Death panel rumor lady on Jon Stewart

Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure what side you are on in this issue, but I have to say that I lost any respect for McCaughey when I heard her ranting and raving on Fred Thompson's show about the "death panels". I wish I still had the link--it's classic. The whole uproar over page 425 (and above and below, although most people don't take the time to read the whole section) is what led me to read the entire bill. I had to wonder what sane person would really think that President Obama would champion a bill that (basically) killed the terminally ill? After reading the bill, I can't say whether or not I think this is THE thing we need, but I can say that I am seriously pissed off at all of the misleading rhetoric floating around out there. Here's the deal with this: as of now, physicians are NOT paid to discuss end-of-life issues with their Medicare patients. What the bill will do is to compensate physicians for this very important discussion with their patients. As a breast cancer survivor, and with many friends still battling the beast, this type of discussion is a hard one, but is much needed. There is nothing in the bill (if you read it and don't try to twist it) that says what McCaughey has been claiming. She didn't get as frantic with Jon Stewart as she has in other arenas, so I have to wonder if she realized how silly she sounded and didn't want to be shot down by Stewart?

kcherub wrote:

Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure what side you are on in this issue, but I have to say that I lost any respect for McCaughey when I heard her ranting and raving on Fred Thompson's show about the "death panels". I wish I still had the link--it's classic. The whole uproar over page 425 (and above and below, although most people don't take the time to read the whole section) is what led me to read the entire bill. I had to wonder what sane person would really think that President Obama would champion a bill that (basically) killed the terminally ill? After reading the bill, I can't say whether or not I think this is THE thing we need, but I can say that I am seriously pissed off at all of the misleading rhetoric floating around out there. Here's the deal with this: as of now, physicians are NOT paid to discuss end-of-life issues with their Medicare patients. What the bill will do is to compensate physicians for this very important discussion with their patients. As a breast cancer survivor, and with many friends still battling the beast, this type of discussion is a hard one, but is much needed. There is nothing in the bill (if you read it and don't try to twist it) that says what McCaughey has been claiming. She didn't get as frantic with Jon Stewart as she has in other arenas, so I have to wonder if she realized how silly she sounded and didn't want to be shot down by Stewart?

...
This section (Section 1233 of HR3200) is in place to avoid situations such as poor Theresa Schaivo. Her decision on what she wanted was taken away from here and her feuding family created a media/religio-political fueled circus.
It allows preparation by the patient and his/her family members when the time comes. And it says nothing about what you want... do not resuscitate or resuscitate at all cost. The bottom line, it is your choice and the Government will pay for it if your normal Health Care insurer won't.
If poor Mrs. Schiavo had this living will in place, the parents and spouse would know exactly what her wishes were. Instead, it was lawyers and judges who decided for her.

norm wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

I always say, "Find the source... and see for yourself.".
Here is the Section in question... HR 3200, Section 1233 - Advanced Care Planning
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... NR:e513253:
...
No spin, just the true text.
Read it yourself and tell me where the Death Panels and euthanasia appears... because i can't find it.

when palin started the death panels bullshit, i looked that up and read it about 5 times and i have yet to read anywhere where it says anything is mandatory...but then palin audience isn't exactly the crowd that is concerned with facts

...
I know.. NOTHING about mandatory... nothing about penalties to doctors.
Like Jon Stewart's writers said... Sarah needs to take a little of her own, down home, small town advice and "How 'bout you quit jes makin' things up?"

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I thought the Daily Show was fake news?

Then why do people on here use it as a reference?

:roll:

...
Yes.. you are right... to a point.
The Daily Show is a parody that reveals the false journalism (that is enterainment for ratings) that makes up the overwhelmingly majority of what America gets as 'News'. That is why you have people that only watch Fox News believing that there were Weapons Of Mass Destruction found in Iraq and that Death Panels are going to be mandated in Health Care reform.
The Daily Show makes fun of at theater of the absurd that Americans are fed as newsworthy. The irony is, sometimes the Daily Show reveals more journalism that the newsrooms they are making fun of.
...
As for their guests.... they aren't fake. John Bolton, William Kristol, Betsy McCaughey are real newsmakers. It's not TinaFey dressed up as Sarah Palin... they are real people, being asked the questions that should be asked. If you don't understand that... well, then you are the last person to roll your eyes at others because you are the one who is in the dark about real news.
...
Go look at the link I posted... you will probably have to look up HR 3200 because there is a limit on the time you can view the documents without input... go directly to page 425 and READ.

Using anything off the Daily Show as a reference is no better or worse then using anything off of the Factor....

I still don't see how people can say that they aren't politically influenced?

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Using anything off the Daily Show as a reference is no better or worse then using anything off of the Factor....

I still don't see how people can say that they aren't politically influenced?

I don't think any sane person could say the Daily Show isn't a left leaning show, I freely admit that.

Do people really think O'Reilly is 'fair and balanced'?

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Using anything off the Daily Show as a reference is no better or worse then using anything off of the Factor....

I still don't see how people can say that they aren't politically influenced?

No one (at least on this thread) is using anything Jon Stewart is saying as a reference... If O'Reilly has a politician on and he asks them a question, and they answer, why wouldn't that be fair game to use in political discussions? Now using something from an O'Reilly's rant or one of Stewart's snarky comments or sketches as facts is different... But guests say what they say regardless of who is asking the questions.