Monday, November 21, 2011

The Individual Mandate: Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in May of this year, that he supports requiring all individuals to buy health insurance, post a bond to pay for health care, "or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable"--a position he called a "variation" on the type of individual mandate included in President Barack Obama's health-care reform law:



Hear that? Gingrich supports a mandate on a "NATIONAL LEVEL" requiring YOU to purchase health insurance or to force YOU to post a bond. Either way you cut it, Gingrich supports a national mandate. Sure, he uses smoke & mirrors by using the term "variation". Well folks, a variation of a national mandate is still a national mandate.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, believes that under the 10th Amendment, Massachusetts had the right to pass laws requiring that free riders purchase health insurance. This of course was something that Massachusetts residents supported (INCLUDING ME), and STILL DO.

Where does Romney stand on NATIONAL MANDATES requiring Health insurance? Here he is from an interview in September:



Now someone please explain to me, HOW Gingrich is an acceptable candidate for some conservatives and some Tea Party types? Because I don't get it! What am I missing?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hooray! You have the footage... I just had that NewsMax article.

I'm sure you really do know what the problem is... it has to do with some people thinking their religion isn't strong enough to keep their members if people know there are Mormons in the world who don't have horns...

Like everyone became a Quaker when Nixon won! It's stupid.

I'm sure their churches will be fine... They just need to settle.

Right Wingnut said...

Now someone please explain to me, HOW Gingrich is an acceptable candidate for some conservatives and some Tea Party types? Because I don't get it! What am I missing?

They're all bigots!

MassCon said...

Actually, RWN and Bosman, I think I have an idea as to why some folks don't back Romney despite the facts.

I was talking to an acquaintance about the primaries, and he said he is not a big fan of Romney.

He said it's because we "need a ball buster who's going to go to Washington and clean house."

In other words, this guy (and millions just like him) are looking for someone who comes off as tough, no nonsense, and aggressive.

And THAT, I've determined, is why this race has gone as it has.

Think about all the people who surged... what did they have in common? They are "ball busters."

And as a stark contrast, look at TPaw. He is probably the farthest thing from a "ball buster," and he dropped out almost 4 months ago. And Huntsman is experiencing the same sort of rejection.

So Romney needs to demonstrate some toughness coming down the home stretch if he hopes to really surge.

Anonymous said...

Michael Medved wrote a column about Romney's unflappability and how it seemed to be rejected by a certain number of GOP voters because he isn't perceived as being strong enough. It is true that he is pretty calm in situations. It isn't true that he lacks passion; he's just more controlled in his reactions than most. I guess we'll see how it goes!

Still, Newt Gingrich? Really?

AZ

Ohio JOE said...

"So Romney needs to demonstrate some toughness coming down the home stretch if he hopes to really surge." Yeah, I'm glad for your sake that you figured out what people demand during these economic times.

I finally met a real life Gingrichite at a wedding this weekend, AZ; my wife and I were disgusted at the man's lame answer for supporting Mr. gingrich, but there is proof that they exist.

Anonymous said...

geez OJ, even at a wedding you must bring up politics? yuck!

BOSMAN said...

I've wrote atleast 2 pieces on this topic of Romney not being tough enough:

Here and Here.

So these folks are FOOLS if they think Romney can't do what needs to be done, Perhaps it's because he doesn't scream, DROOL, or FOAM AT THE MOUTH, when he's doing these things?

Ohio JOE said...

And what makes you think that I was the one who brought it up Anon?

hamaca said...

OJ,

Ha ha. I'm sure I'm an exception, but weddings bore me to tears--I avoid them at all costs. But the few I've been "forced" to attend would have been so much better if I'd found someone, anyone, willing to discuss politics. :)

leighrow said...

I personally think it is a personality preference. I prefer leaders to be calm, cool and collect with no drama queen tendencies. I feel that when you show the enemy that you have lost your cool you just lost the battle.

I am still in shock that tea party conservatives would support a Washington insider who sold access to lawmakers as their candidate to transform government. Gingrich made his millions by being a big government parasite. Gingrich is not an expert on the National and World economy like Romney and Gingrich has had no experience restructuring real companies in the private sector.

Nothing makes any sense in this GOP primary.

hamaca said...

Since Freddie Mac received a government (tax-payer) funds to stay afloat, would it be too much of a leap to say that our tax dollars funded/reimbursed Freddie Mac's payments to Newt? Could that mean that %$1.6m of our tax dollars were paid to Newt the private citizen (as opposed to being on the government payroll)?

Anonymous said...

OJ, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on these things. I will let you know if I meet any Palin supporters in real life! :)

AZ

Ohio JOE said...

AZ:

If I sounded snarky, it was not meant against you. I am sorry if it came across that way.


Hamaca:

Largely due to demographics, I do not attend many weddings these days. However, it must be written all over ours faces. If I do not start talking poltics at social gathers, somebody else will bring up the subject.

My wife doees not talk about politics quite as much. One time at a charity dinner, somebody at our table turned to my wife and mentioned that she did not talk about politics as much as I do. However, she probably gets more phone calls and e-mails than I. A few years ago, a lady called my wife in a panic because so and so might win Ward 4 for city council. My told the lady that it was not her affair since we live in a different ward. Fortunately, so and lost. Since than, the incumbent died in office and so and so still lost in a special election.

Anonymous said...

OJ, I don't think you sounded snarky at all; I thought your comment was funny.

My family talks politics often, but our spouses frequently object. I have a brother in Texas that we have tried to talk into running for the Senate. He and his wife are both S-O-O good looking. They have the picture perfect family, and my brother (who speaks fluent Spanish) is a highly successful business executive. They are the reason my sister and I find the Romneys believable. Some people really do seem too good to be true. Maybe we'll convince him to run someday! We are all highly interested in politics, but at least we CARE what happens to the country!

AZ