Why do the media -- most recently CNN -- enable McCaughey's falsehoods?
SUMMARY: CNN again hosted Betsy McCaughey to discuss health care despite the fact that CNN's own health care reporter had to debunk an earlier health care reform assertion advanced by McCaughey.
Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey's appearance on the June 24 edition of CNN's American Morning -- during which she again advanced without challenge the falsehood that the Affordable Health Choices Act "[b]asically ... pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan" -- raises a question: Why did CNN host McCaughey to discuss health care after CNN's own health care reporter had to debunk an earlier health care reform assertion repeatedly advanced by McCaughey?
During a February 11 discussion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen reported of McCaughey's claims that provisions in the economic recovery act would permit the government to control health care: "I had a PDF of the bill up on my computer. I said, 'Show me where in the bill it says that this bill is going to have the government telling your doctor what to do.' And [McCaughey] directed me to language -- it didn't actually say that." Cohen added, "Now when we asked the folks who wrote this bill, 'Hey, is this bill going to allow the government to tell doctors what to do?' they used words like, 'preposterous' and 'completely and wildly untrue.' "
The falsehood Cohen challenged originated in a February 9 Bloomberg "commentary" by McCaughey and was subsequently repeated by washingtonpost.com, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, Internet gossip Matt Drudge, CNN host Lou Dobbs, Wall Street Journal senior economic writer Stephen Moore, Fox News host Glenn Beck, and Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly, among others.
Despite Cohen debunking McCaughey's prior falsehood, in the June 24 interview on CNN's American Morning, co-host John Roberts introduced McCaughey as a "long-time expert in public health" and did not challenge, much less rebut, her latest false talking point about health care reform.
McCaughey has advanced other falsehoods, including a misrepresentation of a comment by White House health care policy adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. McCaughey falsely claimed that Emanuel called for "eliminat[ing] the Hippocratic Oath."
Isn't that all that's required to be a GOP expert?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_(television_reporter)
We have successfully told the story of the corrupt, profit over people fraud being perpetrated on the public by predatory insurance groups.
We are offering real healthcare reform and we will win because the right has nothing but lies and talking points with which to work. They don't even have a competing healthcare plan, only bluster provided by Frank Luntz.
It is sad, but if polls are any indication, USA runs on catch words.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Democratic Congressmen are so afraid of the media. Get in front of it every day (including Fox News) and explain succinctly what the phrase means.
McCain, Pence, McConnel, Hannity, Rush etc. do it every day, and they are not even on the right side.
PR counts as much as doing the right thing.
But Dems are just too timid to go on offense.
It's a lot easier to say "Gov't run healthcare" than to explain the fact it would be similar to Medicare which is Gov't administered but does not go in there and try get in between the Doctor/Patient relationship and does not try dictate care but does try promote an emphasis on doing what's best for the patient blah blah yada yada
How is the world Mustard can you promote something that's similar to Medicare and be happy about it?? Are you saying you want another multiple trillion dollar boondoggle like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
If the Congress enrolls THEMSELVES, participates in Social Security and the like, THEN I'd love to see how much better those programs would run.
Give me a good reason to get behind this HORRIBLE health care plan!
Are you saying people on Medicare should not be on it? What is your solution to those people?
It's not my job to give YOU a reason to get behind on anything.
But in the case of SSI - that doesn't even belong in the mix - SSI is paid in by the workers, it is run as efficently as humanly possible - with an administrative cost of only 2.3%. The checks go out every month to millions. The reason SSI is in trouble is because fewer and fewer workers are paying in compared to those taking out - not to mention the cap which allows the very wealthy to only pay up to the cap (I think it is still at $100K, which for most of the wealthy means that they pay their entire amount in Jan of each year and don't pay anything after that).
President Obama's plan has always been to strengthen oversight and reduce the waste, fraud and abuse that the previous administrations ignored.
If healthcare reform isn't enacted (with a public option) - the healthcare insurance and drug companies will reap enormous wealth while the middle and low income families will continue to overburden our healthcare system with expensive emergency room visits. It is far better for the US for everyone to get preventative care than to wait until problems become unmanageable. You can't quantify savings as easily as you can the overall costs of the program, but in my view you have a choice, pay a hefty price now or wait and end up paying a huge enormous cost down the road with insurance & drug companies reaping profits from our failure to act. I would rather have healthier citizens than wealthier shareholders of these businesses.
Similarly, all of our employers -- who account for what, 70 percent of all of the insured? -- will continue to fork over thousands in health benefits for people if a 'public option' exists. So when that goes away what then will happen? Might we be 'forced into' a lesser plan? Sure we can 'keep our plan' but what if the plan no longer exisits?
As for the gov't not telling doctors what to do, I know plenty of nurses who treat the elderly and the Medicare people dictate to them all the time about what services and treatments are covered and not covered. Who is it that runs that system?
As for a bill 'not saying' this or that, all that matters is how the law is applied, practically. What a bill says now is irrelevant. Ever hear of TARP?
ill try to explain it as simply as i can.
see if something happens, say like oh, emergency surgery.......(his part is very important so please play close attention) what happenes is the procedure is performed......then an insurance claim is submitted......and then the insurer decides weather or not to REIMBURSE the doctor for performing the procedure.
ive handled calls with a number of doctor offices complaining about a procedure being denied by medicare.......only problem is, that 95 percent of the denials were screw ups by whoever did the billing and the wrong code was put in, once the right code was put in, everything went through.
if a procedure is planned in advance then the patient is made aware weather or not medicare will cover it so there are no surprises. if its not covered they then make the choice.....since most procedures of that nature are not necessary there is no problem. but when it comes to something (and please follow me on this and pay attention again) that is deemed "medically necessary" the procedures are ALWAYS performed. its not some bureaucrat deciding treatment, its a doctor's office and medicare fighting over reimbursement rates.
as for TARP......well your friend GWB was the one who first changed the focus of where the money went. as i recall.....paulson took alot of heat for changing the focus of how the money was used and we were all told to shut up and take it.
now i would like for you to do the same
The reason the only sides that should be heard are the PROGRESSIVES (we really need to hear more from ACTUAL progressives), and the Center-right, is because the right only lies, distorts facts, and flat-out does nothing but attempt to disrupt everything that isn't spear-headed by the conservatives.
Who do you suggest?
Media needs to investigate everyone that enters their studio BEFORE they go on the air. There needs to be disclaimers if the "expert" has factors that indicate a compromised position in their past.
Too many times I see people billed as non-partisan who are actually bound hand & foot to a political movement.
Only Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has the courage to call out the blatant dysfunctionality of our political system and how news is reported on cable news networks.
The AMA is on to her, however. James Rohack, AMA President-elect, wrote this about her health reform balderdash in the Feb Bloomberg op ed:
"The Bloomberg op-ed mischaracterizes several health care provisions in the Senate-passed economic stimulus bill, and readers can check out the AMA's review here: http://www.ama-assn.org/go/stimulus-facts.
The AMA supported the bill's significant investment in health information technology (HIT) and its focus on addressing the health care needs of the poor and recently unemployed. We are optimistic about the promise HIT holds for increasing patient safety, improving care coordination between multiple
physicians and reducing unnecessary paper work. To set the record straight, the stimulus bill will promote the development of a national HIT infrastructure and build on existing federal efforts to encourage HIT adoption and use. These are goals that have been embraced by Newt Gingrich, former HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and leaders at the top health care
institutions in the country. The bill will create important national HIT interoperability standards and provide significant financial assistance directly to physicians so that this investment makes sense for their patients and their practices."
Judging from Roberts' questions and last comment, he comes off as biased and even looking to portray the bill negatively. Either that, or just plain lazy.