Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

No, Newt did not endorse the Obamacare mandate

No, Newt did not endorse the Obamacare mandate

The blog Verum Serum claims to have found an audio recording showing that Newt Gingrich supported Obama’s federal mandate, in a post titled Gingrich Called for ObamaCare Mandate in May 2009….

Breitbart TV picked up on that theme, asserting “this is the first example of Gingrich specifically endorsing President Barack Obama’s federally mandated version which many conservatives believe is unconstitutional and Gingrich has described as “clearly unconstitutional.”

This is wrong.  I have listened to the entire audio recording, and Newt does not endorse the Obamacare mandate, in part because the speech took place before even the earliest draft of Obamacare had been proposed.

The actual discussion in the recording is nothing new, listen for yourself, it shows Newt saying what he has said before about not allowing free riders at hospitals including either having insurance or showing that you have the ability to pay.  You can like it or not, but it’s not new or news, as Verum Serum acknowledges in its post.

The recording does not support the conclusion that Newt supported Obama’s federal mandate, which uses the police powers of the state to force people to buy insurance or face penalties.

At the time of Newt’s presentation, in May 2009, the earliest versions of Obamacare had not yet been released.  Newt specifically notes that the details of what would be proposed were unknown and (at 27:00) the process was still in the “wish list press conference stage.”

The initial version of Obamacare was not released until early June 2009.  My first blog post about the early draft (the Senate HELP Committee version) of Obamacare was on June 16 regarding the CBO assessment.  Various iterations of Obamacare were proposed throughout June –August.  The Obamacare legislation and mandate eventually focused on using the IRS as the enforcer.

The Verum Serum recording was before there was a specific proposal, much less a specific Obamacare mandate which turned into enforcement through tax returns and penalties.

It is not true, at least not based on the May 2009 recording posted at Verum Serum, that Newt supported the Obamacare mandate.

Update:  Ugh, Breitbart TV doubles down, “But, newly discovered audio from a conference call in May 2009 shows that Mr. Gingrich praised the individual mandate put forth by President Obama.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Another fact challenged attack from the so called “right.”

Man, these lies are so ridiculous. What will it be next. That Newt voted for Obama? Really? So sick of it. You want to criticize Newt on the truth, fine. But to attack him with lies presented as fact is pretty sleazy.

I listen to Laura Ingraham & what bothers me is when she looks the other way when Romney packs the audience at a debate or spends a large sum on negative ads & lies, she says, if you want to win you have to do that.

I scratch my head with that thinking. My trust in the conservative media has been tainted. So glad I’ve never bought any of their books.

She just said this morning that Newt sounded whinny when he discussed the dishonesty of Romney. He didn’t. He factually stated that to lie to win reveals a defect in character that should be taken seriously when that person wishes to be president of the United States. Look at the liar we have now.

Levin has been quite fair to Newt even though he supports Santorum. I’ll take Santorum over Romney if Newt wasn’t running. I’ll buy his book.

    Jake Blues in reply to NewtCerto. | January 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Hey, thanks for reminding me to add Laura Ingraham to the list of irrelevant pundits. It’s not much of a loss, I haven’t listened to her for several years, but Lee Habib was the interesting one on that show, and he’s been great in his defense of Newt.

“The real foundation, the most important part of this, is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectations of behavior. … We believe that there should be must-carry, that everybody should have health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be “free riders” failing to insure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room with no means of payment. If you have must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue, and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry-picking and maneuvering. … This is the kind of general model we will be advocating.”

Prof., that is what Newt is quoted as saying…regardless of the timing.

Seems like something he needs to address.

I mean, we DO insist on dealing with what IS, right?

    CalMark in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2012 at 11:51 am

    I don’t agree with the Individual Mandate. And I’m not trying to parse here: the government has no right to force anyone to buy ANYTHING. Period.

    However, the spirit of this is different. You’re posting a private bond, kind of like a health IRA. As opposed to paying a fine to the government.

    It’ still lousy and unconstitutional. But it’s not as bad as Obamacare, which stinks of Stalinism.

    Newt has said he changed his mind. I’m still leery, but what more can he say, true or not. The fact is, even if he still likes it, I believe he wouldn’t push for it again. But no one questioning Newt on a mandate, says anything about Romney went actually creating, and still adamantly defending, such a mandate. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

    P.S. I don’t think Romney is winning quite as big as everyone says, if they’re still posting fresh anti-Gingrich smears at this late stage.

