Echo chamber: Bloomberg "commentary" health IT falsehood goes from Limbaugh to WSJ's Moore and Fox, back to Limbaugh
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore and Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly promoted the falsehood -- which first appeared in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey and was subsequently promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge -- that the economic recovery bill includes a provision that would, in Moore's words, "hav[e] the government essentially dictate treatments." Limbaugh later took credit for spreading this story.
Wall Street Journal senior economic writer Stephen Moore and Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly promoted on February 10 the falsehood that the economic recovery bill includes a provision that would, in Moore's words, "hav[e] the government essentially dictate treatments." Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey apparently originated the false claim in a February 9 Bloomberg "commentary," which Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge touted that day. Indeed, Moore credited Limbaugh, saying of the provision, "I just learned of this myself yesterday. In fact, Rush Limbaugh made a big deal out of it on his radio show and it just -- it caused all sorts of calls into congressional offices." Limbaugh later took credit for spreading this story, saying during the February 10 edition of his radio show: "Betsy McCaughey writing at Bloomberg, I found it. I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media. Well, it's -- it headlined Drudge for a while last night and today. Fox News is talking about it."
As Media Matters for America documented, in the "commentary" Moore, Hemmer, and Kelly cited, McCaughey distorted a section of H.R. 1 to claim that "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the language in the House bill that McCaughey referenced does not establish authority to "monitor treatments" or restrict what "your doctor is doing" with regard to patient care but, rather, addresses establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have complete, accurate information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
During the February 10 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Moore said: "[T]his news story really has exploded on the public scene in just the last 24 hours, Bill. We've been just inundated with complaints from people about the implications of having the government essentially dictate treatments." He later claimed that the bill "especially will affect elderly people, because one of the ways, if we move more towards a nationalized health care system, as this bill would move us one step towards that, what you have to do to restrain costs -- what many other countries do, like Canada and Britain, is they essentially, Bill, ration care. And they tell patients you are eligible for this kind of care, but this is too expensive. And so what this bill would essentially do is set up a kind of pricing mechanism to tell people, yes, we can afford to treat you for this, but not that." Moore later claimed:
Well, that's why it's important for people to express their outrage over this, Bill, because, you know, starting tomorrow they are going to have this conference between the House and Senate, iron out the differences. And if there is enough outrage, I think a lot of this will be taken -- taken out. As I said, just in the last 24 hours of people have been aware of this, there have been howls of complaint all over the country. Another example, by the way, is Oregon has a system very much like this, where you basically have a system where some types of treatments are covered by the Oregon health care system, others aren't. And they just have a sys -- a pecking order. And if your treatment is too expensive, they won't allow insurance for it.
Additionally, during America's Newsroom, Kelly falsely claimed that the bill includes a provision that "promises to reduce costs and to help 'guide your doctor's decisions' so that he operates less like than a -- less like a solo practitioner and more in the spirit of uniform health care." Kelly added: "That sounds dangerously like socialized medicine," and asked Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): "What's it doing in this bill?" Kelly also asserted that "this coordinator [the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology] is supposed to monitor your health treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the feds deem appropriate and cost effective." Similarly, Hemmer falsely said the bill contains "rules [that] appear to set the stage for health care rationing for seniors, new limits on medical research, and new rules guiding decisions your doctor can make about your health care." While Hemmer spoke, Fox News aired a graphic echoing these falsehoods:
Several hours after American Newsroom aired, Limbaugh took credit for spreading the false story, noting on his radio show that Specter was asked about it on Fox: "Even Senator Specter didn't know that it was in there, and he was questioned vigorously this morning about it on the Fox News Channel." Later Limbaugh said:
Now this health care thing -- back to this. Now, I still haven't gotten to the -- to the -- well, what's the word for this? This is -- this is major. I haven't gotten to it yet. You could say that I am teasing you. Yes, I'm going continue to tease because I gotta, you know, I've got to point out the reason [President] Obama does not want you listening to me is this health care thing that we uncovered yesterday. Betsy McCaughey writing at Bloomberg, I found it. I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media. Well, it's -- it headlined Drudge for a while last night and today. Fox News is talking about it. Some of the senators are being asked about it. They didn't know that it was in there. We will get to the details of that again shortly.
