Jon Stewart NAILS Betsy McCaughey on "Death Panel" Rumors

This is a must-see interview!

Betsy McCaughey, the "brains" and impetus behind the "death panels" rumors in the health care bill (even though she doesn't use that phrase), while being well-spoken and seemingly intelligent, is exposed as a total fraud during this interview. She makes so many leaps of imagination and fills in so may blanks that aren't even there, her final conclusions are meaningless. And Jon Stewart is a master at how he exposes her lies.

Part One
Part Two (two segments show in series)

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Stewart doesn't mind being taxed a little more... how many people share that sentiment, and will Stewart's wage bracket actually be the one getting taxed?

My Net Income is below the Poverty Level (but my Gross is well above the Median Level) and I still wouldn't mind a Tax Hike to help pay for Government Subsidized Health Care for myself and my fellow Americans. Granted, I already probably pay more in Taxes than someone in the > $1,000,000.00 Tax Bracket, being that I don't get to take advantage of Tax Shelters and utilize the kinds of Tax Deductions that the Rich get, but still, I wouldn't mind paying a little more even though I know I'm paying Jon Stewart's share too.

Actually the interview was hysterical. Although there were some great points that were brought up, I couldn't fixate on anything other than the fact that with all the Plastic Surgery Betsy McCaughey has had done to her face, not only does she look less human than Michael Jackson did, but it certainly hasn't improved her looks any! Good thing she has "brains" because that's all she has going for her.

I did find her rather insistently overbearing and rude, and for lack of a better word, fanatical. To her merit, she's got her spiel down pat, and she was prompt on locating specific sections within the Health Plan, so you know she has that entire 5000 pages memorized (which is impressive). However, the conclusions she draws are so out there that it's almost like she's reading entirely different passages than what are written in the draft. It's like she is living in a parallel dimension where their dictionary had entirely different definitions for words in the English language.

EDIT: I would have loved to see this woman on The Colbert Report. If Jon Stewart made her so edgy, she wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds with Colbert's pompous attitude. It would have been curious to see which of the two would tell the other to "Shut Up and Listen to Me!" first.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by fraterormus]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I believe you should discover what is called by the VA, "the death book."
In it are the questions used by interviewers of veterans as to when they think their life is "not worth it" and meds need to be stopped. Questions such as having diarrhea, being a burden to family (financial or psychological), and other bizarre thoughts are part of this official U.S. gov't. book.

This book was ordered discontinued by Bush, and was re-instated by Obama.

Stewart likes to bait people. Since you said he is a 'master' at what he does, that makes him a .....

death panels aren't in the bill, however after the private insurance market is wiped out and we are left with a bankrupt government to pay for our healthcare, rationing will be the only recourse.

of course, this means death panels to decide who gets care first.

this bill will wipe out the private insurance market, there is no doubt about that. from there it will be single payer and rationing.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

John Stewart is definitely a master at what he does so effectively. No doubt he could make Barak "wee weed up" Obama appear to be an idiotic shill, too, if only he put his mind to the task.
I didn't realize the health care bill had grown to 5,000 pages, while congress is on vacation. I will have to download this new improved version, too.

Jon Stewart remains the man.

I love how she brought out the whole bill, then fumbled around with it and, despite having the entire bill in front of her, still couldn't back up her outlandish claims.

Betsy McCaughey basically characterizes the shortcomings of those who are protesting health care reform. Unfounded conclusions, exaggerated claims, and a general lack of reading comprehension abilities seem to be the crux of the opposition.

She simply takes facts, such as the 10% cut from medicare, and then stretches them into wild fantasies such as her rant about elderly people not being able to get surgery anymore. He continues to push for evidence, and she doesn't have anything to say.




McCaughey: "Right now, if you're seriously ill, the best place to be is in the United States."

Stewart: "If you have the resources."

(applause)


Says it all.

Originally posted by kyred
John Stewart is definitely a master at what he does so effectively. No doubt he could make Barak "wee weed up" Obama appear to be an idiotic shill, too, if only he put his mind to the task.
I didn't realize the health care bill had grown to 5,000 pages, while congress is on vacation. I will have to download this new improved version, too.