FactCheck.org
Posted on December 23, 2011:
Individual Mandate: No flip

“Gingrich still supports a federal requirement that individuals obtain health insurance. He says his current position is “a variation” of the individual mandate he supported in 1993, as an alternative to the Clinton administration’s proposal that employers be required to provide it.

As recently as May 15, Gingrich said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.”

Gingrich, May 15, 2011: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.

NBC’s David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

Gingrich: It’s a variation on it.

That’s not much different from what Gingrich said on “Meet the Press” in 1993, when he said he “would like to see every American have health insurance” and that he was “willing to require that.”

Gingrich, 1993: I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance.

In 2006 Gingrich said that he would require “Americans over a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond,” according to the Detroit Free Press.

And in 2007 he said that “citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”

Gingrich has attempted to play down this long-held position. And he has said he is “completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals.” But we take that to mean only that a Gingrich mandate would be different from the mandate contained in the new health care law. Gingrich’s support for some form of an individual mandate may be unpopular among some Republican voters these days, but it’s not a flip-flop”

Regardless of the timing, he is nonetheless supporting the use of government’s police power to require people to buy insurance or post a bond (Similar to auto insurance here in California, now that I think of it.), without which his pairing of “must carry” with “must issue” doesn’t work. While it’s imprecise to say he supported the ObamaCare mandate before it even existed, I think it’s fair to say that, at the time, Newt supported *a* mandate. It’s not a red-line issue, because he’s since renounced his opinion, but it is something small-government conservatives should bear in mind, too.

(For the record, I prefer Newt to Romney, but I’m now concentrating more on electing as conservative a Congress as possible.)

    The key is “or post a bond”. That means there is no mandate to purchase anything, and thus no constitutional problem.

      Hope Change in reply to Milhouse. | January 31, 2012 at 3:57 pm

      Well, Milhouse, with all due respect, and I love that you are defending Newt — but I can’t agree — I think there is a huge problem with the government requiring us to post a bond.

      But as you know, Newt has said he has concluded it’s unconstitutional.

      Newt has said that that the more he looked at this, the more he concluded that it is unconstitutional and it cannot be made to work. Newt has repudiated the individual mandate. And he can explain why he wanted it to work, and why he concluded that it can’t work. It’s what we all do every day. We gather information, we problem-solve, we come to conclusions.

      Here’s a quote from Newt: “You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare. I’m against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong, and I believe, unconstitutional.”

      Even though Newt wants to address the problem of people with means not buying insurance and free-riding on the health system and the hospitals.

      Here’s some material I found on this.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/gingrich-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-15073261
      Newt says: the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. A significant number of people making more than $75,000 a year don’t have health insurance and they free ride on their neighbors. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Solving this problem in an individual-responsibility way is a very big challenge.

      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-unconstitutional-insurance-mandate-started-conservative-effort-stop
      TRANSCRIPT: “I just wanted to make one point that is historical. In 1993, in fighting Hillarycare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. After Hillarycare disappeared, it became more and more obvious that mandates had all sorts of problems built in to them. People gradually tried to find other techniques. I frankly was floundering trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills, while still leaving an out for libertarians to not buy insurance. And that’s what we were wrestling with. It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But it started as conservative effort to stop Hillarycare in the 1990s.” http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/10164-gingrich-was-for-individual-mandate-before-he-was-against-it [LINK FOR TRANSCRIPT]

      http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/16/id/396587
      MAY 17, 2011 In the campaign video released today, Gingrich insists: “I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and a half years at the Center for Health Transformation.

      “You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare. I’m against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong, and I believe, unconstitutional.”

      But some analysts say Gingrich appears to be parsing words. In his new statement, Gingrich says he opposes a “federal mandate” requiring individuals to buy health insurance, but leaves the door wide open for states to impose such mandates.

      In previous comments about mandates, Gingrich did not stress any distinction between a federal and state mandated program. In an email sent to the former House Speaker, Newsmax posed seven detailed questions, including how Gingrich would require every citizen in the United States to get health insurance or post a bond, if he didn’t enforce the mandate at the federal level.

      Although Gingrich offered no specific responses to the questions submitted, his press secretary, Rick Tyler, stated in his e-mail reply: “Newt is one of the most vocal critics against Obamacare and has called for its full repeal. He is also against a federal individual mandate.”

    Hope Change in reply to Phineas Fahrquar. | January 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    My, how quickly you give up!

    It’s a good thing Americans had more staying power in some of our earlier challenges.

    How about looking at what others have given so that we might live free and showing some courage and resolve. Newt is.

    Oh now, they’ve bombed Pearl Harbor! We’re doomed! Oh No! The British have the finest, strongest, most well-trained army in the world! We’re doomed!

    “When in trouble
    When in doubt
    Run in circles
    Scream and shout” U.S. Navy

    Newt is ahead nationally. This is going to get better and better for Newt and for the American people.

    Phineas, my friend, watch the speeches and learn. We have just barely begun to fight.
    http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches

And Romney refuses to back away from Romneycare and doesn’t seem to think it is worth getting angry about Obamacare. I trust Newt will repeal Obamacare and I don’t believe Romney will and that makes all the difference.

Go Newt!

So this must be the new attack point on Gingrich. Same strategies will apply from Romney team I guess, and Ann Coulter is back in the mix it seems…

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/26/not-buying-health-insurance-is

“Coulter continues: “the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.” Well, if you’ve seen the picture, Teddy Kennedy is standing proudly behind Romney too. But this just illustrates the larger problem: many of the national scholars, conservative and otherwise, who advised Romney on Romneycare favored the individual mandate as federal policy, not just as a state law. Newt’s dalliance with a federal mandate, mentioned by Coulter, came from similar influences.”

The comment I left was:

I wondered why Heritage Foundation & Moffit wasn’t pushing back against Romney’s recent comments on the individual mandate. A picture explains a lot.

I guess, these are just words.

From Moffit’s Washington Post column:

“Yes, in the early 1990s, we, along with other prominent conservative economists, supported the idea of such a mandate. It seemed the only way to solve the “free-rider” problem, in which individuals can, under federal law, walk into any hospital emergency room nationwide and rack up big bills at taxpayer expense.

Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it. In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802727_2.html

And a link to the “far better alternatives” he mentioned

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hhpr/currentissue/223-233%20Health%20Highlights_Moffit_edited.pdf

He talks about individual rights AND responsibilities. Right for patient to know price and options, things to encourage change in behavior toward more responsibility. I didn’t hear the quote about Obamacare/Hillarycare yet … am listening to the questions now.

At 33:20, leads into the “fourth box” about how to pay for it all.

If get the first three boxes working, then will have saved so much money that will be able to finance a 310 million payer system. “We believe you use vouchers and you use tax credits … probably voucherize Medicaid and put it back into the regular system.

We believe there should be “must carry”, everybody should have health insurance. Or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we will not allow people to be free riders, failing to insure themselves and showing up at the emergency room with no means of payment.

If you have must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have “must issue” and you will therefore a system where you don’t have to worry about cherry picking and maneuvering.

These four boxes begin to create a 21st century personalized health care system.”

So Newt said to have must issue, you have to have must carry. IOW, can’t force insurers to carry someone that shows up just when they need insurance. He says a bond would be allowed instead, not sure how much. That is not new.

The quote from your link has “Obamacare” outside the Gingrich quotation marks.

Gingrich Called for ObamaCare Mandate in May 2009, Said ObamaCare “Healthier…More Open” Process than HillaryCare

So Newt said “healthier … more open”. I haven’t gotten that context yet.

    If you were around during HillaryCare, and paid attention to it-

    You’d know how secretive and exclusive the process was-

    Hence, anything–ANYTHING would be more open and healthier than the “two for one” early years of the Clintons.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 30, 2012 at 11:06 am

    OK … at 26:00 … he only says the discussions are more healthy and open.

    today’s big news of meeting at White House … there’s a good thing about this and unknown thing.

    Good thing, in contrast to Hillarycare process of 1993, we don’t have 500 people hiding in a room trying to write the magic bill that’s gonna go through on a up or down vote.

    We actually have a process underway where lots and lots of different players have a real opportunity to have input, and I think in that sense this is already a healthier process than we saw in 1993 .. and a more open process.

    What we don’t know, and this is what leaves us a little more skeptical but encouraged … there are no details that are binding, and there are no details that are clarifying in an expensive way.

    What we’re really getting today is a press release that says we’d all like to get health reform, … we’re all pledged to do something on health reform, and we think if we all do this together we’ll save some money …. might be 2 trillion over ten years … and nobody’s defining where the money’s coming from … so currently we’re at the wish list press conference stage.

For the umpteenth time-

Newt has spoken many times about this issue. Yes, he wanted to pursue some sort of health insurance mandate. Not Obama’s, not Hillary’s, Not Pelosi’s.

