Fox NYC affiliate hosts health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey to attack health care bill in context of Kennedy's death
From the August 26 edition of WNYW's Good Day New York:
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.
ROSANNA SCOTTO (co-host): Senator Kennedy was a major influence in President Barack Obama's health care reform plan. What affect will his death have on it right now? Joining us, Congressman Gregory Meeks, who favors the plan, and former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey, who is against health care reform. She's also a patient advocate and on the Committee to Reduce Infectious Diseases. Thank you so much for being here right now; appreciate both of -- you both being here.
Ms. McCaughey, let's talk about health care reform. You know Senator Ted Kennedy over the years.
McCAUGHEY: And we share a goal. We both want to see everyone in the United States who can't afford health insurance get it. Nobody should lose their home or their savings because they get sick and they didn't have insurance. And I've talked many times with people on the staff working on the Kennedy bill, and my concern is the impact on seniors, because this bill and the companion House bill are paid for in part with tax hikes but also with a $500 billion reduction in future Medicaid funding -- that's a 10 percent cut while we'll have 30 percent more people in Medicare.
It doesn't add up. It's going to mean fewer hip replacements, fewer knee replacements, fewer bypass surgeries. I know that Senator Kennedy, whom we'll all miss, got the best health care money could buy. And we want all our seniors to have the same opportunity.
[...]
McCAUGHEY: You know, Senator Kennedy did a wonderful job representing Massachusetts, but we live here in New York. And this bill is going to mean huge layoffs in the hospital industry in New York -- it's our largest employer. And the provisions in the bill say that hospitals in New York have to accept the same low payments as hospitals in other parts of the country that have lower costs. And it's going to mean fewer nurses on the floor, a lot of layoffs for therapists and nurses and other people who rely on hospitals for their livelihood.
SCOTTO: You bring up nurses, because yesterday I was checking my emails, and a lot of nurses emailed me and said you're not talking about the nurses and how this health care reform is going to affect us.
McCAUGHEY: Yes.
SCOTTO: And you're saying --
McCAUGHEY: And of course fewer nurses also means if you are a patient in the hospital, you are lying there waiting for a nurse to come in in the middle of the night, and there is no nurse.
SCOTTO: Well, you know, that happens now.
McCAUGHEY: Right, but we don't have to make it worse.
SCOTTO: That happens now.
McCAUGHEY: That shouldn't be part of health reform.
[...]
SCOTTO: We are now hearing now that the national deficit is going to -- set to hit $9 trillion. With Senator Ted Kennedy's passing, with this new information about the deficit, what really is the reality of health care reform?
McCAUGHEY: Well, I feel for Senator Kennedy's family, but there are many ways that the nation could honor him without passing a health bill simply to honor him that will harm seniors, that will force people who have really good health insurance they already like to give it up, and that will create such economic hardship in New York.
You know, Columbia Presbyterian employs more people than Macy's or Time Warner. Hospitals are a source of enormous unemployment -- 38 percent of the workforce in the Bronx. And the president has said that he's going to slow the flow of dollars into health care. He wants to reduce spending in our industry, our bread and butter.
Previously:
Why do the media -- most recently CNN -- enable McCaughey's falsehoods?
Jon Stewart corrects serial misinformer McCaughey's latest end-of-life counseling falsehood
Betsy McCaughey resigns from medical company board over "conflict of interest" concerns
1) This is a Republican talking point, currently being pushed by RNC chairman Steele. He was against Medicare before he was for Medicare, trying to get benefits cut during the Bush/Cheney years.
2) The health coverage reform will not affect people who already have Medicare. Medicare will still cover them, just as it has since it was passed over Republican objection.
And she went on to claim the proposed bill was going to cut Medicare funding, just as I suspected. Thankfully, the representative corrected her.
"This bill is going to mean huge layoffs in hospitals in New York." Really? Won't they be able to get jobs on death panels, Ms. McCaughey? Again the representative corrected her.
"I feel for Senator Kennedy's family, but..." Everything after the 'but' proves everything that went before was completely untruthful. I see a new emerging talking point here: That the health reform bill will cause unemployment. I don't see it, frankly. More people able to pay for health care means less people will work in health care industries?
