This Jon Stewart and Betsy McCaughey interview is an argument over whether or not the proposed house bill H.R. 3200 will result in seniors receiving worse treatment under the new health care system.


    Unfortunately, the interview was cut short due to the time constraint of the TV program.  However, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was kind enough to post the full interview on their website.  Below is the interview in its entirety:


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part One

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part Two


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part Three


  The key issue often used to attack the bill by Pro Republican media is that the bill contains a mandatory "death panel".  Actually, the related section is in the portion of the bill aimed to regular the quality of reporting on  "end of life care and advanced care planning ".


  Since this portion is the gateway to create strife on public opinion of healthcare reform, this interview turned out to be very enlightening to how a misinterpretation of the bill can be used by the media to create public hysteria towards any present or future health care reforms.


  When one chooses not to project any hyperbole and read the bill for what it actually says, it is clear that the Doctors will be rated on how they adhere to the "consulted pre-planning" when patients are no longer able to make these decisions.  For example, when a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, the Doctor will be rated on whether he stays close to the will that the patient made before entering the vegetative state.


  Betsy McCaughey insisted that the measurement of adherence to "end of life and advanced care planning" report will panelize the Doctors if patients change their minds on how they wished to be cared.  When in fact the bill is aimed to rate how closely the Doctor adheres to the living will, not to force still coherent patient stick to plan.


  By confusing this point, certain mass media and those who benefit from the current system, were able to confuse the public and use it as a speaking point to attack not just this bill, but health care reform in general.


  Below is the actual text of H.R. 3200 Page 432.  Full text of the bill can be found here:


(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-


Page 432


    (1) Physician’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:




      "(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.


      "(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.".

創作者 hansioux 的頭像


hansioux 發表在 痞客邦 留言(2) 人氣()

留言列表 (2)

  • Dorasaga
  • I listened to 2 minutes and then started jumping around the video seek. She's really a weak presenter on TV.

    From what I garnered the American public is concerned: The Bill is TOO LONG. We are stupid. We cannot understand the whole thing (who else would?). We cannot support what we can't understand.

    The Senate needs to revise and send in a shorter bill for approval. I'm waiting on my toes for that.

    By the way, since you didn't answer my last email, I'll ask you something else: What do you think of the media thing? I believe you didn't post anything. Neither did I after one, a long time ago. There must be an opinion, right?
  • i actually went to sign up after you told me the first time but got stuck by the ID number thing. I am not sure why such a site should require ID numbers. The same thing happened last time when I was at the 517 rally. I wanted to sign up for several organizations, including the ones by Lü and Xie, but I was stumped by the ID number thing.

    Personally that's just one information I do not want to share. If I am not getting a credit card with it, not giving away my ID number.... I mean how often do we get asked to give away our US drivers license number or Social Security number when we join an organization in the US? Maybe it's a common practice in Taiwan, but to me it just sounded like a quick way to get me and my family rounded up if the democracy ever fail.

    I thought about generating one so I can sign up. But in the end I couldn't get over it.

    hansioux 於 2009/08/28 14:33 回覆

  • Dorasaga
  • Agreed. I had the same problem as well. I wouldn't trust an insecure site for that. So what I did is I called them directly and asked the administrator to manually add me.

    With your track record here and there, I believe they would love to add you manually without an ID#.

    It's an experimental platform, in my opinion, so I can't say if it helps you publicize more of your thoughts, or if you might benefit as well. But I can call them for you, or you can call them directly. You have the numbers. Or I can email you again.