You can argue that an “individual mandate” fails on it’s face. I’m fine with that.

But, we’re talking about Newt Gingrich. The ever creative, ever thinking, ever experimenting Newt Gingrich.

So, he explores the idea of a mandate for health insurance. He works with the CONSERVATIVE think tank Heritage Foundation.

All the models fail as unworkable and/or unconstitutional. He scraps it.

Before I go long, let me cut to the chase-

Who would you rather have:

-A man that tinkered and experimented with a public policy as a private citizen (I kinda think of Newt as the Thomas Edison of public policy), and scrapped it as a failure before being implemented-

-Or, a man that actually forced it on his constituents-made something deemed “unworkable” a law, defends it, and becomes the model in which a marxist used to force down the throats of an entire nation?

    Browndog in reply to Browndog. | January 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    It seems 2 people disagree with my assessment-

    Which is great-

    Not so great is that I have no idea why. Why would you let me continue in my wrong headedness without showing me the err of my thinking, setting my straight?

    Why must I continue wandering in the darkness, and you won’t share your flashlight?

Windy City Commentary | January 30, 2012 at 11:00 am

Back when conservatives were urging Congress to vote NO on Obamacare, how many were actually doing so because they didn’t want the govt. to tell us to buy health insurance? From my recollection, I remember most conservatives were against Obamacare because they didn’t want the govt. taking over healthcare and screwing it up like they do everything else. We didn’t want the govt. to get between us and our doctors. We didn’t want to face a death panel. We didn’t want to have to wait a year for a hip replacement.

Being forced to buy insurance was just another straw but it wasn’t the main concern. The only reason it is discussed so much now is because it is the only avenue for the Supreme Court to strike Obamacare down as unconstitutional. Apparently, it is not unconstitutional for the govt. to take over healthcare and ruin it, so the only recourse is for lawyers to argue that forcing citizens to buy insurance is unconstitutional. And of course now, Newt is taking a hit once again.

it is maddening that no distinction is mad between supporting the idea for some measure and actually passing it. legislation starts with an idea and in a non pelosi legislature there would be hearings and expert reports and testimony. at the end of that process the originator may change his or her mind saying maybe it is not such a great idea. romney went through all that and concluded government control was good. newt did not.

Newt’s stance on this is old news and it IS one thing I can’t stand about him. But he’s no different than Paul Ryan, or from Mitch Daniels “wonderful” SOTU response last week: the constant, irritating, maddening habit of conservatives to not only accept the liberal narrative but to run with it. The whole concept of “fee riders” drives me absolutely insane. On what planet, in what parallel universe, is it possible to walk into an emergency room and get “free” medical care when you have the ability to pay? Where does this happen? Newt actually said the word “wealthy” in one of the debates last week. ARGGGHHHH!

Poor people? Sure. Illegal immigrants? I’ll buy that. But people who have an income, are well off, or even “wealthy”? WHERE? Where does this happen? OK, fine, every industry has to deal with dead beats who don’t pay their bills. That’s why God created collection agencies and if you’ve ever been on the receiving end of a collection agency’s wrath you know they don’t give up. You pay. I once neglected to pay for a lab test my insurance didn’t cover and the collection agency came after me. I paid it.

My boss’s 20 year old son was severely injured in a snow machine accident. He had no insurance. The hospital gave him a payment plan. Does that suck? Sure it does. It’ll probably take him 10 years to pay it off. But he’ll pay.

For crying out loud, why don’t we just add another sales tax on all retail goods because some people shop lift?

My point is that Newt’s been saying this stuff for a long time. So has Paul Ryan. Hell, go watch Paul Ryan’s interview on Uncommon Knowledge from a couple of months ago. He sounds like Nancy Pelosi when it comes to people “owning” their own health insurance polices. Ryan goes into depth about how it’s wrong for people to get health insurance from their jobs. Duh? Why? Because the federal government can’t tax it, that’s why.

I’m voting for Newt tomorrow because all the things I don’t like about him are far outweighed by the things I do like. When he talks about America and American exceptionalism, about Islam, about how the economy will start to turn around on election night, and yes, even going back to the moon, I just love him. I don’t need perfection. I just want somebody who loves this country as much as I do. That’s more than enough for me.

    Hope Change in reply to Jaynie59. | January 31, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Hi Jaynie59. I am so glad you are voting for Newt!!

