A Bad Case of History Repeating Itself
Remember during the 2008 Presidential election when the Democratic Party began floating the rumor that Rush Limbaugh was the defacto leader of the Republican Party and the everyone within the GOP fell in line with that lie? Well, it's sort-of happening again.
Ever since Newt Gingrich announced that he was throwing his hat into the 2012 Presidential race, the Right has been foaming at the mouth. Fox News praised him up and down until he went on Meet the Press and labeled Paul Ryan's voucher plan as "right-wing social engineering". Rush has been begging the press to scrub the comments and doing everything he can to take what he said back after saying it. But what did he really say that was so wrong?
MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...
REP. GINGRICH: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.
MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.
REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the--I don't want to--I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.
[Source]
What exactly is so wrong about pointing out that extreme changes from either political spectrum would be a bad move? I don't think anyone would honestly argue that dramatic changes to the health care system would benefit people over gradual changes.
If things don't change in the way politicians handle their own statements - if we can't get leaders who will stand by their words - then the Republican Party will lose the Presidency once again. They need to stop pandering to one specific faction of the Republican Party and stick to common sense solutions because THAT is what's going to win out in the end.
Ever since Newt Gingrich announced that he was throwing his hat into the 2012 Presidential race, the Right has been foaming at the mouth. Fox News praised him up and down until he went on Meet the Press and labeled Paul Ryan's voucher plan as "right-wing social engineering". Rush has been begging the press to scrub the comments and doing everything he can to take what he said back after saying it. But what did he really say that was so wrong?
MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...
REP. GINGRICH: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.
MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.
REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the--I don't want to--I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.
[Source]
What exactly is so wrong about pointing out that extreme changes from either political spectrum would be a bad move? I don't think anyone would honestly argue that dramatic changes to the health care system would benefit people over gradual changes.
If things don't change in the way politicians handle their own statements - if we can't get leaders who will stand by their words - then the Republican Party will lose the Presidency once again. They need to stop pandering to one specific faction of the Republican Party and stick to common sense solutions because THAT is what's going to win out in the end.