About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wallace crops VHA doc to falsely suggest Obama administration pressuring vets to end their lives

August 23, 2009 2:57 pm ET — 121 Comments

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace repeatedly cropped quotes from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) document to falsely suggest that the Obama administration is pressuring veterans to end their lives prematurely and to accuse Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth of lying about it. In fact, contrary to Wallace's false assertions, the document he referred to does not require doctors to direct veterans to what conservatives have labeled the "Death Book for Veterans."

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

Wallace claims document directs VA doctors "to refer all veterans" to "Your Life, Your Choices"

From the August 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

 WALLACE: Secretary Duckworth, that's just not true. The VHA put out a directive on July 2, 2009, and I want to put up two pages from that directive. The first one, Page 8. "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g., refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." And on Page 9, it says if they request more information, "patients may be directed to the exercises in 'Your Life, Your Choices.' "

So, as of July 2, 2009 -- last month, more than a month ago -- VA health practitioners were told to refer all veterans -- not just end-of-life veterans, but all 24 million veterans -- to this document, "Your Life, Your Choices."

DUCKWORTH: Let me make a correction there, Chris. What our practitioners were told is to refer patients to any type of a tool. They can use Mr. [Jim] Towey's [director of faith-based initiatives in the Bush administration] if they want to spend the $5 apiece. VA simply was not willing to buy his booklet at $5 per veteran at the time.

WALLACE: But how do you explain --

DUCKWORTH: This is a decision that was made by the previous administration.

WALLACE: It doesn't say, "Give them access to anything." I mean, in the specific VA booklet -- it's only about 15 pages long -- it specifically refers to this booklet twice.

Wallace and Fox crop doc: actually directs patients to " 'Your Life, Your Choices' ... or other published resources"

Fox's Page 8: Practitioners must give "patients pertinent educational materials (e.g., Refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module...)":

Actual Page 8: "Refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module ... or provide written material such as" VA's advance directives doc. Page 8 of the July 2 release of a VHA Handbook titled "Advance Care Planning and Management of Advance Directives," and signed by Acting Under Secretary for Heath Gerald M. Cross, states [emphasis added]:

Primary care practitioners are responsible for:

[...]

b. Giving patients pertinent educational materials (e.g., Refer patients to the "Your Life, Your Choices" module in MyHealtheVet at the web site http://www.myhealth.va.gov, or provide written material such as Appendix C).

Appendix C directs practitioners to a PDF of the VA's "What You Should Know About Advance Directives" document, dated December 2006.

Fox's Page 9: "Patients may be directed to the exercises in 'Your Life, Your Choices'":

Actual Page 9: "Patients may be directed to the exercises in 'Your Life, Your Choices' ... or other published resources." From the document [emphasis added]:

 VA must provide additional information about advance directives and/or assistance in completing forms for all patients who request this service. This assistance may be provided by social workers, or others who are appropriately trained, and must be available to patients in all clinical settings.

a. Content. Designated practitioners need to ensure that the patient understands the meaning of advance care planning and advance directives, including the information listed in subparagraphs 8b to 8f. For patients who already have an advance directive, practitioners also need to cover points in paragraph 8g and 8h. Possible clinical scenarios and treatment options need to be discussed with attention and sensitivity to the patient's individual circumstances, needs, and culture. Patients may be directed to the exercises in "Your Life, Your Choices" (available on My HealtheVet at the web site http://www.myhealth.va.gov), or other published resources.

After Duckworth corrects Wallace, he again airs graphic, falsely suggests she is lying

From the August 23 edition of Fox News Sunday:

DUCKWORTH: Chris, it has not been reinstated. Let me make it clear: The only advanced directive that we have is dated February of 2007. And it actually encourages veterans to use any type of tool or checklist they would like to. There are many, many good ones out there. This "Your Life, Your Choice" [sic] is widely used out there, not just within VA. There are many others that are out there. And veterans are free to use whatever they would like to use. We just urge them to use them.

WALLACE: Let me -- I mean, I just -- I have a problem here. And often -- too often on these shows, we just say, "One person said, and another person said." Secretary Duckworth, I don't know if we're able in the control room to put up the full screen of the VHA directive, but I'd like you to put up the first full screen if you can.

In the VHA directive of July 2, 2009, it says the following on Page 8: "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g., refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." I mean, it's just there in black and white on the VHA directive of July 2.

But VHA doc supports her statement that VHA "encourages veterans to use any type of tool or checklist they would like to." From Pages 9 and 10 of the document, under the heading "Patient-Requested Additional Information About Advance Directives or Assistance in Completing Advance Directive Forms" [emphasis added]:

b. Forms. If requested, appropriately trained staff must assist the patient in completing:

(1) VA Form 10-0137. VA Form 10-0137 (revised December 2006) is a combined DPAHC (Part II) and living will (Part III). A Veteran who does not want to specify treatment preferences may still designate an HCA to make treatment decisions on their behalf. Additionally, a Veteran may specify treatment preferences without designating an HCA. VA Form 10-0137 is available electronically on the VA internet Forms website at http://www.va.gov/vaforms, the VA intranet Forms website at http://vaww.va.gov/vaforms, in iMedConsent™ ("Shared" category), and with a link on the National Center for Ethics in Health Care web site at http://vaww.ethics.va.gov, (This is an internal web site not available to the public.) and My HealtheVet at http://www.myhealth.va.gov. NOTE: VA recognizes State-authorized forms and DOD advance directives to the extent they are consistent with VA policy.

(a) To provide further information about their treatment goals, specific treatment preferences, etc., patients may attach one or more additional page(s), each of which must be initialed and dated, to VA Form 10-0137. This may consist of blank sheets on which patients write what they wish or pages from existing documents (e.g., worksheets from "Your Life, Your Choices" or other available sources. To ensure that the document filed in the patient's record is complete, VA Form 10-0137and any supplemental pages must be scanned (or filed) together, to create a single document.

Transcript

From the August 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: If I may, Ms. Duckworth, because we have limited time here --

DUCKWORTH: Sure.

WALLACE: Why would a question -- I can understand questions about if you're in an irreversible coma, do you want us to pull the plug. But why -- as I asked Mr. Towey -- why would you even have a question in an end-of-life plan-- counseling book about, "If you're in a wheelchair, if you're living in a nursing home, does that make life worth living?"

DUCKWORTH: Well, I know that before I was injured, I certainly let my husband know that, you know, being in a wheelchair was something that I feared and I was afraid for, but that I also wanted my life prolonged. This is a tool. This is a simple tool that was put into place, as I said, under Secretary [Jim] Nicholson. It was something that was used throughout -- and let me make a correction. We've not used it since 2007, when under the Bush administration, we decided to go ahead and revise it.

This checklist is still under revision on a timetable according to a program that was actually decided on under the previous administration. Because I know that President Bush and Secretary Nicholson and Secretary [James] Peake all valued life. And that's what we're doing, is we're revising it. It will be out in 2010. It's not yet out. So Mr. Towey was not correct by saying --

WALLACE: Secretary Duckworth, that's just not true. The VHA put out a directive on July 2, 2009, and I want to put up two pages from that directive. The first one, Page 8. "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g., refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." And on Page 9, it says if they request more information, "patients may be directed to the exercises in 'Your Life, Your Choices.' "

So, as of July 2, 2009 -- last month, more than a month ago -- VA health practitioners were told to refer all veterans -- not just end-of-life veterans, but all 24 million veterans -- to this document, "Your Life, Your Choices."

DUCKWORTH: Let me make a correction there, Chris. What our practitioners were told is to refer patients to any type of a tool. They can use Mr. Towey's if they want to spend the $5 apiece. VA simply was not willing to buy his booklet at $5 per veteran at the time.

WALLACE: But how do you explain --

DUCKWORTH: This is a decision that was made by the previous administration.

WALLACE: It doesn't say, "Give them access to anything." I mean, in the specific VA booklet -- it's only about 15 pages long -- it specifically refers to this booklet twice.

DUCKWORTH: The only directive that is out there is actually left over from -- I believe it was beginning of 2007, our advanced planning directive put into place, and it is actually very clear in saying that we need to provide veterans with information that they can make on how they want their care.

You know, this ultimately is about the care and health care for veterans, and we're actually expanding benefits for veterans. We're actually trying to get more priority aid veterans to sign up for VA benefits. We estimate it will be another 500,000 veterans coming in for benefits. We are expanding VA benefits to veterans. It is in our best interest to make sure that every veteran out there receives the care and access to the treatments and everything that he needs. Because after all, these are the men and women who fought for us and fought -- and they deserve nothing less than the best care.

[...]

DUCKWORTH: Chris, it has not been reinstated. Let me make it clear: The only advanced directive that we have is dated February of 2007. And it actually encourages veterans to use any type of tool or checklist they would like to. There are many, many good ones out there. This "Your Life, Your Choice" [sic] is widely used out there, not just within VA. There are many others that are out there. And veterans are free to use whatever they would like to use. We just urge them to use them.

WALLACE: Let me -- I mean, I just -- I have a problem here. And often -- too often on these shows, we just say, "One person said, and another person said." Secretary Duckworth, I don't know if we're able in the control room to put up the full screen of the VHA directive, but I'd like you to put up the first full screen if you can.

In the VHA directive of July 2, 2009, it says the following on Page 8: "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g., refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." I mean, it's just there in black and white on the VHA directive of July 2.

DUCKWORTH: Chris, I'm sorry. I can't see that on a monitor in here. I will tell you that I know for a fact that the only directive signed by Secretary [Eric] Shinseki -- I mean, signed by a VA secretary -- was actually signed by Secretary Nicholson, and it's dated February of 2007. What you're looking at may not actually be a directive. So I -- since I can't see it -- I'd be happy to come back and discuss it with you.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Vincenzo (August 23, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
      16 1
      I found the same evilness in the Declaration of Independence:

      "When...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...becomes destructive...abolish it. Despotism...is necessary for the public good."

      It's in there! When is Chris going to get on it?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by CBabbitt (August 24, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
           
        You are such a liar. The Declaration of Independence does not say what you say it does. You are twisting the words to your agenda. You are part of the problem.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Vincenzo (August 24, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
          2  
          Let me guess, you watch the Colbert Report for the insightful conservative message?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bobklahn (August 25, 2009 10:56 am ET)
             
          Mr Babbitt, it was humor. He was poking fun at Wallace and his edited directive.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by h-squared (August 23, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
      8 1
      This is a good reminder to some that Wallace is as much of a right wing hack as every other Fox new personality, with the possible exception of Shepard Smith.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 23, 2009 8:25 pm ET)
        4 1
        With any luck, we can make it so the only show that gets any advertisers is Shep's. (He's no Rachel Maddow, but he seems to try to get things right most of the time.)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by smarshall1432997 (August 24, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
          4  
          When Shepard Smith speaks "freely" and "honestly", especially about Democratic issues, Viewers then see how quickly FoxNews Channel sends Shepard on a 'much-needed' week's vacation. And when Shepard returns, he sticks with FoxNews Channel's scripts of conservative, right-winged, republican talking points 99% of the time each and every day.

          However, Rachel Maddow "always" speaks from a liberal, progressive democratic way 100% of the time. So, there is "NO" similarities with the two. Just saying... Wink, wink. LOL
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
            4
          You're right, he's no Rachel Maddow. He's not manly enough.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (August 24, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
            4  
            Ha! Lesbian humor!! Can't get enough of it!!!

            Recess is over. Time to get back to class, stark colbert.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
                3
              I'm glad you liked it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by my4cents (August 24, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
                2  
                I might have considered it a joke, if you had anything other than name calling up your sleeve.
                Given your posting history, you are nothing but a cheap shot. By the way, are you the same genius that posts with a luckfibs handle? It's right up your alley.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:08 am ET)
                    3
                  No, that's not me, but calling me a "cheap shot" for not agreeing with you proves your lack of intelligence. Congratulations, you just outed yourself.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (August 23, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
      8 1
      A false quote on Fox News? Inconceivable!

      Cable news proves once again why it's become the most destructive force ever when it comes to political discourse.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (August 23, 2009 11:23 pm ET)
        4  
        The destruction of political discourse is extremely important to the right wing...

        It's the only chance they have to win.

        They know their success depends on controlling the airwaves and finding enough ignorant Americans to follow along like sheep.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mdh (August 24, 2009 7:44 am ET)
          1  
          that sheep thing is going to be a corollary to Godwins Law pretty soon
          Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (August 23, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
      8 1
      Also, this is just another way for Fox News to try and help the right-wingers who talked about "death panels" to save face and become right retroactively (even though they didn't say a word about this, it's close enough to count for them if they can keep it up long enough). This "discussion" has NO other purpose than to make Sarah Palin et al look not as dumb.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (August 23, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
      12 1
      Being a conservative means raising a false flag veterans' issue, like euthenasia, while ignoring the fact that WAR has killed far more troops than any bureaucrat eager to "thin the herd" could hope to usher off to the gas chamber in a lifetime. Believe it or not, Chris, the USA doesn't have an active Final Solution pogrom planned. Who needs that when we have conservative presidents who start resource wars over cooked intelligence?

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by laluz (August 24, 2009 6:54 pm ET)
           
        Well said!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bobklahn (August 25, 2009 11:01 am ET)
           
        Wrong! War is no longer an efficient method of thinning the herd. Modern medicine does too good a job of bringing the men back alive. I'm sure the right never planned for that. Though their back up plan of denying health care to vets does seem to pick up the slack by quite a bit.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by BillJ-MN (August 23, 2009 5:01 pm ET)
      12  
      I took a look at the document, Your Life, Your Choices, and I would really like to know what Wallace or any conservatives find objectionable in it. It all looks like very neutral, common-sense advice to me. It's relevant to all adults of any age and level of health.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (August 23, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
        4  
        If more people were made aware of the limits that medicine faces in improving their individual quality of life, more people will likely choose to not get every possible medical intervention done.

        It's that common sense advice that will ultimately lead to more people refusing treatments and choosing to let nature take its course.

        It's not that those vets will be euthanized, and they won't face death panels, but there will be more people choosing to stop the invasive methods. But those on the right are twisting it however they can.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bobklahn (August 25, 2009 11:04 am ET)
             
          DellDolly, you are exactly right. The Catholic church is about the most fully pro-life organization there is, and even the Catholic Church says those invasive methods, what the church calls "heroic efforts" are not required.

          Natural death does not mean a machine breathing for you while you lie in a coma for years.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by santang2462 (August 24, 2009 5:38 am ET)
        2  
        That is only distraction. It has nothing to do with facts or truth or reality. DISTRACTION. Anything is good and two weeks from now everyone (that counts for Fox) will have forgotten.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (August 23, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
      9  
      WTF? My god, Conservatives get so easily dragged into these little cat & mouse conspiracies. It so funny how easily distracted and mundane that they can be.

      Fox News is really going to spend a lot of news cycle time on a VA document reference trying to claim that the VA wants soldiers to kill themselves?

      Well I guess this August has proved at least one thing: doesn't matter how false it may be, the conservative press will give it full airing and try to convince people it is true ...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by temphandle subfield32embarrassed (August 24, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
        2  
        Point well taken. But remember that FOX News is not in the news business. They're in the right-wing talking points business.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (August 23, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
      3 1
      It's been said that "The Apple doesn't fall far from the Tree"
      I wish i could ask Mike Wallace if he follows this & does he Agree?
      Chris Wallace went to Fox News to be different than his Father.
      Mike Wallace needs to stand up and be heard, or is he to busy to be Bothered?

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mbrowninwaco (August 24, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
        2  
        Mike Wallace is in his nineties now, and regardless of what he thinks of his son's political views, he probably has little ambition to object or take issue with them. Chris did have a reputation as a more moderate conservative voice on Fox, but it seems he's been sipping more of the toxic Kool-aid lately. Lou Dobbs seems to be imbibing, too. What a shame. What I don't understand is why respected journalists and responsible media bigshots aren't out there speaking their minds editorially about the excesses of people like Beck and his ilk. And, if Murdock had one ounce of ethics, principle, or integrity, he would fire Beck and make a public apology. Beck hasn't even been held to the same standards as Don Imus. Why was he dragged over the coals for a similar sin while Beck gets off with the loss of a few advertisers who are simply relocated on the Fox News channel?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (August 23, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
      6  
      Any kind of preparation for the pain and agony of end-of-life decisions, regardless of context or intent, has become red meat for right-wing professional liars like Wallace, especially if it has anything to do with a government program like the VA. It's a perfect issue to blow out of proportion and portray people they don't like as brutal Nazis hellbent on government-mandated death.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (August 24, 2009 8:02 am ET)
        3  
        Exactly. Not to mention that the far right has this so called "aversion" to governmental interference into peoples lives unless of course it is to "help" you make the correct "ethical and moral" choices. Then it is just fine and dandy to have governmental involvement.

        I know this, if I were on a ventilator with no chance for recovery, the government, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Tom Coeburn, or any other right wing freak has no business dictating anything to my family. Realistically, Sean Hannity and his ilk want the government to have the power to force people into miserable living conditions, if we could ask Terry Shiavo, would she agree?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 25, 2009 12:08 am ET)
          1  
          Unless it's Schiavo, then they want the federal government to make all the end-of-life decisions.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Bateaumaster (August 23, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
        2
      However, the only thing in Appendix C is:

      Below is an embedded copy of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 10-0137B, What You Should Know About Advance Directives. VA Form 10-0137B can also be found on the VA Forms Intranet web site at http://vaww.va.gov/vaforms , and Internet web site at
      http://www.va.gov/vaforms/ . This is to be used for local reproduction. This form will also be stocked by the Hines Service and Distribution Center (formerly known as the Forms and
      Publications Depot).


      Hmmmmm.........
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Vincenzo (August 23, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
        3  
        Here is the diabolical 10-0137B that is embedded in the VA publication online-Appendix C.

        10-0137B

        It is obviously written in a seemingly harmless jargon that hides the fact that the gov't is allowed to kill our veterans.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 23, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
          4  
          Looks like exactly what I would want for myself.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mdh (August 24, 2009 7:46 am ET)
          5  
          I thought that the gov'ts right to kill veterans was covered in the enlistment paperwork.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by kth (August 23, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
         
      Non-partisan observation, pretty much universally applicable: any time you see an ellipsis in a direct quote, reach for your revolver.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Craig (August 23, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
      3  
      Jesus weeps whenever someone is allowed to die naturally when they could have persisted in a vegetative state for years attached to machines. That's his call.

      So the truly faithful are obliged to use any means necessary -- lies, scare tactics, smears -- to keep people from even learning about the option.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by johnjana3627 (August 24, 2009 10:11 am ET)
        1  
        <<Jesus weeps whenever someone is allowed to die naturally when they could have persisted in a vegetative state for years attached to machines.>>

        Craig couldn't have said it better. I would proudly wear those words on a T-Shirt. What's so bad about peace, love, and freedom of choice?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Whispers (August 24, 2009 12:12 am ET)
      2  
      Let's not mince words here. This is lying.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (August 24, 2009 12:31 am ET)
      2  
      Is promoting lies like this one illegal? Since it is a time of war -- at least that is what the right has been saying all these years -- and this is obviously an attempt to foment rebellion in the ranks of the armed services. As military members active in the field are well aware that any of them could be injured and the fiction that the government would pressure them to end their lives could create a dangerous situation in the field and indeed be a danger to our democracy. In short Chris Wallace, if he is aware his statements were lies and I am sure he is, he should be put on trial for treason.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by drgrim (August 24, 2009 1:36 am ET)
         
      e.g. means "for example". There is nothing at all restrictive about the "directive".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (August 24, 2009 1:54 am ET)
      4  
      Bear in mind that these are the same people who tried to pass a bill at the national level to interfere with Terry Schiavo's husband. So really these sorts of death panel lies serve two goals for them.

      I'm surprised it to the cons this long to find out about this one. I've said on MMFA many times that the VA offers me end-of-life services every single time I visit, primarily in the form of a pamphlet on how to set up a living will, if I agree to receive one in the mail. That dates back to the Bush administration...of course they didn't complain about then, and somehow we know it's all Obama's fault anyway.

      When I say the VA, of course I'm referring to the single-payer public-option government run socialized medicine that is my veteran's hospital. If the right is taking such a hard look at the VA, then wouldn't they want to abolish veterans' healthcare?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by albertsenj (August 24, 2009 8:35 am ET)
        1  
        PLEASE don't give these folks any ideas!!

        Most of the cons don't have anyone who uses the VA (you have to have actually been in the military - just wearing a flag pin doesn't count) so, all they see is a place where money is being spent in a way that is unlikely to generate campaign contributions. Not to mention that it stands as an affront to their argument that the government can't run a health care system.

        p.s. it's probably best to let the active-duty medical corps keep a low-profile too. Unlike United Health Care, WellPoint and BC/BS they don't contribute to campaigns either
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bobklahn (August 25, 2009 11:13 am ET)
        1  
        My doctor's receptionist/nurse asks me if I have a living will every time I visit. When I went to the hospital for blood tests the nurse there asked.

        Hey... it's a world wide conspiracy!

        They are all trying to kill us!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (August 24, 2009 8:08 am ET)
      3  
      Did you know, Nation, that by providing sex education to public school students the government MANDATES that students have sex? That's right! I saw it on Fox News! And if it is on Fox News it has to be true. Chris Wallace wears a suit and tie (not a bow tie) so he must be telling the truth. (Once he is off camera they put him back into his straight jacket.)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by luckfibs (August 24, 2009 8:58 am ET)
          5
        let's not mince words. they clearly led with the suggestion that veterans first option shold be that suicide advocacy group's website. that is steering. lib r cowards who cant be honest about anything.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 11:18 am ET)
          2  
          C'mon, luckfibs, back up what you're saying. What suicide advocacy website? Where is this advocacy?

          I realize from your posts that you're only semi-literate, but surely if you're capable of putting in two posts you're capable of backing up what you say. Aren't you?

          Or are you seeking to prove that YOU are the one who can't be honest about anything?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 24, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
            2  
            The drive-bys have left the building, I think. Too much rational thinking going on here.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by luckfibs (August 24, 2009 8:56 am ET)
        6
      the passage clearly advocates the suicide advocacy group as the first option. that is steering.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 9:39 am ET)
        5  
        Exactly what group is advocating suicide and where do they express that advocacy? [Here's a hint - You can't just say they advocate suicide because you say so. You have to show something they say or do that does so.]

        I read Your Life, Your Choices and I defy you to find any advocacy of suicide it in.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (August 24, 2009 9:53 am ET)
        1 3
        Open Question to the MMFA/Obama sycophants?

        Will life-saving treatment for cancer and other illnesses -- like that Sen. Ted Kennedy received, prolonging his life for over a year -- be covered by the 'public' option? More theoretically, do you folks believe it should be covered?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jjcomet514 (August 24, 2009 10:04 am ET)
          5  
          Gad, what an idiot. You see, dear, since it's a public OPTION (that means choice, sweetie), you can keep your current coverage if you are afraid a government plan won;t cover you in that case. But I''ll bet dollars to doughnuts you have no idea whether your current provider will cover you in that case, either. Of course, you could actually read the bill, but your post clearly indicates you;re far too stupid and lazy for such an undertaking...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cheney2012 (August 24, 2009 10:29 am ET)
            1 8
            Thanks for not answering the question. It's about what I expected from an intellectually-challenged leftist.

            All of you want to run our lives, but your collective IQ make it impossible for you to do so.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 24, 2009 11:26 am ET)
              8  
              I think it should and will be covered. here is a little bit of logic for you:

              People who are not dead can vote. This means that once the Democrats back a Public Option and it keeps Dad from pushing up the daisies, Dad might just be grateful when he goes to the polls. Conversely, dead Dad can't vote, and dead Dad's survivors might be a little ticked off about that - so depriving dead Dad of disease defying drugs doesn't make sense.

              On the other hand, your insurance companies already let my dad die. and they tried to kill my mom, too. Mom used to be Republican. Guess who Mom votes for these days?

              But, then, since when does a conservative let a little thing like rational thought get in his way?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by johnjana3627 (August 24, 2009 10:18 am ET)
          1  
          What you are saying is what is the value of one life among many and for how long should society foot the bill to lengthen it? It depends on whether that extra year belongs to your own immediate family member or someone else's right? In which case fairness dictates that everybody is treated the same.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cheney2012 (August 24, 2009 10:31 am ET)
              7
            No..all I am asking is will the government-run plan cover this kind of care? And should it?

            Actaully the left is assigning value to individual lives.

            Just answer the question!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NG_Officer (August 24, 2009 10:53 am ET)
              8  
              Would Medicare cover this treatment? Yes
              Would Tricare cover this treatment? Yes
              Will the public option cover this treatment? Yes

              What kind of idiot would ask such an obvious question? A foxnews sycophant
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
                  5
                Oh please. Were you in the military? I was, and Tricare is a disgrace, Medicare is broke and the "public option" doesn't exist yet since no one can apparently come up with a bill.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by eweston8542983 (August 24, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Medicare broke?
                  Maybe when they get back the close to 3 trillion in false claims from an amazingly small number of private health organizations they'll look better.
                  You might back up you opinions.
                  I fear the latter is of a very small probability.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:10 am ET)
                      2
                    You are trying to claim that Medicare ISN'T broke? Show me evidence.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by NG_Officer (August 24, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
                  2  
                  oh please?
                  I am in the military. When my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, guess how much we paid out of pocket?
                  $1,000.00 out of over $56,000 in bills.
                  It paid for the bilateral mastectomy and breast reconstruction, and everythign in between.
                  So STFU.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:12 am ET)
                      2
                    I don't know what STFU means. I'm not a teenager with an internet acronym dictionary. Anyway, I'm not talking about the costs associated with Tri-Care, I'm talking about the quality, which is awful.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NG_Officer (August 25, 2009 11:43 am ET)
                         
                      look it up, doofus. You have an internet connection which you are using right now.
                      And I am talking about the care she received. She is cancer free for a year and a half and very happy about the care she received.
                      You think I would I care about how much money we spent if she was in pain, or still fighting the cancer?
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 24, 2009 11:31 am ET)
              5  
              The Left has done no such thing - the Right only wants to imagine it. the right tends to believe that Gays are less-than-human, Muslims are inferior beings, and wise Latinas can't possibly be good enough for the Supreme court.

              You are projecting.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
                  3
                As usual, a liberal is making general assumptions. I am a conservative and I consider gays just as human as I am. In fact, I think gay marriage is perfectly fine. Secondly, my brother-in-law is a Muslim and I have no problem with that. I have a problem with Muslim EXTREMISTS, as you should as well. I don't have a problem with a Latina being in the Supreme Court. The projection is from your side.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by eweston8542983 (August 24, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
                  1  
                  We get a few wingnuts who'll claim almost anything.
                  Might be a truth or two somewhere swathed in neocon talking points.
                  An equitable person might make mention of the the militant rightwing, the dominianist christians, and their potential threat. Some of the wingnut rhetoric directed at our lastest supreme court justice.
                  Your joke at Ms. Madow'a sexuality above.
                  Nope its just us bad ole liberals projecting.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:13 am ET)
                      3
                    It wasn't a joke about her sexuality. I don't have any idea what her sexual orientation is. It was a joke about how she looks. You people make fun of how fat Limbaugh is all the time but I can't make fun of her looks? Double standard?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Craig (August 25, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Sheesh! It's one thing to be an ignorant homophobe. Now you're a backpedalling coward.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 25, 2009 12:15 am ET)
                  3  
                  "I don't have a problem with a Latina being in the Supreme Court. The projection is from your side." - Stark Colbert

                  What a bunch of bull, even for you, Stark. You just called Sotomayor a race-baiter a couple of days ago. I realize once I asked you for some evidence to back up your ridiculous statement you ran away from the thread and never came back. But your statement still stands, you claimed that both Obama and Sotomayor were race-baiters. You said it, and you should back it up.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:15 am ET)
                      2
                    They are race-baiters. "They don't like me because I don't look like the other people on the dollar bills and I have a funny name". "I can do a better job than a white man". That's not race-baiting?
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (August 24, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
              4  
              Hey Cheney2012 hows your boy doing? I mean 4 heart attacks and still kicking that lousy government health insurance he has is

              killing him. Why doesn't he get rid of it?

              Oh and speaking of assigning value to lives chew on this:
              http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
              http://sickforprofit.com/

              and as a real true scout of conservative "free market" drivel this finding by Ezra Klein should really upset you:

              "...In the modern health-care system, there is no higher power than the insurance market. And the insurers who populate that market have grown all the stronger. The Justice Department judges an industry "highly concentrated" if a single company controls more than 42 percent of the market. By that definition, 94 percent of statewide insurance markets are highly concentrated. A recent study by the advocacy organization Health Care for America Now showed that in Indiana, WellPoint controls 60 percent of the insurance market; in Iowa, Wellmark accounts for 71 percent; and in Alabama, Blue Cross/Blue Shield holds 83 percent. In the past 13 years, there have been more than 400 corporate mergers involving health insurers.

              Economics textbooks tell us that concentrated markets reduce the competitive behavior that benefits consumers and lead to outsize profits for the dominant firms. Predictably, health-care premiums shot up more than 90 percent between 2000 and 2007, while the profits of the 10 largest insurers increased 428 percent over the same period. Clinton had promised us managed care within managed competition. Instead, the insurers took control of our care and managed to effectively end competition. Neat trick..."

              Now see how silly your question was?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by bobklahn (August 25, 2009 11:18 am ET)
             

          Response to the supporter of the psycopathic ex-VP.

          Yes.

          Yes.

          Though I am more becoming tilted toward the German or Japanese systems. Not single payer, but a lot cheaper than what we have, while answering pretty much all the right wing objections.

          On top of that, they don't have the compromises the Canadian and British systems have, so they can't be attacked as easily.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (August 24, 2009 9:37 pm ET)
        2  
        A very clever and reflective posting handle to start a discussion.
        Do you really expect to be taken seriously or are you like one of those town hallers out just to display their idiocy?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnjana3627 (August 24, 2009 9:58 am ET)
        2
      It's been said before...they treat dogs better than this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 24, 2009 11:38 am ET)
        6  
        The VA has gone to greta lengths to treat our Veterans with as much dignity as possible. Your comment is an insult to the men and women who work hard every day to ensure that Veterans have the best available care.

        You are a disgrace.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
          2
        Are you a veteran? If not, how would you know?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (August 25, 2009 1:05 am ET)
             
          What are you stark a kid? Do you just reflexively react without thinking? Just stop and think for a second how someone could acquire the information to assert what R&R did without being a vet? Now rethink your question!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:16 am ET)
               
            Well, I'm not a kid, but your use of punctuation suggests that your are.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (August 24, 2009 9:59 am ET)
      2  
      Chris Wallace and his crew are fricken swindlers. Is Chris Wallace trying to convince the audience that his crew can't display a simple quote graphic on Tammy Duckworth's monitor but can easily broadcast to the public? Yeah right.

      He knew even ahead of Duckworth's complaint of not being able to see graphics that there was some sort of problem with it because he explained the problem. Then he goes on to read Duckworth the cropped quote and reads it to her smoothly as if it was a continuous quote not making it clear to her that there were cropping dots in the quote.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NG_Officer (August 24, 2009 10:46 am ET)
      4  
      I watched this clip on Huff Po before I came over to Media Matters. As soon as I saw the ellipses on his quote from the pamphlet, I knew Wallace was hiding something so I found the offending document online, and lo and behold, I was correct.

      A quick notes on Soldiers: when you deploy, you go through what is called an SRP (Soldier Readiness Processing) where you go through various stations (dental, shots, finance, etc). One of the stations is Legal, where they ask if you have a will, living will and/or powers of attorney. If you wish, they will assist you in preparing these documents. There is nothing nefarious about their goal; they only want to make sure your last wishes are followed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
          3
        Wow, the "Huffington Post" AND "Media Matters"? Now that's fair and balanced!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
          2  
          It was a video clip of Wallace giving a false impression. Unless the clip was edited by either HuffPo or MMFA, I don't see what your point is.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 25, 2009 12:19 am ET)
            1  
            Stark never has a point. He never has any evidence. He never has anything but nonsensical, unsubstantiated opinions and questionable personal (or second-hand) anecdotes.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 24, 2009 10:58 am ET)
      3  
      These gusy have turned lying into a science. Whateve lie polls the best, THAT'S the one they'll tell. Their dishonesty, hypocrisy and utter scumbaggery truly knows no bounds.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Henk_sg (August 24, 2009 11:19 am ET)
      2  
      Wow, didn't Chris' father have a reputation as being somewhat trustworthy? I know one must make due with what they have to survive in this world, but isn't trading on your fathers legacy for a few piece of silver pretty awful? Seriously, doesn't that define selling one's soul.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (August 24, 2009 11:50 am ET)
      3  
      Vets must know this is not true. Seems like FOX is just pushing likely Rep voters away from the party.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 11:57 am ET)
        3  
        I just wish more prominent Democrats would call BS what it is. There is too much "That really isn't quite accurate ..." and "I don't think I'd put it that way ..." kinds of responses.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rkallen09 (August 24, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
      5  
      Okay! Time to take off the gloves and start accusing the Republicans of trying to create "Living Panels."

      Using their rhetoric:

      Regardless of your condition or the remaining time you have, we are going to require that doctors perform every expensive procedure and every single test we can think of. We are going to prescribe you with every medication we can pump into your veins even if it leaves you a drooling vegetable. We are going to continue these treatments until you and your family's savings have been drained of every last cent that we can squeeze from your suffering.

      We are going to keep you on life support until you are just a husk of human being and even then we will have Congressional hearings to determine if it is finally appropritate to allow you to die, regardless of how you feel about it.

      We will provide NO end of life literature or couciling because it is our intent to see that you remain beholding to our health care system until the day we finally allow you to shuffle off of this mortal coil.

      Your own dignity is secondary. We have a huge private health care/pharma industry that must be fed it's enormous profits in order to survive, and with our fists so deep in their pie, we fear losing our own fingers should it begin to dry up.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
        4  
        I like it, but might I suggest "Forced Life Panels?"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MantisBot X (August 25, 2009 9:09 am ET)
           
        Wait a second, they already did this...

        TERRY SCHIAVO!!!

        That's all we need to point to. They were trying to keep her alive based on DeLay's video diagnosis of her brain capabilities.

        Too bad the autopsy didn't agree with him.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by scanlontodd9871 (August 24, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
      3  
      so it only took 8 months or so for us as Americans to become a Genocidal society. The most powerful nation on the planet and it has come to this. What an absolute joke the reich wing has become.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gonefishnn (August 24, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
         
      Lets assume both are right the question for you and me "DO WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO OVERSEE OUR LIFE AND NO OTHER RECOURSE ONCE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SHALL BE DONE?????????????? NO FREEDOM NO RESPONSIBILITY……NO guilt in termination of loveones…
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
        4  
        Lets assume both are right - gonefishnn

        And then we can assume that the grass is both green and pink.

        the question for you and me "DO WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO OVERSEE OUR LIFE AND NO OTHER RECOURSE ONCE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SHALL BE DONE?????????????? - gonefishnn

        Why should we ask that question when it posits a scenario that no one is proposing should exist? Nobody has proposed anything that has the faintest trace of a resemblance to that scenario.

        Surely you're not engaging in groundless fearmongering, are you?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ufleirx (August 24, 2009 10:02 pm ET)
           
        "DO WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO OVERSEE OUR LIFE AND NO OTHER RECOURSE ONCE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SHALL BE DONE?????????????? "

        Where was all the outrage during Terry Schiavo incident?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by recoveringrepub (August 24, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
      1  
      There is a lot of talk about euthanasia being included in the proposed health plans and here in regard to our veterans. It is worth noting that about all of the countries that have national health care have longer life expectancy than we do. So, do they not euthanize or is their health care better than ours? Which answer is more likely?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Vincenzo (August 24, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
        1  
        It's because we are a continental nation with a larger population. Bill O'Really said it so it must be true.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
        1
      I'm not saying I buy into this death panel business, but there is truth to it. My relatives in the UK have dealt with it first hand and think about it, if we now have to provide equal care for all 300 million people from one monetary source (US government), you don't think there will be some rationing? Please. Don't give me that "private option" business either because the public option will make the cost of that so astronomical that only the uber-rich will be able to afford it (just like in the UK).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
        2  
        I'm not saying I buy into this death panel business, but there is truth to it. - starkcr31

        Sure looks to me as though you're buying into it. It's funny how you say there's truth to it and then fail to provide any evidence of that truth.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (August 24, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
          2  
          Stark apparently hasn't looked up the term "economies of scale".
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
            2
          To an extent, yes, because they have forms of "death panels" in other countries. In fact, they have them in the this country already. The woman in Oregon that was denied care because it wasn't going to save her life, just prolong it and make it less painful because the state-run health care system didn't think it was cost effective. If you think that won't happen on a national scale then I don't know what planet you're living on.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by BillJ-MN (August 24, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
            3  
            Even if I were to accept your description of the circumstances, if you don't think that is happening on a large scale right now with private insurers then I don't know what planet you're living on. In the meantime, a national plan would allow tens of millions to receive care for whom it's now too expensive.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 24, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
                2
              So, the other 260 million people get inferior care and in many cases denial of care? Wow, bring it on. If you think our bumbling idiot of a government can handle health care for all of us and not obliterate it miserably, then you've clearly never experienced any program run by them before.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (August 24, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                4  
                Which of the following do you want to remove from government control?
                Center for Desease Control.
                The US armed forces.
                Department of Defence.
                Food and Drug Administration.
                Medicare.
                Medicade.
                Department of Agriculture.
                Interstate Comerce Commission.
                Federal Communication Commission.
                FBI.
                CIA.
                Education.
                Envirenmental Protection Agency.
                Interstate Highways.
                Rules for banking.
                International Trade Policies.
                minimum wage.
                Federal Courts.

                It will probably take to long to disassemble all of this. I see your future happyness in some other country.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 24, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
                  1  
                  *crickets*


                  (Stark usually evaporates when presented with rational arguments.)
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 25, 2009 12:25 am ET)
                     
                  Stark?? Hello?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:19 am ET)
                       
                    Yeah, see, unlike yourself, I don't have time to monitor this site 24 hours a day.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by starkcr31 (August 25, 2009 10:18 am ET)
                     
                  When did I suggest any of those organizations should be removed from government control?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Craig (August 25, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
                       
                    When you said the government was a bumbling idiot. So what's your answer?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by cArn (August 25, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
                       
                    If you think our bumbling idiot of a government can handle health care for all of us and not obliterate it miserably, then you've clearly never experienced any program run by them before

                    Then which programs that are run by "our bumbling idiot of a government" are you referring to? Because clearly your disdain for govt. implies that some programs should be removed. Which ones?
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 25, 2009 12:23 am ET)
           
        Please provide any evidence of this rationing leading to death panels in the UK. I mean your relarives can surely point you to some evidence. Right? Got anything, Stark?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bpollen (August 25, 2009 6:58 am ET)
         
      I would tend to think that Obama is encouraging our servicemen to end their lives by continuing to fight the war in Afghanistan, or, to put it another way, the war to increase the world's supply of opium.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bobklahn (August 25, 2009 11:27 am ET)
         
      Tammy Duckworth was slightly off on one point. While the VA may no longer be handing out the pamphlet it is still available online.

      The directive is from Feb 2007, but it was revised July 2. The revision consists of adding a couple words the doc says were inadvertently left out. Close friend was added to the list of acceptable health care surrogates.

      The doc is from Feb 2007, the revision was to correct an error only, not a change in meaning, and not referring to anything in the discussion.
      Report Abuse