Gingrich’s Health Care Group Supports a Mandate

The GOP candidate attacks Romneycare, but his for-profit policy shop backs its most controversial provision.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is running for president. He'd also like you to buy his book.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6266104452/sizes/z/in/photostream/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In CNN’s Republican presidential debate last month, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney tangled after the former Massachusetts governor declared that the idea behind Romneycare’s individual health care mandate had come from Gingrich. “You did not get that from me,” Gingrich thundered, before eventually conceding that in the early 1990s he and the conservative Heritage Foundation had backed the idea of a mandate compelling individuals to purchase health insurance. But, Gingrich contended, he had done so only in opposition to the health care proposal then being promoted by Hillary Clinton. What Gingrich didn’t say during this dust-up was that the Gingrich Group, a consulting firm the former GOP House speaker founded in 1999, currently promotes a plan that includes an individual mandate.

The Gingrich Group’s most prominent project is the Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit outfit Gingrich launched in 2003 that works with clients to “drive transformation” within the health care system. The center promotes numerous programs, including its “Insure All Americans” initiative, which is run by Vincent Frakes, who previously worked on behalf of pharmaceutical companies at the lobbying and PR firm Bonner & Associates. The program’s website notes that the “uninsured crisis is an enormous anchor on [the] healthcare system, our economy, and our future.” It adds, “[W]e must never forget that behind the statistics and headlines, there are individual Americans and their families who are struggling every day.” The site asserts—in distinctly non-tea-party-like rhetoric—that “[c]overing the uninsured is, indeed, a moral imperative,” and it details a proposal to expand coverage “to every American citizen within five years.”

This proposal—posted on the Center for Health Transformation’s website since at least 2008—blends a variety of health care reform ideas: incentivizing consumers to focus on wellness and prevention, promoting Health Savings Accounts, shifting the focus of Medicare and Medicaid toward managing chronic diseases, and requiring physical education five days a week in schools (and removing junk-food vending machines). And there’s this:

Require that anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond.

Here’s a screenshot of the website, with the relevant section highlighted:

That’s a mandate. That’s the current position of Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation. There’s no ambiguity. (The Gingrich campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

Of late, Gingrich has had an ever-shifting position on mandates. This past spring, on Meet the Press, he noted that he has “consistently” supported “some requirement” where “you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.” But quickly afterward, his campaign released a video in which the former House speaker proclaimed he was against mandates:

I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation…I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.

Gingrich neglected to mention that his Center for Health Transformation supports a mandate for anyone making over $50,000 a year. (It’s possible that Gingrich would argue he supports a state mandate but not a federal one. Yet in his face-off with Romney, he blasted mandate-dependent Romneycare, a state program, as a “big government, bureaucratic” system.)

As Gingrich has ascended in the Republican polls, his long career in government and the private sector has begun to draw scrutiny. This week, he caught flack for claiming that he pocketed a $300,000 fee from Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored housing outfit, for advice he provided as a “historian.” But, as Bloomberg reported, Gingrich received up to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac for providing strategic counseling, under contracts arranged by the group’s chief lobbyist at the time. (The money was paid to the Gingrich Group.) And Gingrich is also attracting attention for assorted flip-flops on climate change, Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to end Medicare as a guaranteed benefit, the US military action in Libya, and other weighty matters.

When it comes to health care mandates, it’s hard to tell whether Gingrich’s position constitutes a flip-flop or a dizzying gyration. The episode does show a classic Gingrich pattern of issuing too-clever denials in conjunction with fierce attacks. Throughout this campaign, he’s tried to distance himself from the mandate minefield, and during the mid-October debate exchange with Romney he suggested that his support for a mandate was two decades in the past and had merely been a tactical move at the time to thwart the dreaded Hillary Clinton. Not true. In recent years, he has supported mandates (or not, depending what statement you look at). But his Center for Health Transformation—which he often touts on the campaign trail—still does, without apology or spin.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate