Dennis Kucinich was on Fox News this morning

. . .talking about supporting government run health care! When we find the video (link) from Fox, we will post it. He can't hold a town hall, but he can go on the radio (WTAM), go on local TV (Feagler) and now he's gone national (Fox News).


UPDATE: Sorry, we're not real technological, but here's the link to the video and a transcript from Fox News as to the conversation between Kucinich and Megyn Kelly this morning: http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25948719/united-front.htm#q=kucinich

About This Video
United Front?

Title:
United Front?

Published: Tue, 18 Aug 2009

Description: Democrats at odds over government-run health care
-

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

" While the White House opening the door this week into the possibility of -- health care reform bill that does not include a government run option. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen -- as saying it's really not essential. And then the White House tried to dial that back after many people in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party complaint. Well now some Democrats say the government run option is not included. This bill is essentially dead on arrival democratic Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is it big supporter of a government run plan he's my guest now good morning congressman. -- fine thanks so tell -- about this because you Kathleen sibelius opened the door. And then we heard that and many who love them more liberal members of congress put some pressure on the White House saying what the congressional progressive caucus. The congressional black caucus specifically writing letters objecting saying don't don't say the public option -- government -- is that essential. It is. Your position --"

" Well first -- you know the public option that was. Offered in the bill wasn't much to begin with. The whole idea was it was going to encourage competition between insurance companies so if you don't have that that means there is no and competition between insurance companies. And that means it costs are gonna go up senate."

" Let me just clarify that -- should point meaning in order to get the conservative blue dogs -- they had the sort of -- down to the point where they were gonna make the public option plan. Compete with private insurers when it came. Two rates so that that meeting in that's why it's taken out on T."

" Right there's not going to be any competition so that means that the costs are gonna keep going up. Just like the -- the administration made with the drug companies where -- instead of reforming Medicare part. Medicare part. Cost of drugs and keep going up so -- about anyway except. You know the government subsidizing. Private enterprise and I don't think government should be interfering in the marketplace I don't -- to be picking winners and losers in the private sector but that's exactly what this bill does."

" So how do you mean how do you get a bill that's that's meaningful through at this point because you've got the Senate. At least according to Kent Conrad one of the senators whose do -- part of this bipartisan group of six and doing the negotiating and their bill says. There's not any public option in the Senate bill that does the government run -- health care is not come at a senate they get Nancy Pelosi -- saying. We're not have a bill coming out of the house that doesn't happen so how does that -- squared up."

" First of government -- is not government run when you talk about government run that they veterans. Medicare pays the bills but it's not government run system what -- is Medicare fraud that is everyone's covered because the insurance companies take one out of every three dollars and and basically right off the top. Take that money putting -- to -- what's covered. Now what's gonna happen right now what should happen actually they should go right back to square one go to the American people instead of trying to force down. The throats of the American people a bill that no one understands. A bill that hasn't been well defined. We should go back and listen to the American people and their concerns about health care and I think when we do that the people are going to. Create the momentum that's needed -- have at a -- it's gonna cover everyone what right now this thing has been bought bungled."

" What do you -- than that though that show that the -- majority of Americans don't don't lot. The government messing with their health care. Insurance right now that they didn't and 80% I think it is of Americans are pretty happy with the health care plans as they happen."

" I think it's a measure of how the -- been mishandled rather than the underlying fact of people suddenly being in love with their premiums they're -- days they're deductibles why. Why -- you know if you have government trying to help. Lower the -- by having -- Medicare for -- the next thing you'll have is a government run government might got. I mean we we really have to get some perspective on this people don't have health care because -- can't afford the premiums they're underinsured look at because the co pays and deductibles are driving them. Into the poor house so you know we've got to go back to the people start over they need if there ever was an issue they needed a hit the reset button. This is there."

" But let me just found on that because you're talking about what some might consider relatively small faction of Americans who don't have insurance or -- under insured. Because the research shows that the vast majority of Americans have insurance. And as I point out thought at that not only -- they haven't but they're happy with and that argue of people -- against your point is. Why should we be messing with the entire system why can't we just like in this down and away. That can help those of the you know that the number the administration uses -- 47 million uninsured and -- people say it's really not nearly that big it's more like fifteen million if you exclude the so called invincible for twenty somethings who don't want it conveyed. Yeah accurately -- that probably not gonna need it and you take out the illegals and sought an -- why can't we say -- it down just a cover the people who truly are mostly neat."

