Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pelosi's letter announcing candidacy: GOP isn't rolling back squat!

By Greg Sargent

Nancy Pelosi has blasted out a letter to colleagues, sent over by a source, laying out her reasons for running for Minority Leader. Her candidacy is partly about protecting the legacy of Dem accomplishments, and partly about ensuring that Dems show the fortitude and spine that will be required to resist the GOP urge to repeal them:

As you know, Democrats have produced historic legislation in the area of health care, veterans' benefits, women's rights, Wall Street reform, and cutting taxes for 95 percent of the American people and millions of small businesses. And we have restored fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the deficit-cutting Pay As You Go rules the law of the land.

These accomplishments have begun the difficult work of recovering from the worst economic collapse since the 1930s and, according to independent reviews, prevented our country from plunging into another Great Depression. As a result, numerous congressional experts call this the most productive Congress in a half century. This was only possible because our Members had the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the Country first.

Our work is far from finished. As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back. It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.

Many of our colleagues have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class, and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader. Based on those discussions, and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run.

Translation: The GOP is rolling back this Congress's accomplishments over my dead political body.

Of course, while this will galvanize the Dem base like nothing else, it will also fire up the GOP base, too, and touch off another round of recriminations, finger pointing and angst from moderate Dems. And you thought things would slow down after the election.

By Greg Sargent  | November 5, 2010; 1:34 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pelosi's gamble: She's running for Minority Leader, ratcheting up tensions with moderates
Next: Keith Olbermann booted from MSNBC

Comments

Go Nancy!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 5, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, while this will galvanize the Dem base like nothing else, it will also fire up the GOP base"

But you would agree that is probably the best of all available strategies? Given the Republicans have essentially announced that there will be no compromise of any kind, in what world would Nancy Pelosi be smart to offer any kind of compromise on anything?

And, given her district, how would it be in her long term political interest to moderate her tone? Irrespective how the GOP reacts to her "hard line" stance.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, nothing is slowing down, this country is facing a dismal future if it can't figure out how to put itself back to work. The stakes couldn't be higher. The right, foolishly but predictably believes government spending cuts will automatically turn into jobs for Americans. The liberals believe more stimulus (borrowing and more borrowing from Chinese workers ultimately) will turn into more jobs for Americans. They are both wrong, but the battle will be great to watch.

And the Republican Civil War is raging; they can't wait until Tampa to figure out how they are going to sort out the crowd of posers lined up for their Presidential bid.

They can feel ok about the House, but their Senate campaign disasters are more instructive. When it comes to running for President, they'd better find an inspiring moderate and they don't have one.

Then there is also the Obama administration's apparent inabilty to fight its way out of a paper bag. This is going to be a very interesting year in politics.


Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olberman suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for making political contributions.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 5, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Won't miss him. His vicious sermon to Hillary Clinton for making an oblique reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination was the end of Olberman for me.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I am in firm agreement with ethan: Go Nancy!

Posted by: sbj3 | November 5, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The only thing the Dems have done while they controlled Congress for the past 4 years and the white house for 2 is to ignore the MAJORITY of the American people. They forgot or never knew who they worked for. The Demsforgot they don't work for the wanna a be king, Obama, or the airhead from California, Pelosi. They work for us. Their policies have cause nothing but grief for the MAJORITY of Americans. Then you read a story like this and you can only shake your head in amazment that they still can't figure it out. We, The People, think your time in Congress sucked and has done nothing but harm to this country. The few that did gain are the ILLEGAL ALIENS and of course the countiesd that Obama sent alot of jobs to. With luck, in 2012, we can fire all politicans and hire Public Servants that work for the good of the country and it's citizens.

Posted by: Hopinghere2 | November 5, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Keith Olberman suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for making political contributions."

That's so stupid. First of all, his entire show is like an in-kind contribution to Democrats, and how has any modest sum he contributed to Democratic candidates had more influence than his show, I have no idea. And it's not like it hasn't been clear that he has an opinion.

