Posted on 09/05/2009 8:21:38 PM PDT by Shellybenoit
Reporter Jim Rutenberg wrote an unfavorable profile of former NY Lt Governor Betsy McCaughey and her efforts to educate the public about the dangers of Obamacare in today's NY Times:
Her work has, however, proved to be a boon to opponents of Mr. Obama’s health care plans, if occasionally judged as over the line even by some of them.
She incorrectly stated in July that a Democratic bill in the House would “absolutely require” counseling sessions for Medicare recipients “that will tell them how to end their life sooner,” drawing a “Pants on Fire” rating from the PolitiFact fact-checking Web site; her false assertion that the presidential health adviser Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel believed “medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled” helped inspire the former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s discredited warning about “death panels’ ” deciding who is “worthy of health care.”
Jim Rutenberg forgot one important thing about the former Lt. Governor, she may sometimes act a bit crazy, but her facts are always spot on. By this evening my mailbox was graced with a press release from McCaughey, showing that unlike the Times Reporter, Betsy had the evidence on her side:
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
She told Sean Hannity that she read the bill cover-to-cover twice.
The woman is smart as a tack.
I meant “sharp” not “smart”.
Betsy McCoy got the short shrift from RINO Gov Pataki
She should have been in charge, not him
Go Betsy.
She has done a tremendous job on this issue. Hannity asked her last week if she would consider running for office and she said no “I just work in hospitals to prevent infections”.
GO BETSY!!!
They’re really going after her big time ... on a personal level. It’s sad because she makes perfectly logical points whether or not you agree with her POV or not. She shoots straight.
The thing I wish she (or someone) would bring bring up is: Why is this the only doctor-patient conversation that is singled out in HR 3200? Surely there are hundreds of thousands of possible conversations patients can voluntarily have with their doctors ... and their doctors can be paid for their time with the patient no matter what they discuss in the consultation.
Sure, the doctor and patient could discus fishing or something and bill the insurance company and/or government for the time spent on that conversation ... but unless we’re going to videotape every doctor-patient conversation and submit it with the bill, how would you enforce that?
That’s why it makes no logical sense to single out this ONE possible doctor-patient conversation and go on at length about it in HR-3200. If “it’s just about billing” then why is just this conversation detailed in the bill?
Why not outline every allowably “billable” conversation a doctor can have with a patient?
They’re really going after her big time ... on a personal level. It’s sad because she makes perfectly logical points whether or not you agree with her POV or not. She shoots straight.
The thing I wish she (or someone) would bring bring up is: Why is this the only doctor-patient conversation that is singled out in HR 3200? Surely there are hundreds of thousands of possible conversations patients can voluntarily have with their doctors ... and their doctors can be paid for their time with the patient no matter what they discuss in the consultation.
Sure, the doctor and patient could discus fishing or something and bill the insurance company and/or government for the time spent on that conversation ... but unless we’re going to videotape every doctor-patient conversation and submit it with the bill, how would you enforce that?
That’s why it makes no logical sense to single out this ONE possible doctor-patient conversation and go on at length about it in HR-3200. If “it’s just about billing” then why is just this conversation detailed in the bill?
Why not outline every allowably “billable” conversation a doctor can have with a patient?
She certainly is sharp. For instance she told Sean Hannity that the bill said SHALL, not MAY. That sure sounds to me like it’s mandatory.
Here it is from the House bill:
“Such
12 consultation SHALL (emphasis mine) include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad14
vance care planning, “
The lady catches EVERYTHING.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.