Background:
Everything About Newt Gingrich you Never Wanted To Know
Peter King & Bill O ReiIlly's - In Your Face - Hypocrisy
Watch As Stephen Colbert Plays Bill O'Reilly With Steve Martin
Shocking: NSA Poker Tells, Secret Service Prostitution, O Reilly's & The Conservative Senate's/Congress's "Trixie" & Newt Gingrich's Open Marriage
“The third thing I think you have to do, which is for a conservative a little controversial, is I think you’ve got to require everybody to either have insurance or to post a bond,” Gingrich said in 2008 speaking at the Alegent Health Clinic in Nebraska. Read Alegent‘s press release from Gingrich’s 2008 visit
His present position (i.e 3-4 years later he's on the opposite side!)...
Notice That Newt Gingrich Is So Used To Lying He Can't Even Tell The Truth About Defeat! ...
Indecision 2012 - Jump on the Blandwagon
Mitt Romney takes Florida by a landslide, and Newt Gingrich confuses getting his ass kicked with winning the general election.
Newt Gingrich is a compulsive liar...
Newt is the sort who continually lies when the truth would work better. Now these aren’t big lies, and most are inconsequential. Meaningless really. But it says something about Newt, the man. It goes to character. It speaks to why Newt can spend his entire political career supporting socialist ideas, standing with socialists like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and many more. It’s how he can support their agenda, at the exact time Conservatives are trying to stop it, and then look you right in the eye and claim he just wanted to be part of the conversation.Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained
One of the biggest cons Newt is pulling, is his on going effort to make people think he doesn’t support pretty much everything included in ObamaCare.
Newt constantly says he doesn’t support the individual mandate “in ObamaCare” and this is the truth. Newt does not support the individual mandatein ObamaCare but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the individual mandate!
This is how smart Newt is. And make no mistake, Newt is highly intelligent. Newt knows that he can ramble on and on about the individual mandate in ObamaCare and only the most observant, only those who actually know Newt’s real position on the matter will call BS. The average voter just hears Newt is opposed to individual mandates, and moves on.
Worse than that, after hearing Newt doesn’t support the individual mandate [in ObamaCare] when presented with the facts that Newt actually DOES support individual mandates, as long as it’s in HIS plan, victims of Newt’s con get angry, and will often call you a liar. Or they go into a long explanation telling you that Newt gave a long explanation about it all.
Newt can talk longer, and say less, than anyone in politics today.
Even when shown video proof of Newt supporting individual mandates on many occasions, including as late as May of this year, victims of Newt’s con will tell you that you are wrong. That’s how good Newt is, and why he must never be allowed back in elected office.
Newt absolutely supports individual mandates. Newt teamed up with Hillary Clinton back in 2005, not only pushing for government mandated health insurance, but showering Hillary with praise in the process.
Now I think Newt is a true believer, just as he is in the man-made global warming hoax. That said, the $37 million he has been paid by various drug and insurance companies, all with a keen interest in seeing mandated health care insurance become law, wasn’t for “history lessons!”
This following is yet another example of a position change WITHOUT any external pressure, i.e. another lie...
Gingrich the professor was a strong advocate for scientific research. Gingrich the presidential hopeful? Not so much. In a November 2000 forum on policy in Science, Gingrich advocated for more government investment in scientific research and technology. In his essay, he specifically highlighted the need to allocate more money for climate research to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He lamented that NOAA is "so strapped for money" that it could barely keep its basic programs running, let alone make major new investments in cutting-edge research. This sentiment sets Gingrich apart from the current batch of Republicans in Congress, who have long been after NOAA and made the agency's climate work their prime target.
Even Sarah Palin is helping him lie! Why?
Wednesday September 3, 2008 Newt Gingrich: Newt Gingrich tells Jon that Sarah Palin brings a whole new breath of fresh air to the Republican Party...
[Concerning any argument about Oil prices read this...Oil Speculation Bubbles Are Pushing Up Oil Prices]
Here is a story about Newt and Palin... trying to make their dance them look like they are fighting!
Pretend Controversy: GOP Dinner Showdown Cable news loves reporting on a good fight, like the imaginary kerfuffle between Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
Sarah Palin has been pretending to be a Tea Party person!
About Death Panels
Death Panels
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich speak out against death panels even though they don't appear in the health care bill.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
"Death panel" is a political term that originated during a 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was first used in August 2009 by former RepublicanGovernor of Alaska, Sarah Palin when she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or child with Down syndrome—were worthy of medical care. Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel" myth;[1] nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care.[2] Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.
Palin's claim was presented as false and criticized by mainstream news media, fact-checkers, academics, physicians, Democrats, and some Republicans. Other prominent Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts backed Palin's statement. One poll showed that after it spread, about 85% of Americans were familiar with the charge and of those who were familiar with it, about 30% thought it was true.[1] Due to public concern, the provision was removed from the Senate bill and was not included in the law that was enacted, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 2011 statement, the American Society of Clinical Oncologybemoaned the politicization of the issue and said that the proposal should be revisited.
