Pelosi’s Medicare Tactics Already Crashed And Burned

On the final Sunday of the election season, the presidential race is up for grabs. The Senate is up for grabs. But one governing body is not up for grabs and that’s the House of Representatives.

While it’s possible the Democrats may gain seats, not even their own political spinmeisters are selling the idea that they’ll make up the 25 they’d need to re-take control. According to a report in The Hill, it’s because party leader Nancy Pelosi’s strategy of using Medicare scare tactics has been “a dud.”

The political Left has consistently used misrepresentation of Medicare and Social Security to gain ground and the tactic has been potent in congressional elections.

In 1986, the Democrats regained Senate control for the final two years of Ronald Reagan’s term because they exploited a Republican proposal that would have means-tested Social Security—required the wealthy elderly to give up some of their benefits to preserve the program’s viability for those who truly need it (I know, ironic isn’t it?).

In 2005, the Democrats regained political momentum by insisting that George W. Bush’s proposal to enable young people to start investing a portion of their Social Security taxes into stock market would destroy the system. The Bush presidency effectively ended with the death of his proposal.

Nancy Pelosi thought she'd be doing a victory dance on Tuesday night. It hasn't worked out that way for House left-wingers.

When Paul Ryan—one of the few Republicans who didn’t cower and shake when the Left’s distortion machine cranked up, was chosen as the GOP vice-presidential nominee—Pelosi salivated. The radical left-wing House Minority Leader was sure she would use his proposal to give vouchers to the elderly as the means to regaining her own power as Speaker of the House.

It hasn’t worked out that way.

One reason is that with Ryan on the ticket, House Republicans couldn’t follow their usual path of cut-and-run the minute a political fight a broke out (as they did quite shamefully in 2005). They had to stand their ground and defend Ryan’s plan and point out that it hardly ends Medicare.

I feel as though I’ve written on this topic until I’m blue in the face, but since the distortions keep coming, the actual facts have to be repeated. And the fact is issuing a voucher to allow an elderly person to buy coverage in the private market is hardly ending Medicare. It is, in fact, enhancing the system. It gives someone more choices to find a plan suitable to them. It requires private companies to compete for business and make their policies customer-friendly…you know, the same logic we rely on in every other walk of economic life. And issuing a voucher for health care is no different than doing one for food, but  I’ve yet to hear Pelosi call for ending Food Stamps as we know it and turning the program into government co-op.

In short, while reasonable people might differ on whether vouchers are as good an idea as I think they are, to say that it leaves the elderly in the cold is a lie. I understand why Pelosi is lying—she wants power. I don’t quite get what rank-and-file Kool-Aid drinkers think they have to gain by cooperating with the distortion.

Its working-class voters, disproportionately Democratic, that really have the most at stake in a true reform of Medicare, and Social Security along with it. The wealthy don’t have to worry about whether the system is inefficient, because their pockets are deep enough to cover it, through purchase of private long-term care insurance and well-funded retirement plans. Someone who works for less can’t afford to see that portion of their paycheck diverted into a system that can’t sustain itself.

The long-term answer is for responsible conservative Democrats to take back their party. The short-term answer on Tuesday is to repeal the imposters who stand in their place and create the opening.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of



  • afrommi

    If you are Catholic, have had a Catholic education which is universal
    and it gives all a conscience which answers the question “Am I my
    brother’s keeper?” the same way Jesus answer by His actions and speech,
    then there is no other way for you to vote but Democratic and for
    Obama. Analyzing what Romney offers, “reducing federal spending by
    sending programs for the poor to the states as an OPTION”, you will find
    out that action alone will increase state taxes in those states that
    will adopt those programs. Forcing most state to be selfish and not
    adopt them.

    While the egoist wealthy (not all, just those who think they owe
    nothing to anyone) will move to those states which do not adopt those
    programs in order to avoid paying more state taxes. Those who cannot
    afford to move, namely the working poor and middle class will be over
    burden with taxes to cover for those programs. It will not be only
    unjust and unfair but immoral.

    I pray to God, the Almighty Being in the heavens, the One to whom we
    owe so much, to guide those with a good heart, and who try to imitate
    Jesus, to vote Democratic. We have a free will and we can be egoist,
    and think only of profit, and expenses but we also can use that free
    will for the good of all. I don’t consider my self poor, and I know I
    will not starve if I pay more taxes, but I know that the wealthy will
    not starve either if they pay more. Let the burden of caring for the
    poor fall in all of us, not just the residents of states that adopt
    those programs.

    We must remember that Jesus did not overburden us, making us responsible for the way others act. He did not ask us to judge others, no, that is God’s job. He asks us to care for others as well as we take care of ourselves. What better way than to vote so part of our taxes be used to care for those who cannot take care of themselves, yet they were born.

    When Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan did not ask whether the person that was mugged was good or bad. Whether he was a homosexual or not, or worked or was lazy. No, he saw a person in need. And even when in the parable the responsibility was for all those who pass by and saw the need only the Samaritan who was supposed not to care for the other person was the only one who helped. But we all should care now for the poor. For the poor will always be with us. How can we show our God that our heart is in the right place, if it was not because they exist? How can we show God that we are answering the Big Question with a positive. Are we our brothers keepers? Yes! we are. If it is in our hand, yes we are. And now it is in our hands. The opportunity to vote and fulfill (2 Corinthians 8:14-15) 14 but that by means of an equalizing YOUR surplus just now might offset their deficiency, in order that their surplus might also come to offset YOUR deficiency, that an equalizing might take place. 15 Just as it is written: “The person with much did not have too much, and the person with little did not have too little.”

    • Al

      TL, DR

  • gerd

    after just signing up to this site and reading the posts, I have decided the best course of action at this time is that I pray for practicing catholics to follow their consciences wherein I believe it will become very clear who to vote for.

