December 1, 2011

"If I see somebody who’s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance..."

"I’m looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who was ever on welfare."
Because what they’ve said is, a) I’m gambling that I won’t get sick, and b) I’m gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors.

Now when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectables are people who have money, but have calculated that it’s not worth the cost to collect it.

And so I’m actually in favor of finding a way to say, if you’re above whatever — whatever the appropriate income level is, you oughtta have either health insurance, or you oughtta post a bond. But we have no right, we have no right in this society, to have a free-rider approach if you’re well off economically, to say we’ll cheat our neighbors.
Who said it?

63 comments:

Patrick said...

My guess: Mitt.

Patrick said...

Win some, lose some.

garage mahal said...

Gingrich.

timmaguire42 said...

His first claim "I'm gambling I won't get sick" is correct. His second claim, "I'm gambling I can cheat my neighbors" is incorrect. The people he's talking about are doing no such thing. People at that level care about their credit rating and his bald assertion that they don't is wrong.

Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich--the only thing standing between him and the end of his 15 minutes is the need for the next savior of conservatism to hurry up and get here.

TWM said...

There's a third option - they don't get any health care unless they pay cash on the spot. Or take out a loan. Second mortgage the house.

I'm fine with all those since they were stupid enough not to buy health insurance.

traditionalguy said...

It's got to be a Newt lecture.

The smartest government is entitled to use unconstitutional methods...right?

TWM said...

"Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich--the only thing standing between him and the end of his 15 minutes is the need for the next savior of conservatism to hurry up and get here."

You think this is gonna hurt him? Seriously?

Revenant said...

People at that level care about their credit rating and his bald assertion that they don't is wrong.

I suspect he's wrong at every level. Even the smaller "not worth collecting" bills just wind up being sold to collection agencies.

traditionalguy said...

It's called Newt Wing Social Engineering.

He offers great ideas but fails to set direct doable goals that would permit a team to form to enact them, before he one ups them.

Newt is therefore not a winner as a leader.

Tank said...

Why would you punt on collecting from someone who makes $50K / year?

In other news, the only consistent conservative candidates are:

Ron Paul

Michelle Bachmann.

Still not sure why so many gave up on Michelle so quick. While she's not perfect, which of the candidates is? I could maybe vote for her, definitely for Paul, although I agree he's too soft on the religion of peace and a few other foreign policy issues.

The others ... why bother?

Hey sounds like a good title for R. Crumb.

bagoh20 said...

He has backpedaled on this position since back then. Now he is of the position that although it is wrong to be such a freeloader, the government has no authority to force the purchase of insurance. He's right now. This may make the problem hard to solve, but too bad. We have a Constitution. How did we survive before. How do we survive today without a mandate?

Tank said...

baggy

There are no candidates or parties speaking truthfully about health care.

There will be rationing of some sort. There always is. The gov't will do it, it could be done by "who has the money", maybe some other way.

There is not enough money on earth to pay for all the health care available, particularly for those in the last 6-12 months of life. Nobody wants to address this issue, because they will be buried.

X said...

I see a fat fuck who's made the calculated decision to not exercise or watch his weight complaining about people who don't want to pool their health care costs with him.

Amartel said...

Of course it's Gingrich. Durrh.
He's the Satan du jour now that Cain been's lied into near submission by a bunch of fugly litigious broads and their keepers.
http://www.youtube.com/user/toddfein#p/a/u/1/HhkDhnUY9xU
Chris Matthews has thoroughly beclowned himself beyond all recognition or recovery.

Agree with the sentiment. Irresponsible people should not have their problems paid for by the rest of us. Disagree with the federal mandate solution, however. Problem could be solved by removing the federal government from the equation altogether though it's a little late in the day for that.

Gingrich can talk his way out of this. Easily. The problem with Newt is that he can easily talk himself into a lot of trouble as well.

The unpredictability has an entertaining quality to it.

Original Mike said...

Yeah, but I bet he was refering to real, catastrophic insurance, not the economically disastrous model embodied in ObamaCare. Makes a big difference.

Moose said...

I like the post a bond idea - just don't give it to the government. That'll kill the whole financial rationale of Obamacare.

Wally Kalbacken said...

I don't understand how Newt is hurt - just because a record exists of him railing against folks who free ride on the backs of taxpayers. That aspect of criticism of him - or Romney, for that matter - is really shortsighted. Comprehensive coverage is the only thing that works, unless you are going to change the Hippocratic oath and allow providers to turn away those needing treatment.

Thorley Winston said...

Still not sure why so many gave up on Michelle so quick.

No executive experience. Never run or won or State-wide race before.

The last thing we need to do in 2012 is to select the Republican version of Obama 2008 as our standard bearer. We need someone who has proven that they have the ability to run a successful campaign outside of a gerrymandered Congressional district and more importantly, has shown that they have the skill set to persuade others to follow.

And that isn’t Michelle Bachmann or Ron Paul.

Thorley Winston said...

Yeah, but I bet he was refering to real, catastrophic insurance, not the economically disastrous model embodied in ObamaCare. Makes a big difference.

That’s a fair point, there were a number of conservatives who were open to the idea of requiring people to purchase catastrophic insurance (or post a bond to self-insure which IIRC was what Gingrich and Romney’s supported) similar to the requirement that motorists have to purchase liability insurance. The problem of course is we don’t have health insurance, we have prepaid health care and as we saw ultimately happened in Massachusetts and is happening under Obamacare, buyers end up being forced to buy policies with various mandated benefits that have nothing to do with catastrophic care (which is one reason health insurance is so expensive in the first place).

That being said, I’m still opposed to an individual mandate and agree that it's probably unconstitutional at the federal level but I’d be dishonest if I didn’t admit I’d probably be somewhat less opposed to it (but not in favor of it) if I reasonably believed that it would just be a requirement to purchase catastrophic health insurance and not the ridiculous and expensive prepaid medical care that gets referred to as “health insurance.”

Scott M said...

HSA's with a mandated catastrophic policy are the way to go. As there is slim to no opportunity for grift in that setup, it will never happen.

Shanna said...

Still not sure why so many gave up on Michelle so quick. While she's not perfect, which of the candidates is?

Once you go all Jenny McCarthy on vaccine’s you’ve put yourself firmly in the ‘not serious’ category for me.

I kind of agree with Newt's general point that if you are making a decent salary you should buy health insurance, but mandating it is a different question.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

So what if he supported the mandate then? It was initially an untested idea floated as an alternative to the control freak Democrats who wanted to take over the entire healthcare system in the early '90s. The American people refused to accept either idea. Then in 2011 the Democrats didn't give a shit about the months and months of protests, letters, phone calls, and polling that clearly demonstrated the mandate was unpopular with a majority of the people. The Democrats gave the peasants their middle finger and passed it anyway. Democrats just don't give a shit what you think.

I don't see it that Newt no longer supports the mandate is inconsistent or flip-flopping. He now knows it's unpopular and he wants a different solution. I consider that pragmatism.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
timmaguire42 said...

"You think this is gonna hurt him? Seriously?"

TWM, do I think what is going to hurt him, seriously?

edutcher said...

The problem is that Romney implemented something that was the model for ZeroCare.

Like it or don't (and a lot of people are iffy), all Newt did was voice an opinion.

But that's what's giving some people pause.

PS Mrs Bachmann is a good woman, but she's still only got 2 terms in the House under her belt and talked more about her 85 kids than what she'd do as POTUS.

Original Mike said...

"The problem of course is we don’t have health insurance, we have prepaid health care "

That is the problem. And Newt has the intellectual capacity to explain that to people. (Not that I've fully come around to being a Newt supporter yet, but there doesn't seem to be anybody else smart enough for the job.)

I also would be less opposed to the mandate if it were for purchasing real insurance.

Cedarford said...

There are many ideas of the Tea Party that are good, but they do veer off into insanity on two things:

1. NO NEW TAXES EVER!! Even if spent trillions of Obama & Bush stimulus, free prescription drugs, and neocon wars of adventure. Now lodged in debt, just like a credit card balance habitually not paid in full.
The rage on failure of voodoo economics and more tax cuts paying for themselves not having achieved reality - is just Tea Party anger that they think they shouldn't have to pay for past stuff they din't pay for. Cutting spending in the future does not address what they already owe.

2. The rage at people forced to hhave health insurance!! Vs. the Jesus-given Freedom!!! and Liberty!! they should have to free ride the system??
Insane.
I can see the Feds having to butt out on 10th Amendment grounds, but not on society going on Tea Party or libertarian logic that no one should have to pay in and free ride until they get sick, have an accident, or are very old - as sustainable. Or the Ron Paul excuse that people shouldn't be forced to pay...but no problem.. because kindly doctors and charities will make up for the financial losses.

Original Mike said...

Cedarford - You're smart enough to understand that the current system is not health insurance.

damikesc said...

The problem with this entire thing is:

The reason hospitals have to treat everybody whether they can pay or not is due to government law.

The law has hurt hospitals rather badly.

Why does anybody suspect more laws will correct this?

