Karen Northon
HCAN: Scripting and Directing the Left’s Health Care Reform Stage Show
Health Care for America Now brings together the most radical elements of the left in an effort to control the health care reform process.
The left continues to manage their side of the health care reform debate as though they are the writers, directors and actors of a low-budget sitcom on public access television. No one on the left can seem to remember their lines, prominent members of Congress are ad-libbing when caught off kilter by a media camera, and now – they’ve been caught rehearsing their lines, after numerous public accusations from the lefties of “astroturfing” by those the conservative side of the debate.
Wednesday on the FOX News show America’s Newsroom, host Megyn Kelly spoke with an Illinois resident who had attended a recent health care town hall – video camera in hand – and managed to capture, on video, members of Health Care for America Now coaching their team on techniques to silence opposition at the town hall.
THE EXTREME LEFT-WING GAME PLAN
Health Care for America Now literally wrote the “book†on left-wing control of the health care reform debate, and it’s all available on their website in great detail for brainwashed liberal Americans to read and act upon. The plans made available by HCAN are strong evidence of the left-wing hierarchy’s lack of confidence in their cultish followers to assist in carrying out their agenda.
In their drive to see their socialist agenda through to fruition, they have revealed (to those of us with open eyes and ears) the essence of the relationship that drives the progressive/socialist movement – an elitist hierarchy that dictates the thoughts and actions of a servile, loyal following.
♦ Scripted Calls to Congress
HCAN provides step-by-step plans and word-by-word scripts to guide the radical left through the health care reform battle in a well-orchestrated, fascist attempt to extinguish opposition. For example – the group tells their followers to call their representative in the House and their Senators, and provides three scripts to choose from, depending on your congressional rep’s position on the proposed reform bill.
“If your member of Congress has not decided which side he or she is on:â€
Encourage them to declare their support by using the following example. “I am calling to ask (Senator or Representative ______) to support health care reform that guarantees quality, affordable health care for everyone. I want a choice: to be able to keep my private insurance, or join a public insurance plan based on a family’s ability to pay. I also want rules to regulate the insurance industry so that health coverage would actually be there when I need it.
Please ask (Senator or Representative ______) to support for a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all by signing the Health Care for America Now Which Side Are You On? statement.â€
“If your member of Congress is with us:â€
Give thanks and reinforce your support by using the following example text when you call: “I am calling to thank (Senator or Representative _____) for standing up for real health care reform.
Please let (him or her) I am glad to hear that (Senator or Representative _____) with us for a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all in 2009.â€
“If your member of Congress is with the insurance industry:â€
Share your disappointment and encourage them to join us for quality, affordable health care for all by using the following example text when you call:
“I have heard that (Senator or Representative ____________) is opposed to a comprehensive health care solution that makes quality, affordable health care for all.
Please let (Senator or Representative___________) know that private insurers have dominated the health care debate for too long and their solutions don’t work. Don’t leave Americans alone to fend for themselves in the bureaucratic, unregulated private insurance market. We want a choice to keep our private plans with fair rules to protect us from being denied, or to choose a public plan that is affordable and accessible to all.â€
♦ Silencing Opposition at Town Hall Meetings
HCAN echoes the sentiments of many Congressional Democrats in their dismissal of any and all concerns about the proposed health care reform plan by calling all opponents – anyone who dares to question the plan – members of the “small, lobbyist-funded right-wing†and “right-wing disrupters.â€
Their plan for their obedient radical following is also spelled out on their website in such detail that it’s impossible for a rational, free-thinking American to avoid being alarmed and disturbed by HCAN’s radical communist undertones.
There is a disturbing parallel between the sentiments expressed by HCAN on their website, and those expressed publicly by Democrats like Sen. Arlen Specter (D R D-Penn) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif).
“We should be prepared to respond to the other side, but we don’t need to be reactive or feel pressure to answer their accusations point by point. Instead, we should treat them as agents of the insurance lobbyists who want to maintain the status quo. We can dismiss their radical rhetoric…â€
“The people who show up are far right-wing ideologues recruited by paid organizers. Much of this recruitment and organizing is funded by industry lobbyists and public relations firms to engage radical right-wing groups.â€
“The attendees are not reflective of the middle or average Republican Party member. Insurance industry lobbyists and public relations firms recruit mostly right-wing extremists who are willing to employ militant tactics in order to demonize Obama…â€
HCAN wants supporters to:
- “Contact friendly members of Congress and let them know you are coming to make sure our side is heard and that the event is positive. Ask the Member’s staff what would be most helpful and talk through a strategy…”
- “Bring more people than the other side has. Their side will be smaller but noisier. You must bring enough people to drown them out…”
- “Arrive earlier than the other side does. We need to stack our folks in the front to create a wall around the Member, and we need to stake out the best spots for visibility and signs.”
- “Be more visible than the other side. Bring more signs and leaflets, and whenever possible, post your signs all over the place so that you visually out-perform the other side. Make sure you have people holding signs in every place where a TV camera is likely to be…”
The group also encourages left-wingers to organize their own events with their Congressional representatives. Their tips for controlling these events include: choosing a venue that is difficult for the opposition to access; assigning pro-reform attendees to escort media and monitor their contact from the time they enter until they leave; selecting a moderator who is comfortable interrupting opposition, and; establishing ground rules ahead of time that will limit the topic of questions.
“Another way to limit protesters’ ability to hijack your event is to confiscate signs or leaflets that they may bring into the venue from outside. You can distribute your own signs in the event and offer them one as they enter if you choose to allow them to enter.â€
HCAN’s RADICAL LEFT LEADERSHIP
Every free-thinking American should be concerned about HCAN’s role in crafting the health care reform proposal being peddled by Congress. It has been widely reported that members of HCAN – a group lead by a vocal supporter of a single-payer system – participated in the White House Health Care Policy Summit sponsored by President Barack Obama in Washington, DC, and has been colluding with the White House and Congressional Democrats on the drafting of the health care reform bill in closed meetings.
Members and supporters of HCAN include all of the most radical-left elements in America. The heavy-handed organization operates on donations from its members and other prominent, wealthy left-wing nihilists like George Soros, who early last month pledged $5 million to HCAN. Its “steering Committee†includes such heavy hitters of the liberal faction as ACORN, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Campaign for Community Change, MoveOn.org, SEIU, USAction, and Working America.
In a July 2008 article for The Huffington Post, HCAN chief Richard Kirsch wrote:
“I was a leader of the fight for single-payer reform during from 1988 to 1994. I co-wrote with Richard Gottfried – then and now the Chair of the Health Committee of the New York State Assembly – the only fully-financed single-payer bill to ever pass a state legislative body in the country. I shared the responsibility with Assemblyman Gottfried for presenting single-payer at twelve debates sponsored by Governor Mario Cuomo in 1991 on healthcare reform proposals. I wrote a training manual and talking points for candidates for Congress to use in running on single-payer in 1992. I could go on, but you get the idea.â€
HCAN recruited Kirsch in 2008 “to lead the drafting of an 895-page campaign plan for passing meaningful health-care reform under the next president.†He moved to Washington, DC, in 2008 and immediately began injecting his organization’s left-wing ideologies into American health care reform – and Democrats welcomed his direction on the reform bill with open arms.
With alliances like this – voices like that of Kirsch in the health care reform process – are we really to believe that the President has had a change of heart on the single-payer idea? Or that this proposed legislation isn’t a significant leap toward government control of all U.S. industry? There are too many dirty hands in this cookie jar to yield a reform bill that is truly beneficial to a majority of Americans without sacrificing the foundation of our system of government and economy.
Generally speaking, Americans – as citizens of a representative democracy – are rather like children. At some point in our growth as a nation, we lost all perspective on the matter of what is necessary for our survival, and even for a respectable degree of comfort – as individuals, families and citizens –and how we should go about acquiring these things.
Children have many genuine needs and even more wants, as they’re still in the process of learning about and developing their system of values and work ethic.  They’re completely dependent upon their caregiver for the provisions necessary to meet both their needs and wants. They are powerless to provide for themselves, and their reaction to such powerlessness is typically limited to tantrums.
CNN’s Lou Dobbs program recently hosted a “Face Off†on the specific issue of a public option in health care reform, pitting Michael Tuffin of America’s Health Insurance Plans against Bruce Raynor of the Service Employees International Union. Raynor makes his case for a public option (aka – government-run option) by suggesting that as the wealthiest nation in the world, we should be able to provide adequate health coverage for all Americans, but this task cannot be entrusted to the private sector. Raynor seems unable to grasp the fact that it was the private sector that made the U.S. the wealthiest nation in the world.
Back to my comparison of Americans, as a citizenry, to children. We have become increasingly dependent on our government to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Through broad legislation and increased taxation, basic goods and services that would otherwise be provided through the private sector are now being demanded from our government. We have come to view the institution more as our caretaker than the limited institution described in our Constitution – hence the moniker “Nanny State.â€
And we continue to make these demands of our government with no regard for the consequences – much as a child fails to consider a quid pro quo when pleading for the latest toy. Make no mistake – when you demand anything from the government, there is inherent reciprocity; whether it be universal health care or expanded oversight of corporate America, we are fundamentally and gradually increasing our government’s scope and permissible exercise of power. And continued over time, we bring upon ourselves a tyranny by degrees.
In his book The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power, Gene Healy of the Cato Institute made the following astute observation of such increasing public demands, as it pertains specifically to the office of the U.S. President –
“The Imperial Presidency is the price of making the office the focus of our national hopes and dreams.â€
Perhaps this quote would be more timely if restated, “The Imperial Presidency is the price of making the office the focus of our national hopes and desire for change.â€
Hope and change – two words inextricably linked to the Kumbaya-style campaign of President Barack Obama. He dangled these words before the American people, and too many of us reached for them without hesitation – like children lunging at a store shelf to grab the latest must-have video game – with no regard for the price tag. And too many Americans are reacting likewise to Obama’s promise of health care for all, and other legislative efforts that seem to fill the void of want – and yes, genuine need – of Americans.
Again, Healy said it well, harkening back to our beginnings as an infant nation.
“The constitutional presidency, as the Framers conceived it, was designed to stand against the popular will as often as not, with the president wielding the veto power to restrain Congress when it transgressed its constitutional bounds. In contrast, the modern president considers himself the tribune of the people, promising transformative action and demanding the power to carry it out.â€
The same can certainly be said of our legislative branch, as it becomes more and more a mere extension of the presidency as executor of the president’s agenda. With its proven tendency to overlook constitutional limitations or the true good of the nation, the Democrat-run Congress shamelessly seeks to appease the popular will of the majority of Americans who have long since turned a blind eye to this thinly veiled government power-grab.
Americans need to come to terms with the intended nature of our relationship with our government. The government is not a parent. It is a spoiled child who is sweetest when it wants something. We must rein them in when they exceed their boundaries. We must tell them “no†from time to time. And we must control the purse strings. If federal spending is out of control, it is because we granted the government to authority to spend in such ways. They can do nothing without our consent – whether that consent is given explicitly or implicitly is irrelevant.
At what point do we, as a people, realize we have conceded too much power to our government? History has shown that such realizations are often made in retrospect – as historical analysis. Now is the time for some tough love.
On Tuesday evening’s installment of her CNN show, Campbell Brown managed to sum up liberals’ ignorance regarding the health care debate in record time.
Republicans DO want to work with Congressional Democrats on health care reform. But Democrats have decided instead to partner, behind the scenes, with groups that unyieldingly support a “single payer†model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system. These groups typically sport altruistic-sounding names like Health Care for America Now
Republicans have largely been forced out of the legislative process in favor of partisan plotting.
What Republicans will not do is dimiss public opinion as mere partisan posturing, with the sort of arrogance flaunted by Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), when faced with the passionate dissent of the people — regular Americans — who want smart, responsible reform.
Brown’s loaded, misguided, question to Republican strategist Mary Matalin speaks to the widespread effort by liberals to paint Republicans as the enemies of reform — implying that Republicans are perfectly content with health care as it is, and suggesting a general conservative apathy toward the plight of the uninsured. It is intellectual dishonesty done the liberal way — without the intellect.
Cable News Fleshes Out Afghanistan Quagmire – Are Congressional Democrats Listening?
Five months ago, immediately after Barack Obama had increased the number of American troops stationed in Afghanistan to subdue the rising Taliban insurgencies there, the President told CBS’s 60 Minutes that it was vital for the U.S. to have a clearly defined exit strategy for those troops. At the time, U.S. commanders said that as many as 30,000 additional troops were needed to overcome a stalemate in parts of Afghanistan. Obama chose to send 17,000.
Five months later, the situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen, according to military brass.
Although Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen repeatedly dodged the question on additional troop requirements in the region, NATO military commanders told a recent U.S. Senate delegation in Kabul – in no uncertain terms – that more troops are urgently needed.
And now, with the results of the Afghan presidential election in dispute, the concern of an eruption in sectarian violence grows as both incumbent President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah make simultaneous claims of victory and fraud in the election.
Obama on Afghanistan
President Obama made a now-well-known declaration about the war in Afghanistan at a recent VFW event in Arizona. “We must never forget,†he said. “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.â€
It’s an echoing of past statements the President has made about the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan. During the aforementioned 60 Minutes interview, for example, Obama spoke at length about the now eight-year-old war:
“It’s very important to make sure that we’ve got stability in Afghanistan at least through the elections in August… the Taliban have become much more aggressive, much better organized, have been pushing hard. And that makes the entire country very vulnerable. So we had to beef up our troop presence there. There’s an election that’s taking place in August. And we’ve gotta make sure for the legitimacy of the Afghan government that there is a fair and free election.â€
Obama was clear on his belief that a secure Afghanistan will make for a safer America:
“Making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. That’s our number one priority… our main challenge, our main issue, has to be really make sure that Bin Laden and his lieutenants aren’t plotting to kill Americans. That’s our primary national security concern. And I think we’ve lost sight of that… it is not acceptable for us to simply sit back and let safe havens of terrorists plan and plot to kill Americans– in the homeland. And that’s why this is– an enormous burden that we’re gonna have to bear.â€
Semantics – A Favorite Tool in Partisan Politics
There are too many unfortunate ironies here to document without a hefty publishing deal. But, summed up, these ironies lie primarily in partisan politics and the manner in which Democrats are fighting to prevent the public from seeing any parallels between Obama’s decisions on Afghanistan and George Bush’s choices on Iraq.
As pointed out in March 2009 by both Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Bill Sammon of FOX News, Democrats are scraping the bottom of the semantics barrel to avoid these comparisons.
“Whereas a lot of democrats reflexively opposed George Bush’s surge – it wasn’t so much because they were anti-war, it was because they wanted to destroy the Bush presidency. And that’s why a lot of the lefty groups are now silent on Obama’s surge in Afghanistan.†— Bill Sammon, FOX News
What Leading House Democrats Said
“This is about our national security, how we protect the American people,†said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) on the The Rachel Maddow Show earlier this year following her Congressional Delegation trip to Kabul, Afghanistan, in February.
She expanded on this in a post-trip press conference, saying:
“It was clear to us that Afghanistan cannot be allowed to be a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks against the United States… The consensus at our meetings was that the U.S. national security interest is in a secure Afghanistan with a government considered to be legitimate by the Afghan people.â€
More pertinent to the current dilemma, Pelosi adds:
“I don’t know when that is coming, but it is imminent. But I know that Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have an interest in following this issue, contributing their thinking to it, raising questions about it.â€
In May 2005, when the House of Representatives was debating H.R. 1815 (National Defense Authorization Act of 2006), current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) said:
“I believe many Democrats will vote for this legislation because we are committed to provide our troops with every resource necessary to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else the call to defend freedom takes our men and women in the military.â€
What They’re Saying Now
Not much. Previously outspoken Democrat leaders in Congress have been largely silent thus far in the public discourse over the “serious and deteriorating†situation in Afghanistan. And their silence may be a result of waning public support for the war.
According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, “A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country.†Among registered Democrats, the divide is much deeper, with 70 percent saying the war is no longer worth fighting.
Democrats are notoriously disinclined to address the tough issues, especially when they lack popular approval from the American voter. So the big question becomes: Will Congress abandon the President if he requests more troops for the war in Afghanistan?
FOX contributor Juan Williams says, “I think part of that is a responsible President Obama saying we are going to take aggressive action, even if it comes at a political cost to him [support] from his left – and it will. You watch.â€
Williams’ assessment is proving to be correct. A quiet dissent is brewing among Democrats in Washington over any proposals Obama may put forth for increasing troops in Afghanistan.
One Democrat, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin – who previously opposed President Bush’s 2007 troop surge in Iraq and actually called on Congressional Democrats to cut off funding for the Iraq War — has already said he will not support a troop surge in Afghanistan.
“After eight years, I am not convinced that simply pouring more and more troops into Afghanistan is a well-thought-out strategy,†Feingold told editors at a Wisconsin newspaper.
And there will likely be more Dem defections when Congress and the President return to Washington.
CNN’s Obamacare Q&A Only Generates Greater Confusion on the Democrats’ Muddled Plans
For a solid hour Saturday, I watched with great anticipation as CNN anchor Drew Griffin and his dynamo fact-finding team tackled viewer questions on health care reform in a lengthy Q&A, that completely lacked the A part.
Under the headline “Health Care: Your Questions Answered,â€Â the team set out to dispel the many myths surrounding the health care reform bill being pushed by House Democrats, and to bring clarity to this exceedingly complicated issue.
Griffin’s crack team of health care reform experts included Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org and Angie Holan of PolitiFact.org, along with CNN’s ambitious young Josh Levs filtering the questions through to the team via a gigantic touchscreen monitor thingy.
Yes, they had all the high-tech bells and whistles. What they lacked was answers. After 60 minutes of vague, noncommittal responses, only two things are clearer to me:
- I know just as much about health care reform efforts as these “experts.â€
- I’m thankful for over-the-counter headache medicine (I don’t have to get an appointment with my doctor, fork out a co-pay, undergo unnecessary and expensive tests, or wait for a prescription that may or may not be covered by my insurance).
To be clear, this is not meant to disparage the valuable work done by either PolitiFact.org or FactCheck.org, but rather, to emphasize the utter lack of clarity on the proposed health care reform legislation and the constant contradictory statements coming from members of Congress on the reform initiative.
For example – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will not pass a reform bill that does not include a public option. Pelosi’s #2 – Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md) – says the public option may have to go. Congressional Democrats have really outdone themselves in creating an impossibly muddled dialogue on this one issue.
But CNN did Americans no favors Saturday, adding only more confusing dialogue on the issue. Decide for yourself.
Question: Â Will the government decide what care I can get?
Answer: Robertson says “yes†while CNN posts large “NO†stamp across the screen.
Question: Would Medicare go away or be slashed?
Answer:  Robertson says “no,†but the legislation, in fact, would cut federal subsidies to the Medicare Advantage program.
Question: Will abortion be covered under a public option plan?
Answer: “It certainly could be covered,” says Robertson.
Question: Will the current health care infrastructure be overwhelmed?
Answer: “That’s an interesting question,” says Holan.
Question: How much will the public option cost?
Answer: That depends.
There are several more examples of the non-answers provided in CNN’s quest for clarity on the health care reform debate, but I’m sure you get the idea.