    Thank you! I honestly believe we will all be able to restore our country to its constitutional basis with Newt’s leadership.

    On this topic– It’s my understanding that people do get free medical care, they do have the means to pay, and yet they do refuse to pay or do fail to pay their medical bills. It’s my understanding that this is a big issue.

    As you clearly are aware, this is the problem Newt was trying to address.

    But Newt has said that he has concluded that a mandate to buy insurance –or, I presume, post a bond, is unconstitutional. Newt said: “You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare. I’m against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong, and I believe, unconstitutional.”

    Here are some video clips on this topic:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/gingrich-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-15073261
    Newt: the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. A significant number of people making more than $75,000 a year don’t have health insurance and they free ride on their neighbors. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Solving this problem in an individual-responsibility way is a very big challenge.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-unconstitutional-insurance-mandate-started-conservative-effort-stop
    TRANSCRIPT: “I just wanted to make one point that is historical. In 1993, in fighting Hillarycare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. After Hillarycare disappeared, it became more and more obvious that mandates had all sorts of problems built in to them. People gradually tried to find other techniques. I frankly was floundering trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills, while still leaving an out for libertarians to not buy insurance. And that’s what we were wrestling with. It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But it started as conservative effort to stop Hillarycare in the 1990s.” http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/10164-gingrich-was-for-individual-mandate-before-he-was-against-it [LINK FOR TRANSCRIPT]

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/16/id/396587
    MAY 17, 2011 In the campaign video released today, Gingrich insists: “I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and a half years at the Center for Health Transformation.

    “You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare. I’m against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong, and I believe, unconstitutional.”

    But some analysts say Gingrich appears to be parsing words. In his new statement, Gingrich says he opposes a “federal mandate” requiring individuals to buy health insurance, but leaves the door wide open for states to impose such mandates.

    In previous comments about mandates, Gingrich did not stress any distinction between a federal and state mandated program. In an email sent to the former House Speaker, Newsmax posed seven detailed questions, including how Gingrich would require every citizen in the United States to get health insurance or post a bond, if he didn’t enforce the mandate at the federal level.

    But I do think the professor’s post pretty much says it all. And it includes a link to the whole tape. I wondered why the tape was so edited. That’s usually a tip-off it’s intended to mislead.

    Hope Change in reply to Jaynie59. | January 31, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    test

    Hope Change in reply to Jaynie59. | January 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Hi Jaynie59 — I am so happy you are voting for Newt!

    As I understand it, there are people of considerable means who don’t buy health insurance, have some problem, get medical care, and then refuse to pay or fail to pay their medical bill. As I understand it, this is a big problem. And this, as you clearly state, is what newt was trying to address.

    Newt has said that the more he worked with the individual mandate idea, the more he realized it was not workable. He concluded that it is unconstitutional.
    “You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare. I’m against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong, and I believe, unconstitutional.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/gingrich-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-15073261
    Newt: the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. A significant number of people making more than $75,000 a year don’t have health insurance and they free ride on their neighbors. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Solving this problem in an individual-responsibility way is a very big challenge.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-unconstitutional-insurance-mandate-started-conservative-effort-stop
    TRANSCRIPT: “I just wanted to make one point that is historical. In 1993, in fighting Hillarycare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. After Hillarycare disappeared, it became more and more obvious that mandates had all sorts of problems built in to them. People gradually tried to find other techniques. I frankly was floundering trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills, while still leaving an out for libertarians to not buy insurance. And that’s what we were wrestling with. It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But it started as conservative effort to stop Hillarycare in the 1990s.” http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/10164-gingrich-was-for-individual-mandate-before-he-was-against-it [LINK FOR TRANSCRIPT]

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/16/id/396587
    MAY 17, 2011 In the campaign video released today, Gingrich insists: “I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and a half years at the Center for Health Transformation.

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | January 31, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      oops!! sorry! I didn’t mean to post that twice. Not sure what happened. The first post seemed to disappear. Unintended!! Sorry!! Thanks!!

[…] Legal Insurrection: No, Newt did not endorse the Obamacare mandate […]

The issue is fundamentally one of an unfunded federal mandate to treat all who present themselves at hospitals and clinics. The intent, of course, is to ensure that folks with life threatening injuries or illness, such as traffic accidents or heart attacks are not left to die in the street. The reality is that too many show up for a band-aid, aspirin or just because they like that young man/woman and want to continue their relationship.

Gingrich insists that this federally mandated care be paid for.