From the February 10 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: Morning, everybody. "Fox News Alert" now as we await this Senate vote on the stimulus bill. We're learning of new rules buried deep inside the bill that could change the future of health care for every American. Those rules appear to set the stage for health care rationing for seniors, new limits on medical research, and new rules guiding decisions your doctor can make about your health care. If you're asking yourself, "Where was this information before," you were just like us this morning. I'm Bill Hemmer. Welcome to America's Newsroom as we start our day.
KELLY: Hi, everybody, and I'm Megyn Kelly. And these health care changes in this bill stimulus bill were one of Washington's best-kept secrets -- until now. We have called Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office for information on exactly how these rules got in there, who exactly is responsible for this, and what they mean. What do these rules actually mean for our health care? The moment we hear back from them, we will let you know.
[...]
HEMMER: Back to that midnight health care insertion into the Senate spending plan. The new rules could lay the groundwork for sweeping reforms -- things like health care rationing for seniors, possible limits on medical research, and government guidelines for how your doctor can choose to treat you. Who's behind it? Why was this not debated in the full light of day? Good questions for the author of The End of Prosperity, Wall Street Journal senior economic writer Stephen Moore back with us. Stephen, good morning to you.
MOORE: Hi, Bill. Good morning.
HEMMER: Mike Pence is a Republican from Indiana; at the top of the hour he said this is something that slid -- was slid in there on Saturday night?
MOORE: Right.
HEMMER: I didn't quite follow that. What happened?
MOORE: Well, we don't exactly know what happened. This news story really has exploded on the public scene in just the last 24 hours, Bill, and we've been just inundated with complaints from people about the implications of having the government essentially dictate treatments. We don't know exactly how it got in the bill. We know that Tom Daschle, who you know was going to be Bill Clinton's HHS secretary, has been talking about this for many years. And all of a sudden, there it was, buried in this 800-page bill.
HEMMER: Stephen, let me point out to our viewers a woman by the name of Betsy McCaughey. Do you know the name, from Bloomberg News?
MOORE: Betsy McCaughey, right.
HEMMER: I apologize -- Betsy McCaughey. She wrote this piece, and we've all read it last night --
MOORE: Yup. Yup.
HEMMER: -- and again today. She says the bill's health rules will affect every single person in the United States.
MOORE: Yeah, especially --
HEMMER: How?
MOORE: Well, it especially will affect elderly people, because one of the ways, if we move more towards a nationalized health care system, as this bill would move us one step towards that, what you have to do to restrain costs -- what many other countries do, like Canada and Britain, is they essentially, Bill, ration care. And they tell patients you are eligible for this kind of care, but this is too expensive.
And so what this bill would essentially do is set up a kind of pricing mechanism to tell people, yes, we can afford to treat you for this, but not that. So for elderly people who may want a, let's say, a hip replacement, Bill, or someone who has diabetes who may want some kind of exotic kind of treatment that could work -- those may be off ground, and people -- and the insurers simply won't insure for it.
HEMMER: You said a hand -- a mouthful there.
MOORE: Yeah.
HEMMER: More than a handful, actually.
MOORE: Yeah.
HEMMER: Who slipped this in?
MOORE: Well, again, we don't know the details. Bill, I just learned of this myself yesterday. In fact, Rush Limbaugh made a big deal out of it on his radio show and it just -- it caused all sorts of calls into congressional offices. And now everybody's running around Capitol Hill saying, "Where did this come from?" Nobody knows how this got inserted in the bill.
HEMMER: Well, the health care industry is the largest employer --
MOORE: Yup.
HEMMER: -- in the United States. It -- it produces 17 percent of the nation's GDP.
MOORE: It -- well, you're right, and it's the one industry that's growing. I heard from a lady yesterday in Arizona who told me a story about how she has diabetes, and she had tried various kind of treatments, had been to many doctors, and she finally found a doctor who literally saved her legs from being amputated. That's the kind of treatment she was saying you would -- she wouldn't have been able to shop around for health care under this kind of system, so people are pretty outraged over the idea --
HEMMER: You -- you mentioned --
MOORE: -- of a kind of health care triage system.
HEMMER: You mentioned Tom Daschle.
MOORE: Yup.
HEMMER: He is -- his candidacy is no longer because of the tax issue.
MOORE: Right.
HEMMER: He wrote a book about this?
MOORE: That's right.
HEMMER: And apparently he was quoted -- I guess it was two years ago, according to this article -- if that means attaching a health care plan to the federal budget, so be it. That appears to be what is happening in the Senate version.
MOORE: That's right.
HEMMER: Now once we go to conference on the House committee, do we have any indication as to whether or not this thing lives or dies?
MOORE: Well, that's why it's important for people to express their outrage over this, Bill, because, you know, starting tomorrow they're going to have this conference between the House and Senate, iron out the differences. And if there's enough outrage, I think a lot of this will be taken -- taken out.
As I said, just in the last 24 hours of people have been aware of this, there have been howls of complaint all over the country. Another example, by the way, is Oregon has a system very much like this, where you basically have a system where some types of treatments are covered by the Oregon health care system, others aren't. And they just have a sys -- a pecking order. And if your treatment is too expensive, they won't allow insurance for it.
HEMMER: Is that right? Wow, state of Oregon, you say?
MOORE: Yes.
HEMMER: Just to read from Betsy McCaughey's article one more time: "The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated to how much hospitals get paid." This is enormous.
[...]
KELLY: Good morning, Senator.
ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): Morning, Megyn.
KELLY: All right, so I have to ask you about this news we've been -- we've been talking about all morning. And this is this health care business that's been put in this bill. According to Bloomberg, the bill allocates more funding to this health care program than it does to the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined. According to Bloomberg, this thing promises to reduce costs and to help "guide your doctor's decisions" so that he operates less like than a -- less like a solo practitioner and more in the spirit of uniform health care. That sounds dangerously like socialized medicine, Senator. What's it doing in this bill?
SPECTER: Well, it is intended to provide technology. And you may rest assured, Megyn, that we will not allow that provision to be broadened to look to the government to make decisions on what the treatment is or to be a coordinating faction, but just to provide information on technology. And listen, one of the big problems with this bill, which I cited at the very outset -- the first question I asked President Obama when he came to speak to the Republican senators is: Why the rush? Why are we wedded to February 13? We have not followed regular order, and this is one of a number of provisions which has popped up that we have to revise and be very careful about.
KELLY: So, you do want to take a second look at this. You do think a revision may be in order, if, in fact, as this report claims, the bill creates, and I quote, a "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" designed to "monitor your treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective." I know you've been through the health care system more times than you'd like. You don't want the federal government monitoring what your doctor does and whether it's appropriate and cost-effective, do you?
SPECTER: We are not going to let the federal government monitor what doctors do. We fought that out with the Clinton health care plan more than a decade ago, when I had the famous chart which showed the complexities of it. We're not going to put the government between the doctor and the patient under any circumstances. And Bloomberg has pointed out a potential problem, and there will be clarification to avoid having the government meddle in what doctors do.
KELLY: Senator, how do you -- who put this in there? I mean, this -- health care, as you know, is a huge, huge issue in this country. It's a huge voting issue; you get tons of calls when a bill comes up in the Senate. How could something as important as this have been stuck in this bill and tried to be crammed down the throats of the American people in a way where even the president is threatening us with economic collapse if you guys don't sign off on it instantly?
SPECTER: Well, when you want to find out who put provisions in bills which are hundreds of pages long, it's a constant battle. And, candidly, that's why you need more time to have hearings. We've never had hearings on this bill. We've never had a markup where senators go over it line by line. And we are rushing to judgment, which I have protested about, and the only answer we get is that the situation is so dire and such an emergency we have to act. But we will review these provisions, and we will make sure that these harmful effects about having the government interfere with what doctors do doesn't take effect.
KELLY: You know, Senator, it's disconcerting, because you're going to review it line by line, but you, along with [Sen.] Olympia Snowe [R] and [Sen.] Susan Collins [R] of Maine, could stop this. You three -- really only need two of you to put a stop to this bill. So is there a chance that you and perhaps one or more of those women -- senators from Maine -- will sit down and slow this thing down or stop it all together if things like this remain in this bill?
SPECTER: We can be sure that provisions like this do not have the harmful effects which you have mentioned. Listen, this legislation is a bitter pill to swallow, but we're facing a situation where the current economic problems could turn into another depression like 1929. The economists tell us that unless we act promptly and decisively that there could be a catastrophe.
KELLY: I understand that. But people, as you know, do -- they don't want health care decisions rammed down their throats in the name of stimulus. So, are you saying here that if this provision remains in this bill, you might change your vote?
SPECTER: We will get this provision clarified. I've made a commitment, Megyn, and I'm not going to go back on my word and on a commitment. But when we find problems of this potential, they can get -- we can cure them without upsetting the whole apple cart.
KELLY: Well, it'll be interesting. And I know you always give it to us straight, and so I'd be interested to find out who's behind it. According to the report, this is the brainchild, most likely, of Tom Daschle, who was going to be our Health and Human Services secretary but basically got bounced because of his tax problems.
SPECTER: Well --
KELLY: But it looks like it's a page directly out of his book. So I'd be interested to find out who's behind it.
SPECTER: Whosever idea it is, it's a bad idea, and we will get it corrected.
KELLY: Sen. Arlen Specter --
SPECTER: I just wish we could correct a lot of other things, too. We'll get it corrected.
KELLY: Well get on it. Come on. You're a U.S. senator. Do that and get back to us.
SPECTER: OK, it'd be a pleasure to get back to you, Megyn. I'll do that.
KELLY: All right. Thank you, sir. Always nice speaking to you.
SPECTER: Good talking to you. Thanks.
[...]
KELLY: All right, so [Fox News chief political correspondent] Carl [Cameron], all this morning we've been talking about this health care provision that seems to have been stuck in this bill that apparently allocates more money to this National Coordinator of Health Information Technology than it does to the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined. It has not gotten virtually any press except now and over the past 18, 24 hours.
We asked Arlen Specter about it. This -- this -- this coordinator is supposed to monitor your health treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the Feds deem appropriate and cost-effective. You can see the controversy over it.
CAMERON: Right.
KELLY: Senator Specter, who is key to this vote -- and the other two women who are voting with him also say that if certain things are in and certain things are out, they may not end up supporting it -- says he's gonna go back and review it.
Now, he would not say that he's not gonna vote for it. He said he committed to vote for it, but he said he's gonna go back and review it, and he wants the American people to be satisfied that that's not -- no bill allowing the feds to monitor your health treatments are going to be in here. So how do we get to that point, if he's gonna vote for it, but he's gonna review it -- how does this provision come out?
From the February 10 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And now you know, ladies and gentlemen, now you know why President Obama does not want you or anybody else listening to me. The story that we had on the stealth health care reforms in the stimulus bill -- we did it at 2 o'clock afternoon hour yesterday afternoon -- has now become mainstream news. It's all over the place. Even Senator Specter didn't know that it was in there, and he was questioned vigorously this morning about it on the Fox News Channel. Great to have you here. Rush Limbaugh.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Now this health care thing -- back to this. No, I still haven't gotten to the -- to the -- well, what's the word for this? This is -- this is major. I haven't gotten to it yet. You could say that I am teasing you. Yes, I'm going continue to tease because I gotta, you know, I've got to point out the reason Obama does not want you listening to me is this health care thing that we uncovered yesterday.
Betsy McCaughey writing at Bloomberg, I found it. I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media. Well, it's -- it headlined Drudge for a while last night and today. Fox News is talking about it. Some of the senators are being asked about it. They didn't know that it was in there. We will get to the details of that again shortly.
I hope from now on Obama relegates the gop to the basement. They are gonna lie and obstruct anyways, so from now on craft bills using only democrats in the house and minimal republican help in the senate. Then after next election when we get 61 in the senate we can tell them all to give up the red stapler.
So true.
It's the same as having MMFA do all of your thinking for you, eh?
You keep right on thinking that. It's what Rush tells you to.
What's funny, you don't realize how stupid you look by making those statements. You need an irony supplement.
I certainly will. The MMFA echo chamber has a Jonestown-like following that entertains on a daily basis. MMFA says "jump" and easy... and the rest say "how high?". There is no questioning of MMFA, just blind genuflection. Everything the MMFA sheeple say about Limbaugh and his audience is relected in their daily obedience to MMFA. It is truly astounding the mirror image of irrelevance between the two. Keep on keepin' on, spouters of expletives, the entertainment value is irreplaceable.
Simply read the comments in this section and you'll see quite a bit of questioning MMFA and no blind obedience. So, since you're waiting for it, here's my expletive for you: LIAR!
Those with a view different from yours are automatically liars. You've carved yourself out quite a simplistic existence. Half of the population is lying and the other half is liberal. So comfy-cozy.
You realize, of course, that there is a difference between pointing out lies (MMFA) and lying (Rush, Fox, etc.).
Standing high on your sanctimonious soapbox labled "I'm right and your wrong" must allow a breathtaking view, historygeek. As you gaze around your contemporaries, effortlessly covering your back in two by two cover formation, the daily stroking of your arrogant position you've bestowed upon yourselves certainly catapults you into a rarified liberal kingdom where there is only black and white and justice is meted out by you and your ilk, accordingly. How grand!
Project much? Apparently you dislike fact checking. Post a link to MMFA lying. This entire website is dedicated to pointing out right-wing misinformation. There is a difference. Figure it out.
I figgered it out long ago. So did Michael Savage.
Thank you for helping me start my day off with a laugh.
Rush is the Big Loser in all of this. He hasn't been on the correct(human) side of anything in quite a long time. I may be out on a limb but I think his days are numbered. He has 4-5 million dittoheads and is osing them daily. Ran into a reformed dittohead who left the cult and finally feels free to think. He cannot believe how dumb he was following a drug addict.
Rush Limprod must have an even thicker coating of Teflon than Ronald Reagan had. Wasn’t he supposed to be through when he was caught with illegal Viagara while returning from the Dominican where some people go for "Sex Vacations" that may include underage kids?
Rush isn't fighting some lightweight thinkers any longer. No one ever challenged him from Washington from a position of power. He knows he must attack, attack, attack from now on or he will be considered wimping out. So the heat must stay on him. More comments, whether out of context or in context, such as, I hope he fails will drive him out from behind the microphone and into discussions will the media and possibly his own partys' representatives. And he can't handle that. I'll need proof that he can.
Do you think the next Senator, Congressman who cross Rush will apologize..my answer is no. Rush is the Leader of the Party..if someone else wants that position, they'll go after him. If no one attacks Rush, the Republicans will look very weak letting an Unrepentent drug-addict run the show. (On the Right side of the aisle, they'll need two(2) folding chairs). Does the Religious Right believe Rush is a good man?
I guess there's no underestimating the ability of a cult personality to beguile the weak minded.
You can see good examples of this in the business of Televangelism.
Jimmy Swaggart got caught with a hooker, yet he's still on TV.
Robert Tilton was exposed as a lying phony, but he's back again, preaching the same nonsense he always did.
Peter Popov was caught faking "words of knowledge from God" by James Randi, but continued to draw big crowds. I still see him on TV occasionally, but it may be taped... he was getting pretty old.
Oral Roberts maintained a loyal following, even after he told us that a 900 foot Jesus threatened to kill him if he didn't raise a million dollars.
I think if you analyzed the personalities of Rush Limbaugh sycophants, you would find their psyches to be identical to the sheeple who repeatedly get fleeced by faith healers and televangelists.
They're really pulling out all the stops to scare people into rejecting "socialized medicine". Is it a coincidence that news shows are in large part funded by drug companies and health care providers?
Are these people stupid? This is exactly what the health insurance industry does.
tsss all you guys are fools! look at Megyn Kelly she's sooo dreamy!
She does have a certain low priced hooker quality to her.
Well, the woman is "HOT"....and she does have a legitimate job. Unfortunately, she is fed a lot of absolute B.S.!
Sorry people, she works for Fox News. They have a great casting couch. Or are these women ex-cheerleaders looking to renew their high school heydays. Maybe when she grows up, she can be a Palinist.
I have to disagree - she's just not providing any sort of stimulus for me at all.
... and I'm 20. And still single.
Maybe she just stimulates us old geezers.
That must be it then
Or maybe you caught teh gay. You HAVE been hanging around this forum for quite a while, now.
What does Congressman Frank do for 'ya?
I haven't seen a puppet show like this since Shari Lewis passed away (RIP and no offense meant, Shari).
If anyone reads the language of the bill concerning the Health Czar, you will find it obtuse. I did. For instance, apparently over time, the Health Czar can make it more and more difficult for a doctor to not participate in the government plan. If that is the case, it seems to me we would be granting an awful power to a political appointee. Does that sound like a good idea?
It seems the structure of the EHR system should not be snuck into the law. A fast decision here could be very expensive and explosive. Why not just take it out and consider it separately. Surely the entire STIMULUS plan cannot fail if that one particular item is withdrawn. Consider the plan over the next two or three months and then bring it before the public -- invite the public to participate in the design. That would be real transparency. Seems like a preferrable path to me.
Ed
Ed,
Judging by the comments on this thread, I'm sure you can realize that you are the only one who seems to have read the actual language of the bill. Everyone else is just squawking like parrots, just as they always do. I feel that the success of the Obamanation is attributed to the mind-numbed, uneducated masses that put him in office. But you educate yourself. And you have come to the same conclusion that I have.
This provision forms TWO MASSIVE FEDERAL gov't bureaucracies that will maintain our medical records and monitor our treatments to make sure our doctors are doing what the federal government deems approprite and cost effective. The goal is to reduce cost and "guide" your doctor's decisions.
The regulars here will accuse me of making this up, but you know as well as I do that it is in the bill EXACTLY as I have outlined it. Again, you have actually read the language, they have NOT. Theirs is a dangerous attitude towards government. They support without question, and they don't bother to educate themselves, the only thing they know is Democrat=GOOD. They are blinded by their ideologies and fail to see the true character of their idols. EXAMPLE - we had 8 years of fist-wringing and howling from democrat supporters over GWB'S "alleged" cocaine use, calling him every name in the book for being a coke-head junky. Fast forward to today, where we have a President who has ADMITTED cocaine use, and we hear the terms "youthful indiscretion" and "experimental use". Yeah, he's as pure as the driven "snow".
It's no use arguing with the uneducated, but it sure is fun to see them squirm.
Is this just a bad dream? Rush Limbaugh? How in blue blazes did HE get to be so important? A gas-bag with a mike. There's a similarity with Sarah Palin; remember her? A nobody who thrilled at the attention for which she was not worthy. There's another similarity that is much more disturbing. She also brought out the worst in certain segments of society and Limp-baw is doing the same, only he is doing it to the Republican Party. OR...and here's another wrinkle, he is merely EXPOSING what is already in the GOP. What would he do if some real members of the party paid him a visit and said, "O.K., Rush, just back off and shut up! We don't WANT your 'help'!"
dogg, that if will become a reality very shortly if D.A. Limbaugh doesn't start being truthy. They love his support but it is the outright LYING that must cause concern within the ranks. And the Palinistas will realize that the husband of the Princess is an unrepentent subversive with thuggery as a means of communications, her daughter is an unmarried single mother(unless the judge married them), her in-law is a drug dealer, she has math problems with per diem etc.etc.etc.
As stated above, the next Repo that balks at D.A. Limbaughs lying will not back down. People are finally realizing that this bum is not intelligent, he just has airwaves......nothing more. Rush could carry on a debate on this website. They'd chew him up just by using facts.
There seems to be a power vacuum in the GOP right now, which presents a perfect opportunity for a lying demagogue like Rush to throw his considerable weight around.
The sheep are drawn to the loudest noise in the meadow.
I think this is still all part of the push to build a legacy for Bush. At the risk of losing everything, they want to destroy any chance Obama may have to get us out of this economic and foreign policy mess created by the last administration.
When he owns it, then, they can compare the current to the former administration and convince the sheep the things weren't so bad back in the "good old days" of Bush/Cheney.
You're probably right. I don't believe for a minute that the Republicans in Congress are sincere in this. One theory I've heard is that they're gambling that, whether the stimulus bill works or not, things won't be noticeably better by 2010. Then they can go to their Troglodyte base and say "See? We knew it wouldn't work."
They're just trying to recapture the Newt Gingrich glory days.
He'd call them RINOs
FOX News and Drudge is "all over the mainstream media"?
It's not in the plan but what if this were true? How is it any different from what insurance companies do now?
I very much appreciate this site as it sheds light on falsehoods in many areas -- particularly with regard to Bill O'Reilly.
But I cannot, at this time, join the writers certitude with regard to "falsehoods" about health care provisions in the stimulus bill.
Everybody writing about these provisions, regarless of viewpoint, seems overly certain about what the provisions mean given the vague language used.
Health Care bills, like most bills, require well publicized hearings with testimony from a variety of people.
After those people have a chance to revise and extend their remarks, and everybody including Members of Congress have a chance to think about what has been said, a well publicized committe vote should be taken.
I understand that the stimulus bill needed to have truncated hearings and a quick vote because "it's an emergency."
But to slip in overly broad health care provisions that require non-truncated well publicized hearings was an underhanded thing to do.
Allowing government to monitor or oversee anything of a personal nature including health care is a step toward a big brother Soylent Green" society. It is quite possible those who champion this part of the stimulus package fail to see that Roe v wade protects the privacy of the doctor patient relationship. This bill, as Rush so pionts out, is a step toward the very thing the "keep the state out of my bedroom and out of my private affairs crowd" who appear to be most of the posters on this blog, hold sacred.
the government has no business in our doctor's offices. Whether it is for medicare or for abortion. Implementing this plan could make it much easier for the right wingers to halt abortions for the poor by simply making an abortion a non preferred option. Take the blinders off!
Ahh... so much of this babble would save these poor TV viewers time if they asked the first, most fundemental question in argumentation/debate -- what's the source? Anyone who read the bill would ask -- how the freaking hell did you get your paranoid delusions out of that?
No, what would cut down on the babble is what happens normally with a health care bill. Report language is added after extensive testimony from health care an IT security professionals so that everyone has a clear understanding as to what the legislation means.
It is not slipped into a stimulus bill that was not meant for health care revision, and then pushed through in an expidited manner.
How can some people on this board get distracted by Rush into all these wild tangents? There is nothing in this bill about establishing national healthcare or a healthcare plan. All it covers is modernizing into electronic medical records for the country, and someone to oversee that effort. This is something that hospitals that can aford to have been working on for over 10 years. It gives doctors instant access to patient history that can expidite diognosis and speed treatment. It also reduces costs tremendously. This is about saving lives and giving patients the best care. People who defend a soulless Rush Limbaugh, who is using this to push his own agenda, do not have a clue of the harm they are doing.