the worst ways not to mention unconstitutional.

 

[PLC1]

there is more than one way to address this. the one forced down our throats is among the worst ways not to mention unconstitutional.

I can think of three ways:

1. Require health insurance.
2. Pay for people who don't have health insurance.
3. Deny people health care.

Is there a fourth option?

 

[dogtowner]

I can think of three ways:

1. Require health insurance.
2. Pay for people who don't have health insurance.
3. Deny people health care.

Is there a fourth option?

sure. why do people opt out ? its expensive so there is no perceived value. why is it expensive ? state regulations. were states to allow insurers to offer catastrophic insurance the perceived value improves. still refuse to pay ? option 3.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I can think of three ways:

1. Require health insurance.
2. Pay for people who don't have health insurance.
3. Deny people health care.

Is there a fourth option?

why not just shoot the sick people, saves us time and money to not care for them. Put them down like dogs who can't make it anymore.

Pro life!

 

[Pandora]

why not just shoot the sick people, saves us time and money to not care for them. Put them down like dogs who can't make it anymore.

Pro life!

Wouldn't it be better to kill the rich people who are apparently the problem anyways and take their money to buy health care for the poor people who want it but not enough to actually do anything about it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Wouldn't it be better to kill the rich people who are apparently the problem anyways and take their money to buy health care for the poor people who want it but not enough to actually do anything about it.

I am less against it then I am telling the poor to die if they can't afford health care.

 

[PLC1]

sure. why do people opt out ? its expensive so there is no perceived value. why is it expensive ? state regulations. were states to allow insurers to offer catastrophic insurance the perceived value improves. still refuse to pay ? option 3.

so, option 3. That would no doubt bring down costs. It works in places like Somalia and Haiti, so why not here? We'd save a ton of money.

While we're at it, we could adopt the building codes of Haiti and save even more.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I am less against it then I am telling the poor to die if they can't afford health care.

what is with the odd pics under my profile ? der?

 

[Gipper]

why not just shoot the sick people, saves us time and money to not care for them. Put them down like dogs who can't make it anymore.

Pro life!

Another strawman post by our beloved HOP liberal. Always making up accusations that NO one is making. Why do you ALWAYS do this?

Let me give it a try...you and your kind believe in killing the unborn, why not the poor too?

 

[GenSeneca]

I can think of three ways:

1. Require health insurance.
2. Pay for people who don't have health insurance.
3. Deny people health care.

Is there a fourth option?

You're a pragmatist, you believe in doing "whatever works"... Why not force everyone to eat a healthy balanced diet, force everyone to perform a daily exercise regimen, force everyone to have regular checkups to catch problems early, ban any activity that poses a threat to ones health, etc.?

Such a use of force by the state would certainly lower the cost of HC, increase the average life span and make for a much healthier population. Only freedom stands in the way of your pragmatic solutions fixing the problems in HC but it's nothing a totalitarian state can't deal with.

 

[Gipper]

You're a pragmatist, you believe in doing "whatever works"... Why not force everyone to eat a healthy balanced diet, force everyone to perform a daily exercise regimen, force everyone to have regular checkups to catch problems early, ban any activity that poses a threat to ones health, etc.?

Such a use of force by the state would certainly lower the cost of HC, increase the average life span and make for a much healthier population. Only freedom stands in the way of your pragmatic solutions fixing the problems in HC but it's nothing a totalitarian state can't deal with.

That is very good...

Pragmatism apparently trumps individual liberty in the minds of some. How this is possible for any American to think this way, is beyond me.

They can't see that the consequences of such tyrannical control will be most unsightly.

 

[Gipper]

This is good. Courtesy of Ron Paul's campaign.

Down goes Newt!