There are enough problems with reform – big, obvious, scary problems – that make lying about reform unnecessary. Yet opponents continue to resort to ludicrous, unsupportable, and completely false claims about the bill, with some of the leading detractors choosing to rewrite history in an effort to scare voters and score political points.
It is NOT socialized medicine, socialized healthcare, government-controlled health care, a violation of the US Constitution, or any of the other ridiculous charges leveled by people who should be more responsible. The reform law is:
– pretty centrist – no public option, utilizing private, for-profit insurers to deliver insurance
– without price controls on providers or insurers, and with no utilization controls to speak of
– based on a very weak mandate that is more accurately described as a fine for those who decide to forgo coverage
Among the demagogues who know better is Newt Gingrich the former House Speaker is outraged, outraged I say, at the Democrats’ passage of the insurance mandate. He’s obviously had a change of heart, as a few short years ago he not only called for an enforceable mandate in a speech, he did it in two of the books he wrote.
Newt’s flip-floppery came about just yesterday, when the following dialogue took place on that fair and balanced network:
HANNITY: Do you think any of these constitutional challenges that are out there about the employer mandate, individual mandate, or any of the other challenges — do you think as they work their way through the courts, that any of that will be effective?
[…]
GINGRICH: Then you have to appeal the president’s ruling and they’d probably lose that fight. But what my sense is — first of all, I’m glad to see that some 13 attorneys general around the country —
HANNITY: Are going to sue.
GINGRICH: Have sued. Based on a 1992 Supreme Court decision which said that the federal government cannot punish you for failure to do something, I think that there’s an outside chance the suit will hold up. And that that will stop the individual mandate at the federal level.
Hmmm, seems pretty unequivocal.
here’s what Newt said just two years ago: “According to a June 11, 2008 Associated Press article (accessed from the Nexis database), which ran under the headline, “Gingrich suggests insurance mandate for those who can afford,” Gingrich reportedly “outlined his strategy to combat rising health care costs a plan of attack that includes insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year” at a visit to a Nebraska health system. The article went on to report that “Gingrich called it ‘fundamentally immoral’ for a person who can afford insurance to save money by going without, then show up at an emergency room and demand free care. He said those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it should be required to post bonds to pay for care they may someday need… Gingrich said everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government.” [emphasis added]
(from MediaMatters)
Is he so ignorant, or so ballsy, that he doesn’t think anyone will pay attention to what he said, or wrote, a few short months ago? Or is Gingrich so driven, so insanely desperate for power, that he’ll be blown by political winds like a feather in a gale? Gingrich’s patently false statements are prima facie evidence of the depths to which right-wing opponents will descend in pursuit of power and popularity.
It’s disgusting and abhorrent behavior, and ill serves the nation.
What does this mean for you?
The new law of the land is nowhere close to perfect, or even very good; as I’ve said repeatedly I’m deeply concerned about the law’s all-but-complete failure to address costs. There’s so much misinformation circulating about health reform it is impossible to keep track of it all, much less debunk it.
When you hear Romney, or Boehner, or McConnell, or their fellow wingnuts proclaim the end of America as we know it, ignore them, or better, marvel at the lengths they will go in pursuit of the votes of the ignorant.
Mar
29
Joe,
The mandate may have to go. My grandparents were christian science and did not believe in traditional medicine. We have seen several court cases of opting out of medical care for religious grounds. This could kill the mandate.
Joe—
here is the ultimate “flip-flop” on the mandate…
Eric – welcome back.
The President has certainly changed his position on the mandate. What is very different is how he has characterized that change, not to mention the fact that he explicitly acknowledged it multiple times, unlike Gingrich, Romney, and their fellow hypocrites.
Changing one’s mind is not a bad thing.
Lying about it for political purposes certainly is.
Paduda
@lpantell Conscience clauses are in the language of the new law. I cannot quote chapter and verse but the Amish and Christian Scientists may be listed specifically along with others if they hold and can document specific similar beliefs objecting to either health care or insurance.
@Joe
I live in Gingrich country and have been amazed for years how he gets away with what he says.
Here is a post I put up nearly five years ago you may find interesting.
http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com/2005/08/newt-on-healthcare.html
I just checked and the links are still active.
(My old blog got hijacked and I can no longer access it. Newshoggers is my new blog home.
Joe- explain to me how the President changing his mind “suddenly” within 3 weeks of being inaugurated, after 2 years of slamming the idea in every forum and format possible, is not hypocritical and politically motivated.
Criticize Republicans, fine, but have the intellectual integrity to recognize what the President has done.
Spokesperson for the CNA in 2007 against the mandate– obama
Mailers against Hillary in Ohio on mandate — obama
Every Hillary debate– against Hillary and the mandate
not to mention– railing against McCain about taxing benefits and then… supporting taxing benefits
Simple.
He changed his mind.
Incidentally, if you have been following the progress of this legislation from the start as I have, you would have noticed early on that both the House and Senate came up with mandated participation separately when the presidents “general expectations” (deliberately ambiguous) never mentioned the issue. The Kaiser Family Foundation put up a comparative, searchable, summarized summary vehicle at the start which included everything from John Dingell’s original bill which has been intrtoduced every session of the House since he was first elected, to the pure socialist model offered by Bernie Sanders.
I was originally a Hillary Clinton supporter because I supported mandates but reluctantly switched to Obama when it became clear tghat she was not to be the nominee.
I, too, changed my mind along the way. At the start I was doctrinaire single-payer, but Maggie Mahar’s reservations helped me see how complete government control could be ominous without private sector options. Access to contraceptives during the last administration and the recent acrimonious abortion debate underscore the importance of a system which with single-payer might easily be problematical. (I think a big difference between the Canadian and UK models is that private insurance is permitted in Britain but illegal in Canada.)
Eric – the post was about the hypocrisy on the right, as Romney Gingrich Hatch et al reversed their earlier positions, and the impact of that reversal on the political process going forward.
Note that Obama also repeatedly said it is unfair to force a mandate on those who cannot afford to comply; the subsidies address that issue, and it is indeed ‘intellectually honest’ to change one’s mind if the change is indeed based on new information or a different solution.
It is not intellectually honest to flip flop like Romney et al for patently obvious reasons.
“Gingrich called it ‘fundamentally immoral’ for a person who can afford insurance to save money by going without, then show up at an emergency room and demand free care. He said those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it should be required to post bonds to pay for care they may someday need… Gingrich said everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government.”
Seriously? This is what you’re talking about? The claim that a person should be held responsible for his or her actions, should face the consequence of those actions, is the same as a federal mandate that forces a person to buy insurance? You really can’t see the difference? This is far from hypocritical. This is a fundamental difference between a conservative and a progressive. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, in other words, “why NOT allow a person to face the consequences of not being insured?”. Progressives favor control, as in “we don’t trust you to do the right thing, so we’ll force you to do what we say is right”. This argument is just one more distortion to demonize the conservative approach to solving this problem and to convince the public that the only real option is to turn our lives over to the caring protection of our progressive keepers.
John – welcome to MCM.
Yes, that’s ‘seriously’ what I’m talking about. Gingrich said it is immoral to not have insurance and demand free care, therefore either have insurance or post a bond.
No where in his recent comments has Gingrich talked about or alluded to a requirement to post a bond. Instead he’s demagogued about freedom and choice.
In effect, he’s abandoned what some would consider a principled stance in favor of a politically motivational one.
As to your statement “Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, in other words, “why NOT allow a person to face the consequences of not being insured?”. Progressives favor control, as in “we don’t trust you to do the right thing, so we’ll force you to do what we say is right”…I don’t rightly know where to begin.
Perhaps part D is a great start – a massive giveaway to pharmaceutical companies funded by taxpayer dollars in the form of what amounts to a mandate with financial penalties for non-enrollment.
Or gay marriage. Or illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Now there’s some ‘control’ for you.
Paduda