# Jon Stewart Takes on Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels



## Political Junky (Aug 21, 2009)

Jon Stewart Takes On Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels | TakePart Social Action Networkâ¢

 MCCaughey has since quit.

Jon Stewart Takes On Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels
Posted by Gina Telaroli on August 21, 2009 at 11:06 am 

Last night Jon Stewart pulled out all the stops before his 3 week hiatus and spent the majority of his show interviewing Betsy McCaughey, founder of Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths (RID), general patient advocacy and health care policy buff, and former Lieutenant Governor of New York under Republican Governor George Pataki.

As Brannack wrote about in an earlier post, Betsy  is currently claiming that the new legislation hides secret provisions that will force senior citizens to attend counseling sessions about assisted suicide.  That claim is what has led to all the death panel talk these days.  And as Brannack pointed out this talk is RIDICULOUS.

Thankfully for all of those people not reading TakePart Jon Stewart spent 15+ minutes yesterday taking McCaughey to task for her wacky and dangerous logic.   Below is the original show and then the extended interview (in two parts and not all of it aired on TV) so take a few minutes to watch and see what all the death panel fuss is about (and why Jon Stewart, as per usuall, is awesome).


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News

Daily Show
Full Episodes	Political Humor	Healthcare Protests
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News

Daily Show
Full Episodes	Political Humor	Healthcare Protests


----------



## paperview (Aug 21, 2009)

> MCCaughey has since quit.



Holy Crap...are you serious?  She quit?

I saw that last night.  It was killer video.  Jon knocked it out of the park!


----------



## hjmick (Aug 21, 2009)

She certainly was not prepared for the sit down with Stewart last night. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they asked her to "quit."


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

This was the most poignant statement out of the whole deal:

*Jon Stewart: "I like you, but I don't understand how your brain works."*


And that pretty much sums up how I feel about the naysayers here.





Thanks for the link!


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 21, 2009)

You're welcome, it's also on YouTube.
YouTube - betsy mccaughey on daily show


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 21, 2009)

The Washington Independent » &#8216;Death Panel&#8217; Myth Creator Betsy McCaughey Resigns From Medical Board


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 21, 2009)

As I understand it she made such a fool of herself she had no choice to resign or be fired. 

  It's about damn time. 

  One down only dozens more to go.  

   Jon was great.   Now lets get some other's working on these right wing liars.

   How about Oprah, Ellen, Bill Maher , The women at the View.    
    It's time that all Americans put their shoulder to this thing and pushed back on these lying right wingers.


----------



## PI2 (Aug 21, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Jon Stewart Takes On Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels | TakePart Social Action Networkâ&#8222;¢
> 
> MCCaughey has since quit.
> 
> ...



Jon Stewart Rocks What a smackdown. 
Why of course you're from the planet where a mixed race President and a Gay Jewish Congressman now qualify as Nazi's. LMAO Doh!


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> As I understand it she made such a fool of herself she had no choice to resign or be fired.
> 
> It's about damn time.
> 
> ...



To be fair, she is likable. She had an impossible feat to perform. How was she going to substantiate what she was saying when it patently isn't true?

I was almost hoping she would make a point......


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

I'm sure she's very nice....

but she was totally bonkers.


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

I'll take nice bonkers over snarky mean bonkers any day.


----------



## PI2 (Aug 21, 2009)

veritas said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > As I understand it she made such a fool of herself she had no choice to resign or be fired.
> ...



Sorry to say but I think some out there actually believe what she had to say. Her resignation I hope is a harbinger of a new found common sense.


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

I think her resignation is a harbinger of some nasty asshole coming in to take her place. At least she was a sympathetic character. JMHO.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 21, 2009)

Sorry, but life and death is a game to Betsy ... she tried so hard to manipulate Jon. Thank God, he took her down.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 21, 2009)

veritas said:


> I think her resignation is a harbinger of some nasty asshole coming in to take her place. At least she was a sympathetic character. JMHO.



The devil you know and all that...


----------



## PI2 (Aug 21, 2009)

veritas said:


> I think her resignation is a harbinger of some nasty asshole coming in to take her place. At least she was a sympathetic character. JMHO.



I hope not I've had enough of these ignorant SOB's


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

PI2 said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > I think her resignation is a harbinger of some nasty asshole coming in to take her place. At least she was a sympathetic character. JMHO.
> ...





I think there is an endless supply.....unfortunately.


----------



## Zona (Aug 21, 2009)

Imagine if they could get Bachman to go on his show.  Woohoo.  Go Jon.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 21, 2009)

Oooh, oooh, oooh , yes Jon please do Bachman! 

   Oops sorry not actually do her that would be too gross .  

   But you know what I mean.


----------



## paperview (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Oooh, oooh, oooh , yes Jon please do Bachman!
> 
> Oops sorry not actually do her that would be too gross .
> 
> But you know what I mean.


Eww.  What a horrible image you just evoked...

<bleck>


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2009)

Jon Stewart got good coaching from Team Obama, he had all the Talking Points down pat!

Nice work, Jon!


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

I think he read the bill or parts of it. And he understood it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> I think he read the bill or parts of it. And he understood it.



I'm pretty sure if Bush put forth a bill like that Jon would have a whole different conclusion


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jon Stewart got good coaching from Team Obama, he had all the Talking Points down pat!
> 
> Nice work, Jon!


Stewart had read it and understood it ... Betsy didn't expect that.

http://washingtonindependent.com/56...or-betsy-mccaughey-resigns-from-medical-board
&#8216;Death Panel&#8217; Myth Creator Betsy McCaughey Resigns From Medical Board
By MATTHEW DELONG 8/21/09 4:13 PM
Betsy McCaughey &#8212; an outspoken proponent of the myth that Democrats&#8217; health care reform proposals will lead to the creation of &#8220;death panels,&#8221; as well as a former lieutenant governor of New York and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute &#8212; has stepped down from her position as a director of Cantel Medical Corp., which bills itself as a &#8220;leading provider of infection prevention and control products in the healthcare market.&#8221;
From a press release:
CANTEL MEDICAL CORP. (NYSE: CMN &#8211; News) announced that on August 20, 2009 it received a letter of resignation from Ms. Elizabeth McCaughey as a director of the Company. Ms. McCaughey, who had served as a director since 2005, stated that she was resigning to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform.

*McCaughey found herself the subject of widespread ridicule after an appearance on &#8220;The Daily Show&#8221; Thursday, during which host Jon Stewart aggressively challenged her positions on health care reform.*
&#8211;


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

> McCaughey found herself the subject of widespread ridicule after an appearance on The Daily Show Thursday, during which host Jon Stewart aggressively challenged her positions on health care reform




He was aggressive but not too aggressive and he wasn't mean to her.

I wonder what/who Cantel Medical has in its nasty little pocketses?????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Widespread ridicule? Seriously? From the 10 people that watch Jon Stewart?

Oh wait, of course, that's not why she resigned, that's just Librul Circle Jerk Fantasy Political Football.

"Ms. McCaughey, who had served as a director since 2005, stated that she was resigning to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform."


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2009)

"Why of course you're from the planet where a mixed race President and a Gay Jewish Congressman now qualify as Nazi's."

That was a classic.

Republicans are dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## editec (Aug 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> "Why of course you're from the planet where a mixed race President and a Gay Jewish Congressman now qualify as Nazi's."
> 
> That was a classic.
> 
> Republicans are dumb as a box of rocks.


 
Speaking on behalf of boxes of rocks I resent that suggestion that they are _anything_ like Republicans​


----------



## editec (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Widespread ridicule? Seriously? From the 10 people that watch Jon Stewart?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Yet the Senate removed the Death Panels from their version of the bill.

Why would they remove them if they didn't exist. I guess its just more lies from a Party of fucking morons lead by a guys who gets all wee weed up


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 22, 2009)

I like it when people say well he's just a comedian.  She came armed with all kinds of "facts", I use that term loosly, and found that he is more prepared than you expect him to be.

She is making charges that there is a death panel clause and Obama is ready to kill grandma, she'd better be more ready to prove that than she was.  

She should be embarrassed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> I like it when people say well he's just a comedian.  She came armed with all kinds of "facts", I use that term loosly, and found that he is more prepared than you expect him to be.
> 
> She is making charges that there is a death panel clause and Obama is ready to kill grandma, she'd better be more ready to prove that than she was.
> 
> She should be embarrassed.



The Senate took the provision out of their version of the bill.

Try to keep up on current events


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Widespread ridicule? Seriously? From the 10 people that watch Jon Stewart?
> 
> Oh wait, of course, that's not why she resigned, that's just Librul Circle Jerk Fantasy Political Football.
> 
> "Ms. McCaughey, who had served as a director since 2005, stated that she was resigning to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform."


Ha HA.

She just happens to resign the day after she was brutally humiliated nationally for pushing a MYTH about Death Panels.

LOL.

"Conflict of interest."  

*Death Panel Myth Creator Betsy McCaughey Resigns From Medical Board*


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

Betsy McCaughey is a famous liar who famously lied about the Clinton health care bill back in the 1990s, who has returned to lie just as famously in the aughts about the Obama health care bill.  Last night, she made an appearance on _The Daily Show_ in a two(plus)-part interview with host Jon Stewart, which centered on her latest, greatest distortion: that the current health care reform package wending its way through the House contains provisions that would enforce draconian consultations imposing conditions upon both patients in end-of-life circumstances and the doctors treating said patients. This falsehood, first promulgated by McCaughey, later came to be colloquially referred to as "death panels." Not a jot of it was true.

More: Betsy McCaughey's Ideas Called "Hyperbolic... Dangerous" By Jon Stewart (VIDEO)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Widespread ridicule? Seriously? From the 10 people that watch Jon Stewart?
> ...



You must really be hysterical over how the Senate took the provision out of their bill.









This is a classic, CLASSIC Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side order of Character Schmear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

It must really burn the NeoMarxzys that two women McCaughey and Palin completely busted ObamaCare.

That's gotta hurt


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


It's still in the House Bill. 

"We did not know if the finance bill had this in it, but Grassley is able to cancel it by himself. Other committee members have not commented on this."

 "For the record there are still several health bills in Congress, the Dodd-Kennedy bill as well as several versions floating around the house leaving the possibility that this will survive."






And still you seem to writhe in glee at the misinformation. 

Hurray!  Grassley soothed the bedwetters about a mythical dragon he mythically slayed.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

Watch out Frankie.  More monsters are hiding under your bed!

Alinsky!

Pals with terrorists!

Fudgy milkshakes!

*ACK!***

Runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > I think he read the bill or parts of it. And he understood it.
> ...




  Naturally because it is apparent to anybody with a brain that Bush was nothing but a corporate shill and a puppet of money men, Chaney, and KBR. 

   Not to mention Bush and Daddy Bush's ties to Dubai.   Where they bought one of their man made islands .  Just doing business after all daddy Bush handles 80 billion a year for Dubai and Saudia Arabian investments.  

   Naturally Jr can't rock that lucrative boat. 

   So naturally Jon Stewart would have treated it differently if it was Bush, anybody with a brain would treat it differently considering the sell out Bush was. 

   Worst president in American history . 

   And that will be going in the history books I know. 
   My son is a history professor and I see what national history professionals are writing . It's not pretty about Bush.  But they are polite , which is better than that clown deserves.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > I like it when people say well he's just a comedian.  She came armed with all kinds of "facts", I use that term loosly, and found that he is more prepared than you expect him to be.
> ...




   Doesn't matter dumbass.   They can just tack it on to any old bill and pass it later. 

    You really are clueless aren't you frank?


----------



## Zona (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It must really burn the NeoMarxzys that two women McCaughey and Palin completely busted ObamaCare.
> 
> That's gotta hurt



You are actually saying this?  Wow.  No wonder you did so poorly last November.

Perhaps McCaughey and Palin could run as a team in 2012.  They are both out of a job is seems.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


But if you take away his magical belief the Palinator and the Pharma Co. Betsy shill 
battled, mangled and drew the fatal blow to the imaginary Grandma killing dragon, then Frankie has no binkie to suck on.

It's like taking away the little girl's pony. 

Look, you can almost see a tear beginning to drop from his... 

(Oh no, that's snot.  Never mind)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



So wait. You're finally realizing there's a Death Panel in the House Bill?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



You must have fallen off your tricycle and gotten a nasty bump on your head because you write like you're concussed.

