Newt Did NOT Agree With Mitt on Health Care

As far as misleading headlines go in this primary campaign season, this one from ABC News certainly ranks up there as one the most egregious:

Gingrich ’06 Memo: “Agree Entirely With Gov. Romney” on Health Care

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard links to the actual memo, which reveals, quite clearly, that Newt did not “agree entirely” with Mitt on health care, and certainly did not “love” the Massachusetts health care plan, as was suggested in the story.

It’s unfortunate that the Drudge Report linked to the ABC News story, as if the headline and the claim were legitimate. The only question I have is this, who in the GOP field is ABC News trying to help? Ron Paul?

37 thoughts on “Newt Did NOT Agree With Mitt on Health Care

  1. Amazona December 27, 2011 / 11:18 am

    Anybody else wonder why the Complicit Agenda Media are working so hard to herd Republicans toward Romney?

    It is the media who have culled our field by picking who they want to be our frontrunners and then either ignoring or helping to smear the others, such as Santorum and Bachmann. It is the media who have played up a largely media-created two-man race, and now it is the media who are trying to herd us toward their preferred candidate.

    Here’s one possibility—-that it is pretty widely accepted that in spite of all the media interference and promotion he can expect, again, Obama’s chances of reelection are slim, so the next best thing is to make sure the Republican opponent is the one who will do the least to dismantle the radical Leftist agenda of Obama till the Left can regroup.

    Hey, if your team has a shot at the Super Bowl, it is only natural to hope the other league’s winner is not the strongest team they have. You always want to go up against the team you think you can beat.

    And in this case, the added advantage of Romney is that if he does win, in spite of a trillion dollars’ worth of religious bigotry, claims of racism and other low-class smears, he is less likely to damage the foundation of Leftist ideology that Obama has managed to put in place than, say, a true principled conservative like Santorum or Bachmann.

    They have been pretty successful so far in setting up a choice, for us, between two squishy Republicans with various defects to their names. Now they seem to have chosen their preference between those two. I just ask. “why”?

    • RetiredSpook December 27, 2011 / 1:04 pm

      Now they seem to have chosen their preference between those two. I just ask. “why”?

      Amazona,

      I think your premise earlier in your comment: “he is less likely to damage the foundation of Leftist ideology that Obama has managed to put in place than, say, a true principled conservative like Santorum or Bachmann” is probably right on the money.

      I think the agenda media is in for a surprise over the next few months. I believe the Tea Party will play a much bigger role than any of the pundits imagines at this point. It won’t surprise me a bit if we end the primary season in June without a clear-cut winner, which would be a healthy thing for the GOP and for the country. And even if Romney is the eventual winner, I think he could surprise a lot of folks by being a lot more conservative than he is being painted.

  2. Green Mountain Boy December 27, 2011 / 2:54 pm

    Matt the newsbusters link is broken. Is this the memo that was posted there?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060822061158/http:/www.healthtransformation.net/News/E_newsletters/index.cfm?newsletterid=20

    This paragraph appears in the article.

    We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

    Would seem to me that Newt does agree with Mitt. If this is accurate.

    • Bob December 27, 2011 / 3:28 pm

      I don’t choose to purchase insurance to cover the cost of dentures and eye glasses, because it is too expensive. But I don’t see how my choice to refrain from these additional expenses places any “onus of responsibility on taxpayers”. I just pay the bills for dentures and eye glasses as they are submitted to me.

      • RetiredSpook December 27, 2011 / 5:44 pm

        Bob,

        Ditto.

  3. doug December 27, 2011 / 4:19 pm

    They want Romney to win because if he does then it legitimizes Obamacare. Once a Medicare or Social Security type program survives both a Democrat and Republican presidency then it is forever a part of our system. National healthcare with a single payer system will be what we end up with, forever, if only they can get Romney elected. The GOP establishment knows this as well, that is why they are trying to get Romney elected as well. They believe if they have the reigns of the big government then they can benefit (just as Democrats do). It’s up to the people to take the government back and it appears we are going to have to fight our own GOP establishment to make it happen.

    • RetiredSpook December 27, 2011 / 5:49 pm

      Doug,

      IMHO, the powers that be (both parties) are completely oblivious to the likely unintended consequences of the implementation of ObamaCare: It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that thousands of companies and millions of individuals will simply flout the law or pay the penalties rather than provide insurance for employees in the case of companies or purchase insurance in the case of individuals. I believe we’ll see a level of civil disobedience unlike anything ever seen in this country.

      • Count d'Haricots December 27, 2011 / 6:10 pm

        As you know I work for a state agency, the cost of healthcare insurance is the biggest expense next to payroll. I’ve done the calculations for the institution for the costs over the next five years and find the only way the state can keep up is to dump all state employees into a federal run co-op and pay the tax “penalty”.