There is the ‘shall issue’ mandate in Obamacare which transfers the costs of pre-existing conditions to insurers. This plan is not sustainable unless all possible patients are enrolled.

Gingrich recognized this problem and said, in effect, that if we are to have ‘shall issue’ insurance, then all must be insured at all times. Gingrich does not require ‘shall issue’ insurance and provides the alternative of posting proof of ability to pay.

What Gingrich took for granted (as do all candidates except Ron Paul) is that federally mandated health care is acceptable.

[…] Our friends at Legal Insurrection disagrees with the conclusion made by Verum Serum. Here’s the most important part of his writeup: The […]

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 30, 2012 at 11:53 am

“Romney is arguably even more compromised on ObamaCare than Gingrich, but it’s a much closer call in my opinion than some seem to believe.”

-Verum Serum

Not really such a closer call – Gingrich supported a mandate, but then rejected the concept. Romney implemented the model for what would be ObamaCare and refuses to repudiate it.

Nope… not such a close call at all.

Jeez, this is really splitting hairs. Newt did not support the Obama mandate cuz it didn’t exist yet.

But he did support a mandate. OK, let’s call it the Newt Mandate.

    CalMark in reply to JEBurke. | January 30, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    …and Romney created a mandate, the first ever in this country.

    And still enthusiastically defends it as a wonderful thing.

    But all that’s irrelevant. Mitt and the Establishment say so.

    So all you ignorant peasants, pipe down and VOTE ROMNEY.

    Could we be approaching a “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment? I hope so.

Windy City Commentary | January 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Here we go again. I think it is obvious that Romney is feeding these blogs oppo research against Newt. Verum Serum isn’t exactly Drudge when it comes to audience, yet sure enough this morning Chaffetz has his talking points ready to go. Just more distortion and re-writing the history of Newt.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289639/chaffetz-gingrich-fairly-hypocritical-individual-mandates-katrina-trinko

    Just as likely to be Axlerod Oppo research-

    to be fair.

    Again, it’s better to get it all out now, since the Obama marxist machine has had 3 years to build their war plan to crush Romney-

    And yes, making Mitt the nominee was part of that plan-

Newt needs to set up a faster-response counter-attack team that stays on top of these attacks and furthermore peppers Romney and puts him on the defensive. He needs to stay contemporaneous and not just produce canned glossy ads. Too many things that implicate Romney are unfolding too fast — Gingrich needs to create a narrative of immediacy and exposure, so people feel like their tuning in to a breaking scandal. At the same time, he needs to tie Romney in with the Left and put everything he’s doing now in context with his past as a faux-conservative liberal collaborator. He can do this inexpensively not only through youtube videos but other forms of new media more forgiving of rougher production values (he can even use this rougher look to his advantage) as well as with at least daily maybe even multiply-daily “updates” on Romney’s lies and Alinsky stratagems.

He also needs to hit hard on the issue of electability by itemizing Romney’s weak even embrarrassing electoral past, all his spending and losing, reaffirming what he’s doing now — the same losing game. “Spending and losing as a pretend conservative.”

He also needs to more firmly and boldly align himself with the anti-establishment emotions, which is a wide-open barn door of opportunity across the ideological spectrum. Be very clear that Romney is Mr. Establishment, and ascribe the attacks against him as evidence. He needs to plant in people’s minds a seed of doubt and even indignation about every ant-Gingrich ad they see, flipping Romney’s money advantage and saturating ads against him.

    Hope Change in reply to raven. | January 31, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Hi, raven, and I think we are going to be part of that!

    We’re going to make ShakenBake, and we’re going to help!

    And to help with the research, here are some FAB FACTS about Romney I saw yesterday at Riehl World View, written by commenter Conservalidity.

    here’s the link:
    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/wake-up-conservatives-mitt-romney-is-running-as-a-leftist.html

    HERE’S THE COMMENT BY CONSERVALIDITY:
    Initially, Newt was not my preferred candidate, but if it’s a choice between him and Romney; it’s not even close, for Romney is only preferable over Huntsman and Paul’s foreign policy fantasies. That said, I will absolutely vote for the GOP nominee, I just pray for our Country that it’s not Mitt.