Second, MSNBC at one point in time announced it was moving leftwards, and was positioning itself as sort of a liberal alternative to Fox. Which has obvious political, if not necessarily partisan, implications. It's okay to argue for an entire political party or ideology, but not for an individual employee to give *his own money* to the political candidate of his choosing?

The only way this makes sense is as a cynical ploy for ratings and attention. Otherwise, it's just foolish.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Great news for Republicans. Why do you think the Republicans tied all the Democratic candidates to Pelosi? Could there be a more disliked woman in America today? She is a cancer in the party.

Posted by: tnulta | November 5, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2: "Won't miss him."

Well, I won't miss him, either. But the excuse offered for his dismissal is awfully lame,

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Brava, Nancy! Best damned Speaker in a long, long time -- too bad she didn't have enough staunch Democrats standing beside her!

Posted by: S1VA | November 5, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi, the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 5, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The defiant attitude from the democrats is understandable - but it is certainly the wrong attitude to have.

The democrats NEVER had a mandate from the people for their left-wing domestic agenda. The only part of their agenda which they rode to power on was the Iraq War and the public's tiring of George Bush


The blogosphere is a bunch of this - the people on the internet - the liberals are encouraging this defiant attitude when the truth is that is not the correct course of action.


Nancy Pelosi has to remember she is suppose to represent the American People, not a liberal agenda

_____________________________

Blogosphere

The other element which is present now and not in 94 is the blogosphere - people on both sides are involved in politics and discussion their opinion - and involved like never before.

This is the NEW RANK AND FILE.


Anyway - this is a completely different dynamic. No one reads Time Magazine anymore - instead of politics once a week in Time - people are going to blogs for 5 postings a day. Cable News is hammering stuff out every night.


Also, Glen Beck has put a set of ideas out there that many may find extremist - however the liberals would be well advised to listen to Glen Beck's objections - and at least understand the thinking that is going on on the right about Obama.


The Beck people do not trust Obama- they believe his deceptions from the platform of 2008 are only the beginning - they believe the left is seeking to gain power to make major economic and social changes in this country - which few people want.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Seeing as how she brings in $ for the Democrats, its a necessity, thanks to C.U. and the Roberts Court. Now, if you want to talk campaign finance reform...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 5, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else think there's a discrepancy between how MSNBC and FOX are reacting to the news that their hosts are engaging in political activities (albeit on tremendously different scales)?

http://washingtonindependent.com/80186/nrcc-raises-7-million-from-hannity-dinner

Posted by: pollibido | November 5, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

If this were in the private sector, the board would be removing the leadership of the democratic party and bringing in new people.

On the public image side, a set of fresh faces would certainly be a good idea.

It is a horrible idea to continue to put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in front of the camera going forward to articulate the democratic message.

Obama should go too.


THE BEST CHANCE the democrats have would be to REPLACE ALL THREE OF THEM.

It's true.


From the Republican point of view - go ahead democrats, continue to put those three out there. The American People have a tradition, three strikes and you are out.

Go ahead, don't move toward the center - you only make Glen Beck seem more reasonable that way.


By the way, if one figures in redistricting, Pelosi is going to need the equivalent of a net 50 pick-ups to get to 218 and Speaker.

.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

@KW,

I disagree about the "excuse" for giving Olberman the boot. Programming is, as you well know, entirely an editorial decision and should be. But making political contributions to guests on your show shows a lack of journalistic integrity.

Stylistically, I personally, have found Olberman hard to watch for some time now.

We need more straight news in this country and it needs to be delivered by unbiased anchors and composed by an unbiased editorial department. Then, and only then, will the media begin to approach the sort of value and trust in factual reporting that the 4th Estate should be delivering to the American people.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 5, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Ethan-

Couldn't agree more.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 5, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes Ethan.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't see who else would be minority leader. Of the remaining conservative dems, those blue dogs won't hunt. Simply aren't enough votes. So you're going to have a progressive at the head of the congressional caucus, might as well be Pelosi. She's free from the need to actually produce. Her role now is to raise money and I think few would do it better.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 5, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Lord only knows what Sam Rayburn was called by the Right, and he was temporarily Minority Leader twice before regaining Maj. Leader.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 5, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"That's so stupid. First of all, his entire show is like an in-kind contribution to Democrats, and how has any modest sum he contributed to Democratic candidates had more influence than his show, I have no idea. And it's not like it hasn't been clear that he has an opinion."

I am no fan of Olberman, but I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 5, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

===( http://www.ebay21.com / )===

We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our
website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and
earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

Welcome to our website ===( http://www.ebay21.com / )===

Thanks to the support!

Posted by: ajdfhdfgtsdgasd | November 5, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

shrink

Pragmatic and I left you a question two threads back, if you're so inclined.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The BEST MOVE for the democrats is to get 3 new faces

Get Dick Durbin in there for the Senate leader.

Get a Centrist in there as Minority leader in the House

Get Obama to resign and go into the next election with Biden.

A whole new set of faces - and an brand new message - abandon the far-left-wing ideas. Put s message out there that the American People want.

The democrats would be wise to strip down that health care bill to a much, much less expensive option - and just get the whole health care issue off the table right away.


Anyway, it seems like the democrats are being ridiculous right now.


.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Clyburn announces he's running for Whip, his current job. That leaves Steny Hoyer, chief Blue Dog, as the odd man out. His base has been greatly reduced. I say go for it, Nancy.

Seriously. We neeed someone in the government who understands the severity of climate change, someone who can mount a defense to the coming show trials and goon shows the House GOP have planned.

Posted by: Mimikatz | November 5, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"We need more straight news in this country and it needs to be delivered by unbiased anchors and composed by an unbiased editorial department."

I'll by that, but how are you going to get by the false equivalent he/said/she said mentality. Also, having unbiased news that doesn't offer any depth to issues, even if the issues are "boring" is a waste of time.
It seems that many people watching cable want an entertainment factor with their news.
As for Olberman, this is a slap on the wrist. He will have less time off than the time he took off when his father was dying. I guess that the dough that Pat Buchanan gave to political campaigns in the last 5 years doesn't count with MSNBC management. As soon as Comcast completes the deal for MSNBC I suspect we will see the end of Keith, Schultz, Maddow and O'Donnell.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 5, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

chuck/shrink (agreeing with the following):

"We need more straight news in this country and it needs to be delivered by unbiased anchors and composed by an unbiased editorial department."

The absence of public expressions of opinions on or support for political matters does not make someone unbiased or objective on those matters. In fact, of all the people who will hold strong political opinions, political journalists have to rank up there at the top, regardless of whether or not we know what they are.

It seems to me far more sensible to allow journalists to publicly support the political causes/positions that they like, thus allowing their audience to incorporate that information into their assessment of the credibility of the journalists work, rather than to force them to be kept secret so we can then pretend that they don't actually have any such opinions.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 5, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

This is a decision for the Democrats in the house to make.

All this tea leaf reading is just a way to distract us from the shellacking.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 5, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to compare this to Boehner's letter to his minority in 2008--and remember, in 2008 Boehner had 8-17 FEWER seats than Nancy Pelosi faces now.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/boehner_campaigns_to_keep_lead.html

Note how the word "bipartisan" never appears in his piece?

Note how there is nothing even remotely suggesting the possibility of working with the Democrats, who had a BIGGER House majority than he has in 2010, and who also had the Presidency by a clear majority and a solid majority in the Senate (as they do now).

The people over-reading these midterm results certainly aren't the Democrats. They're the Republicans, who are STILL playing politics instead of taking their responsibility to govern the least bit seriously.

