NY Post publishes another op-ed advancing end-of-life counseling myth
August 03, 2009 12:06 pm ET by Media Matters staff
In an August 3 NY Post op-ed, Marc Siegel parroted the myth that the House health care reform bill would require end-of-life counseling for seniors every five years, which is false. Betsy McCaughey made the same claim in her July 17 NY Post op-ed, and has since been forced to backtrack.
Siegel, a practicing internist and Fox News medical contributor, wrote:
All this oversight threatens to destroy the art of medicine, which exists purely one-on-one, between me and my patient.
A prime example comes in the section starting on page 425 of the House bill. This dictates that an Advanced Care Planning Consultation must take place every five years from the age of 65 -- with the intervention of so-called counselors, trained and appointed by the government.
The clear goal of the consultation is to decrease unnecessary care to the elderly. But, while a lot of resources are too often wasted in the last days of life, there are many vigorous and engaged senior citizens who shouldn't be shortchanged or pushed prematurely to euthanasia.
Show one single solitary part of any of this leglislation that would support this nonsense in the least. Please.
"But, while a lot of resources are too often wasted in the last days of life, there are many vigorous and engaged senior citizens who shouldn't be shortchanged or pushed prematurely to euthanasia."
What?! Are these crazy people now arguing that Obama's health coverage would hunt down and euthanize -healthy- old people? How far around the bend have they gotten?!
Funny that these freedom lovers have the time to go shout "Just say No!" to attempts to reform a damaged system, while breaking into the pledge of Allegiance (for some reason), while holding signs protesting government control.
They've gone from amusing to a little disturbing, and seem to be making up a more substantial part of the right wing base.
Add "orwellian" to the list of words that people have no idea of the meaning of. How can any human being in this day and age be so backwards?
A Republican was sending out mailings to his constituents (taxpayer funded, official government correspondence) that included some inaccurate, misleading language. I believe one phrase was "Government Controlled Healthcare", can't remember the others.
The Dems caught it, and had them change the language to something more truthful. I'm not sure if this goes both ways, but I would imagine so, that both parties can review official material, not just the majority.
So, the Repubs were required to remove their doublespeak and be honest, and Hannity called this "Orwellian" censorship.
This would only make sense if Hannity intended "Orwellian" to mean a tribute to Orwell, meaning being aware of the dangers of a government using dishonest wording to mislead the public.
Somehow, I don't think that's how Seannie was using it.