        Odd that it’s called a penalty when its really a reward.

        Seriously, I don’t care who is elected president as long as the TEA Party and fiscal conservatives are elected at every other level. Its too late for California, but the rest of the country needs to be actively involved in tossing the Harry Reids out on their collective dimocratic arse.

  4. Green Mountain Boy December 27, 2011 / 4:24 pm

    Do not count Santorum or even Bachman out yet, Not a single vote has been cast in the primaries yet. All the money in world may not be enough to buy the nomination for any single candidate.

    Wait and see.

    • neocon1 December 27, 2011 / 5:52 pm

      as of now Sanatorium for me.

      • neocon1 December 27, 2011 / 5:58 pm

        do either agree with the Mooch and Ochimpys………….
        NOW TEN MILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. LATEST vacation?

        where the hell is the press and OUR candidates ?????

      • bardolf December 27, 2011 / 6:49 pm

        I always thought Neo belonged in a sanitarium 🙂 It’s good that he will be getting the help he has needed for so long!

      • neocon1 December 28, 2011 / 6:14 pm

        baldork

        I always thought Neo belonged in a sanitarium

        Id rather be in a sarapalinium :0

    • J. R. Babcock December 27, 2011 / 6:03 pm

      GMB,

      I think you may be correct. I also heard something else today that, while not surprising, was not something that I had heard before: Ron Paul’s support in Iowa is not among Republicans. Romney leads Paul in Iowa among Republicans by something like 48% to 13%.

  5. Cluster December 27, 2011 / 6:40 pm

    They have been pretty successful so far in setting up a choice, for us, between two squishy Republicans with various defects to their names. – amazona

    Don’t discount the GOP establishment. They too have steered us towards their preferred candidate, but I agree with Spook in that I think Romney could be a decent president. Not the ideal conservative, but enough of one that, with his private sector experience, can get us back on the right path. Then in 2016, we elect……….wait for it…….

    MARCO RUBIO!!

    Now he’s a conservative we could all get behind!!

    • RetiredSpook December 27, 2011 / 6:49 pm

      Well, assuming he’s a natural born citizen.

    • bardolf December 27, 2011 / 6:51 pm

      If Romney wins the 2012 election why would Rubio run against him in 2016?

  6. bardolf December 27, 2011 / 6:54 pm

    The fact that only Romney and Paul got on the ballot in Virginia is evidence of the poor campaigning abilities of the rest of the GOP field. There isn’t a MSM conspiracy as much as a bunch of incompetence. With Ron Paul defacto ineligible according to the GOP elite is seems that Mitt is guaranteed the nomination.

    Obama re-election to follow.

    • dbschmidt December 27, 2011 / 7:42 pm

      I would not count on that as a matter of fact because of the new rules in affect where delegates are awarded according to percentage of votes in lieu of winner take all–there is a good chance no one will have the required 50% + 1 required anytime soon. That combined with the Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents (maybe), unlike Liberals and Progressives, can handle a write-in campaign.

      Might not need them, but I have sharpened all of my Crayolas here in NC.

      • dbschmidt December 27, 2011 / 9:26 pm

        Hmmm, my bad.
        Apparently it is illegal to write-in a candidate in Virginia. Interesting.

  7. dbschmidt December 27, 2011 / 7:55 pm

    BTW, way OT here but did anyone notice the request for just another $1.2 trillion in the spending ceiling we, Americans, can not afford. I can think of almost 535 people I would like run out of town with DC being the “town.”

    • bardolf December 27, 2011 / 8:42 pm

      Just one year ago there was a > 60-member swing in the house which controls the purse strings. The balance of power went toward the GOP. Republicans hold a majority of 242 seats to the Democrats’ 192 and ended four years of a Democratic majority.

      Do you think that Mitt or Newt would stop the flow or just slow it down by a smidgeon?

      • Green Mountain Boy December 27, 2011 / 8:49 pm

        If you are going to base your answer on thier preformance since this congress was seated, prepare for trillion dollar deficits as the normal.

        Thank you for reading GMB’s doom and gloom. I now return you to your regularly scheduled doldrums. 😛

      • RetiredSpook December 27, 2011 / 8:56 pm

        You know, we joke about the deficit and the debt, which I guess is a way of coping with something that is so outrageous that most people can’t really wrap their head around it; but is there anyone who seriously thinks we can continue on this trajectory and survive as a nation?

      • Green Mountain Boy December 27, 2011 / 9:02 pm

        “but is there anyone who seriously thinks we can continue on this trajectory and survive as a nation?”

