It seems to me, and let me just play the audio here, that you are for the individual mandate for health care, and you have been for quite some time. Let's play the audio. Four people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system, which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy, so ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance. Okay, that's 1993. Here is May 2011. I agree that all of us have responsibility to help pay for health care, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently, we ought to have some requirements either have health insurance or you post a bond, or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable. But that is the individual mandate. There's a variation on it. That's it. Okay, here's about Paul Ryan trying to fix Medicare. 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 of the left is a very good way for free society to operate. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare. But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting was just to improve Medicare. 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 you. I don't want to, I'm against Obamacare which is imposing radical change and how it would be against a conservative imposing radical change. Okay. Yet you seem to always be, this is long-term individual mandate stuff. You seem to be very interested in the government finding the solution. Well, let's go back to what I just said. What I was asked was if a program is unpopular to the Republicans imposing, anyway, if you can read this, you can listen exactly what I was asked from the show. And what I said I'm stand by which is enough for you society. You don't elect officials to impose on you things that you disagree with. We just went through this fight over Obamacare. Now I also, ironically, I would implement the Medicare reforms of Paul Ryan once. I'd implement him next year as an optional choice. And I'd allow people to have the right to choose premium support and then have freedom to negotiate with their doctor or their hospital in a way that would increase their ability to manage costs without being involved, you know, without, but I wouldn't impose it on everybody across the board. I think it's a very large scale experiment, but I think you could migrate people towards it. I'm proposing the same thing on social security. I think young people ought to have the right to choose a personal social security insurance savings account plan. And the social security actuary estimates that 95% of young people would pick a personal social security savings account over the current system, but they would do so voluntarily because we would empower them to make a choice we wouldn't impose it on them. That's a question of how do you think you can get at this country to move more rapidly towards reform? And I think you can get it to move towards reform faster by giving people the right to choose. Let me just, I just want to get to a few things. You've supported the, you voted for the Department of Education. You, in 2007 said, very cautious about changing fanny and Freddie on global warming with sitting down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, and I would agree with you. That was a dumbest moment of, you know, that would have been a dumbest moment of my life. And I agree with that. But when you look at, it's not a moment of your life. In speech after speech, in your book, contract with the earth, even with John Kerry in a debate, you said this, you have John Kerry in this debate sticking up for the private sector, and you say the government should help pay. I think there has to be a pie, if you will, a green conservative, there has to be a willingness to stand up and say, all right, here's the right way to solve these and seen by our value system. And now to have a dialogue about what's the most effective way to solve it. First of all, I think if you have the right level of tax credit, it isn't just exactly voluntary. My guess is there's a dollar number at which you would have every utility in the country agree. They're all in a bill of carbon sequestering power plants. So, so this, I mean, I think that this is a definable alternative. You know, this is a huge transition. You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it. I don't know. I want the government to pay for it with a big tax credit. Help me out. This is a multi-year stance. It's not a moment in your life. Well, first of all, I thought in environmental studies, and I believe in the environment of general. And I think it's a wide. Okay. Second, I think that there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument. And the point I was making was in a situation where, for example, having a larger nuclear program reduces carbon in the atmosphere, it's a prudent thing to look at nuclear as one of the actions. But you, it's a prudent thing to develop a green coal plant that takes the carbon and puts it into carbon sequestration to use it to develop oil fields more deeply. And it can be axi-economically done. We do it right now in West Texas. All right. So you believe that you can't, you can't really change fundamentally. You would have to vote for the prescription drug bill because you couldn't move, but you believe that you can get nuclear power plants built in a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, Gingrich administration. I was sure a little bit. You have this. I also think you can reshape Medicare, but I think you have to do it in a way that people find it desirable and that people think and that people trust you. I, I'll perform Medicare in 1996 in a way that saved $200 billion, and we had no major opposition to it. So people concluded that we had thought it through and we were doing the right thing and they were comfortable with it. Do you still believe in the inconvenient truth as outlined by global climate change advocates? Well, I never believed in Al Gore's fantasies. In fact, if you look at the record, the day that Al Gore testified at the Energy and Commerce Committee in favor of cap and trade, I was the next witness and I testified against cap and trade. And in the Senate, I worked through American solutions to help beat the cap and trade bill. Cap and trade was an effort by the last to use the environment as an excuse to get total control over the American economy, centralized in the Washington bureaucracy. And in the end, it had nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with their desire to control our lives. No, I have to tell you, because it was very clear, I'm sure, in advance, and I hope my staff made this very clear that this isn't going to be an easy interview, but I think there was no gaps here by the stretch of the imagination I didn't expect any. But I appreciate the willingness to come on and answer the tough questions and I wish you the best. Well, you and I always had a great relationship and I admire your courage and I admire the way in which you've always stood up and told the truth. And I think you've had a huge impact as I go around the country with key party folks in maximizing interest in American history and interest in the founding fathers. I think much of what you've done, you know, you and I don't have to agree on some things to have a great deal of mutual respect. I think you've been a very powerful force for good and I wish you well in your new ventures. Thank you very much. New Gingrich, thank you for being on the program. GBTB, the truth lives here.