"Sure, our solutions tend to make things worse. But THIS TIME...we got it down cold, man"

Cedarford said...

timmaguire42 -
"Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich--the only thing standing between him and the end of his 15 minutes is the need for the next savior of conservatism to hurry up and get here."

Part of this is a mass conservative delusion that since Obama is hated by them, he is hated by the whole country, and This IS The Time for True Conservative Purity!! As any conservative and non-Rino will be an instant winner - an ignorant Pizzaman, a dumb Texan, a mildly odd 2-term Congresswoman, a disliked lifelong Beltway Insider with ethics difficulties - no matter!!
Victory over Obama is guaranteed and now is the time for far right purity!
Reagan II!!

Paul said...

Whom ever said that was stupid.

If you fail to set aside money for your health needs wny not just change the law that FORCES hospitlals to treat people FREE (and as we all know there is no FREE lunch.. someone PAYS.)

So if they cannot afford their hospital bills, well no hospital.

And that solves the health care finance thing. Just let them know if they don't purchase insurance, then they are SOUL (sorry, out of luck.)

There is no 'right' to health care and never was.

Cedarford said...

Original Mike said...
Cedarford - You're smart enough to understand that the current system is not health insurance.

=============
Yes, you are right on the descriptor not being wholly accurate, yet the problem persists.
Inordinately high cost of healthcare compared to other nations. Lack of choices, lack of access. Obamacare is bad because it did nothing to check unsustainable costs, offered expanded access only to those that got less services as welfare cases or illegals, and actually lessened the options by trying to impose a single non-option.

Original Mike said...

"Yes, you are right on the descriptor not being wholly accurate"

wholly??? This system bears no resemblance whatsoever to insurance. That's why it's economically failing.

Seven Machos said...

It's obviously Gingrich and this is Gingrich's problem. He's going to be sunk by his long history of garrulousness. He's not really that conservative. He's not really that religious. He's not really that libertarian.

He's a hell of a debater, nothing more.

Scott M said...

He's a helluva debater, nothing more.

Which explains why Romney will be the one up on the stage debating Obama next year. It also explains why Romney is going to be wearing a hunting cap with ear flaps.

Thorley Winston said...

So what if he supported the mandate then? It was initially an untested idea floated as an alternative to the control freak Democrats who wanted to take over the entire healthcare system in the early '90s.

Well in fairness, the Gingrich quote was from 2005.

That being said, I think your larger point is a good one and it’s why I don’t get all that upset when I learn that some Republican candidates once supported policies like an individual mandate to buy catastrophic health insurance, cap and trade, school vouchers, enterprise zones or various tax credits/deductions/exemptions as quasi-free market solutions to problems or as less objectionable alternatives to more statist policies. It doesn’t necessarily make them closet progressive or statist, it may just mean that they were trying to get what they honestly was the best possible policy.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s possible for someone who share your basic values to favor an idea when it’s new and after it’s been tried (like cap and trade has been in Europe) or when presented with new information (such as the Climate Gate memos) which weren’t available at the time to change their mind about these policies. It’s also just as possible that some abandon their support of a specific proposal because it’s no longer a popular or feasible idea and rather than expend the effort to try to convince the public otherwise, they think it’s better to move forward with something else that might be more doable.

Romney and Gingrich have both been in the public eye for a while and not just on the sidelines as critics (which has pretty much been Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul’s role and why neither has shown any effective leadership which requires a willingness to be wrong) to but front and center of trying to deal with some serious issues. I’m not surprised that both have at some point have embraced some ideas that are either no longer in favor as they were at the time and both have either honestly changed their minds or moved forward pragmatically or both.

jimbino said...

X is right.

What single, childfree, healthy, male in his 20s would want to pool with an obese, unhealthy, pregnant or female in her 20s, not to mention any of the other fecund females?

Especially one who gets a "family discount" in premiums for the other 4 children and who is hypochondriac.

The argument that anybody might be struck with a sudden illness only requires that emergency care insurance or bond be bought, not insurance sufficient to cover full treatment of hypochrondiacs and the perinatal care of all the breeders, circumcisions and all.

timmaguire42 said...

Cedarford, I don't think that's quite right about conservative delusion. The real problem facing the Republicans this time around is that the party underwent a sea-change just a couple years ago.

As a result, everyone they like is too new (ex., Rubio or Ryan) and everyone experienced is too...RINOy.

The upshot is, nobody really likes Romney and they are searching desperately for somebody else in a year where there might not be anybody else.

2016 will be a better year for Republican presidential candidates. Which is fine by me since I oppose one-party government above all else. Given that the Republicans are likely to hold the House and take the Senate in 2012, reelecting Obama is the only way to bring about some much needed gridlock.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Socialized 'care' always ends up in rationing. Its the one-size-fits-all round peg myth pounded feverishly into a square hole of acceptance.

Not everyone needs health 'insurance'. Everyone needs health 'care' from time to time, some more than others. Either we decide we are going to go all 'collective' on this or we will go back to what health care really is, a 'product' and not a 'right'.

I do see an opportunity for providers (doctors) to offer catastrophic 'insurance' separate and outside the realm of individual choice for routine care.

I don't care if it was Newt or any other politician with this opinion, I disagree, there are far too many assumptions when you really consider what he said.

Andy Freeman said...

> is just Tea Party anger that they think they shouldn't have to pay for past stuff they din't pay for.

Oh really? Where have they actually said that they don't want to honor current debts? (No, you don't get to infer that position.)

> Cutting spending in the future does not address what they already owe.

Actually it does.
If I'm making $10k and have to pay you $1k/year for the next 10 years to cover what I've borrowed, I don't need to increase my income to $11k. I merely need to spend no more than $9k.

bagoh20 said...

We don't want no crazy tea party ideas changing things. They are so stupid and scary.

The tea Party knows that additional taxes will be spent and used as an excuse to not cut what needs cut. I have watched this happen for 30 years now in California. It's a downward spiral that has my state nearly beyond hope.

It has been fixed in other countries only through cutting spending dramatically. Tax increases, when included, are trivial and only for political cover.

Besides, raising taxes now in any real way is suicidal stupid. That's exactly what is always done before it's given up as a failure and the cuts are forced to fix things. By then a lot of capital is lost forever, and the hole is deeper. This is not new.

The Tea Party is just organized sanity, which in an insane environment looks crazy to the inmates.

ricpic said...

Get back to pay for service and holier than thous will mind their own business. Or is that fee for service?

Thorley Winston said...

2016 will be a better year for Republican presidential candidates. Which is fine by me since I oppose one-party government above all else. Given that the Republicans are likely to hold the House and take the Senate in 2012, reelecting Obama is the only way to bring about some much needed gridlock.

Reelecting Obama in 2012 is the only way to make sure that the changes he and his party put on autopilot during the first half of his first term (e.g. Obamacare, the 40 percent increase in administrative rulemaking, the executive authority to unilaterally enact bailouts, etc.) remain in effect. If you want to undo them, you’re going to need a Congress and President who is willing to do so.

That means Republican retain the House, gain control of the Senate and someone other than Obama wins the presidency in 2012.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

He seems to be unaware of self-insurance.

Thorley Winston said...

He seems to be unaware of self-insurance.

I think that was the point of requiring those who opt out to post a bond.

Cedarford said...

timmaguire42 said...
"Cedarford, I don't think that's quite right about conservative delusion. The real problem facing the Republicans this time around is that the party underwent a sea-change just a couple years ago.

As a result, everyone they like is too new (ex., Rubio or Ryan) and everyone experienced is too...RINOy."
================
While you lay out the basic dilemma, you miss that Obama is not inevitable in 2012. The dilemma that everyone qualified has "betrayed true believer litmus test purity" and are RINOs in the eyes of the new Goldwaterites...and all their dreamy candidates are inexperienced, unqualified, or are actually less conservative the fringe desires but have willfully put blinders on to keep the dream alive (see Chris Christie, Daniels, Newt)??
That is true.
Jeb Bush would have been a fine candidate but for his unfortunate last name, which probably pains Papa Bush to no end that Dubya ruined it for his non-bumbling, smarter brother. But even Jeb Bush is a "stinking RINO traitor" that fails the new Goldwaterite purity tests in some part, even has his 'flip-flops" as governor of a Swing state.

But I maintain that the likes of Bachmann are not the new bosses of Republican ideology. There was no more a "sea change" than the deranged Lefties of 1972 proclaiming McGovernism was the new Democrat orthodoxy. That year Lefties added to the Dem power..the grave mistake was them thinking that they then called all the shots over mainstream Democrats.

And yes, there is a big delusion out there in righwingers that Obama is so hated that any true believer conservative that gets the nomination is the inevitable President by acclaimation.

Not so, and unlike you, I think 4 more years of Obama means 3 SCOTUS seats and square miles of sheets of new economy-killing Federal Executive Act regulations.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

He seems to be unaware of self-insurance.

"I think that was the point of requiring those who opt out to post a bond."

Refundable?

mccullough said...

Maybe Obama can appoint Newt as head of HHS in his second term.

Craig said...

No one ever points out the hugely arrogant (and elitist) insult that everyone who chooses not to buy insurance is necessarily a deadbeat-in-waiting.

mccullough said...