Put ice on it, lay down and come back and try posting again in about 30 minutes


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Zona said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It must really burn the NeoMarxzys that two women McCaughey and Palin completely busted ObamaCare.
> ...



They have Obama all Wee Weed up, the Death Panels got pulled from the Senate version and Biden's gone into hiding.

And now Palin dropped a Tort Reform Bomb on you


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

Frank:







Just another day at work.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I think the Death Panels are out for good


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

It's not that Libruls loves their parents and grandparent any less, it just that they love the State more.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And just for good measure, they took out the Unicorn option as well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Why don't the Dem Senators insist on reinstating the Death Panels?


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

If you keep saying Death Panels enough Frank, God *WILL* kill the kittens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> Frank:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SOTP,short for *S*enate took *O*ut *T*he death *P*anels


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Maybe Tina Fey can make an appeal to the Senate to reinstate the Death Panels? She seems to be the only answer the Libruls have for Palin


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...



They're spinning Unicorns again as well?


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


They're killing them

Stabbing a bloody knife through their hearts, then leaving them to die.

Alone, 

Abandoned.

...as their last breath of life ebbs away in the forest 

where no one hears.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Maybe Dems can hire Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren to watch after their parents and grandparents?


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Maybe Dems can Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren to watch after their parents and grandparents?



Maybe the Republicans can ask for another $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS in contributions from the healthcare corporations.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Dems can Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren to watch after their parents and grandparents?
> ...



Don't Dems have absolute rule over Congress and the Presidency? When will you stop these limp, flaccid excuses?


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They do.

And they should stop cowtowing to the silly Republicans in Congress and just pass a bill that is good for America.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

A video representation of Palins Facebook post meeting ObamaCare off in the distance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQVTGHNylkg&feature=PlayList&p=60336AC5696C4B9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10]YouTube - M98 Javelin Anti Tank Guided Missile[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2009)

Speaking of silly Republicans....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



What if Tina Fey went before key Dem Senators and pretended she was Palin and asked for reinstatement of the Obama Health Care Pogrom Death Panels.

It could work.

Seriously. Consider it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 22, 2009)

Oh, Those Death Panels
Posted by Amy Sullivan Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm 
201 Comments &#8226; Trackback (47) 
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?
GOP Supported End-of-Life Counseling in 2003 Medicare Bill - Swampland - TIME.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

"The *only difference* between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the *first applied only to terminally ill patients*. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill."

Terminally ill and not terminally is almost the exact same thing!

Thanks for highlighting that Dems wants to treat everybody as if they were terminally ill, hence "Death Camps" in the ObamaCare Final Solution Porgom


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Seriously. Ask Tina Fey to do the heavy lifting for you here.  

You guys are totally fucking it up on your own


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Dems can Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren to watch after their parents and grandparents?
> ...



If that's what it takes to save America from the Dems' BANKRUPT AMERICA HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN, maybe they should.  In case you haven't noticed the major health insurers support virtually all the reforms Obama proposes other than the public plan, and it is not clear whether he any longer supports the public plan or not.  They especially support universal health insurance and the individual mandate because these will prove to be profit bonanzas for health insurers, but they will be budget busters for individual households - since each of the reforms such as standard rate coverage for pre existing conditions, continuation of benefits when premiums can't be paid because of illness and caps on out of pocket expenses will increase health insurance premiums for those who now have health insurance - and the federal government - since without a ouija board or an expectation of rationing of health care services it is impossible to find significant savings to offset the enormous increase in spending the subsidies will entail in any of the bills in Congress or in anything Obama has implied, suggested, hinted that he might support.  

In addition, raising the eligibility for Medicaid to 150% of the poverty line, as HR 3200 does, will force many states now struggling to maintain existing services to either raise state taxes, cut back on existing services or run unmanagable deficits.

If asking "healthcare corporations" for $3.4 billion dollars is necessary to save individual households from having to pay even higher health insurance premiums, to save the federal government from having to deal with even more uncontrollable deficits and to save the states from financial ruin, then by all means, the Republicans should go for it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Dems can Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren to watch after their parents and grandparents?
> ...



Speaking of which, didn't Barack "we will televise the Health Care negotiation on CSpan" Obama cut a back room $85B deal with Big Pharma?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 22, 2009)

She really looked like a moron in that debate.  

You knew it was going to be bad when she showed up with a binder with 1/2 of the bill in it.  

Watching her flip through that thing on national TV to try and find the relevant passages was just painful.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> She really looked like a moron in that debate.
> 
> You knew it was going to be bad when she showed up with a binder with 1/2 of the bill in it.
> 
> Watching her flip through that thing on national TV to try and find the relevant passages was just painful.


It was absolutely one of the best interviews ever.  

I love how Jon so cleanly and neatly eviscerated her.

The question is now:  Will she ever show her face again?  lol.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> She really looked like a moron in that debate.
> 
> You knew it was going to be bad when she showed up with a binder with 1/2 of the bill in it.
> 
> Watching her flip through that thing on national TV to try and find the relevant passages was just painful.



You don't see how funny it is that you have a problem with her referring to what the bill actually says?


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Jon Stewart Takes On Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels | TakePart Social Action Networkâ&#8222;¢
> 
> MCCaughey has since quit.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I had posted this up here too, but I didn't know she quit. She was nothing but a complete shill for PHRMA, another paid liar. And for someone who came into an interview with the bill in her hand, she was woefully unprepared for some basically anticipated questions.

My favorite line though was when she said someone must have taken that page. 

Betsy McCaughey, Liar - Lies - Gawker

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200902120027   <--- her letter to phrma


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

I think what our main focal point is why do Republicans hate America so much, and why do they never want an honest debate on issues? Hmm... I wonder what the answer is.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

OneWorld said:


> I think what our main focal point is why do Republicans hate America so much, and why do they never want an honest debate on issues? Hmm... I wonder what the answer is.


Because the only way their ideas can flourish in the free marketplace of ideas is to lie and misrepresent.

Seems getting caught in these bald faced lies doesn't even faze them anymore.  They know there will always be enough wingers with cognitive dissonance who will keep lying for them, no matter how much the actual evidence disproves them.


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> OneWorld said:
> 
> 
> > I think what our main focal point is why do Republicans hate America so much, and why do they never want an honest debate on issues? Hmm... I wonder what the answer is.
> ...