" we are we -- out one nation. The fact is that the insurance companies take one out of every three dollars and everyone could be covered for the money that's already in the system -- paying for universal standard of care we're not getting it. And so -- the fact is that all these polls have been taken our polls that are really based on a bad day that dynamic of the issue as it's been mishandled. When you have 47. Million Americans to use the administration figures without any care that's -- drain on the rest of the economy. When you consider the fact that you -- watching out there are paying for someone else's health care in an emergency room. Think of what happens when you start to emphasize primary care and every -- cover the cost goes down again. So we want to have a system that that is sustainable and that's what Medicare is and I of course support HR 676 on the clock that bill Medicare for -- That's the way to really control costs that's a way to help business. And industry in the United States finally give them an advantage that other countries have over businesses here by having heart health care costs driven down."

" And that -- does -- that would end in a word I do you plan on voting for a health care bill in the house that does not have a government broader public option."

" That -- as presently exist is really not sustainable and can't be supported all right I don't intend on voting for it unless something dramatically changes congressman Dennis Kucinich thank you so much for coming up. Thank you -- yeah that would make him one of the one."

WE FIND MR. KUCINICH'S COMMENTS IRONIC IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT HE HASN'T HAD ANY FACE TO FACE TOWN HALLS THAT HE WOULD SAY, "so you know we've got to go back to the people".

Watchdog Groups Release Database Detailing Earmarks and Campaign Contributions

From Open Secrets --

Two of Washington, D.C.'s most reliable and respected nonpartisan watchdogs joined forces today and released a comprehensive database linking campaign contributions with earmarked spending by lawmakers.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national budget watchdog, provided data documenting more than 20,000 earmarked spending provisions worth over $35 billion. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money-in-politics on its website, OpenSecrets.org, provided data detailing $226.8 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures.

"At a minimum, earmarks granted to lawmakers' friends and supporters merit scrutiny and indicate potential conflicts of interest," said Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "This information will help Americans decide for themselves whether their congressional representatives are beholden to the voters who elect them – or to elite interests bankrolling their campaigns."

Is this the future of our health care and what Americans have to look forward too?

In the UK, the story read, "Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance"


Here's the site:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html

Make sure to read the comments at the end of the article from other Brits!

Victory NH, A Citizen Activist Network

Another website to check out:

http://60secondupdates.com/test/

http://60secondupdates.com/test/about-us

Site being circulated at some colleges/universities.

As always, we report (on what we find that might be helpful in our crusade against big government) and you decide (if it's valuable info or not).

Thanks for your consideration--God Bless America!

Dem Congressman on Single Payer: I Will Vote Adamantly Against the Interests of My District

Public Option Is Not Dead Yet

The headlines are encouraging: The AP reports, “White House appears ready to drop ‘public option’.” Politico reads, “White House backs away from public health care option.” And the front page of USA Today says, “Obama may drop public option in health care.” These headers all stem from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ comment on CNN Sunday Morning that the public option “is not the essential element” of President Barack Obama’s health care plan. But by Sunday night the White House was already walking back Sebelius’ statement.

An anonymous administration official told The Atlantic that Sebelius “misspoke” and White House health reform communications director Linda Douglass released a statement explaining: “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health-insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health-insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

Obama’s allies on the left are equally emphatic about the non-death of the public option. Democracy for America head Howard Dean told the Washington Post, “I don’t think this bill is worth passing without a public option.” And Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told CNN, “It would be very, very difficult [to pass Obama's plan] without the public option.” But Democrats in the Senate are singing a slightly different story. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told Fox News Sunday that “there never have been” enough votes for a public option in the Senate, and that continuing to fight for it would be “just a wasted effort.”

But that does not mean that Americans fighting against government-run health care are out of the woods yet. Conrad insists that the Senate could pass health reform that includes health insurance co-operatives. Co-operatives do have a long and proud tradition in many sectors of the U.S. economy, but details matter. Conrad says these health co-ops will not be “government-run and government-controlled” but instead “membership-run and membership controlled.” But others in Conrad’s caucus have a starkly different co-op goal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is pushing a vision of co-ops that are: 1) run by the government, preferably the federal government; 2) funded or subsidized by the government; or 3) includes plans chosen by the government.

If the language that comes out of the Senate looks anything like what Schumer is proposing, then there is no real difference between co-ops and the public plan. If, on the other hand, the Senate produces something that; 1) is not funded by the federal government 2) is not “government-run and government-controlled”; but instead 3) is “membership-run and membership controlled” then co-ops would be acceptable.

Of course, the public plan is just one of the more objectionable parts of Obama’s health care plan. The individual and employer mandates, the expansion and federalization of Medicaid, the creation of a new health czar, not to mention the trillion dollar cost of the new plan, are all still intact. If, as Sebelius insists, the White House wants health reform to increase “choice and competition” than there are a number of conservative alternatives in the House and Senate that do just that by pursuing health reform through a “patient-centered” approach. The White House’s rhetoric is rapidly moving away from an expert/government-centered approach to health care and towards a more market/consumer model. Let’s hope their actions start matching their words.

We’re Winning The Health Care Debate

When any White House knows they are a losing a public debate, they turn to sympathetic journalists to try and reframe the debate in a way that is more advantageous to their policy goals. So after consulting with his best White House sources, The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder wrote under the headline How Conservatives Are Blowing Their Chance, Sunday:

“Democrats are beginning to notice that opponents of health care reform have discredited themselves. … The media, being a collection of different megaphones, reported on the town hall meetings in one of two ways, both damaging to Republicans. Either they credulously reported the louder, angrier voices (inherently damaging to Republicans in this case) or they reported on the political architecture of the town hall meetings, which plays down the substance of the protests. … The White House’s goal was to prevent the Blue Dogs from panicking. The swing constituents in these congressional districts aren’t angry Republicans, and the Blue Dogs know this. They’re political independents for whom the sanctity of the process is important.”

So that is the official White House spin. But what is the reality? Two new polls came out yesterday from Gallup and Pew, and both of them show that in direct contradiction to Ambinder’s “analysis”, the townhall protests are, in fact, making political independents more sympathetic to opponents of Obamacare. Pew found that of those Americans following the townhalls, 61%, including 64% of independents, said they think the way people have been protesting is appropriate. And according to Gallup, 34% of independents say the townhalls have made them more sympathetic to opponents of Obamacare, compared to only 23% of independents who say the townhalls have made them less sympathetic. Equally important, Gallup found that more Americans believe the townhall protesters are motivated by their internal beliefs and not stirred up by “political activists” crating “organized opposition.”

In fact, it is the supporters of Obamacare who are resorting to multi-million dollar Astroturf campaigns. Earlier this week Billionaire speculator George Soros pledged $5 million for the cause and any perusal of online bulletin board Craigslist will find hundreds of ads promising $11-16 an hour for “grassroots” campaign jobs supporting Obamacare. And just yesterday Americans for Stable Quality Care (a group largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry but also including the AMA, Families USA, the Federation of American Hospitals, and the SEIU) launched a $12 million television ad campaign in support of the White House plan. This $12 million ad buy is just a small fraction of the $150 million that PhRMA has pledged for advertising and “grassroots activity” to help pass Obama’s plan.

Turning back to the White House spin, Ambinder wrote about the townhalls: “Lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, were being asked to respond to non-sequiturs (would you support a health care reform plan that grows the deficit? Health care grows the deficit right now, so it’s a nonsense question, one that is easy for politicians to answer).” This just shows how out of touch the White House is with the American people. As Gallup’s Frank Newport reported last week: “The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. … The economy outweighs health care as the most pressing problem facing the country and in Americans’ personal lives.”

At his Portsmouth, New Hampshire pep rally yesterday, President Obama pleaded: “Where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that’s actually been proposed.” Well here is the reality of what has actually been passed by three separate House committees: Obamacare will be spending $245 billion a year by 2019, increases the budget deficit by $239 billion over that same time frame, and in the out years, according to CBO director Doug Elmendorf “the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.”

You may have seen yesterday’s video of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) speaking on her cell phone while a cancer survivor spoke to her about health care reform. Well now comes news that the pro-Obamacare voices in the crowd were not entirely legitimate. A primary care physician identified as Dr. Roxana Meyer stood up and praised the President’s health care plan for overhauling a broken system. Meyer said: “I don’t know what there is in the bill that creates such panic.” The Congresswoman asked the crowd to give her a round of applause for being a doctor, hugged her and then asked “How long have you been practicing?” to which “Dr.” Meyer answered “Four years,” which was followed by more applause and a gushing grin on the face of “Dr.” Meyer. The problem? Roxana Meyer is not a doctor, but rather an Obama campaign delegate.

Townhall Downfall: Astroturf Doctors?

In fact, Roxana Meyer was sitting in the audience with a friend who also worked for the Obama campaign and was famously photographed hanging a Che Guevara revolutionary flag above her official Obama campaign office desk. The Houston Chronicle, which reported on the townhall and highlighted the exchange, knew that Ms. Meyer was an Obama delegate but was unaware she was not a doctor. The Chronicle did not report her campaign background, but has since updated their website to reflect she is not a physician. In responding to inquiries, Roxana Meyer says she possessed “spontaneity” in her deception and she thought it would “help her credibility.” Yes, she gave all Obamacare supporters loads of credibility today. We hope that the President’s chorus will denounce her actions as loudly as they have protested regular parents, citizens, students who have driven themselves to their representative’s townhalls to ask serious questions about the “reform” of one sixth of the U.S. economy.