For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.
Another perspective: The “death panels” are already here
Sorry, Sarah Palin -- rationing of care? Private companies are already doing it, with sometimes fatal result.
The future of healthcare in America, according to Sarah Palin, might look something like this: A sick 17-year-old girl needs a liver transplant. Doctors find an available organ, and they’re ready to operate, but the bureaucracy — or as Palin would put it, the “death panel” – steps in and says it won’t pay for the surgery. Despite protests from the girl’s family and her doctors, the heartless hacks hold their ground for a critical 10 days. Eventually, under massive public pressure, they relent — but the patient dies before the operation can proceed.
It certainly sounds scary enough to make you want to go show up at a town hall meeting and yell about how misguided President Obama’s healthcare reform plans are. Except that’s not the future of healthcare — it’s the present. Long before anyone started talking about government “death panels” or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007 , after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company’s analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn’t have saved her life.
Wall Street Journal acknowledges that Sarah Palin was sensationalizing...
WSJ: Death Panels Revisited
The real death panel myth is that the term ever had anything to do with something so potentially beneficial. We wrote at the time that Sarah Palin's coinage was sensationalistic, but it was meant to illustrate a larger truth about a world of finite resources and infinite entitlement wants.
Under highly centralized national health care, the government inevitably makes cost-minded judgments about what types of care are "best" for society at large, and the standardized treatments it prescribes inevitably steal life-saving options from individual patients. This is precisely why many liberals like former White House budget director Peter Orszag support government-run health care to control costs: Technocrats in government can then decide who gets Avastin for cancer, say, and who doesn't.
Democrats and the press corps accused Mrs. Palin of misrepresentation to avoid reckoning with this inexorable rationing reality that President Obama has himself implicitly acknowledged. In a 2009 interview with ObamaCare advocate David Leonhardt of the New York Times, he called for "a very difficult democratic conversation" about the costs that are incurred in the last six months of life. The President even mused about whether his own grandmother's hip replacement following a terminal cancer diagnosis represented "a sustainable model."
The real problem is the political claim that Medicare and other entitlements are imposing on the culture of U.S. health care. Everyone, on the left and right, now behaves as if every medical issue is a political matter that the government or some technocratic panel can and should decide. No wonder "the 'death panel' myth" has such currency among Americans who won't be doing the deciding.
But if you insist...
Texas has had 'death panels' since 1999
If all you know about healthcare "death panels" is what you heard on a talk show, then you must think the feds will pull the plug on patients.
News bulletin: Texas already has death panels.
A Houston man's life was ended last week.
A leukemia patient identified only as Willie was denied nourishment and died, according to Texas Right to Life.
Since 1999, Texas has given hospital "ethics panels" the authority to end care even if the patient or family wants to continue.
It's called the Texas Futile Care Law. The Texas Senate bill passed in 1999.
Back then, the Senate's presiding officer was Lt. Gov. Rick Perry.
Yes, the governor who says, "I always stand by the side of life."
Willie went to the hospital a few weeks ago with chest pains, according to Texas Right to Life's Elizabeth Graham.
Doctors found pneumonia and leukemia, Graham wrote. After Willie underwent surgery and chemotherapy, his family asked about another hospital or hospice care.
Though he had plenty of insurance, no other facility would accept him. After the legally required 10 days, the hospital ended nourishment.
He was "dehydrated and starved to death completely against the family's desire," Graham wrote.
One of North Texas' more prominent anti-abortion groups is Arlington-based Texans for Life.
"It's not always clear, but sometimes hospitals jerk families around," Director Kyleen Wright said Friday.
"They run down the clock on the 10 days, then say, 'Time's up.' ... The hospital and the ethics board have all the say. Our position is that the family's and patient's desires should be respected."
During a 2010 gubernatorial campaign forum in Denton, a student brought up the law to Perry and opponents Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina.
All three promised they would repeal it.
Then, student Lauren Lutz, a Nolan Catholic High School graduate attending Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, delivered her zinger.
"If you were going to repeal the act," she asked Perry, "why haven't you done it by now? We have been pulling patients off ventilators when their families didn't want that."
He replied sheepishly, "I wasn't aware of that."
Lutz still opposes the law. "It's the whole pro-life question," she said Friday.
"The governor really didn't answer."
Lutz said Texans don't know about our panels because "the little people, the people who are really affected by what goes on Austin, aren't paying enough attention."
Except to talk shows.
Moment of Zen - Sarah Palin's Hypothetical Vote If Sarah Palin were a South Carolinian, she would vote for Newt Gingrich, but what's most important to her is the vetting process for candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment