Jon Stewart NAILS Betsy McCaughey on "Death Panel" Rumors

Originally posted by jsobecky
...reading from an Obamacare-prepared script.

Even if I was (which I am not), you have avoided addressing my point that this bill doesn't suggest anything other than the consultation being between the patient and his Dr.

And before you state that Biden isn't a Senator anymore.... have some coffee.

I don't drink coffee, thanks.

*He* was the one suggesting that end of life consultations were the purview of lawyers, and he suggested the US Congress.

Living Wills are legal documents. One aspect of end-of-life care is the legal side of it. It's bigger than JUST medical.

The ultimate result of socialized medicine is rationed care, with Obama's czars deciding who gets the care. That is what Palin was getting at.

And what playbook is that from? Let me just answer that:

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sorry, I'm not buying the politics of fear.

But I WILL address your point. You are speculating "rationed care" based on a weak foundation ("socialized medicine"). This bill is not "socialized medicine". It's health insurance. And no one is going to decide who gets care. If you have insurance, you get care. If you don't, you get care.

What you're saying is unreasonable and illogical, especially when you can't show any part of the bill to back up your crazy claims.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

This bill doesn't suggest anything else. The consultation WILL be between the patient and his Dr.

...reading from an Obamacare-prepared script.

And this is exactly the mindset... If a person can't afford health care, what makes you think they can afford to hire a lawyer?!?! This is the kind of oblivious statement that shows where the anti-health care people are coming from. You can afford a lawyer. Fine. But for those who can't? Forget about them!

Did you just wake up from nap or something? *He* was the one suggesting that end of life consultations were the purview of lawyers, and he suggested the US Congress. I was only responding to that idiocy.

And before you state that Biden isn't a Senator anymore.... have some coffee.

reply to post by A Fortiori

 

OBAMA RAMMED THROUGH THE STIMULUS BILL???????

Which one? The first one that happened last fall under the Bush administration or the one that hasn't even been doled out yet?

It would be kinda hard for Obama to ram through a Bush stimulus bill, now wouldn't it? Or are you just trying to impress us with your 'depth of knowledge'?

Btw, you forgot the Omnibus spending bill that Obama signed. You know, the one that contained over 8,500 earmarks that Obama promised he would not allow "when I am president"??

There IS an anti-healthcare mob, and then there are rational anti-healthcare people that are made to look like nutjobs because the mob (mostly agent provocateurs) have created a false perception about who is the sort of person against the bill.

No there isn't, not even the private insurance companies who stand to be driven out of business by a public option.

I am against the current bill but I think bringing a gun to a townhall meeting with the President there is completely irresponsible and sends the wrong message. Why can't their be intelligent debate on the subject? As long as people lie about what's in it there will never be a better bill or reform that makes real sense.

And I think it is wrong to wield nightsticks at polling precincts. Besides, which side of the debate was that guy on? Do you know?

reply to post by Aggie Man

 

I find it disheartening that she continued to perpetuate the death panel "lie" when called out on it.

The ultimate result of socialized medicine is rationed care, with Obama's czars deciding who gets the care. That is what Palin was getting at.

reply to post by nixie_nox

 

And that stimulus bill he rammed through kept us from absolute catastrophe, such as 25% unemployment and total collapse.

Prove it. Most of the money hasn't even been released yet; it's due to be released in 2010. You know, just in time to buy votes for the Democrats.

1) "he" is a "she"
2) she was trying to be funny with the comment about lawyers
3) when I used the term "rammed" it was quoting someone else's terminology
4) yes, there were two different bailouts. my point, which you choose to ignore, is that this is a bipartisan screwing of America, not a Democrat screwing of America. this recession has been years in the making. we allow a non-elected official to raise and lower interest rates at will, to control the flow of money...this problem is not any one person's fault. this is everyone's fault. theirs for screwing us, and ours for paying them to do so
5) and insurance companies don't "ration care"? excuse me??? why do people who can only afford an HMO get less benefits than people who pay for PPO's? And what of those with no health care? you don't think the "no care" they get is a ration?
6) lastly, on one hand you're saying that Obama is killing us with all this spending then you're telling us that "most of the money hasn't even been released yet"-- which is it, man?

Jon for President! And Colbert (as himself, not in character) for VP. I love both of these guys.

I somehow missed this interview so thanks for posting. It is interesting to watch as conservatives argue against healthcare reform only because they view it as a liberal agenda, so to hell with the fact that it will benefit anyone. They only want to see this and any other thing brought up by this congress fail. They will make up any rumor they can to try to persuade people.

That is their mission. They are the real patriots of this country, right? They are the fiscally responsible, right? They are the ones that are pro-life, right?

So where were these patriots when the previous administration was making the case for war in Iraq? Spending money we didn't have? Out to wage ware that would obviously kill many people, our troops included.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc52238afc45.jpg[/atsimg]

Sorry, but the conservatives have spent their political capitol and then some, in fact you might even say they are running a deficit.

If only they would practice what they preach.

[reply to post by nixie_nox

And that stimulus bill he rammed through kept us from absolute catastrophe, such as 25% unemployment and total collapse.

Prove it. Most of the money hasn't even been released yet; it's due to be released in 2010. You know, just in time to buy votes for the Democrats.

Prove it.

Considering it takes a decent amount of time for the money to work. If it was released right in 2010 in time for elections, they would not see the results for another year or so.



averting the worst

Hoffman says the fiscal stimulus is starting to take hold, and the U.S. has successfully avoided what could have been a full-blown depression. "I would make the bold statement that I agree with the majority of my colleagues, my fellow economists, that the recession is ending this summer," he says.

recession may be over

Aug 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. government saved the country from a "full replay" of the Great Depression, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in an opinion column in the New York Times on Monday.

us government prevented depression

It's very hard to get credit for something that didn't happen, but in September and October, I believe we faced the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s and perhaps including the 1930s," he told the Senate Banking Committee.

link

You can't plunk all the stimulus money into the economy at once because too much of an influx would have bad ramifications, including dropping the dollar like a brick.

Giving money to Americans wouldn't work either because they would either save it, which is the last thing that needs to happen. it would plummet the value of the dollar, and cause rapid inflation.
Bush has already tried that tactic twice, it doesn't work.

Let's consider for a moment that the whole "end of life provision" of the bill was submitted by a republican and then later removed.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

www.cbsnews.com...

Could it be that the republicans put that provision in know it would be exploited later as euthanasia? Could that have been the reason why it was introduced from the beginning?

Now there is a conspiracy.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The ultimate result of socialized medicine is rationed care, with Obama's czars deciding who gets the care. That is what Palin was getting at.

And what playbook is that from?

Well, Obama's first choice for HHS and health czar was Tom Daschle. You remember him, don't you? You remember why he had to be thrown overboard, don't you?

He has some interesting views on health care:

Indeed, in the section in which he identifies "losers" under his plan, Mr. Daschle is admirably candid. Among the explicit "losers" he includes: "Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to alternatives. Some insurers might object to new rules that restrict their coverage decisions. And the health care industry would have to reconsider its business plan. That is to say, they can stay in business and deliver their services, but only as the government bureaucrats say they may. They would no longer be genuinely independent.

One of the things that Mr. Daschle says will have to change is the "technology arms race" he claims hospitals are engaging in "to attract aging baby boomers with the latest diagnostic imaging machines." Imagine that, offering customers the latest technology, which as Mr. Daschle admits "help doctors estimate the spread of cancer or the extent of cardiac disease without surgery."

But that is not all he doesn't like about private-sector health care. Mr. Daschle points out the dangers of letting drug companies advertise their products to the public: The public might want the drugs even if some Washington bureaucrat likes another drug instead.

He doesn't believe that Americans are entitled to just any care that might do some good. Yup: "Many patients with insurance want any care that might do some good, and plenty of doctors will oblige them."

Recognizing that some of these ideas might not be vastly popular, he recommends two basic legislative strategies. First, seek to pass the legislation early in the first year of the president's first term - when he is most popular and is least likely to be resisted. That is a valid analysis.

The other strategy, which is very smart, is to leave the nasty details out of the bill. He says that was one of President Clinton's mistakes in 1993. Mr. Clinton put too many details in the bill, thus alerting those who disagreed to mount an opposition. Mr. Daschle recommends passing a vague bill and then "a Federal Health Board should be charged with establishing the system's framework and filling in most of the details. This independent board would be insulated from political pressure," he writes.

By "political pressure" he means the democratic process of electing fellow citizens to Congress who then pass legislation about which the public is informed before final passage - and about which they may wish to petition their government for redress of grievances. Apparently we can end petty bickering and partisanship by not letting anyone know what the new laws will contain.

www.washingtontimes.com...

But it doesn't matter, because Daschle isn't health czar, you say?

Think again:

Would President Obama's health care push be going more smoothly if his first choice for health reform czar was working for it?

It's a Washington parlor game hypothetical, but it's also interesting that the last person that Obama talked to today on the topic before starting his 10-day vacation was Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who was the nominee to be both health and human services secretary and health czar.

www.boston.com...

Note the date on that article. Yesterday.

Obama also seeks Ezekiel Emmanuel for advice. He is not-so-affectionately known as Dr. Death. Some of his more infamous quotes include:

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

www.nypost.com...

Sure sounds like rationed care to me.

So don't tell me that I am being sensational or alarmist. I know you are very enamored with Obama, and why. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalalalalala, go right ahead. Don't expect thinking, rational people to follow the pied piper over the precipice.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by jsobecky]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by jsobecky]

Bowling for Death Panels: Euthanasia Group Behind "End-of-Life" Counseling

www.lifesitenews.com...

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Although President Obama and liberal Congressional Democrats have denounced claims that the health care reform establishes "death panels," it does not help reassure the American public that the nation's foremost pro-euthanasia group is actively pushing "end-of-life counseling" as a centerpiece of health-care reforms.

Compassion & Choices, a rebranding of the former Hemlock Society, aggressively lobbies to legalize euthanasia as a "human right" by means of legislation and the judicial system. But the group has revealed that it is a major player behind incorporating a measure (sec. 1233) of the "American Affordable Choices Act of 2009" (HR 3200) that would pay doctors and medical professionals to offer "end-of-life" consultations every five years with elderly patients or those suffering from chronic or terminal illnesses.

"As Congress debates health insurance reform, Compassion & Choices is leading the charge to make end-of-life choice a centerpiece of any program that emerges," the euthanasia society declares on its website. "We are working hard to reach our goal to make end-of-life choice a centerpiece of national health insurance reform." "Compassion & Choices was the number one organization behind pushing for assisted suicide in Washington State. They've made no secret that this is something they would like to replicate on a national scale," said Dan Kennedy, CEO of Human Life Washington in an e-mail to LifeSiteNews.com.


Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an advocate of Oregon's assisted suicide law, wrote the "Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009" (HR 1898), which is considered the primary source of the "advance care planning" sec. 1233 of the health-care reform bill, HR 3200. Both bills incorporate what the euthanasia-promoting Compassion & Choices calls a "Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment" (POLST) and pay physicians to initiate conversations with their patients about "the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes."

I'm sure it's nothing.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Considering it takes a decent amount of time for the money to work. If it was released right in 2010 in time for elections, they would not see the results for another year or so.

Ohmigod.

Results don't matter. Headlines do. Headlines like "Smalltown USA receives $250 million in stimulus money, thanks to Obama! Thousands of jobs created!"

reply to post by A Fortiori

1) "he" is a "she"
2) she was trying to be funny with the comment about lawyers
3) when I used the term "rammed" it was quoting someone else's terminology

1-3 are irrelevant.

4) yes, there were two different bailouts. my point, which you choose to ignore, is that this is a bipartisan screwing of America, not a Democrat screwing of America.

The real point is that the Democrats are the ones currently in power and with the ability to ram this piece of crap bill down our throats.

Read my latest response to BH for more insight.

5) and insurance companies don't "ration care"? excuse me???

Well maybe this is the kind of issue we should be working on in a new bill, instead of saying that everyone will get free care. The cost of this plan will require that care is rationed. So free care is not good care. You get what you pay for.

As they say, if you think health care and insurance is expensive now, just wait till it is free.

6) lastly, on one hand you're saying that Obama is killing us with all this spending then you're telling us that "most of the money hasn't even been released yet"-- which is it, man?

This shouldn't be difficult to understand. Allocate $780 billion for stimulus - now it is money that can't be spent elsewhere.

The fact that it is spent 9 months later is irrelevant. Except in this case, where it is political.

Wallace Unplugged: End-of-Life Counseling

This is coming up this Sunday.

fns.blogs.foxnews.com...

Wallace Unplugged" on the real story behind Veterans' health care and end-of-life counseling.

Amid charges of "Death Panels", Chris Wallace uncovers explosive new information about a "death book", already being used by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, that encourages the nations' veterans to pull the plug. This Sunday we’ll take a look at how this controversial book steers users towards a predetermined outcome from the man who took down the program during the Bush Administration. Plus, we'll bring you a reaction from the Obama White House.

[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by jsobecky


Ah I see. Good point. No need to get rude.

Besides, that money could work either way. If people are worried about overspending,then they are not going to want it.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by jsobecky
So don't tell me that I am being sensational or alarmist.

But you are. Your first piece is an Op Ed from nearly a year ago.
The second even says it's a hypothetical and the third was written by Betsy McCaughey, herself for whom I have very little respect.

The reason your sources fail me is that they are full of speculation (to which you're entitled) hypothetical situations, the planting of fear seeds and fear mongering. When you want to start referencing information that is actually IN the bill instead of what people are spouting about the bill, then maybe we can talk about something real. But I'm not concerned about who Obama talked to before he went on vacation and I'm certainly not going to put any credence in what Betsy McCaughey has to say about it.

There are so many jumps to conclusions and logic leaps that I don't want to address them all. I'll just say that what you put forth COULD be a concern, if everything happened JUST the way some people are speculating (and hoping) it will. But there are a myriad of possible results in any given condition, and that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Hint: Look for words like "could" and "might" and "may". That tells you leaps of logic are being made.

I could go out and get in my car today, hit a deer crossing the road, my airbag might not work and the deer antler might pierce my window and my brain and I could end up in a hospital, brain dead for the rest of my life.

But that's not going to stop me from getting in the car. I don't live under fear. I refuse. If you want to impress me with something, you're going to have to show me what, IN THE BILL, you're concerned with. And chances are, I'm concerned about it, too. But this isn't the thread to hash out the bill.

I know you are very enamored with Obama, and why.

Is that right? Do share.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




I can understand you saying that the instances in the sources are only speculative, and haven't actually happened.

But for you to totally discount them on that basis is irresponsible, and shows a blind allegiance to Obama on your part.

They have actual basis in the way the bill is written (ex: keep it vague).

Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I can understand you saying that the instances in the sources are only speculative, and haven't actually happened.

Well, good. Because that's reality. We need to stay in touch with that as much as we can.

But for you to totally discount them on that basis is irresponsible, and shows a blind allegiance to Obama on your part.

I didn't totally discount them. I said it could happen. But why waste time and energy talking about the myriad of things that COULD happen when we haven't even addressed the FACTS of the bill? It shows my desire to talk about what's actually in the bill and not what somebody thinks might happen.

I have no allegiance to Obama, nor to anyone, except to my husband. But if you can't discuss the bill (and I see no evidence whatsoever that you can), then I will move on.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
I can understand you saying that the instances in the sources are only speculative, and haven't actually happened.

Well, good. Because that's reality. We need to stay in touch with that as much as we can.

And reality means relying on past performance to judge a person, not blind allegiance to Obama.

But for you to totally discount them on that basis is irresponsible, and shows a blind allegiance to Obama on your part.

I didn't totally discount them. I said it could happen. But why waste time and energy talking about the myriad of things that COULD happen when we haven't even addressed the FACTS of the bill? It shows my desire to talk about what's actually in the bill and not what somebody thinks might happen.

These are not just 'a myriad of things that could happen'. These are real concerns. If you do not examine the possible ramifications of accepting this bill, esp. in lieu of Obama's past, esp. who he is looking to for advice, and esp. since there are very few hard facts in this bill, then you deserve the very worst that could happen.

I have no allegiance to Obama, nor to anyone, except to my husband. But if you can't discuss the bill (and I see no evidence whatsoever that you can), then I will move on.

Stop being snippy. You are the one who refuses to face the real possibilities of what Obama has and will do to the people.

Yea this guy is never funny in my opinion. I dont know who would really find him amusing honestly.

I dont know about death panels and this and that, I didnt read the bill.

But some of you could only talk about her having plastic surgery, and this and that. In the first video as she looks for the page twice...each time Stuart plays on her nervousness and causes her to fumble. Wich alone is a sign of what type of person stuart is. Wasnt he on MTV? Yea I dont like him. Thanks for the clips though. Even without the death panels...I am glad the American people have taken a stance and shot Obamas plans to teh ground.

Did people even consider healthcare reform a major issue until the mouthpiece started yapping about it?

I meet with many people in home as a knives salesmen, people would discuss many things with me, politics, hobbies, the list goes on for a while, but only a couple of customers ever said anything about their health insurance. Lately though, it has become a concern, and many disapprove because they like their insurance.

I have no insurance, I would probalbly be pretty screwed if I got hurt and needed lots of follow up. But I don't plan on being an independant salesmen for the rest of my life, I would rather pursue a career, and hopefully whereever I end up, they will provide insurance. I think many people in government are taking advantage of the troubled economy, and the fears of people being left hung out to dry through lay-offs, and more guaranteed votes from already disenfranchised people.

If the government would get its nose out of the free market systems, we wouldn't have any problems. Lobbying only exists because of government intervention. We have information everywhere, but people are too damn lazy to read or educate themselves about anyting, so we entrust the government to do it for us, and the second government puts its nose into anything, it screws it up royally to the point people have no idea how it got that way. I'll tell you why things are the way they are, because of the government ever getting involved in the private enterprise in the first place. When it comes to health care, it's no different. It costs money, and people get what they pay for. Just because its "public" or "free" doesn't mean it costs NOTHING. It costs that extra 10% out of your paycheck, it costs that extra 10% in payroll, it still costs something. It'll only benefit the people who are already paying nothing, and cost everyone else who is already paying. End of story. Forget the death panels, forget whatever slogan or talking point you ever heard, disagree with it on principal.

reply to post by Mailman


I wouldn't worry about the 'death panels' statement.

Sarah Palin used a metaphor to represent the gov'ts intrusion into decision making.

metaphor

–noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Liberals like to portray themselves as the elite, the enlightened, the educated. But Sarah Palin has spoken above their education level with 'death panels'. There is no literal 'death panel' in the bill. There is, however, a metaphorical equivalent.

Sarah, please dumb down your rhetoric so that the libs can follow along.

ETA: This is why libs are afraid of, and try to discredit, Sarah Palin. She is twice as smart as them. And the people know it.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Liberals like to portray themselves as the elite, the enlightened, the educated. But Sarah Palin has spoken above their education level with 'death panels'. There is no literal 'death panel' in the bill. There is, however, a metaphorical equivalent.

Sarah, please dumb down your rhetoric so that the libs can follow along.

ETA: This is why libs are afraid of, and try to discredit, Sarah Palin. She is twice as smart as them.

And the people know it.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jsobecky]

The only people she is appealing to are people who listen to right-wing brainwashing and can't think for themselves. How is that above anyone with a forth grade education? You know as well as I do that the name death panels is completely hyperbolic and for Ma and Pa Kettle, it's just down right scary.

Now I know jsobecky that your just towing the party line, but I also know you are smart. Deep down don't you think that using terms like death panels is dishonest and makes people worried and scared when there is no reason to be? Even if it were true, any committee that would have to be put together to make decisions on health care would be no different than any board room meeting of any current insurance company right now, but you don't call them death panels. Why is that?

Ah, don't bother answering, I already know you will not agree, but I think you know what I mean. If you have to scare people and make up rumors to get people to go along with the party, that my friend is a flawed platform and doomed to fail.