        Yes Spook, there a lot of them. They are called democrats.

  8. Cluster December 28, 2011 / 8:32 am

    My understanding is that the $1.2 trillion dollar increase was part of the debt ceiling agreement earlier in the year, but it certainly was under the radar wasn’t it? The current state of politics is making my blood boil. Here’s a good example of how batshit insane everything is – the democrats are framing the payroll SS reduction debate as helping the middle class, whom they care oh so much about and of whom the republicans could care less. However, what’s not mentioned, is that the democrats propose to pay for the SS deduction through a tax levied on all residential real estate transactions which, if anyone hasn’t noticed, are largely purchased by the middle class. So in essence, the democrats are taking money out of one pocket, and putting the money in the other pocket, in the name of compassion, and the GOP can’t seem to figure it out. The democrats are simply playing a huge shell game, and their minions and the media (sorry for being redundant), are either too stupid, or too dishonest to report the truth.

    • tiredoflibbs December 28, 2011 / 11:33 am

      Yes cluster, the average Democrat drone is not sharp enough to catch that little detail. ObAMATEUR’s “accounting” is ripe with that tactic.

      That reminds me of a situation in New Orleans, during the Morial administration. City worker’s were given a pay raise. Only to pay for it in MORE taxes! The population fell for when they voted for the measure! They could not see the fact that their “raise” was ineffective.

      What can we expect from the average mindless liberal drone?

  9. bagni December 28, 2011 / 12:01 pm

    hey matt-ging
    it’s ok if someone changes their mind.
    newt hasn’t said he has changed his mind
    instead newt has been out there denying that he ever supported a mandate
    now we see that isn’t the case

    not only did he support the mandate
    but it kinda sounds like he was even pushing for subsidies to be offered…..
    nice…..

    “The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

    We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

    The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

    While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

    In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

    While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.”

    • watsonredux December 28, 2011 / 2:51 pm

      Bagni, how dare you report that here. You must be a snob of the liberal elite communist mainstream lame-brained media.

      • Cluster December 28, 2011 / 5:30 pm

        Watson,

        I would be interested in your comments on the political shell game being played, entirely for political gain, by the party you seem to think is so wonderful and compassionate.

        Any comments?

      • Amazona December 29, 2011 / 11:36 am

        Sorry to burst that giddy bubble of assumed “gotcha” that has wattles so tickled I do believe he just peed down his leg, but there is a teeny tiny itty bitty detail that baggi and his fellow travelers have decided to leave out of the Massachusetts health care narrative.

        MASSACHUSETTS IS A STATE

        Yep, folks, the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts is not the federal government of the United States of America.

        Let’s just let that sink in for a moment before we move on to address that look of bewilderment on the faces of these two PL trolls as they try to process this and figure out how it applies to Romneycare.

        Ready, boys?
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Yep. The Constitution does not prohibit any state from implementing its own effort to pay for the health care of its residents, so they have every right to do so. If the voters of that state want to try this, they can try this.

        It DOES prohibit the United States from doing so, as this is not a delegated power, but if the STATE of Massachusetts wants to do this, there’s no problem here.

        If that high-pitched giggle is about Newt supporting this STATE decision, you really ought to include his many comments on his belief that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not have that right.

      • tiredoflibbs December 29, 2011 / 4:20 pm

        Come on Ama, you expect these mindless drones to have an understanding of the Constitution?

        All they can provide is stupid little gotchas and dumbed down talking points as we have seen time and again! You constantly challenge them on their philosophy and they wattle around the topic with no clear answers, just more of the same mindless twaddle.

        Pathetic.

  10. bagni December 28, 2011 / 12:02 pm

    hey matt
    i miss mark
    and it’s unfortunate
    but this blog is dying….
    ::((

    • neocon1 December 28, 2011 / 6:13 pm

      nanu nanu dork

      due to trolls and morons like you.

    • Amazona December 29, 2011 / 11:21 am

      I see you have not gotten the memo, baggi—sad is out, glee is in. Shrill hysterical laughter is the meme of the day for you PL types.

      You miss Mark because he was more tolerant of your infantile silliness than we are, and you no longer have a champion here.

      Killing the blog is the goal of your kind, but you are not succeeding, so quit your premature grieving. You clutter it with your pseudo-political nonsense but all that does is provide ongoing affirmation of the perception that most who support the Left are both ignorant of its ideology and indifferent to its failures, being drawn to it not by its dogma but by its willingness to validate personality disorders to gain an army of mindless blog vandals and other emotion-based supporters.

  11. Best Running Watches January 4, 2012 / 3:22 pm

    Hi,

    Thank you for this valuable post. I really helps me a lot.
    Keep it up thanks.

Comments are closed.