    Regardless of what the Establishment GOP (already on Mitt’s payroll) and Liberal Obama supporting media pundits say, Obama wants to face Romney in 2012 , for he will be the easiest to beat. 1) Conservatives won’t rally for longtime Liberal Romney’s cause 2) Uniformed quasi-Democrats and certified Independents are far less likely to cross over to vote for an “Obama light” candidate and more likely to fall for Obama’s rhetoric , in turn giving their “Hope & Con Man” another 4 years. That said, while one can look back at any politician’s record and label that candidate a “flip-flopper” ((IE) Reagan changed Parties and Churchill changed Parties twice), Romney is an entirely different animal. The evidence shows that all Romney positions depend solely on what he and his advisers think will best serve him in his next election. This Romney trait is unequivocal and a mainstay of the Left. Real conservatives, although circumstances sometimes force their hand once in office, never run on platforms consisting of Statist doctrine.

    Despite flip-flopping, Churchill and Reagan, like Newt, actually had a core set of values that they didn’t alter. I really can’t say the same for Mitt Romney. I couldn’t tell you what he really believes in. On the same note, unlike Churchill, Reagan and Newt, while in office, Romney promulgated a plethora of obscenely leftist policies and he does not have a successful public record. Romney has one term as an unpopular Massachusetts Governor with RomneyCare as his only achievement; that is unless you want to include the fact that Massachusetts was 48th in new job creation during his 4 years at the helm (just to be clear that’s out of 50 states not 57).

    Setting aside the personal attacks, most conservatives agree that a candidate’s record during the time he or she was in elected office takes precedent over all other points of consideration. So, let’s stick with the facts and you be the judge. Keep in mind; I am purposely not stressing his most egregious assault on liberty and the fabric of America as we know it – RomneyCare, so to shed light on a few of Mitt Romney’s lesser known, Leftist Big Government greatest Hits.

    Romney’s record as Governor is nothing short of disgraceful:
    • Romney voted to mandate Affirmative Action for all public companies
    • Romney opposed the Bush Tax Cuts
    • Romney strongly opposes the pro-growth “Flat-Tax”, using Marxist, Obama verbiage calling the flat tax “unfair”
    • As Governor Romney enacted $432 million in fee hikes and $300 million in higher taxes and refused to sign to a no-tax pledge each of his four years in office
    • As an ardent supporter of Cap & Trade, Romney worked to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” in Massachusetts and got Massachusetts involved in a regional climate change pact
    • Romney still supports tax payer ethanol subsidies (while even environmental conman Al Gore confesses they were a mistake, done for political gain)
    • As Governor, Romney proposed a budget in 2007 that was an outrageous 8.5 percent higher than the one he proposed the year before
    • In 2009 and 2009, Romney favored increasing spending “substantially” on energy research. Romney also supports tax dollar energy subsidies in general
    • Romney fervently supported Obama’s $Trillion Dollar failed Stimulus, saying the Obama Stimulus will “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery”
    • Romney opposed the highly successful Contract with America; an example of how Romney has no clue concerning the overriding goal of Democrat policies.
    • Romney supported reappointing Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve.
    • Reserve and Romney strongly supports the Failed Department of Education.
    • In 2004, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney introduced the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
    • In 2008, Romney told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “there’s nothing wrong with dealing with global warming.”
    • Romney still believes in man-made global warming (2011),
    • Romney distanced himself from Reagan and Reagan’s policies. During his Senate debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney made it clear he was not a fan of Ronald Reagan. Stating, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” Romney’s own words show – that not only did he not understand conservative principles; he was wholly unable to intellectually defend them.

    And the list goes on, proving Romney’s incomprehensible tendency not to just talk about, but to support Leftist, Big Government Policies. Was there ever a time when you supported Affirmative action for all public companies? Did you support Obama’s ridiculous stimulus? Consequently: It is categorically impossible for someone who understands and authentically believes in conservative political theory to voluntarily take so many wrong positions. Romney’s failure to understand Conservative Constitutional Principles is glaring. The evidence is abundantly clear; the only thing Conservative about Romney is his Rhetoric and now is not the time to support a squishy candidate.

    Now, let us look at Gingrich’s Record in Congress:
    • Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
    • Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
    • Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990.
    • Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
    • Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
    • Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
    • Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
    • Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995
    • Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
    • Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

    Everyone with insight agrees that in order to save the Nation: we need someone who both understands constitutional conservatism and is willing to fight for it. We need someone who will implement what’s necessary to stop the bleeding, regardless of how it affects him in that month’s polls, a true leader, like Reagan. If you doubt me look at his poll numbers during his first 20 months in office. And nothing makes me less confident in Romney doing this, than his REFUSAL to this day – to say RomneyCare was a mistake. All human beings make mistakes and great leaders admit to them. Reagan admitted to mistakes and faced the consequences. Gingrich has admitted to mistakes as well (ex) sitting on the couch with Pelosi, climate nonsense etc. However, I guess Romney, like Obama has never made a mistake. This is a character flaw.