Craig,

People familiar with Newt are used to his arrogance, condescension, and insults. That is his style.

He will win 10 states if he's the nominee. Americans don't elect assholes.

Also, he's a big proponent of big government. There's nothing Newt can't solve.

n.n said...

It's a voluntary act to refrain from preparing for the inevitable, but predictable, trials of life, and the consequences of failing should be endured by the individual.

In order to mitigate the high risk of corruption which follows from involuntary exploitation through and on behalf of authoritarian interests, society should promote voluntary exploitation (e.g. economic exchange, charitable works and donations) in order to assist individuals when they falter through no fault of their own.

The same mindset which justified saving governments, corporations, banks, unions, etc., is present in a large minority of our population. The only difference between the two classes is that the latter is typically incapable of exerting catastrophic leverage.

SteveR said...

However it was expressed, that statement cannot be meant to initiate the creation of a (destined to fail) system (Obamacare) which has the sole, ultimate purpose of resulting in a single payer, government run system.

John M Auston said...

Sounds like a well reasoned position, to me.

The situation he describes is not unlike the person who refuses to pay for support of the local Fire Department, confident that if his house should catch on fire, they will have to put it out, anyway, or suffer tremendous public disdain and possible legal troubles.

But the medical situation has an additional feature in that the person cannot be denied care.

Those of you who don't like Newt's comments - what is YOUR solution?

Revenant said...

But the medical situation has an additional feature in that the person cannot be denied care. Those of you who don't like Newt's comments - what is YOUR solution?

Make it legal to deny them care.

"Problem" solved.

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

We fled New Jersey because our pals in Trenton "reformed" health insurance for us in 1997. One day we were happily buying health insurance from a company in Milwaukee, then we got a "questionaire" from our capital. Months later, they sent us a congratulatory letter telling us how lucky we were that we were now entitled to purchase health insurance from six or seven companies. The cheapest one would have run us about six or seven times what we were then happily and easily paying.

All in the name of protecting us.

From what, I'm not sure.

John Shadegg (R-AZ) introduced a bill that would have made it easier for insurers to peddle insurance across state lines (and would have made the abovementioned nonsense illegal or impractical).

Haven't had health insurance ever since. We pay cash for all procedures, doctor visits, dental, scrips, etc. Or we take advantage of various (state, county) "programs" that offer free screening or free this or free that. And all along, we've been told by "friends" that people who don't have health insurance are "cheating their neighbbors."

And that our way of doing business increases prices for all. I would posit that folks who have insurance are the ones who make things more expensive for those of us who pay cash. They've all got it ass-backwards.

We're in NV now and health insurance is much cheaper. We're doing the research and we'll probably pull the trigger on a catastrophic plan after the first of the year. (A plan which was unavailable to NJ residents when we departed.) "Bond?" Why not just let people buy catastrophic with a high deductible?

P.S.: We're both healthy, middle-aged and we exercise regularly.

Lem said...

I was right.. it was Newt.

That man has said a lot of things..

Reminds me of Bork.. well qualified to be a Supreme.. but he "wrote too much".

Amy said...

Never say never, folks. I'm mid 50's, as healthy as they come. Fit, in shape, never ever sick. Until - found a lump, biopsy, a very aggressive form of breast cancer. 15 months of treatment, approx cost $250k. Now I'm back healthy as can be again. And I'm glad I had health insurance (HDHP with HSA, which covered everything after deductible).
So how much of a bond are we talking?

Revenant said...

Amy,

If you hadn't had health insurance, the public wouldn't have been stuck with a $250k bill. There would have been a bill for a couple of hundred bucks for the diagnosis, which you would have been billed for. Then you would have paid for the other treatments out of pocket -- or not received them at all.

Michael said...

Fine. Then Obama can run against the biggest sin to a liberal: hypocracy. Yawn.

Baronger said...

They ought to just do it like the student loan program. Grants and the like to people who really can't pay. Then if you don't have insurance or your insurance can't cover it; then government backed non-disposable loans.

That way the hospital gets paid. The customer has incentive to find the lowest cost. And as we know from the student loan program, they will find you. If you make enough money they will then take it out of your paycheck and income tax refund.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"And that our way of doing business increases prices for all. I would posit that folks who have insurance are the ones who make things more expensive for those of us who pay cash. They've all got it ass-backwards."

We have a winner!!!!!!!

wv - greed

JimM47 said...

"or you oughtta post a bond"

The bond option doesn't cure the federalism defect, but it sure goes a long way toward keeping federal hands out of the business of telling people what coverage they need to have, and by virtue of that, what coverage doctors should provide.