"Both of you have terrific perspectives..." Nope. Sorry. McCaughey is a liar who will say anything to stop this legislation. That means her value to any debate is exactly nil.
She has no shame, only an overpowering need to be on TV so she can tell herself she's relevant. It's not working.
Ted Kennedy got the best health care possible...true
Everyone should get the kind of health care Sen Kennedy got...true
Therefore we should not have government run healthcare because it cant give the level of treatment Sen Kennedy got.....False.
I hate to be the one to tell Ms. McCaughey that Sen Kennedy was a government empoloyee and is ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENT SPONSERED HEALTHCARE.....
So I beleive she is saying Kennedy got great gov healthcare and in order to make sure we all get that same level of care is to ensure that we DONT get government sponsered healthcare.
WTF? (to steal a line from KO)
What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
(Oops - I forgot stark colbert answered this by saying that insurance companies exist to make doctors wealthy.)
The way the federal employee insurance program works is a kind of mini version of the nationwide Exchange proposed in health coverage reform legislation. The public option would be just one more plan to choose from in this Exchange.
So, you're in favor of this, right, highliter? More competition, lower costs, more choice for the consumer?
Apparently you do not think they are evil. Why won't you answer Rep. Weiner's question:
What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
Where your argument derails is that people don't have to have a house or a car. People have to live. Health care is NOT a commodity.
Another free bumper sticker has been earned:
Profits over People.
Another Orwellian generality. If it drives innovation, then why does the US rank 37th in the world, and yet pay twice as much as other industrial countries?
By the way, you might want to read a book called *The Myth of Free Trade,* which debunks your point that free markets promote innovation. For example, the innovation in the US is highly subsidized by the government.
Your spinning yourself into the ground.
Do you know where most research and development takes place? At government funded universities. The only things the drug companies are researching deal with hair loss and erectile dysfunction. Cancer drugs, AIDS drugs? Almost exclusively being researched and tested through the university system.
Monetary Capitalism = Greed and Gluttony = Sin
and is VERY Limited..
Innovation comes from the Soul ( Very Limited in some on the right). It comes from desire in humans to improve and grow.
Whoa. Are you actually promoting the "innovations" that the insurance companies have come up with? Shall we go through some of those innovations that you are in such support of?
A. Its not run by the big bad government and
B. The insurance companies dedicate a lot of the money taken in to profits instead of spending it all on healthcare.
Facts are a sticky commodity for the professional liars and health reform deniers.
The percentage of my gross pay which is deducted for Federal taxes is about the same as a comparable American gets deducted from his paycheque. You do not have to "tax the crap out of people" to pay for this.
In addition, my deductions are at a rate that virtually guarantees that I get a refund every year. I am investing in government services (in my opinion) and get a dividend for it.
I do have private insurance which covers dental services and helps cover drug costs. There is room for private insurance in a publicly funded health system.
Ha! British spelling there. Thanks for posting. Do you find the health care debate in America bizarre? For the longest time, American politicians only have to say "Look at Canada!" to disparage any national plan. Meanwhile, in Canada, the politicians say (though correctly, according to all indicators), "Look at America" when they want to criticize an opponent who wants to make cuts in the health care. I remember actually listening to a debate about 15 years ago in Canada where I heard just that.
Americans are woefully ignorant of the rest of the world, and our press has no intention of changing this.
I pay attention to US politics because they have effects outside the borders of the US. Pierre Trudeau, an ex-Prime Minister, described Canada-US relations as "a mouse sharing a bed with an elephant, when the elephant twitches the mouse knows it." (or words to that effect).
I totally agree with all of your impressions. Citizens like me who care about the welfare of our people (and people in general) almost go crazy with the inanity of our debate. Were there is a lot of money, as in the US, there is a lot of propaganda.
Our taxes are spent on neat Jets and Bombs.
I would love to see my taxes go for something good. Like the general health of my country. Maybe a bridge fixed.
By arguing that private companies won't be able to compete, you are also arguing that the public option will do just as good a job at providing coverage as private insurers. Else there would be no competition, right?