    So, I ask again: Given his record, has Romney made a case to vote for him, other than claiming that he can beat Obama? I say still say NO, regardless of what the Establishment and MSNBC Morning Joe tells me. But wait, maybe Mitt’s publicity stunt last week should sway me; you know, where his surrogates rounded up 25 far- leftists from places like Mother Jones and the Huffington Post etc., for a telephone conference, without inviting even one conservative or non-partisan news sources. Gee, would a Conservative, secure with his beliefs, organize and make his case to a bunch of confused radical statists who NEVER would vote Republican under any circumstances? Ummmm, I suspect that’s something for great minds to ponder.
    We’ve heard Romney’s platitudes, but has he given us any ideas for how he will turn things around? Oh ya, doesn’t he have a 58 or 97 point plan pinned up somewhere in his campaign office? I’m sure, as we speak, his Mega-Colossal point plan is the rage, successfully turning on and firing up all of those “eager to support him” Independents and cross-over Democrats! Too bad he’s unable to articulate it to us dimwits. I don’t want to be unfair, maybe 23 televised debates is still a little too soon. You’re right, I’m confident the millions of former Obama voters will readily flock over and support Mitt, once he’s able lock them in a room for a few days, without distraction and explain to them his complex plan.

    Finally: How can you feel confident that Romney would feverously do what’s necessary to repeal ObamaCare? – when ObamaCare was designed by the same individuals, working for the same consulting firm that Romney hired to create RomneyCare in Massachusetts . It isn’t as if Mitt Romney still believes that the mandated, top-down Government controlled, one policy fits all healthcare program he implemented as Governor of Massachusetts was a good idea? OH MY GOD, HE DOES!

    Posted by: Conservalidity

[…] campaign also sent me this bit in Newt’s defense from Legal Insurrection who claims that the ’09 support of mandates was not support of the mandates that exist in the […]

OK, bottom line.

Newt was for a private-sectorish mandate, then changed his mind and promises to repeal Obama’s. Message: he cannot be trusted.

Romney created and still champions his government-administered mandate. Message: Newt can’t be trusted, Mitt can.

Huh?

    Browndog in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    For me, it boils down to this:

    Both men have a record in public office.

    One man acted conservative, one man merely talked conservative…kinda, sorta.

    Kinda wierd defending Newt, since he wasn’t even on my radar 3 months ago-

Henry Hawkins | January 30, 2012 at 2:29 pm

Bottom line? Sure….

Gingrich, Heritage Foundation, and assorted other conservatives:

Supported at one time something like an individual mandate based on the conservative value of individual responsibility, but overlooking the individual rights aspect of it. All admitted their mistake repeatedly, and all have spoken against the individual mandate repeatedly.

Obama & Romney:

Supported the individual mandate then and now, refuse to call it a mistake, and are the only two politicians in the US to have actually signed it into law.

Anyone not seeing and understanding the difference is playing political games.

Romney’s (and his surrogates) constant lies have pretty much made it impossible for me to support him in the general.

I never bought his oh-so-convenient sudden conversion to conservatism when he decided to seek the GOP nod for President. Add to that all these lies about his opponents in the GOP primary and I’d rather not have him sully the Republican brand any worse than it already is.

I live in New York, so it really doesn’t matter that I’ll be protest voting for Gary Johnson and the capital L Libertarian Party. But I’ll have no enthusiasm to support Romney, nor will I engage in the debate. I’ll just tune out, and not try to convince anyone I know to vote against Obama.

I see a President Romney (shudder) nominating justices like George H. W. Bush who go on to be stalwart liberals. I see Romney too spineless to challenge the growing threat of Muslim Brotherhood-led Islamism. I see him not standing up at all to the far left, and compromising on everything like Bush did.

I’d rather the GOP control the House and Senate, and leave Obama there for 4 years of getting nothing done. Better that than having a Republican to blame for everything that goes wrong.

[…] Insurrection: NO Newt did not endorse the Obamacare […]

[…] campaign also sent me this bit in Newt’s defense from Legal Insurrection who claims that the ’09 support of mandates was not support of the mandates that exist in the […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend