Betsy McCaughey, the diva of the death panels, is back to scare senior citizens
The diva of the death panels has reappeared in her latest effort to spread fear and loathing among America’s senior citizens and the baby boomers soon to join their ranks.
In today’s New York Post, the only newspaper in America sufficiently devoid of editorial scruples to print McCaughey’s babble as if it were informed discourse, McCaughey once again takes to the printed word under the title “The kill granny bill.”
The title should be your first clue that McCaughey’s campaign to destroy health care reform,at any cost, is running on empty. She has already done the whole ‘government wants to kill granny thing’ and, while it certainly had an impact on the fringe who do believe the government wants old folks to die before they cost us any money, isn’t the entire thing kind of so ‘last August’s town hall meeting’? Yes, that was all very entertaining, but McCaughey appears to have not yet received the memo – we’ve moved on.
She should too.
The thrust of today’s adventures in McCaughey style propaganda goes like this:
The Baucus bill also puts new limits on what doctors can do for patients in Medicare. A “race to the bottom” provision (p. 102 of the revised chairman’s mark) would take effect each year for the next five years. The provision penalizes doctors who end up in the 90th percentile or above on the cost of what they use to treat their patients, compared with national averages. The intent is to force down the cost of care, year by year. Yet this blunt instrument can’t determine which care is actually wasteful — it will punish doctors for treating high cost patients with complex conditions. Inevitably, it will lower the quality of care.
Interesting…provocative… completely and utterly false and misleading.
The section in the Baucus bill McCaughey references seeks to work out what the vast majority of doctors are charging for treatment situations and, after making adjustments for regional disparities and other relevant items that have a legitimate impact on physician charges, to come up with an appropriate and fair payment rate reflected in the information provided by the physicians. This is not designed to be some number pulled out of the hat by the government. In essence, the physicians are setting the fees.
Thus, McCaughey’s statement that “it will punish doctors treating high cost patients with complex conditions” is just flat out untrue as a “complex condition” is completely outside the scope of what the provision is attempting to accomplish.
McCaughey also takes on the language provided, by way of amendment proposed by Senator Cantwell and approved by vote of the full committee, suggesting that the Baucus bill will give the Secretary of HHS the power to define quality of our health care.
Wrong again.
Cantwell’s language is designed to incentivize physicians to move towards “system based care” where physicians are paid based on successful outcomes rather than the current pay for services model that has resulted in skyrocketing costs.
While, understandably, McCaughey’s article never steers the reader towards the actual bill, you can read the final mark up of the Senate Finance Committee bill and make your own determinations. Click on the link and scroll down to page 102 (the page cited by McCaughey). Make your own decision as to whether McCaughey is making any sense or is simply doing what she always does – misleading readers by putting her own spin on what is obviously intended to mean something else entirely.
And who is McCaughey’s authority for all of this clap- trap? That would be Dr. David McKalip, a Florida neurosurgeon and a board member of the Floria Medical Association.
That would be the same Dr. David McKalip who was forced to resign as president-elect of the Pinellas County Medical Association and take a “leave of absense” from his role at the AMA after being busted for forwarding an e-mail image that portrayed President Barack Obama as a witch doctor in a loin cloth and headdress with bones in his nose to the good doctor’s friends and associates.
Seriously, Betsy…how can you possibly hope to be taken seriously when you choose to include people like Dr. McKalip as authorities in your articles? Frankly, I’m stunned that you could not find so much as one credible physician to join in your deception.
Not that she didn’t try-
When I warned that this meant the government would be interfering in doctors’ treatment decisions, CNN and FactCheck.org said that was untrue. But Dr. David Blumenthal, appointed in March to head the new system of computer-guided medicine, settled that debate. In the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9), he confirmed that “embedded clinical-decision support” (his term for computers telling doctors what to do) would be used to reduce costs, and he predicted that some doctors might rebel against tight controls.
Via New York Post
A top level Obama appointee suggesting that the government wants to tell doctors how to practice medicine? That would be news…if it were anywhere in the same area code of true.
In the New England Journal of Medicine piece McCaughey references, Dr. Blumenthal makes the point that embedded clinical decisions will help physicians take better care of their patients by placing clinical results of treatments on-line, allowing physicians who face similar circumstances when treating a patient to instantly learn what has worked for others and what has not.
While McCaughey’s definition of “embedded clinical decision support” translates, in her mind, to government computers telling doctors what to do, the interpretation of that phrase by the rest of the known universe suggests that the phrase means making clinical results of treatments instantly available to physicians via the push of a button to better treat their patients.
Once again, McCaughey is doing everything possible to twist the words of legislation, experts, etc. to try and convince you that the government is out to take over how our physicians practice medicine and how cost concerns have lead the government to want to kill us off as soon as possible to save money.
If you already believe your government wants to kill you when you pass the age of 65, (which would include the majority of Democratic and Republican senators who will have to vote for this as they are well into the age where they should be very afraid), then you will probably warm to McCaughey’s nonsense.
But if you are a senior citizen who doesn’t know what to believe, do yourself a favor- go to the source and read the information.
Our elderly have enough issues to deal with without Betsy McCaughey doing her level best to scare the hell out of them.
On the plus side, today’s McCaughey pronouncements should earn her a guest shot with Lou Dobbs. So, I guess that’s something.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
1. Why do you call her the “diva” of death panels?
2. Why do you think the New York Post is “devoid of editorial scruples” because it ran an op-ed by her? Newspapers run op-eds of people who don’t work for them all the time. Is the New York Times “devoid of editorial scruples” because it ran Sarah Palin’s op-ed about energy policy?
1. Because McCaughey was the first to put forward the idea that the government wanted to kill granny. sarah palin took the idea and put the name “death panels” on it, but McCaughey originated the concept.
2. Because McCaughey has been proven, time and time again, to flat out lie and manipulate the truth. If you do a search you will find ample evidence of this. It is no coincidence that she writes her op-eds for a paper like the Post rather than the more credible, national newspapers who would never touch them. Not because they disagree editorially, but because the pieces are dishonest and purposefully meant to mislead.
In response to another comment. See in context »Eh…have you ever read the New York Post? It’s devoid of basically everything; editorially, art department-wise, reporting-wise (except the sports page – that’s pretty good). It’s a fascinating Milgram study in “how badly can a newspaper be constructed [and I'm not just talking about the politics here] and still get readers?” but to dismiss it the way Rick does is already giving it way more credit than it deserves.
Interestingly, it was started by Alexander Hamilton as the first “mainstream” abolitionist newspaper; how far we fall.
In response to another comment. See in context »Disgraced doc David McKalip spoutin’ off again. http://bit.ly/jtNlN
or
A month after helping to run him out of town, Times publishes op-ed from controversial doc David McKalip
http://bit.ly/1oMhtI (this one has a great YouTube video
or
Disgraced doc David McKalip breaks from family vacation in Yellowstone to attend TEA Party, blast Obama’s health care plan
http://bit.ly/tfJNK
Good stuff. Thanks.
In response to another comment. See in context »Next you’re going to tell me Newsmax isn’t a creditable news outlet!
Glad I found you, Rick Ungar. Never stop thinking, never stop writing …
Apparently she’s debating Rep. Weiner tonight but I’ve yet to find a link to the stream.
Maybe it would take some of the wind out of their sails if they knew that a plan that would pay for the entire Obama Healthcare plan has been submitted Valerie Jarrett at the White House.
If adopted by our governments and private industry, the following simple plan could greatly improve our environment by cutting the carbon footprint by of office buildings by 50%
In his radio address, President Obama said that innovation is needed to get us out of the mess we are in and I came up with with this idea: Most office space is very expensive yet it sits unused 70% of the time because most white collare work is scheduled for only one shift per day or only 45 hours out of a 168 hour week. 39% efficiency is completely unacceptable in today’s economic and ecological environment. If white collar work was scheduled for 2 different hour shifts each day instead of one, we could cut the overhead of $50,000/worker in half saving the Federal Government up to $100 billion per year.
This simple plan will help our government and private industry in the following ways:
•Save federal gov a trillion dollars in next 10 years
•Exactly amount needed for universal healthcare
•Reduce white-collar overhead costs by 50%
•Reduce carbon footprint of office space by 50%
•Reduce budget deficits for most state governments
•Reduce our dependence on foreign oil
•Make workers competitive in the global economy
•Improve profits for all businesses and
•Increase tax receipts for state/fed governments
•Businesses can hire more employees & lower prices
for details or comments:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenspaceguy
http://www.whitecollargreenspaceblogspot.com
whitecollargreenspaceguy@hotmail.com
Interesting.
In response to another comment. See in context »Working shifts seems like a minor sacrifice to help safe our economy and our way of living and give everyone healthcare. Our headquarters office is open from 6 am to 6 pm and most people go in at 6 am so they can get off early. If the office was open another 4 hours each day we could save billions by cutting the overhead in half. Everyone should have healthcare. The office could be open 17 hours a day and this would allow two 8 hour shifts per day and half hour lunches. All workers would get 40 hours per week. but the overhead cost would be cut in half. half as many computers, desks, phones, rest rooms. the rent would be cut in half since a 100,000 sq ft office would only need 50,000 sq ft. Savings would come by cancelling new construction and reducing the amount of office space that is leased. Because we sork in an electronic environment, work can be moved from shift to shift, desk to desk, office to office, similar to how telework functions. Blue collar workers were hard working and proud that their sweat and blood built this nation the last 100 years. They did not complain when they had to work different shifts so industry could get the full value of capital investments.
In response to another comment. See in context »New York Post/National Enquirer you have your hands full trying to keep pace with the GOP lies about the healthcare bills. We are seeing a backlash at our practice with physicians and patients starting to see the money from insurers fueling most of the outrageous claims and all are starting to worry about how enboldened insurers will become if they win again.
Rick,
Strong post per usual. If you haven’t seen it, I think you’ll find this interesting: 15 years after they essentially made McCaughey’s career, the New Republic finally strike back against her this week:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/no-exit
Thanks, Michael. And I did see the New Republic piece. A good one!
In response to another comment. See in context »I like the Quintin Tarintino reference. “Kill Granny Bill”, its rumored that 8 years from now, a “Kill Granny Bill 2″ will come out. If only Pelosi was built a little more like Theron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYAHOEwHu0
This could be the biggest step forward on the ecology front since solar cells. It seems like a no brainer. However, when I talked to my congressional staffers, they say they will wait for the experts to weigh in. They might think about it if some special interest groups pur pressure on. I have been talking with environmental groups and health care advocate groups. The first response from the Bureaucracy is we can’t do it. Anyone that thinks it can’t be done should conatct me and I can walk them through it.
You are absolutely correct when you write that seniors should “go to the source and read the information.” A trusted source that I have found is PlanPrescriber.com. The articles and monthly newsletters provide comprehensive up-to-date information on health care reform proposals and what they mean for seniors. There is also a search tool where you can find and compare Medicare plans in your area.