Newt Gingrich, who last held elective office nearly fifteen years ago, found himself in that position today, thanks to comments he made yesterday:
?I agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy,? Mr. Gingrich told the host David Gregory. ?I?ve said consistently, where there?s some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you?re going to be held accountable.?
That's pretty clear support for a federal health coverage mandate. It's not precisely the same one as signed into law by President Obama?Gingrich would allow people to post a bond that would cover any potential medical expenses (presumably very few people could do this as it would need to cover potential expenses)?but the principle is similar: no free riders. Everybody must pay.
Less than 24 hours later, and Gingrich is already reversing himself in much the same way that he flip-flop-flipped on the RyanCare plan to end Medicare:
?I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals,? Mr. Gingrich said in a new video released Monday.
Gingrich goes on to claim the mandate is unconstitutional, saying he's fought against it every step of the way.
But if Gingrich thinks a mandate is unconstitutional and actually fought it every step of the way, why did he say he supported it on Sunday? And why has he supported it since at least the 1990s?
Could it be that he's a pathological liar? Who knows...but I bet his first two wives have a point of view on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment