Jon Stewart Helps Betsy McCaughey Comprehend What She Read in the Health Care Reform Bill

And Betsy McCaughey Proves that She Does Not Understand the English Language on "The Daily Show"

Saul Relative
Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" invited "death panel" inventor Betsy McCaughey to his program Thursday evening, possibly as a big send-off before he heads off on a three-week vacation, but primarily to undermine her claim that the legislation actually provides for "euthanasia" panels. After Jon Stewart's verbal evisceration of Jim "Madman" Cramer over the poor journalistic style of CNBC during the lead-up to the mortgage crisis and his not-so-subtle slamming of MSNBC's overly commercialized "Morning Joe," viewers were expecting a far more powerful verbal beat down of Betsy McCaughey than was presented (even that which was presented on the Internet, as the segment went longer than the "Daily Show's" half-hour format). But Jon Stewart did call Betsy McCaughey's rhetoric "hyperbolic" and "dangerous."

Jon Stewart is unabashedly liberal, his stance decidedly left. But there are times when the lean from center does not matter and the presentation of truth becomes of paramount concern. Not to paint him as a crusader for truth (he is a comedian, after all), but there is a great deal of truth in the fake news he presents "daily" on his show. Stewart has been nailing right-wingers attempting to bring lunatic arguments into the national health care debate for weeks and he didn't stop with Betsy McCaughey.

Betsy McCaughey, former Lt. Governor of the state of New York, came to Jon Stewart's desk armed with half of Bill HR 3200 and she was quick to point out how large it was (as if just the size alone was reason enough for Congress to table it indefinitely). She then said the end of life counseling mentioned in the legislation was "mandatory."

When Jon Stewart would attempt to make a point, Betsy McCaughey told him he was "wrong." Not once, but a few times. Instead of hammering her like he did Jim Cramer, he simply sat back and fed her rope.

And she hung herself.

Jon Stewart asked her to show him where it said that it was mandatory. And she couldn't, because it isn't there. Not on page 425 as she maintained. Not anywhere. Then she spoke about guidelines that doctors must "adhere" to in order to keep a government mandated "quality rating." At first because she couldn't find the page (Jon Stewart suggested Post It notes). Later, she again could not find the page when she insisted it was on page 432, which in most books, follows 425 by seven pages. No matter, what she looked for was not there.

It only took a few more minutes for Betsy McCaughey admit that "mandatory" was actually her interpretation of the legislation, but she insisted that she derived it from information on page 432, where the legislation provided guidelines that doctors had to meet, therefore forcing them to deny health care to certain groups (another interpretation of the legislation and from whence came the ridiculously "hyperbolic" term "death panels"). Stewart told her that her reading of the legislation was "hyperbolic and in some ways dangerous."

Jon Stewart then read the legislation straight from McCaughey's huge binder. She then turned toward the audience and talked about the pressures that doctors would be under, forced to provide care and consultation via a prescribed list of government mandated guidelines in order to keep their rating. She added that the doctors would be penalized if the patients changed their minds. She said, "That would be really wrong."

Jon Stewart then said, "That would be really wrong if that was in any way what this said. But that is not in any way what this says." Jon then read the legislation again. And he explained that the legislation talks about doctors adhering to their patients' wishes if they have certain provisions for their care, not that there is a government list for the doctor to follow.

Betsy McCaughey talked of incentives that forced the doctors to do less and make less money. Jon Stewart said that if it was about incentives, they would do more to make more money and she couldn't have it both ways.

When Jon Stewart told McCaughey that it was hyperbole like hers that was undercutting legislation that could help millions get insured, McCaughey said she wanted health care for everyone and then switched the subject to how the reformed health care system would be financed.

Betsy McCaughey then threw out figures of how much it would cost and how many seniors would be added to the system in a few more years. Stewart told her that that was where she was making her leap making the supposition that seniors would not get health care because of some hypothesized shortfall in financing.

Creating something from nothing.

Like "death panels."

But Jon Stewart never went after Betsy McCaughey like he did Jim Cramer over the mortgage crisis. It was as if he knew that she liked rope or something...

People like Betsy McCaughey are disproportionately dangerous. Her misleading words and their impact on those who have not read the legislation, who might not bother to read the legislation, who might follow blindly the person they believe has read the legislation, and who might trust the person who interprets to have actually read the legislation and comprehended it for what it is and not replaced it with some inane fantasy have a disproportionate impact than that which they deserve. And she wins her arguments through the democratic approval of the trusting and the ignorant. Mob mentality.

And then she is followed by someone like ex-Alaska Governor (but conservative heavyweight) Sarah Palin, who takes her words another step and calls the legislation a creation of "death panels" and that the president would have individuals like her special needs child done away with.

And others, like Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, go even further personalizing it for everyone, saying that it is a mandate to "pull the plug on grandma."

And still others, like a woman in Massachusetts who likened the process to those of the Nazis, to which Congressman Barney Frank asked what planet she had been living on.

Sometimes the hyperbole and rhetoric can get a little dangerous...

******

Source:

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Comedy Central Network

Published by Saul Relative

WVU graduate, with degrees in History, English, Secondary Education, Computer Programming, and Psychology (and nearly a degree in Political Science). Originally from West Virginia, with stints in Virginia,...  View profile

6 Comments

Post a Comment
  • saul relative8/24/2009

    Don't I know it, Rick. People read one page of a two-pager, two pages of three-pager. Then they make a comment that shows that didn't read the entire story. It really is amazing the ephemeral attention span of ... Hey, there's a story about Brad Pitt getting high no more! Wow. All those kids, too. What a good guy...

  • Julia Bodeeb8/24/2009

    Great coverage of this. The idiots are out in full bloom now spouting bs about death panels

  • Anne Stjern8/24/2009

    Emotionally based arguments such as rationed medical care and "death panels" rely on support from people who are 1) inclined to dismiss whatever the other party suggests - Dem or Rep, and 2) idiots who refuse to do their homework. McCaughey, Palin and Company have tapped into these folks in a big way. So much the worse for the rest of us.

  • jcorn8/24/2009

    If someone goes on Stewart's show, that person should be prepared to have key parts of a Health Care Reform Bill highlighted, even though it is lengthy.

  • Bat Canary8/24/2009

    I made it to page three, too, and I had already seen this interview. The woman was clearly just repeating talking points that were not based on any fact whatsoever. It was her mistake to even bring the binder (she must have thought it made her look knowledgable). Jon Stewart does go to town on Democrats as well when they get out of line or say something stupid, so yes, he really is a truth-seeker!

  • Rick Soisson8/24/2009

    Well, at least Stewart got to try the public's attention span by running over two minutes in discussion, and...hey, look, there goes Branjolie. She looks sad! Stop the presses. (And by the way, Saul, you ran a least a page beyond the ideal internet length with this piece...some will click on page three, though. Never fear.)

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.