REFORM: Newt Gingrich on "Free Riders" and the Individual Mandate

[Edweird]

http://healthca.newamerica.net/blogposts/2008/reform_newt_gingrich_on_free_riders_and_the_individual_mandate-18127


"The reality of an individual mandate (when coupled with subsidies so that insurance is affordable and market reforms so that coverage is accessible), is that it would not only address the "free rider" problem, but also serve as a tool to enhance insurance market competition. When combined with market reforms and subsidies, the mandate would help move insurers away from a business model that relies on marketing and underwriting and towards a strategy that involves competing for customers based on performance and price. This is a good thing...and something those in favor of market competition could get behind."


This is why getting called a 'teabagger' for opposing RW policy makes me laugh.

[TransitJohn]

1. +1

Shit seems so obvious, huh?

[Edweird]

3. It would be comical if the implications weren't so dire.

[Oregone]

2. People don't want to face the fact that mandated & subsidize pruivate insurance comes straight from

the Republican party. Anyone disagree, google NHIPA of the 70s.

[Edweird]

4. Hell, McCain was campaigning on the benefit tax.

That was just over a year ago.

[MajorChode]

5. Hmm, makes you wonder why not one single GOPher is voting for HCR

No?

[Oregone]

6. Its not a mystery

They don't want a black Democrat to get credit for it.


There are multiple instances of this plan coming from Republicans up till now.

[laughingliberal]

10. Exactly!

Their entire reason for opposing it is to deny the President a political victory. This plan is so far to the right, they're just pissed off they didn't think of it first. Of course the other point here is that if the Republicans had offered this plan it would have been seen for what it is and no one would be cheering for it.

[MajorChode]

11. So why didn't they do it in the 6 years they had control of all three branches of gov?

Kinda makes you go, hmmmmm.

[laughingliberal]

13. Their first priority was getting their wars on

I don't think they ever expected to lose Congress and the White House between 2006 and 2008.

[Edweird]

14. What's your theory?

[MajorChode]

16. I'm not the one proposing a theory in this thread

I'm merely asking questions about someone else's theory that I'm not well convinced.

[Edweird]

18. Ok.

Is there any question on your part about the source of 'individual mandate', 'benefits tax' or 'insurance company subsidies'?

[MajorChode]

21. No, not really

I think the reason why we don't have, and probably won't have a government sponsored single-payer system is because we allow our politicians to be bought and sold by strong special interests to a much higher degree as compared to some other countries. I don't see this collective idiocy exclusive to either of the two major parties' ideology, although it may certainly be more heavily weighted towards one.

[Edweird]

23. We are in agreement.

:toast:

[Oregone]

29. Theory?

What is the theory? Look up Nixon's NHIPA. Look up the Republican counter-proposal in 94. Check out Romney's plan. What's the theory?

[Oregone]

28. Probably too busy worrying about what country to bomb next

And what new ponzi scheme to run to make it appear the economy isn't a cadaver

[Matariki]

22. As the minority, they can vote against it and STILL get it.

and the more they appear to oppose it, the more the Democratic base cheers it on.

[Edweird]

24. Yep. Have their cake and eat it too.

[Edweird]

7. So they can run against it. They get their twisted policy AND get to talk about how they opposed it.

Win/win for them.

[dkf]

8. They don't like the subsidies nor regulation of business

[Oregone]

9. Subsidies were part of Nixon's plan

They like corporate handouts. The actuarial rate is probably set too high for their liking, and maybe they don't like regulated MLR

[laughingliberal]

12. Correct again!

The bulk of the subsidy money will be straight into the insurance industry's pockets. Actuarial values are low enough (although I'm sure the right would like to see them lower) and out of pocket costs are high enough that the inusurance companies will see vastly more benefit from them than the people who are buying the subsidized policies.

[Edweird]

20. This was less than 6 mos. before the election - while Obama was campaigning against this stuff.

[Edweird]

15. shameless self kick.

[area51]

17. Thank you so much.

I'd been searching for a Gingrich quote like this, as from what I remembered, Newt was the first person to propose insurance mandates. This is completely a republican plan.

[Edweird]

19. No, thank you.

You clued me in.

[PufPuf23]

25. Much worse than merely ironic. nt

[Edweird]

26. "Pyrrhic victory" is the word of the day.

[Edweird]

27. .

[nightgaunt]

30. That is what makes it so strange-both parties are now mostly against us

Both parties are under the control of the same kind of people. But in a show of "partisanship" they must be attacked even as they roll over getting you what you want. By being "pragmatic" the Democrats do what the Republicans want time and again and get nothing in return! Now how is that possible?* A system that becomes even more dangerous for you and me. The Republicans & Democrats** are under the spell of the crypto-fascists who despise the changes made to this country since 1933. Since 1980 they have been very busy in both bringing down the middle class and pumping up the corporate side of business & melding it with the state along with a form of hybridized Christianity with in that mix. In an inverted totalitarian set up the reich wingers get what they want very fast with little trouble. But for things we need for us like decent healthcare, it is fought and obstructed tooth and claw by them in both parties they are in. It also makes the most reich wing president since GWB in office to actually look to the casual observer to be "liberal" despite his actions. A good cover isn't it? Good cop and bad cop only in this case it is bad either way just one is playing a role.

* Unlike the Republican party there are still many moderates and Progressives in the Democratic party that are fighting but are still out gunned.
** I think the Libertarians are too infiltrated by them just to make sure.