  • Paul

    The presidential race is not up for grabs. Obama will win the electoral college with at least 30 point margin.

    Reasonable people did not fall for Romney’s lying.

    • Joe M

      If that is true, why is Obama continuing to campaign at this very moment?

      • Madge

        Because, unfortunately, the Romney campaign is frantically releasing bald-faced lies and distortions along with blatantly racist ad campaigns. It’s a matter of simple diligence on the behalf of the Obama campaign to correct the errors, in the same way a parent must correct a learning child.

        • Joe M

          A lot of people say a lot of things. Why spend time “correcting” Romney and not everyone else?

          I think you have one thing right, Obama engages in selective diligence. If it matters for his re-election, he’s on it. If it matters for this country, it’s an optional activity for him.

          • Deborah C

            *shakes my head* Because not “everyone else” is trying to win the presidency. A single person is: Romney.

          • Joe M

            Exactly. And Obama wouldn’t spend his time “correcting” Romney if he didn’t think Romney could win.

            Thank you for confirming my point that the presidency is indeed up for grabs.

          • Deb

            That doesn’t even make sense.

          • Joe M

            Let me know which part you are confused about and I will clarify.

          • Oh, say it ain’t so, Joe!

            Which part I’m confused about? Are you mentally competent? Seriously, do you have a cognitive deficit, either inborn or resulting from maybe an accident or drug use, that affects your ability to make logical conclusions based on actual information?

            Sugar, I’m not confused. You are. I suggest you go back to school because the last thing anybody needs is you trying to explain anything.

            Remember your comment:

            “Exactly. And Obama wouldn’t spend his time “correcting” Romney if he didn’t think Romney could win.
            Thank you for confirming my point that the presidency is indeed up for grabs.”

            -Romney lost the election by over 3 Million votes and whopping 126 electoral votes. Romney and his Republican cronies lied, cheated, and stole in their failed attempt to purchase the presidency—kind of exactly like the Pied Piper, a nursery rhyme you’re probably not familiar with given your obvious lack of basic social cognition.

          • afrommi

            And Romney isn’t a real person but a manufacture one. Done by GOP image maker. They make a presidential candidate in 6 months. That is all the time the put into the future of our country. They made him up so he will not answer any question until after the election. He plagiarizes. Guess where the “rose by the bedside” came from:


            He is a deceiver who enjoys deceiving and has done that from his youth. He deceived the SEC, and deceived the IRS. The IRS is waiting to review his returns but with his money he can pay readily any penalty. So he is like the “run of the mill” psychopath, preferring to pay fines and penalties rather than accomodate to social norms.

      • paul

        because going home to sit on your ass makes a politician look lazy.

      • afrommi

        Because, what is he going to do with the money. This will be his last term. He has to use the money and the time alloted for it. Romney is doing the same and he also believes he is winning. People want to see the president. They like the hype.

  • Joe M

    My impression is that the Kool-Aid drinkers cooperate because they are willing to look past economic issues in favor of social issues that Pelosi is for. If they can protect the ability to have abortions by falsely painting Ryan’s ideas to fix Medicare, they will do it.

    • Annette B.

      So you are suggesting that the entire US Conference of Catholic Bishops falsely painted Ryan’s ideas. Not much of a Catholic you are. And how come every time CV puts up a photo of a woman, she’s made to look either like a wicked witch, a Stepford Wife, or disheveled (to say the least) and in a mental institution? You’re not doing yourselves any favors with such blatantly offensive and stereotypical propaganda. OK, go off now on how you’re defending authentic womanhood by insisting we stay barefoot and pregnant, how that’s the natural order of things and what God intended.

      • Julie T.

        Annette, I doubt very much that is your name or that you are Catholic. I do believe you are one of the Internet trolls who regularly post for the sole purpose of harassing Christians in general and Catholics in particular. That said, I will pose a question for YOU. Why do secularists like you treat the ability to give life as a DISEASE? Why are you revolted by it? Do you simply hate humanity?

        • Nancy

          Nobody treats the ability to give life as a disease. That is a patently ludicrous accusation. What people, a majority of people in this country, believe is that life is precious and that a woman, in her own right, is competent and capable of making health decisions for her own body with the counsel, if needed, of her family, clergy, and conscience. What is disgusting and revolting, dear Julie, is the fact that a bunch of white, wrinkled old men in government positions seem to think they have the ability to dictate to women what they can and can not do, whether it be health decisions, education decisions, or any other decisions that denigrate and demean the ability of a woman to make her own choices. You are making very uneducated comments and sound very naive to the voice and choice that women (and likely men, too) have in leading their own lives. The beauty of this country is that religion is separate from state. So, those individuals who are a part of the Catholic Church should absolutely not be prevented from following the teachings of the Church. Likewise, those who are not a part of the Catholic Church (or any other religious belief system), should not have the beliefs and practices dictated and forced upon them. That is not what THIS country is about. This is not 16th Century England where people were forced to practice specific religions, or 17th Century Spain and Italy where people were forced and killed if they disagreed with the dominant religion at that time, or modern day Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is the United States of America.

      • Joe M

        Rich pretending to be Annette B.

        You are wrong to suggest that the entire US Conference of Catholic Bishops agreed with the letter you refer to.

        • Nobody

          The vote went 171-26, according to your source. You CVers really are a tiny minority in the Church, Joe M. Thanks for demonstrating to us conclusively that reality. There are many guys in the majority named Rich and similarly many Annettes.

          • Joe M

            What “us” are you referring to? You using different names like “Annette” and then “Nobody”?

            Also, Judging by the number of people that support Romney and Ryan in the polls, there are a lot more that agree with the 26 than the 171.



Receive our updates via email.