You get two points! Their ideas are so utterly bankrupt, and not of benefit to the majority of americans that they need to create think tanks that can create false talking points and spread them to their media.

This is why when Regan came in they needed to repeal the fairness doctrine asap, because they knew going forward, there was no way they could have honest debate in the media any longer. If they do this, things like what just happened on a freaking comedy show (Jon Stewart) will end up exposing ridiculous lies. 

So now they can talk whatever non-sense on their shows, with no real debate on the issues, and become the mouth piece for their corporate sponsorships directives.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

The only place on the planet where Libs have their views on ObamaCare Pogrom taken seriously is on Comedy Central.

Duly noted.


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The only place on the planet where Libs have their views on ObamaCare Pogrom taken seriously is on Comedy Central.
> 
> Duly noted.



The only place where a real interview and debate can occur is on a comedy show. That is truly sad.... if the "liberal" media (cough), had ever been doing it's job, these questions would have been asked long ago. We all lose when this isn't occurring.

But look, when it happens, people are shown how ridiculous and what liars they are. This is a person (Betsy McCaughey) that has been resourced and referenced by countless media sources, and was considered a top expert in health care. One interview later, and she is gone.... the power of the truth.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > I like it when people say well he's just a comedian.  She came armed with all kinds of "facts", I use that term loosly, and found that he is more prepared than you expect him to be.
> ...


Then why was Betsy attacking it?


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

OneWorld said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The only place on the planet where Libs have their views on ObamaCare Pogrom taken seriously is on Comedy Central.
> ...


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Jon Stewart Takes on Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels



Jon Stewart is a great comedian.  I'm so glad nothing he says should be taken seriously, although I have heard that liberals get their news from the Daily Show.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > She really looked like a moron in that debate.
> ...



What was funny is she couldn't refer to anything because she couldn't find it.  Stewart even told her to use post-it notes so she can find things faster.  

She was terrible, even for a wingnut.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Stewart Takes on Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels
> ...


Have you ever watched the show Xsited?


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Stewart Takes on Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels
> ...




Jon Stewart is serious as serious can get. If you weren't laughing at the state of news delivery and the lies coming from it, you'd be crying. If we weren't in the state we are in with all the lying, he'd have to find another line of inquiry. He's deadly serious about politics and news. He called out CNN and the Crossfire boys and told them they sucked and should be ashamed. He's a real catalyst, and has more material than he knows what to do with.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

Jon Stewart scares the crap out of conservatives.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Of course.  He's hilarious.  As I already said, he's a great comedian.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


He probably has. Remember when cons loved Colbert enough that they thought he was another con? They just don't get satire. They even had Colbert do that dinner for Bush Jr. I so loved that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Because it was and is in the House Bill...was that a Netflix question?


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



He thinks he's serious, but he suffers from the same biases as the MSM.  When Obama was discussing government-run healthcare and pointed out that private companies like FedEx were profitable and the Post Office (a government agency) was not, Jon Stewart made light of it and he was dead-on.  Of course, it didn't take a comedian to point that out, but the way he presented it was funny.  But again, much of what he says is biased.  I take the comedy for what it is and laugh at it.  Anything else is just more of the same MSM-biased crap.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> Jon Stewart scares the crap out of conservatives.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

Betsy took on an issue that can never be defended. It was suicide, so either she was gambling on the prospect that it might work, or she was so stupid she actually believed it. Palin we know hasn't a clue except when it comes to moose. I don't see any other Republican women coming to the fore to foist this malarkey. How utterly stupid does one have to be?

Because that's what's happening, the Republicans are sending out their weakest links to get slaughtered, while they titter and snarl in the background. It reflects poorly on them though. It reflects poorly on the "Franks" who have no more credibility and resort to epithets and meanness to keep their smoldering ashes smoking pitifully.

Republicans are lazy and promote stupdity. It didn't use to be this way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?

Is that it?

Oh right, and nobody listens to Sarah Palin


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...


Do you think his interview with Betsy the Shill was just a comic routine?


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Stewart scares the crap out of conservatives.


You know he scares you - why do you deny it?


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Oh right, and nobody listens to Sarah Palin




The Senate? There's only six Senators working on the bill out of the larger committee. For you stupid republicans, that's 6% of the Senate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...





Uh huh, I'm a scared of him...he's so scary (trying to keep Paperview occupied while the men with the butterfly nets move into position) Why, Jon Stewart is scarier than "Red Dragon"  Why Jon is so scary, I'm like totally asacred!


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Oh right, and nobody listens to Sarah Palin


It was removed before Betsy appeared on the Daily Show ... you keep digging yourself deeper.


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Oh right, and nobody listens to Sarah Palin



Truth is truth, no matter what format it comes in. And the section was removed from one of the bills because the disinformation campaign was successful. 

If you've ever taken a logic class (somehow I doubt it), one of the first things they'll tell you about an argument that appears false is to find the absurdity in it. That's what Jon does, he finds the absurdity in what the Republican corporate neo-con machine is doing, and presents it in a humorous and easy accessible format.

The state of our union can be quite a joke most of the time. As Homer used to say, it's a comic tragedy. Either you can focus on the tragedy, or find the humor in the situation, and Jon does this to perfection. He's deadly serious about his politics, and knows how to show the absurdity in the fascism that disguised as free market capitalism. 

Yeah, we know Obama is the fascist... but wouldn't it be funny if it was really Repubs who were Fascist... I mean what a gas?!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> ...



I'm sorry, I need my Jibberish/English dictionary.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Oh right, and nobody listens to Sarah Palin


No, "the Senate" didn't remove it.

Chucky Grassley removed it with his Here's Some BullShit Now Chew On It" pull in the 6 member committee.   Do you know who Chucky the Cheese Grassley is? 

Do you know _how_ he removed it?  Did you know he voted *FOR* the same GD provision in 2003?


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Uh huh, I'm a scared of him...he's so scary (trying to keep Paperview occupied while the men with the butterfly nets move into position) Why, Jon Stewart is scarier than "Red Dragon"  Why Jon is so scary, I'm like totally asacred!


Now you're beginning to get a feel for what it's like when cons tell us we are "afraid" of Palin. 

Lick that boner.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I thought it was amusing.  Here we have a Democrat "Betsy the Shill" spreading lies about Obamacare and Stewart called her on it.  Whether they planned on it being a comic routine or not, it most certainly ended up that way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> ...



Why was it removed?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh, I'm a scared of him...he's so scary (trying to keep Paperview occupied while the men with the butterfly nets move into position) Why, Jon Stewart is scarier than "Red Dragon"  Why Jon is so scary, I'm like totally asacred!
> ...



I think you're getting all wee weed up


----------



## Ralph (Aug 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Jon Stewart Takes On Betsy McCaughey and Death Panels | TakePart Social Action Networkâ&#8222;¢
> 
> MCCaughey has since quit.
> 
> ...



I enjoyed watching him stutter in an attempt to explain why the wording was removed from a bill that never included such language in the first place.   Jon Stewart attempts to take advantage of the DUMB DOWNED youth of this nation....that are to inherently lazy to find the truth for themselves.    Bill O'Reilly cleaned his clock on demonstrating how his peace on FOX as  being biased against liberals ......as Bill showed the entire clip that demonstrated the LOONS that he was talking about were the 1000 plus CRIMINALS that were arrested...not the peaceful protesters.   That's the way that Jon the COMEDIAN rolls......snap shots, distorted in an attempt to make those that he opposes appear in a comical light.   There is nothing wrong with Comedy.....its just when a supposed HARD NEWS medium such as MEDIA MATTERS attempts to allow  Jon to do their leg work and present his COMEDY as HARD NEWS........DEMONSTRATING exactly WHY THE MEDIA NO LONGER MATTERS...they have chosen sides, instead of presenting the news.......THEY ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE NEWS.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Slurp Slurp.

You are afraid of Stewart.  Just admit Frank.

He gets your panties all knotted up.

Ouchies!


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



disinformation campaign successful. This is the SAME language that Republicans used and put into the health care reform in 2003. So like we pointed out several times before... either they were for "death panels" back then, or they are hypocrites.

Death panels, death panels, death panels... I thought you knew us libs wanted to kill off useless granny.. I mean, she sends me socks every year... how lame.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> ...



So Dems want to put the Death Panels in the Senate bill?

The 2003 bill dealt with patients with Terminal Illness. The Dems consider Medicare eligibility a Terminal illness.

See the difference?


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

Ralph said:


> I enjoyed watching him stutter in an attempt to explain why the wording was removed from a bill that never included such language in the first place.   Jon Stewart attempts to take advantage of the DUMB DOWNED youth of this nation....that are to inherently lazy to find the truth for themselves.    Bill O'Reilly cleaned his clock on demonstrating how his peace on FOX as  being biased against liberals ......as Bill showed the entire clip that demonstrated the LOONS that he was talking about were the 1000 plus CRIMINALS that were arrested...not the peaceful protesters.   That's the way that Jon the COMEDIAN rolls......snap shots, distorted in an attempt to make those that he opposes appear in a comical light.   There is nothing wrong with Comedy.....its just when a supposed HARD NEWS medium such as MEDIA MATTERS attempts to allow  Jon to do their leg work and present his COMEDY as HARD NEWS........DEMONSTRATING exactly WHY THE MEDIA NO LONGER MATTERS...they have chosen sides, instead of presenting the news.......THEY ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE NEWS.



8+ years... and that's the best Fox has got him (and I'm very familiar with this issue). And I mean, it was pretty lame really...

Do you want to know how long the list is against O'Reily?


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


OK Frank.

Here's your chance.  Back it up.

Go head.  Do it.  C'mon Betsy, show us where it says that/

tickticktick


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You need to wait for a talking point to counter this, because what you said is the equivalent of randomly saying.... Jello... to any question.

Don't worry, one will come out soon, so just be patient.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

OneWorld said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The 2003 Bill had EOL counseling for patients with Terminal Illness; Dems are saying that the current bill says the same thing, therefore, one must conclude that Dems consider eligibility for Medicare a terminal illness


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...


Betsy, a Democrat? .. God, you are nuts.


----------



## Ralph (Aug 22, 2009)

OneWorld said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoyed watching him stutter in an attempt to explain why the wording was removed from a bill that never included such language in the first place.   Jon Stewart attempts to take advantage of the DUMB DOWNED youth of this nation....that are to inherently lazy to find the truth for themselves.    Bill O'Reilly cleaned his clock on demonstrating how his peace on FOX as  being biased against liberals ......as Bill showed the entire clip that demonstrated the LOONS that he was talking about were the 1000 plus CRIMINALS that were arrested...not the peaceful protesters.   That's the way that Jon the COMEDIAN rolls......snap shots, distorted in an attempt to make those that he opposes appear in a comical light.   There is nothing wrong with Comedy.....its just when a supposed HARD NEWS medium such as MEDIA MATTERS attempts to allow  Jon to do their leg work and present his COMEDY as HARD NEWS........DEMONSTRATING exactly WHY THE MEDIA NO LONGER MATTERS...they have chosen sides, instead of presenting the news.......THEY ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE NEWS.
> ...



Subjective OPINION is not demonstrable facts.   And the majority of America must agree, as judging by their support.   As you objectively see in demonstration, he  has a 300% greater audience than does his competitors.   Proving the old adage.....figures  don't lie......but liars figure.   One must take into account also, Bill O'reilly does not present the news......he offers OPINION about the news.  He is upfront and truthful about such.  He does not act like the competition.....presenting OPINION while sitting behind the anchor desk of a supposed HARD NEWS outlet medium.....like CNN, MSNBC, who not must show us the NEWS but attempt to SPIN what we have just witnessed...into their slanted point of view......not simply presenting the FACTS and allowing the audience to determine for themselves what they just witnessed.   To hear CNN tell it......"barry" is the only news.  I watched Mr. Wolfy..the other night and OBAMAS name was mentioned 37 times in  a 60 minute program...entitled... WORLD NEWS.   Proving that OBAMA hung the moon and is the WORLD in his.......OPINION.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Ah, the "therefore, one must conclude" jimmystick

That was cute Frank.  Cute.

Based on your reply, one must _conclude_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You said, "Did you know he voted FOR the *same* GD provision in 2003?" 

So you either don't know what a Terminal Illness is or think that a Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility are the same thing!


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

We need to get you counseling for terminal stupidity. It's not covered yet so we'll take up a collection.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

You're poking around in the dark with nebulous word games Frank.

Show us where "Dems consider eligibility for Medicare a terminal illness."

Please.  And stop the word games.  Just show us.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> We need to get you counseling for terminal stupidity. It's not covered yet so we'll take up a collection.



Hopefully, it will cover people who can't tell the difference between a Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



In all fairness, I really don't think he understands the flaw in his "logic". 

But I don't have time to explain why apples aren't oranges at the moment, although republicans will tell you they are, and the sheepells will believe them. As a side note, is this the new talking point already? I guess it must be... weee....

Got to get going, GL...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

OneWorld said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOL

From people who can't tell the difference between Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> You're poking around in the dark with nebulous word games Frank.
> 
> Show us where "Dems consider eligibility for Medicare a terminal illness."
> 
> Please.  And stop the word games.  Just show us.



You said, Grassley voted for the Same thing!

You said it! Not me!  

You said he voted for the same thing!

You said he voted for the same thing!

You said he voted for the same thing!


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > You're poking around in the dark with nebulous word games Frank.
> ...


Again, we get the Frankie song and dance.

I knew you couldn't back it up.

Same old Frank,

Different day.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

Get the net.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Are you embarrassed at how badly caught you are in your own statements?  

Please tell me how the provision in the 2003 Bill which dealt only with patients with Terminal Illness is the same as the Current Bill which deals with Medicare Eligibility.

No more shucking and jiving, if you made a stupid statement admit it.


----------



## paperview (Aug 22, 2009)

Stop dancing Frank.

Show us where "Dems consider eligibility for Medicare a terminal illness."


NOW. Or STFU.


----------



## OneWorld (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL
> 
> From people who can't tell the difference between Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility



Are there differences in the exposure rate of seniors? Yes... 2003 bill revolved around hospice care, and the recent section is focused on all seniors. Is the language the same though? Yes.

The point is, they created a bill with similar intent. The only major difference is that the new health care reform is broader in reach. And guess what? When you remove the death panel language, all people are in favor of end of life planning and counseling from both sides of the isle.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

I'm sitting here wondering if/how Frank supports himself. I mean critical thinking even extends to flipping hamburgers, you have to know when they are done.

Frank seems "well done".


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > She really looked like a moron in that debate.
> ...



You obviously didn't watch the interview.

I don't have a problem with her citing content.  It was the delivery.  When you are going on TV, it's pretty stupid to start flipping through 500 pages worth of material.

Especially when you can't find the citations and quotes you've referenced.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> Stop dancing Frank.
> 
> Show us where "Dems consider eligibility for Medicare a terminal illness."
> 
> ...



I've showed you were you said it.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



What content was she going to cite? She [and the rest of wackos] got nothin'. And this works until you actually read the section that deals with it.........and then it bombs. I'm sure she could find them, but the Repubs don't want any of it recited on TV, oh noes!! People would hear it!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

paperview said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so the Librul narrative is that there are no death Panels in the House bill, but the Senate is removing them anyway because Betsy was "destroyed" by Jon Lipschitz on a show on Comedy Central?
> ...



Here's a Dem who says that voting for a bill dealing only with Patients with Terminal Illness is the SAME PROVISION as one dealing with Medicare eligibility

Have you meet your own posts before?


----------



## Ralph (Aug 22, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Thus....the comedy.  But comedy is not NEWS nor truth, its entertainment.  I can understand why the dumb downed youth of this nation enjoy watching this Comedian, he is good at JOKING and SATIRE.   But one must realize.....he does not claim to be presenting the truth......just his one sided opinion.  He was on the political show CROSS FIRE a few years ago.......and he was so twisted in knotts he became angry and walked off the show, claiming that he was no ones DANCING MONKEY.....but indeed that's  really what he is.....a DANCING MONKEY for the entertainment of the dumb youth of this nation.  He has become rich dancing to their tune.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

You're the dancing monkey Ralph. Scroll fodder.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

OneWorld said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



So Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility is the same thing, is that what you just said?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Call you Senator and INSIST they put in a provision forcing seniors to meet with Practitioners, not necessarily doctors, to discuss EOL options every 5 years


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

yeah Frank, you don't have to be terminal to get the info/consult now...........

so you're ELIGIBLE and it's paid for _before_ you get sick and/or too incompetent to make informed decisions.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

There is no FORCE. There is COVERAGE. It is LIMITED to one consult in a period of FIVE YEARS.

If you CHOOSE it, it is COVERED.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> yeah Frank, you don't have to be terminal to get the info/consult now...........
> 
> so you're ELIGIBLE and it's paid for _before_ you get sick and/or too incompetent to make informed decisions.



There you go using logic and making sense again.

No soup for you!


----------



## Zona (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Do insurance companies have one now?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> yeah Frank, you don't have to be terminal to get the info/consult now...........
> 
> so you're ELIGIBLE and it's paid for _before_ you get sick and/or too incompetent to make informed decisions.



So stop goofing off here and Call your Senator and INSIST they put in the EOL provision that applies to everyone eligible for Medicare!  Just do it!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > yeah Frank, you don't have to be terminal to get the info/consult now...........
> ...



Call your Senators and INSIST they put the provision in their bill.  

Your parents will be so proud of what you;ve done for Obama!


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

I got Mikulski and Cardin. They're on it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> yeah Frank, you don't have to be terminal to get the info/consult now...........
> 
> so you're ELIGIBLE and it's paid for _before_ you get sick and/or too incompetent to make informed decisions.




This is all moot, call your Senator. Tell them you want your parents to meet with a practitioner at least once every 5 years to discuss EOL options


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> I got Mikulski and Cardin. They're on it.




Your parent must be so proud of you, turning them over to Ezekiel Emanuel!


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

My parents are dead.......and they're still smarter than you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> My parents are dead.......and they're still smarter than you.



Mine aren't yet and I'm not going to let Ezekiel Emanuel and Obama get their Nazi hands on them either


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

So I guess Patients with Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility are different afterall


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So I guess Patients with Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility are different afterall




Yes and the provision seeks to change that so it isn't a last minute type of deal, so there actually ARE options.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess Patients with Terminal Illness and Medicare Eligibility are different afterall
> ...