Don't quote me on that 5,000! The initial Draft had 852 Pages. However, that isn't the only Draft that is being considered. There are 5 Drafts that have been proposed and addendums added to the initial Draft, so if you take them all into account it would be somewhere in the ball-park around 5,000 pages.

I did see this he made her look dumb she brought that big as rile of papers like she read that s***t she know damn well that she anit read all that no markers or nothing its funny lol nothing she said was in the bill she made all that up out of barneys imagination bag speculation with words GREAT POST its sad when the truth is a joke

To accept and endorse the fact that the gov't thinks

a) That end of life decisions are in such a state that it requires their omniscience to determine what the questions and procedures should be

b) That they should have the power to incent or penalize doctors to follow their 'script'

is patently a socialist outlook.

And to conclude that Stewart 'nailed' her is an incredibly naive way to look at it. How did he 'nail' her? By quacking like a duck while she tried to dig out the info to answer his question? Yeah, that's real journalism for ya.

She not only was well prepared and able to answer his silly questions, she pretty much showed him up for the buffoon he really is.

Notwithstanding her inability to show him where a half-trillion dollar cut in Medicare would "take away grandpa's artificial hips" in the current bill.

Originally posted by jsobecky
To accept and endorse the fact that the gov't thinks

a) That end of life decisions are in such a state that it requires their omniscience to determine what the questions and procedures should be

b) That they should have the power to incent or penalize doctors to follow their 'script'

is patently a socialist outlook.

None of that is in the bill (especially since they took that whole section out). Again, the only thing that was in the bill pertaining to end-of-life counseling was that medicare was forced to pay for it at least once every five years. Doctors would still be conducting those counseling sessions, not some mythical government panel.

Also, that's not what Socialism means.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And to conclude that Stewart 'nailed' her is an incredibly naive way to look at it. How did he 'nail' her? By quacking like a duck while she tried to dig out the info to answer his question? Yeah, that's real journalism for ya.

She not only was well prepared and able to answer his silly questions, she pretty much showed him up for the buffoon he really is.

What? Did you see it?

She wasn't well prepared in the slightest. She spent half of the interview fumbling around through the pages because she neglected to bookmark them.

Then, when she actually did find the passages she wanted to quote, she completely misrepresented them in her arguments. When Stewart called her out on it, she resorted to the same old rhetoric and talking points she was spouting before without actually providing any evidence for her claims.

Yeah, and Stewart was the one who came out looking like a buffoon.

Originally posted by jsobecky
To accept and endorse the fact that the gov't thinks

a) That end of life decisions are in such a state that it requires their omniscience to determine what the questions and procedures should be

b) That they should have the power to incent or penalize doctors to follow their 'script'

is patently a socialist outlook.

And to conclude that Stewart 'nailed' her is an incredibly naive way to look at it. How did he 'nail' her? By quacking like a duck while she tried to dig out the info to answer his question? Yeah, that's real journalism for ya.

She not only was well prepared and able to answer his silly questions, she pretty much showed him up for the buffoon he really is.

Notwithstanding her inability to show him where a half-trillion dollar cut in Medicare would "take away grandpa's artificial hips" in the current bill.

OK JSO

Lets here from the Conservatives who think MEDICARE should be eliminated altogether
because of the evils of Socialism, Big Government, Spending, Entitlements in the first place...

I suspect if many of you had your way Grandpa would have saved his own money when he was younger, INVESTED IN THE MARKET OR SOMETHING or "stop being lazy, get a job".

I suspect Grandpa wouldn't get a nail for his pine box according your social outlook.

ALL OF A SUDDEN - the conservatives are championing a favorable socialism in OUR REPUBLIC


[edit on 22-8-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by jsobecky
To accept and endorse the fact that the gov't thinks

a) That end of life decisions are in such a state that it requires their omniscience to determine what the questions and procedures should be

b) That they should have the power to incent or penalize doctors to follow their 'script'

is patently a socialist outlook.

1) Who but the state can rule on procedures for "end of life decisions"? Surely you're not suggesting that these things should be self-regulated by medical practitioners - as that leaves the door open very wide for the legalization of outright murder if conducted by a physician. Medical procedures of all kinds are regulated by governments worldwide - it's not socialism, it's the state doing it's job.

2) Doctors who carry out improper procedures (government scripts) today are penalized. If they've gone against procedure far enough, they can be sued for malpractice, lose their licenses and be jailed. Conversely, doctors are currently given incentives all around to perform certain procedures - from government backed vaccination programs to breast and prostate cancer screenings to prescribing certain drugs on behalf of drug companies, to assisting federal agencies in collecting data on specific procedures, and on and on and on.

If that's socialism, you have been living under it since the doctor smacked your bottom.

reply to post by vox2442

1) Who but the state can rule on procedures for "end of life decisions"? Surely you're not suggesting that these things should be self-regulated by medical practitioners - as that leaves the door open very wide for the legalization of outright murder if conducted by a physician.

Oh, I forgot! People didn't know how to die with dignity after consulting with their physicians and family before Obama came along with his typed list of questions.

It's so much better to leave such personal decisions in the hands of a "Death Panel" of bureaucrats sitting on their arse in Washington, DC.


reply to post by drwizardphd

Yeah, and Stewart was the one who came out looking like a buffoon.

Yep, quacking like a duck and asking for page references of "Dr. Death" statements are the marks of a real buffoon.

reply to post by mental modulator


I have no idea what you are getting at, so I cannot answer your questions. Try to be clearer next time.

*************

Sorry guys, but I disagree with you. Obamacare is bad news, regardless of how much lipstick you put on that pig. Another bloated bureacracy to pay for, another half-dozen 'czars' that answer to no-one. Learn from the countries that have implemented socialized medicine.

We need a new health care system. Obama's may not be what I personally feel is the best thing, but it is far better than what we have now. Jon Stewart, was GREAT. Thanks for the information Benevolent Heretic.

HARM NONE
Peace

Edited, cause I was angry and said some things I most likely should not have.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by amazed]

The guy is yet another part of the DNC propaganda network we call the media. Democrats control everything, have a dozen networks shilling for them 24/7 and he still cant bring himself to do anything but rip in to the "right". Same with Colbert, although he goes about it differently.

"Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

"In fact," he says, "for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.

"The study demonstrates voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information," he explains. Source

I don't know why it takes research and studies to forumulate these theories....behaviors like this are exhibited over and over again in threads on Internet forums....just like this one.

Putting bald facts with clear interpretations into a thread is like the reverse of trolling....instead of inciting people to engage in heated discussion.....they disappear like so many wisps of steam.

Weirdly backward it is.

Make a conclusion, then search for facts to "backfill" that conclusion with.

This just in....

A New Jersey medical device company, Cantel, just announced that Betsy McCaughey — the day after sparring with Jon Stewart — is "resigning to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform." Source

I'd love to be able to take this "resignation" at face value. I really would. But how many upper level executives are given the choice of "resign" or "be fired"?

Man, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for this one.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by cranberrydork]

So let me get this straight. This is being made a pro-choice, anti-abortion issue basically. That we should keep the elderly alive at all costs.

So the right is against abortions, and I respect that. And they are against allowing seniors to choose the way they want to die, in case they change their minds.

Yet, if you are anywhere in between, you don't deserve health insurance, you should be able to provide your own, and we need to let the free market work?

Is that how it works?

Originally posted by jsobecky
To accept and endorse the fact that the gov't thinks

a) That end of life decisions are in such a state that it requires their omniscience to determine what the questions and procedures should be

b) That they should have the power to incent or penalize doctors to follow their 'script'

is patently a socialist outlook.

The the GOP is "Socialist". LOL

Multiple Republican Leaders Voted In 2003 For Measure Similar To Current “Government Euthanasia” Bill

GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley all voted in 2003 for a measure very similar to the one in the current House health care bill they now suggest in various ways could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia.

As Time’s Amy Sullivan reported late last night, Grassley voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, which — ready? — provided coverage for “counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.”

Yeah, that's real journalism for ya.

I had heard the ridiculous notion that some think Jon Stewart is a "journalist". I didn't think you'd be one of them, though... He gives a hell of an interview, though!

Originally posted by cranberrydork
I'd love to be able to take this "resignation" at face value. I really would. But how many upper level executives are given the choice of "resign" or "be fired"?

Yeah, I don't think she "resigned". She thought she did a great job on The Daily Show.



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