About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Morris claims health care reform "inevitably" will lead to "denying health care to the eldery"

July 22, 2009 8:35 am ET

From the July 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Conservatives fearmonger that health care reform will lead to denying treatment to elderly

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 22, 2009 8:51 am ET)
      1  
      Dick, you forgot to mention that Barack Obama will INTENTIONALLY deny medical care to the eldery because he WANTS them to die...he HATES old people. He's a socialist. And he doesn't have a birth certificate. And he's black...or half black. And he hates America...probably because he's not even a citizen.

      And did I mention he's black...?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 22, 2009 8:53 am ET)
      2  
      As long as athletes' foot is covered, Morris will be happy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (July 22, 2009 8:53 am ET)
         
      If you let the insurance companies run it.Even more if you get insurance companies to run it at a reduced profit level.And it is not really about denying elderly care.The amount of money hospitals steal during an old persons last few days is outrageous.Ask any one who had an elder relative who spent their last few days in a hospital about the bill? The pile all kinds of stuff on a bill that you know they did not do.They also do the same thing to people bill who don't die,just not as bad.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 22, 2009 8:57 am ET)
           
        Exactly... Some people are oblivious to the real problem of rampant greed in the medical community.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (July 22, 2009 10:06 am ET)
        1  
        And their excuse for these excessive charges? They have to cover the costs of people who come to the emergency room who don't have insurance.

        Gee, too bad nobody can think of a way to solve that problem...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (July 22, 2009 8:58 am ET)
      1  
      Wow, Fox is scaring their base.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (July 22, 2009 8:59 am ET)
      1  
      "When we say rationing, that's a polite word. What it really means is denying care to the elderly."

      Interesting. So, this conservative 'expert' thinks rationing means denying care to the elderly? During WW II, the entire country was on a rationing system. The elderly population was not targeted, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest it will happen with health care, either. The same specious argument about 'who are you gonna turn down, the 40 year old or the 80 year old?' would have been made about the food that was rationed just like it is being made about the health care that will supposedly be rationed.

      You cannot cover 50 million new people without any new doctors, duh.

      Okay, I've heard conservatives argue that the 50 million uninsured -are- covered, by emergency room service. Now, here comes Dick Morris saying, no, actually, we haven't been covering them? And the burden of suddenly beginning to cover them will mean instant rationing for all?

      I have a suggestion: Should rationing health care become necessary, let's put the wealthy (anyone making over $500,000 per year) at the back of the line. The reason being they can always be treated out of their own pocket in another country.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 22, 2009 9:51 am ET)
        1  
        Weren't these the same group of people who kept saying that the ER is not a place for people who don't have health care to GET health care, because it would cost us normal folks more in terms of insurance coverage?

        I seem to remember that being the conservative point in denying care to say, illegal immigrants who didn't have insurance. Why is it different now?

        You also don't get well care, or health care check ups in the ER room. Can you imagine a woman going into the ER to ask for her yearly pap smear, or to get checked out OB-GYN style?

        ERs are for, EMERGENCIES, and hence the name.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by robyn20094113 (July 22, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
             
          I'm sure they could get some Republican Governors, to volunteer to do those walk in check ups for women.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (July 22, 2009 9:49 am ET)
      2  
      The people who benefit the most from affordable health care are the elderly. Look at any country with universal health care and you'll see that the elderly stand to gain the most.
      But let me address Dick's claim that there's an 8 week waiting period in Canada for cancer radiation therapy. What kind of cancer is he talking about? Is he suggesting that people wait 8 weeks for treatment of a fast moving fatal cancer? Not very likely. What he won't tell you is that some cancers are slow moving and do not require immediate attention. In fact, with some cancers, the chances are you'll die of old age long before the cancer becomes a problem.
      I hope most Americans--insured and uninsured--understand what's going on here. We're being fed a load of bull by wealthy bobbleheads who could care less about real people with real medical needs. They, and the insurance company reps they pal around with, only care about fighting the 2008 election over and over. If you face financial ruin or die because health care is so expensive doesn't matter to them.
      As for the politicians of any party standing in the way of reform, I can think of nothing more fitting than denying them government health care by turfing them out of office the next time they're up for election.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blueline99 (July 22, 2009 11:04 am ET)
        2  
        I agree... using examples like that to scare people is ridiculous.
        My girlfriend was diagnosed with throat cancer 3 years ago. The time from diagnosis to treatment was 10 weeks.

        The time spent in between was delays from the insurance company waiting for approvals on referals from her GP, to an ENT, Radiologists, Oncologist... plus further delays to wait for approvals on PET scans and MRIs.

        So again to say that the Canadian health system has an 8 week waiting period for cancer treatment as a scare tactic is lunacy... what is our wait period today with our existing Insurance system. I know in this one case it was 10 weeks.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (July 22, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
           
        ..turfing them out of office the next time they're up for election.
        Every politician that votes against government health care, should have to forfeit their own government provided health care. After all the tax payers are providing it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (July 22, 2009 10:14 am ET)
      1  
      Oddly enough, the W.H.O. ranks the U.S. 24th in life expectancy... behind several countries with "socialized medicine". How do these Troglodytes explain that?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (July 22, 2009 10:53 am ET)
      1  
      great scare and lie tactic! These are performers, not leaders!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by John Paradox (July 22, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
         
      CHYRON: Dick Morris, author "Catastrophe"

      His autobiography?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (July 22, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
         
      I feel much better now about health care since Morris is never right about anything.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 22, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
         
      Has Morris ever heard of Medicare? The elderly are already in a govt run healthcare plan.
      Report Abuse