Newt Gingrich predicts health care repeal by early 2013, defunding before that

Newt Gingrich predicts health care repeal by early 2013, defunding before that

Aaron Blake
Washington Post
March 18, 2011

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that he expects President Obama’s health care bill to be repealed by the spring of 2013.

But even if Republicans can’t get to repeal, Gingrich said, the bill is doomed because GOP House leadership will refuse to fund it.

“He can block them from repeal,” Gingrich said at an event in Washington this morning. “I don’t think he can coerce them into funding.”

Gingrich, a likely 2012 presidential candidate, predicted that the unpopularity of the health care bill would make it close to impossible for the president to veto a budget that didn’t fund his health care reforms.

“The president would have to go to the country and say, ‘I’m going to veto this bill on behalf of more spending, a bigger deficit and a bigger Washington bureaucracy,’” Gingrich said. “I think that Speaker [John] Boehner and Majority Leader [Eric] Cantor are absolutely committed to refusing the fund the implementation of Obamacare.”

Gingrich, a leading policy mind for the GOP over the last two decades, noted that unpopular reforms have generally had a short shelf-life in American history.

Of course, if Obama is reelected, he would have veto power over any repeal of the bill, which would mean Republicans would need to explore alternatives.

Whether the bill is repealed, defunded or struck down in the courts, Gingrich said, it’s on its way out.

“The best you’re going to get is a real mess, from the standpoint of the left,” Gingrich said. “And the worst you’re going to get is total repeal.”

Let us hope and pray that this indeed comes to pass.

The number of companies already filing for exemption from just the early provisions of this abortion of a bill should be a sun-bright signal flare that this legislation will do nothing but wreak havoc on an insurance and health delivery system already beleaguered by massive over regulation and ever tightening government controls.

Set our health care system free!

dblboggie wrote:Let us hope and pray that this indeed comes to pass.

The number of companies already filing for exemption from just the early provisions of this abortion of a bill should be a sun-bright signal flare that this legislation will do nothing but wreak havoc on an insurance and health delivery system already beleaguered by massive over regulation and ever tightening government controls.

Set our health care system free!

Why? Why would you want for profit health care to deny Americans coverage when it's cheaper to have the same government run health care that every member in Congress has?

Cookie Parker wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Let us hope and pray that this indeed comes to pass.

The number of companies already filing for exemption from just the early provisions of this abortion of a bill should be a sun-bright signal flare that this legislation will do nothing but wreak havoc on an insurance and health delivery system already beleaguered by massive over regulation and ever tightening government controls.

Set our health care system free!

Why? Why would you want for profit health care to deny Americans coverage when it's cheaper to have the same government run health care that every member in Congress has?

Why do I want for-profit health care? For the best reason of all, service! The profit motive (when not corrupted by unnecessary government interference) is the very best way for the consumer to get the best quality and lowest price of the care they seek.

Turn it over to the government, and see what happens. The government doesn't have to make a profit, they don't have to operate efficiently, and they have no motive to deliver good service. They become a monopoly - and monopolies don't have to make anyone happy. And a government monopoly has the added advantage (a disadvantage to taxpayers) of not having to make a profit. So you can guarantee that the cost of health care in terms of higher deficits and taxes will swell to enormous levels as government inefficiencies multiply and waiting times for care grows longer and longer. Remember, the government will have a monopoly, and a monopoly can simply give you a big middle finger and say "tough luck, get back in line."

That's why I want a for-profit health-care system.

dblboggie wrote:Why do I want for-profit health care? For the best reason of all, service! The profit motive (when not corrupted by unnecessary government interference) is the very best way for the consumer to get the best quality and lowest price of the care they seek.

Turn it over to the government, and see what happens. The government doesn't have to make a profit, they don't have to operate efficiently, and they have no motive to deliver good service.

If you truly believe that then please explain why so many countries with socialised healthcare are rated higher than the USA in the WHO rankings for quality of healthcare, including the NHS which is 20 places above your country and has had a lot of mud flung at it by certain US politicians?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Why do I want for-profit health care? For the best reason of all, service! The profit motive (when not corrupted by unnecessary government interference) is the very best way for the consumer to get the best quality and lowest price of the care they seek.

Turn it over to the government, and see what happens. The government doesn't have to make a profit, they don't have to operate efficiently, and they have no motive to deliver good service.

If you truly believe that then please explain why so many countries with socialised healthcare are rated higher than the USA in the WHO rankings for quality of healthcare, including the NHS which is 20 places above your country and has had a lot of mud flung at it by certain US politicians?

First, you have to consider that we don't currently have a true free-market health care or health insurance system and haven't had one for decades. Second, I would challenge the WHO stats since the WHO is simply an arm of the United Nations and I don't trust any stats generated by the United Nations. This is an international body with an anti-American bias and were it up to me, we'd withdraw from this organization and create one that actually forwards an agenda based on supporting republican and democratic world governments.

Consider that Libya, until the recent unrest, chaired the UN's "Human Rights Commission." Can anyone think of anything more farcical than Libya chairing a "Human Rights Commission?" Libya, the perpetrators of the Munich disco bombing and the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, a nation with no political freedom whatsoever and an abysmal human rights record is assigned by the UN to chair their "Human Rights Commission." How anyone could view this organization with any credibility whatsoever is beyond my comprehension.

Third, I would ask for you to provide the methodology by which the WHO has placed the NHS 20 places above the US in terms of the quality of health care. Back when I was on private health insurance, I had a swollen knee, went to a doctor, was prescribed an MRI, and got that MRI the very next day. When it was determined that I needed surgery, that surgery was booked at my convenience, and I had that surgery within 4 days. My insurance, a high-deductible PPO plan, picked up everything after my deductible. I didn't have to wait for anything. I got all of my visits and treatments at my convenience. And bear in mind that this was not a life-threatening condition I had. It was not something that I absolutely had to do. It was simply something that would enhance my quality of life, but I would have survived without it. Now then... how long would it take someone in the NHS system to obtain the same health care I had?

The fact is, I do not believe that the WHO's ranking is not a true indicator of the quality of care in the US, though there is no doubt that we are currently paying way too much for that health care. But this is not the fault of the free-market system, it is the direct result of the government's overwhelming control and regulation of health care and health insurance markets.

So, when you compare the horribly kludged together abortion of a system we have today thanks to government interference, you are not actually comparing a free-market health care system with a socialized system - not by any stretch of the imagination.

And Obamacare is actually moving us even closer to disaster for our health care system.

dblboggie wrote:Second, I would challenge the WHO stats since the WHO is simply an arm of the United Nations and I don't trust any stats generated by the United Nations.

So we are back to flippantly dismissing sources without any consideration? I see no point carrying on as you will just dismiss anything I say on the issue bearing in mind your mistrust of everything UN related.

If you care to read the report http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf but be warned, it is over 200 pages long.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Second, I would challenge the WHO stats since the WHO is simply an arm of the United Nations and I don't trust any stats generated by the United Nations.

Then I see no point carrying on as you will just dismiss anything I said on the issue bearing in mind your mistrust of everything UN related.

If you care to read the report http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf but be warned, it is over 200 pages long.

Let me look over the report, then I will have a rebuttal. But I have to say that one cannot simply ignore the bias of the UN. It is not like this is a state secret or something.