Better find Paperlightweight and his sidekick because they were saying its the same thing


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

veritas said:


> My parents are dead.......and they're still smarter than you.



I'm sorry. Let's leave them out of it.


----------



## Zona (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > My parents are dead.......and they're still smarter than you.
> ...



This bill will not kill grandma.  No matter what a real Nazi (see my avatar) is telling you.  Use your own brains just once and stop lying.  Its pathetic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Zona said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



It's really so simple, if my parents don't have to meet with a Practitioner to discuss EOL options, don't put it in a bill!

Piece of cake!


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

You're not too bright are you? People can be terminal at the point at which they are eligible for Medicare. Some people don't have children or relatives.  At the point where a service is performed you give consent.....in any medical situation, if you are able, otherwise the doctor has to act in your best interests or find somebody who has a healthcare proxy or medical power of attorney.

Healthcare proxies and MPOAs usually include a consultation by a lawyer unless you are already in an emergent hospital setting and then they set a social worker on it if you are competent to give consent.

You could be hit by truck tomorrow, are your wishes recorded? Have you made any provisions?

You obviously haven't dealt with _any_ of this because your arguments are ridiculous.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It's there so they can get it if they want it. You want them to NOT get it if they want it? You want them to have to pay for it if they want it? Now who's the horrible child????


----------



## Zona (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What insurance company bureaucrats do they have to deal with now?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Here's my problem with the Death Camp provision in the House Bill.

The Central Thesis of ObamaCare is that we spend too much money on too many "unnecessary procedures, treatments and drugs" and he wants to cut back on that. Moreover, he's hired and shielded from public scrutiny people who talk about "Untermenschen" and Eugenics like they were ordering breakfast at Denny's.

So, if the goal is to cut back and spend less, why have a provision that has healthy Medicare eligible people talking with "Practitioner" about ending their lives?  

The only way if fits into the Central Thesis of Obama Care Final Solution Pogrom is if it convinces people to a premature end!  Nothing else about it makes any sense in the larger picture of how Obama, Emanuel, Holdren and others want to manipulate the American people.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Here's my problem with the Death Camp provision in the House Bill.
> 
> The Central Thesis of ObamaCare is that we spend too much money on too many "unnecessary procedures, treatments and drugs" and he wants to cut back on that. Moreover, he's hired and shielded from public scrutiny people who talk about "Untermenschen" and Eugenics like they were ordering breakfast at Denny's.
> 
> ...



BECAUSE it saves money and time when the need arises....which also can produce better outcomes. Would you want your parents to wait while the doctor goes and tries to track you down to see what your parents might want or if there were HCPs or MPOAs in existence that he has to be careful to establish BEFORE he acts? Use your brain. This is efficiency 101.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

What if somebody is religiously opposed to blood transfusions [or any particular procedure]? What if someone is religiously opposed to any medical intervention whatsoever? It's their right to be able to refuse treatment. What if they can use the Medicare coverage for just a EOL consultation so their wishes will be honored?

This would definitely save money and possible liability to doctors and hospitals. 

There is no reasonable argument against it.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

Betsy McCaughey said, in the interview, that she thought we should be spending more on healthcare, not less. 
Who's going to pay for that?


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

AND another thing........all of this stuff is proposed to be uniform, so the hospital attorney doesn't have to sit down and try to figure out what you want or don't want in some sort of legal interpretation of whatever lawyer wrote the thing up. There's also a panel set up to add more items that are UNIFORM as they become either legally acceptable or arise as a viable possibility as a CHOICE. 

Checklist. 

Speed.

Efficiency.

Choice.

Covered.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > yeah Frank, you don't have to be terminal to get the info/consult now...........
> ...



Sorry to burst your bubble o' sarcasm, but my parents are all for it. They'll be thrilled.


----------



## Ralph (Aug 22, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



Indeed the Elderly are ALL FOR IT.....thus the example of the majority that was protesting, were YOUNG ADULTS?  And why ARRP has lost 60,000 members in just 2 weeks.  And why BAMY fears losing the 14% voter block of the elderly.  If such language was SO IMPORTANT......and a principle part of any valid healthcare plan, it would not have been sold out by the Great "barry" in an attempt to clam down the elderly.  "barry" is interested only in one thing.....what's best for "barry".   Of course, "W" will be blamed for distorting the truth according to 'barry'......as soon a plausible plan for such finger pointing can be lain out.   Clearly the BUCK STOPS with W.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 22, 2009)

People are quitting AARP because they've discovered that it's a front for United Healthcare ... just selling insurance.


----------



## veritas (Aug 22, 2009)

Grassley just has Progeria????


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> People are quitting AARP because they've discovered that it's a front for United Healthcare ... just selling insurance.



Just like the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats in Congress!


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



In 1997, though she had always voted Republican in presidential elections (voting successively for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Dole), McCaughey officially became a Democrat.[13] McCaughey later announced her candidacy for the 1998 Democratic nomination for Governor.

Betsy McCaughey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was 12 years ago.  Try to keep up.


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...


*Betsy McCaughey, Liar*


"...Of course, she's been at this forever. In 1994, McCaughey worked for the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank. And then she wrote a piece for _The New Republic_ about how the Clinton health care plan would not allow people to buy health care coverage outside the government-run plan. This, obviously, was false. George Will picked up on it, adding nonsense about jail terms.


 (Andrew Sullivan edited _The New Republic_ from 1991 through 1996. In 1994, Sullivan was on a roll, publishing _both_ the objectively racist pseudoscience of _The Bell Curve_ and Betsy McCaughey's _No Exit_. This was all before Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass. Current editor Franklin Foer apologized for the McCaughey piece shortly after assuming his position. Sullivan never really has. McCaughey's story was really more the fault of owner/"editor-in-chief" Marty Peretz, of course, because he had a psychotic hatred of Bill Clinton.)


 So. After that one lying story full of lies made her famous, Al D'Amato told George Pataki to make her Lietenant Governor of New York. She did not get along with Pataki, and she famously, weirdly, stood up for the entirety of Pataki's 1996 State of the State address. 



*In 1997, Pataki dropped her from the ticket with a nasty public letter and she decided to become a Democrat in order to run against him. She ended up on the Liberal Party ticket, and lost, obviously, and then she moved to DC to work for the Hudson Institute, another right-wing think tank*.


 So she is a known liar and an elected Republican politician (her brief and bizarre stint as a vengeful Liberal party candidate aside), and here she is still forcing people to argue with chimerical fantasies instead of legitimate criticisms of progressive legislation.


 We are hard pressed to come up any equivalent figure on "the left," who openly and intentionally lies in the service of her partisan arguments, and who continues to do so with relative impunity, in major publications, long after the lies are exposed.


More: Betsy McCaughey, Liar - Lies - Gawker


Yeah.  Keep up.


----------



## veritas (Aug 23, 2009)

Yeah but she's not a Democrat for the purposes of what she has been doing since the Clinton Era. Frankly, I think she is confused, and not a little confused, a lot confused. She's a think tanker that the right seemed to support. On Jon Stewart's show she advocated throwing more money at health care, which was probably more damning to her position on the right than her inability to express her views on HR3200.


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

Your own damn Wiki link xsited shows what she did *immediately* after losing  her stint in 1997.

What did she do?  Yup, next paragraph:

Worked for the Hudson Institute in 1998.

What is the Hudson Institute?

*The Hudson Institute is an American, conservative, non-profit think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.[2] It moved to Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1984 and to Washington, D.C., in 2004.[3]*

That poodle of yours don't even sniff, never mind hunt.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

paperview said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Political Junky and PaperView the same person?  Who knew?

Seriously folks, you pick out some of the biggest wackjobs on the planet and let Jon Stewart (a comedian) interview them and somehow think that's a victory for the Left?


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

paperview said:


> Your own damn Wiki link xsited shows what she did *immediately* after losing  her stint in 1997.
> 
> What did she do?  Yup, next paragraph:
> 
> ...



You partisans really crack me up.


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Your own damn Wiki link xsited shows what she did *immediately* after losing  her stint in 1997.
> ...


That's damn weak of a reply xsited for someone who called the major con-job a democrat...when shown evidence of who she really is...

What is the whimper?:




> You partisans crack me up.


 

Even if you *tried*, it couldn't be weaker.


----------



## veritas (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Your own damn Wiki link xsited shows what she did *immediately* after losing  her stint in 1997.
> ...




Partisans? The argument is not even an argument. The Republicans are just lying about it. Nowhere in the [not a bill yet] are there any "death panel" provisions, either implied or explicit. How is that partisan? It's like arguing that your steak is well done when you ordered medium rare, when in reality, you're eating a cheese sandwich. This isn't a viable discourse any way.


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm getting the distinct feeling xsited, you don't even know how significant Betsy McCaughey is to this debate, do you?

I'm sensing you're not just playing a coy job here, you're simply ignorant on the matter. 

That explains it some...


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

veritas said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


They are jousting with a Unicorn, and trying their damndest to direct our attention to the bucking and braying Unicorn.

You can see that Unicorn, can't you 

Can't you...?


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

You dems are just stupid for not recognizing the dangerous Unicorn in our midst!

Kill him!  Kill that Unicorn dammit!


----------



## veritas (Aug 23, 2009)

paperview said:


> I'm getting the distinct feeling xsited, you don't even know how significant Betsy McCaughey is to this debate, do you?
> 
> I'm sensing you're not just playing a coy job here, you're simply ignorant on the matter.
> 
> That explains it some...



Which is really scary. The Republicans are hoping the sound bites will get through and after the bell is rung, the majority of the population is too lazy or just plain incapable of finding out for themselves because of the artificial dichotomy they have created.

But beyond that, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that Betsy should know better. If I write something, I've usually researched it right down to the warp and weft before I pull the piece together. If I were to write something that might be assailable, I'd have to show more data that supported my argument than didn't. At the point I would be called upon to defend my premise, I'd be prepared. I wouldn't just write something I knew to be patently false and expect to get away with it, nor would I anyway for that matter. So is Betsy entirely to blame? I think not. Grassley certainly knows better, and if he doesn't, then he failed in due diligence as both a Senator and a lawyer. Then we have individuals like Sarah Palin opining on it, and clearly she isn't qualified to opine on anything, but out she trots, repeating the same mush. Palin is an undereducated, ethically challenged cartoon package. Betsy is basically a liar for hire, but not even a good one. I'm sure there are more substantive discussions that we could engage in besides the easily impeached Death Panel farce.......like what if private insurance participation falls drastically in response to the public option and how does that affect employment and the redistribution of capital in the public markets and the tax base.........stuff that really matters..............


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

veritas said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting the distinct feeling xsited, you don't even know how significant Betsy McCaughey is to this debate, do you?
> ...


Damn.  That is one god-awful good post.  

I plan on going out of my way from now on to read your thoughts.  

Superb!


----------



## veritas (Aug 23, 2009)

gee thanks...........

I'm partial to what you produce as well.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

paperview said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Weak?  No 'major con job' would ever run as a Democrat.  That's a given.  So what is she?  Obviously a wackjob worthy of going on a comedy show.  But what is really amusing is that you somehow think this is a 'win' for the Left.  Wow, just wow.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

veritas said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Don't give me that.  There are liars on both sides of the aisle.  The only difference is that you believe the ones on the Left.  That's partisan.


----------



## veritas (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



You sound like Betsy, you got nuthin'. Wow, just wow!!!

Your reading comprehension isn't that good either. There are no victories because the discussion hasn't begun yet. I already said we could have meaningful discussions if the Republicans would just stipulate as to the _truth_ and then we can proceed........I even gave them an issue to start them off.......

You're a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...


You appear to believe the ones on the right.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

veritas said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The discussion hasn't begun yet?   

Okay, now I know you're just trolling.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



And you appear to be a flaming homosexual.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 23, 2009)

Ooooo, is that worse than Commie, Fascist, or Socialist to you?


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Ooooo, is that worse than Commie, Fascist, or Socialist to you?



I have a number of friends who are homosexuals.  Don't insult them!

You do, however, appear to be a liberal fascist.


----------



## paperview (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Ooooo, is that worse than Commie, Fascist, or Socialist to you?
> ...


Is that your _non-partisan_ voice talking?


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 23, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Ooooo, is that worse than Commie, Fascist, or Socialist to you?
> ...


Difficulty making up your mind, Ditzy Queen?


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 23, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



  So you are a homosexual!  That's okay.  Your secret is safe with me.


----------