Posted by: theorajones1 | November 5, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

In light of the Citizens United decision, I find it hard to believe that it's constitutional for an employer to limit an employee's political speech.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 5, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

This is actually pretty good news. Nancy Pelosi is the "Wicked Witch of the West", Medusa, and "The Dragon Lady" all rolled into one, evil caricature to most Americans.

Pelosi is the killer of Democrat careers and one of the best money raising causes for Republicans in history.

Put her next to that grinning, rubber clown, Hapless Harry Reid and you have the formula for another Democrat blowout in 2012. This virtually guarantees Obama is a one-termer.

You go Nancy!!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 5, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Go Nancy!
We need a strong Dem leader to counteract all the DEregulations that Rethugs will be trying to pass for their corporatist buds.

Posted by: angie12106 | November 5, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Come now Theorajones. You are just giving us today's dose of good old liberal "do as we say not as we do"

How soon you have forgotten the high handed way that Pelosi and Obama treated the republicans when they first took office.

don't you recall "I won and I will trump you"? Apparently not. How about Ms Pelosi's shenanigans around the way the imporant bills were written. No Republican involement at all. "of course we wrote the bills, we won the election."

Now your side wants "bi partisanship"?

it is to laugh.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 5, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

So, with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Hussein all back in their usual places, we can expect more of the same failed shenanigans running up to 2012.

The gifts that just keep on giving to the Republican party. If I didn't know better I would think this is all an evil, neo-con plot to obliterate the Democrat party.

Hmmmmm! You know, this could work.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 5, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia wrote>>>As soon as Comcast completes the deal for MSNBC I suspect we will see the end of Keith, Schultz, Maddow and O'Donnell.

Perhaps - since the Comcast CEO is VERY Republican.
And notice that all House Democrats that lost had supported net neutrality. Telecoms must have worked overtime funding Republican lying attack ads against those Democrats.
And notice that - Righties have been indoctrinated by Fox & Frightwing radio to believe net neutrality would decrease our freedom! LOL
It's just the opposite.

Posted by: angie12106 | November 5, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Seniors are making appointments now for FREE checkups, effective Jan. 1 via Obamacare.
Thank you Democrats and Pres. Obama!

Posted by: angie12106 | November 5, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Her pitch is simple. I have already blown out almost all of the non left wing loonies from the Democrat side of the House. Why don't the rest of you left wing loonies let me finish the job.

Posted by: jdonner2 | November 5, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

will the dems show the Republicans how to fight when you are in the minority...
now we can all learn...
the dems pelosi bribed and controlled have been kicked out...
she will have few morons who will put their carrear on the line for her...

Posted by: DwightCollins | November 5, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"It seems to me far more sensible to allow journalists to publicly support the political causes/positions that they like..."

There is plenty of that, there is no problem with that, Fox is nothing but that, so is NPR in my opinion.

But if you are saying there is no place in America for an industry that just reports stories without having already woven them into the fabric of a political agenda, I disagree.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

John Boehner did not write this in reaction to anything Nancy Pelosi did. He wrote that letter on November 5, the day after the election. Did you read this letter? It was all tactics on how they were going to get back the majority.

In fact, in his publicly released "congratulations" to President Obama the very night of the election, Boehner said nothing about working together. Instead he bloviated about "a Congress that was purchased by powerful liberal special interests." He promised to deliver "accountability from Washington Democrats" and worried about Obama's "troubling policy roadmap." There was zero mention about how maybe it might be nice for the American people to try and find common ground on any shared priorities. This was his CONGRATULATIONS the night of the election. When, again, he commanded a minority SMALLER than Nancy Pelosi's, and he faced a Democratic President and a solidly Democratic Congress (as he does now).

I don't know how to break it to you, but the Republican party is not in a position to unilaterally dictate policy. They almost certainly will never be. And yet they are still behaving childishly, sputtering that they can't do anything for an election cycle except hold empty protest votes and oversight meetings to put Democrats on the defensive. Because, see, the American people really, truly want them to be able to unilaterally dictate policy, we just don't know it yet. (Of course, when the American people actually gave Democrats the power to unilaterally dictate policy in 2009, they argued that the American people didn't really mean to do it)

Republicans are doing this instead of looking for some kind of common ground from which to govern. They are behaving like petulant children who didn't get enough candy at Halloween, so they are going to take their ball and go home unless all the other kids give them their candy, too. It is utterly ridiculous, and it's par for the course.

Posted by: theorajones1 | November 5, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Reid wins, Pelosi runs, and Obama wants a summit with the Reps.

Call me crazy but didn't this movie just bomb at the box office?

So why are they making a sequel?

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Seniors are making appointments now for FREE checkups, effective Jan. 1 via Obamacare. Thank you Democrats and Pres. Obama!"

Free to them. Hardly free. Those docs are getting paid to provide that service. Someone is paying the bill. And oh look, seniors have a mean and medium income well above other age groups.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0705.pdf

So, yes. let's celebrate that working Americans are handing over their money so seniors, who are better off, can have a "free" annual wellness exam.

remember -- this is Medicare, not Medicaid. so we're not talking about low-income seniors who already have low- or- no cost sharing for office visits.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 5, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

seniors don't have a copayment for check-ups any more. that's the only difference. They still paid for their Medicare themselves, and are entitled to it. no one is subsidizing anyone. it's a trivial, but meaningful, rearrangement of the reimbursement, to encourage check-ups that will find problems that would cost the system much more to treat than the waived co-pay. some seniors struggling for money were skipping check-ups to save the co-pay, only to miss diagnoses that would cost Medicare much more.

Posted by: JoeT1 | November 5, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's message MUST be the new voice of the Democratic caucus. Over our dying parents and grandparents bodies will we let the GOP/TPers diminish our great accomplishments. Make it clear that the Democrats, and only the Democrats, truly represent a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE of this land. No amount of $ should be allowed to railroad the true and just cause of freedom, justice, liberty, and equality for ALL Americans. It is time for us liberals to realizes the very foundation of the America we love, and the America our troops are fighting for is, unquestionably, and unabashedly, under attack by those who serve their coporate and religious masters.

Posted by: KJR1 | November 5, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Perfect.

Utterly alienate independents.

Great strategy.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | November 5, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Perfect.

Utterly alienate independents.

Great strategy.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | November 5, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's message MUST be the new voice of the Democratic caucus. Over our dying parents and grandparents bodies will we let the GOP/TPers diminish our great accomplishments. Make it clear that the Democrats, and only the Democrats, truly represent a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE of this land. No amount of $ should be allowed to railroad the true and just cause of freedom, justice, liberty, and equality for ALL Americans. It is time for us liberals to realizes the very foundation of the America we love, and the America our troops are fighting for is, unquestionably, and unabashedly, under attack by those who serve their coporate and religious masters.

Posted by: KJR1 | November 5, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

It's debatable whether prevention actually saves money. The Post has covered this before:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403803.html

Basically, prevention activities target many more people than will ever come down with the disease being prevented. hardly a cost savings.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 5, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

It's debatable whether prevention actually saves money. The Post has covered this before:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403803.html

Basically, prevention activities target many more people than will ever come down with the disease being prevented. hardly a cost savings.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 5, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

It's debatable whether prevention actually saves money. The Post has covered this before:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403803.html

Basically, prevention activities target many more people than will ever come down with the disease being prevented. This is why the HHS panel recommended against routine mammograms.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 5, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

we're not talking about paying for whole new expensive screening's, like mammograms. annual general checkups were already covered. all that's changed is the co-pay.

not sure anyone has studied whether they are cost effective. Most HMO's seriously encourage them because they believe they save money, even though the entire cost of the physical is an expense to an HMO.

here we're just talking about the co-pay, not even the modest remaining cost of a well checkup.

Posted by: JoeT1 | November 5, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Steel an Nancy want to hang on get it through both of your thick sculls. You have been fired now leave! Both of you have milked the system for far too long. Your old Nancy go home an knit because thats all the mind set you have left!

Posted by: JWTX | November 5, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

and you are right about specific disease screenings. at least on a strictly cost basis. they certainly seem worthwhile to those whose disease is detected. so that's a policy issue, not a cost issue. as for the mammograms, they weren't recommended against simply because the cost of screening the targeted population exceeded the cost of treating those whose cancer would be missed (again, that's almost never a good coverage argument, even if correct as to the cost balance, taken alone - Medicare coverage is based on medical benefit, not whether we would spend less letting some folks die than we will screening folks) but because the risk of mammograms (a mammogram does carry a small risk) in the lower risk populations exceeded the benefits of earlier detection.

Posted by: JoeT1 | November 5, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

57 PERCENT RULES FOR REPUBLICANS HA TO THE DAMN DEMOCRATS!

Posted by: JWTX | November 5, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

or to put it another way, we don't screen because we think it will save money, we screen because it will save lives. if the cost benefit analysis is too skewed, however, we do have to ask whether the extra money spent screening could be better spent elsewhere. if it actually saves money, too, well that's just icing on the cake.

periodic physicals seem to be worth it, and just eliminating a modest copayment for an already covered visit makes good sense if that's the case.

Posted by: JoeT1 | November 5, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

What's even sadder than blind ignorance is when one of the blind non-thinkers takes our freedoms so lightly and sacrilegiously, he can make jokes about it!

REMEMBER the quote of Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

########################

Unfortunately, SOME are ignorant enough to repeat history!

Posted by: Maerzie | November 5, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

You have written a terrific article, Greg Sargent!! Keep up the good work. Your mind is much appreciated!

Posted by: Maerzie | November 5, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Maerzie:

Is it overwrought night on the thread? Why didn't someone should tell me

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Nancy Pelosi does not understand the words "You are fired."

Posted by: Indi1 | November 5, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I have seen several posts today saying "seniors will get a physical starting Jan 1 2011 thanks to Obama." I do not know how you got this information, but seniors can get a physical anytime they want one just by having medicare. All Obamascare did was lessen the amount Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals. Perhaps it reduces the amount of physicals a senior can get. Obamascare does NOTHING for seniors. No thanks to Obama!!

If Pelosi wins house minority leader, she will give the republicans a big gift!! The majority of this country detests Pelosi. She and Obama, as well as Reid and a few others, just lost 60 seats in the house for the democrats!! Pelosi is such an egotistical maniac she can not understand that she and Obama lost!!

Posted by: annnort | November 5, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

From 2001 to 2008 the Republican party, :

Govt Size & Economy:
- Grew size of US Govt more than 7 previous presidents
-Increased the Federal Budget by 44%
-Increased Govt discretionary spending by 44%
-Increased earmark spending from $11B to $29B
-Borrowed $6.5 trillion from China
-Doubled the National Debt & left a Budget Deficit in 2009 (their LAST budget - 2010 is Obama's FIRST budget) of $1.2T (TARP, Fannie & Freddie, $140B tax windfall for Wall St big banks, AIG)
-Passed the biggest expansion of Medicare since its inception; 2003 Medicare RX Drug Modernization Act which has cost $1.3T and added $8T to Medicare's Long-term unfunded liability
-Created corporate tax subsidies which reduce Fed Tax revenue by $100B annually

Jobs:
-Had the worst job growth record in 75 yrs, 0.2% annually
-Average annual job creation of 375,000
-Average monthly job creation of 31,250
-Bush tax cuts, which cost $2.5T ($2.1T in reduced Fed Revenue, contributing to national debt, and $350B in loan interest)and were supposed to generate jobs
-8,000,000 US jobs shipped overseas, never replaced

Why would we give any group with that record a mandate to solve the country's unemployment or economy crisis?

Beats me.

Posted by: TruthFairy | November 6, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company