Now you are saying that the government can spend private insurance out of business by printing money. The public option will be a no frills, low cost, minimum of coverage. Will it take customers away from private insurers? Most likely, but remember that these same insurance companies like to drop people from their rolls when they begin to get expensive to treat. At least the public option will not do this.
In reply to your point, let me say that there will always be room for private companies, whether because they offer slightly better coverage, or a specific type of coverage, or simply because the people who have insurance currently through a private company happen to like what they have. If government is interested in pushing everyone to the public option, they will simply pass single payer and be done with it.
Until then, let people vote with their feet. I think you will find premiums dropping rapidly the first year or two.
If private insurance can't compete, then public care must be more efficient. So people who need health care get it, and money is spent more efficiently on care, without as much overhead or profit margin sucking up money. What's the argument against that? We need the insurance industry as a workfare program, at the expense of American lives?
No they wont be able to compete because the government option will have unlimited capital. If it runs in the red no big deal just print more money or raise taxes.
So logic would dictate that moving to a public option would save 25% right off the top.
True?
Yes, most likely true, but why use icky facts when you can you Orwellian ideology? Even though counties with a single payer system get better care and pay less, the free market fundamentalists can't help chanting "Free choice! Free choice! USA! USA"
But here’s the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a percentage of total costs. This creates the appearance that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency. What Jon Alter sees as a “miracle” is really just a statistical sleight of hand.
http://www.qando.net/?p=3362
Your article quotes Stossel, a known lier and manipulator of facts. So the piece utterly fails to convince.
You're parsing now, but I'll play along. Ok, maybe it's not 25%. How about 15%? Or 10%? In a trillion dollar a year market, that's $100-$150 million saved every year.
Sounds like alot of savings to me.
Medicare's administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/27/the_adminstrative_cost_benefit_myth_97193.html
Your link is broken, though given it is from realclear politics, it would probably end up misleading any way. But again, highliter, the US is ranked 37th in the world in health care, but we pay *double* what other countries which have a single payer system. Clearly, that system is better.
No you haven't. Nice try. (Did you debunk it in the same way that you don't even know what a single payer system is?)
http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail
Your article is essentially an editorial, and wrong. For example, it states "In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking." In fact, the WHO gave Germany, which does just this, a very bad ranking, and Italy and Spain, which have a mixed free-market socialist approach, a very high ranking.
He also states: "“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. In fact, just because of the argument the author makes WHO does not use life expectancy in its rating.
Further, the author conviently left out one of the major factors in determining health quality, infant mortality rate. The US has one of the worst infant mortality rates amongst industrial countries, not just according to WHO, but according to the CIA factbook. Another peer reviewed study comparing infant mortality between Canada and the US (both countries use the same method to count infant mortality), showed the US had a much higher rate. The study concluded that the poor in the US got much worse treatment than in Canada.
Editorial pieces don't count as refutation.
No I don't. The author, however, failed to address the major points of WHO.
>>Our world ranking in infant mortality is also BS. I will not spend the time refuting it because no matter what evidence I offer you will not believe.
Oh yes. A perfectly circular argument. You know this fact to be false because your assertion says it must be so!
>>The fact is we have the best quality health care in the world
You apparently don't know the difference between a fact and an assertion. Just because *one* person came to the US for health care does not mean we have a superior system. You also failed to look at the obvious: yes, a rich Canadian legislator can come here for health care, but the poor in our system can't even get basic care!
You fail to give any proof of your other assertions. Merely ranting is not an argument. And accusing me of just wanting bigger government is an emotional argument. I have repeatedly stated that the mixed models provide the best health care, not the ones that have government do the whole thing.
Although much attention has been given to the growing trend of uninsured Americans traveling to foreign countries, a report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care.[54] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care. Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S. However, costs differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh any currency fluctuations.
Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.[55] Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.
Imaginary really?? I guess this study was imaginary to.
U.S. Hospitals Worth The Trip, Forbes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism#cite_note-53
What you, once again, fail to grasp hi is the difference between medical care and health insurance. No one is arguing that our doctors are incompetent or our medical schools below average. We have some of the most talented physicians and surgeons in the world. What does that have to do with healthcare coverage? Nothing.
Do you really not see the difference? I have no doubt that those of us who can afford it get excellent care when we are sick. However, what good is a well-trained doctor to a man who cannot afford it?
Wake up. You have bought into this ridiculous canard from your right-wing entertainers that has nothing to do with the argument. Whether or not we have wonderful medical professionals for those who can afford it has no bearing on the argument that all people should have medicine available to them. Stop thinking about what the right-wing wants you to believe. Because they say it does not make it true. They are willing to choose party over country. They are willing to keep Americans sick and dying for the sake of a political victory over Obama. They are sick. Don't join with them against your own sick and dying citizens for the sake of politics.
Universal healthcare will happen in this country. It is coming, just like Medicare. It only makes sense and eventually the numbers will continue to turn until it happens. Ted Kennedy will be proven right and Reagan will, again, be proven wrong. And just like with Medicare once it does, everyone will begin to see the benefits and no one will have the balls to suggest it is ever done away with. It will be political suicide just like arguing against Medicare is today. Wouldn't you guys on the right like to be on the correct side of history for once?
So you want us to get rid of Medicare then, right? At least have the courage of your convictions to say what you mean. You want the government to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - right? Those are all programs run by the government. Surely, private industry would do better at a lower cost.
By the way, I absolutely love the way you use the fact that Medicare insures the sickest and oldest of our citizens to therefore justify that it should have lower costs. Talk about sleight of hand. I think that this belief tells us all we need to know about your understanding of economics and healthcare.
And if you believe we have a good medical care not insurance system in the US you better not tell all your left wing friends that became they say the quality of care in the US is some of the worst in the industrialized world. Just look at all the post above and you can clearly see that.
Medicare and Medicaid are unfortunately necessary. However they need to be totally overhauled as they will soon be insolvent. Fraud waste and abuse are rampant in these government ran systems. Social Security however should be eliminated. Obviously you cant cut people off who have paid into the system. You do not however have to continue with this failed system. Why do you think congress can opt out of the SS system if they can opt out why cant I.
Your right universal health care will be passed eventually. Of course no one has addressed how this will be paid for. No one has begun to address the 9 trillion dollar deficit. The downfall of our republic will be when people no longer vote for whats best for the country but what’s best for the own personal self interest. JFKs statement needs to be reversed to dont ask what you can do for your country ask what your country can do for you.
As far as being on the right side of history: When this country is utterly bankrupt all our manufacturing capabilities are long gone, and China completely owns us what side do you want to be on? Not that it will really matter at that point but I want to be on the side that’s kicking and screaming STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY!
Maybe, maybe not. But I know for a fact that the private insurers profits were 100% more than Medicare.
So logic would dictate that moving to a public option would save 25% right off the top.
You went from that to maybe/maybe not. There is zero proof that a government option will save money. Even the CBO which is notorious for low estimates example Medicare says it will add to our nation’s debt.
Yes, the CBO also says:
"A recent Congressional Budget Office report comparing healthcare reform options found that allowing Americans to buy into Medicare before turning 65 would lead to more people with coverage at lower costs."
See the last post for a link.
But I was talking about OVERHEAD AND PROFIT. How much profit does Medicare have to make?
(hint - the answer is between 0% and 0%).
The government does not have unlimited capital. And it does not print money to get rid of debts; that is a right wing talking point repeated by those who want to mislead, or don't know better.
I still want to know what the argument against that is.
You don't compare the fraud and abuse in Medicare to that in other systems, so how do we know what you say is true? If you have to revert to cliches like "your savior Obama," then it shows you have no argument.
Funny! Next, we'll hear that the government will just print up money to get rid of its debts. Do posters who make this claim realize how preposterous it is? If the US government really just printed money, like Weimar Germany, we would (a) have hyperinflation, and (b) have no debts! If we were really printing money, we would print a few trillion, send it to China, and say "problem solved!"
I'm curious - where do you live and how much do you weigh?
http://www.livescience.com/health/090825-obese-brain.html
Oh good grief! Talk about dishonesty. Here's what you said: "Except that private companies will not be able to compete with a government option with endless capital resources through printing more." That has to imply the government would print money to get rid of its debt. What else can you possibly mean? If you use printing money as a resource, then you are printing money to pay off debt. The US has never printed money as a resource. It controls the money supply very carefully, exactly to make sure hyperinflation does not happen.
Yes, it is, and the reason is that countries that have a single payer system, like Italy and Spain, have the #1 and #2 health care system in the world, and pay 1/2 as much per citizen as the US. They pay less and get more.
You are obviously confused as to what a single payer system means. France has a single payer system, and yet, by your own admission, get funded by *private* health insurance. Likewise, Spain and Italy have a mixed approach of free market/socialism in their health care, the same approach as the current president wants.
Do some research....Congressman and Senators get lifetime socialized medicine at Walter Reed or any other VA clinic.
KKKarl Rove still uses Walter Reed to this day.
Which is exactly what Obama is proposing.
Good grief! I should have responded the inanity of the post the first time. It most certainly is a government program, because the government pays for it. See here:
link
And the word is "their," not "there."
If she thinks the problem is that there aren't enough jobs in the health care sector, covering all Americans, giving all Americans good care. She should be for universal coverage, all that money that is going to the insurance company CEOs, lawyers denying care etc, could create new jobs, give more people treatment etc.
It's really simple. If an insurance company is making a profit, despite spending millions of dollars lobbying, millions of dollars on executive pay, that means that the consumers aren't getting the best possible healthcare for their money!
Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Betsy McCaughey...
These people are constantly misinterpreting information that is easy to understand, and then exaggerate their misinterpretations to no end.
John Stewart was correct to call McCaughey's statements "hyperbolic" and "dangerous".
A recent Congressional Budget Office report comparing healthcare reform options found that allowing Americans to buy into Medicare before turning 65 would lead to more people with coverage at lower costs. The CBO estimated that a Medicare buy-in for those between 62 and 64 years old would cost $7,600 a year, including drug coverage. A comparable policy on the private market at that age costs $10,000 and up -- way up -- in combined premiums and deductibles, and is, unlike Medicare, available only to the healthiest seniors.
A UC Berkeley study last month found that a public option like Medicare could result in $1 trillion in national savings over 10 years by driving down costs, improving efficiencies and fostering innovation.
link
From a NY editorial, which cites a new study:
The emptiness of those claims became apparent recently when researchers from the Urban Institute released a report analyzing studies that have compared the clinical effectiveness and quality of care in the United States with the care dispensed in other advanced nations.
The bottom line was unmistakable. The analysts found no support for the claim routinely made by politicians that American health care is the best in the world and no hard evidence of any particular area in which American health care is truly exceptional.
link
She is NOT a patient advocate. She's an insurance company advocate. Notice that her suggestions all are that everyone should have health insurance, but that there should be no regulations affecting the insurance companies. In other words, a mandate without responsibility, a free trip to the trough for the insurance companies.
Furthermore, when she was on the Daily Show, she was big at pretending to support living wills, but claimed that the way things were written, they could be misinterpreted. Jon Stewart should have asked her how it should be written so that someone like her could not deliberately misinterpret what was clearly intended.
And the bit about how removing the money from Medicare will hurt the elderly is another piece of evidence for her allegiance to the insurance industry. The biggest part of those savings are going to come from canceling the support payments that insurance companies have been getting from the government to give some over 65's private policies instead of Medicare policies. The insurance people are really up in arms about that one because it is such a good revenue source. The fact that it makes it more expensive for the government to treat a patient privately than through Medicare indicates that the private industry is going to have to do some belt tightening when a public option comes through. They don't like that idea, especially if a CEO's income is reduced.
im sure she is someone who senator kennedy had absolutely no respect for because she was absolutely counter productive in giving americans a choice for health care. i could be wrong on that point, but why would he respect someone that is ruining something like health care that he was championing for decades... before she ever even got involved in the debate?
she is such a faker and one of the very few women on the conservative side that i truly loathe. the others are: sarah palin, michelle bachmann, and maybe even representative marsha blackburn, but she hasnt done as much as the first two to really get my blood boiling.