Delusional Betsy McCaughey Discredited on TV

Betsy McCaughey is single-handedly responsible for spreading more paranoid mistruths about the proposed healthcare reform bill than anyone else. It's largely because of her that we've been treated to such bizarre spectacles as the Town Hall Neanderthals and Sarah Palin's expressed fears of a "death panel." Here we get to see McCaughey attempt to prove that her views were shaped by something other than voices in her head. Unsuccessfully.

To see the complete two-part McCaughey interview, go to http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaug...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• betsy
• mccaughey
• rachel
• maddow
• john
• jon
• stewart
• daily
• show
• healthcare
• health
• care
• obamacare
• town
• hall

[mesaman1970]

It's funny how Cons point to the fortune that Al gore has made after 30 years of SCIENCE and data prove hime right.. You won't hear a peep from said CONs about how much money shills like Limbaugh Beck or hannity make from spreading absolute lies to the public..

[jdlaw001]

I can understand her paranoia since she's elderly.

[hotram1]

@rightwinggeniusII Based on the total inaccuracy of your comment you are the delusional one. Stewart totally discredited Betsy McCaughey during the interview. She couldn't provide any proof to support her wild accusations. Every time she opened her mouth he called her out on her obvious BS. I wasn't surprised by her employers statement the following day, no reputable company wants to associate with a fear mongering bat shit crazy lady, like McCaughey! As usual, Maddow's assessment was correct!

[rightwinggeniusII]

As usual, Rachel Maddow's hysterical affect undermined whatever cogent, fact-based argument she might have had. Oh, and that line about frightening old people? Perhaps the Rachel Maddow from 2009 should meet the Rachel Maddow of 2011 who keeps referring to the Path to Prosperity as the GOP's plan to "kill Medicare." Maddow is the delusional one.

[OneVoiceMore]

@darwinkilledgod You see, you're still trying to salvage your support for the only person here who is so corrupting and twisting words, that SHE, my friend, is the death panel. While she scares people away from health reform, HEALTH CARE, people are dying every day. She changed the direct easily understood words...to 'death panel'. She did so to convey directly the opposite of what the bill mandates.

She's not just paranoid and discredited, friend. She's evil.

[OneVoiceMore]

@darwinkilledgod This is you:

"And he (Jon) just repeats the word "sustaining". It's creepy to me. It's like a Nazi saying, "No... it's racial PURITY...what about purity don't you get?" "

'Like a Nazi' is a direct comparison. I said you COMPARED him to one, not called him one.

And when you still try to salvage your 'death panels', would you like to research the treatments they DO outlaw? I'll grant you, no one these days is in the business of cures, but death panels are a myth.

Peace.

[AmadeusD]

@mesaman1970 idiot

[darwinkilledgod]

@OneVoiceMore You'll probably be surprised to know that I actually did look that up. I checked Politifact too, which rated her statements as false and explained what the context was. You win, enjoy.

Still, I never said Jon was a Nazi! I made a point, still valid, that people change words and think it changes meaning. NICE outlaws certain treatments which means people die... i.e. a death panel. The FDA does similarly.

[OneVoiceMore]

@darwinkilledgod Look up 'living will'. Then read the words IN CONTEXT.

Don't get snide when you're missing the boat, kid. The argument exists in the minds of those who don't understand what this -really- means.

Jon is not a Nazi. There are no 'death panels'. Is that clear enough for you?

A doctor can -contravene- a living will, based on 'appropriateness'. This means the patient remains on life-support against their wishes. Which is another can of worms entirely, but not as you claim at all.

[darwinkilledgod]

@OneVoiceMore I'm not parroting anything...I'm hearing words and recognizing what they mean! It's very different. You should try it sometime. The first part would be to recognize that an argument exists regardless of who makes it. The fact that she is unemployed has nothing to do with the fact that the law empowers government bodies to decide on what whether life-sustaining treatments are appropriate. Calling her a "fear monger" changes nothing.

What do the words actually mean!

[OneVoiceMore]

@darwinkilledgod So, since you're quoting, and this case is about living wills, are you prepared to discuss the definition of 'appropriateness' in the proper context?

Or do you plan to continue to blindly parrot this now UNEMPLOYED fear-monger about 'death panels'?

I -highly- suggest you look into what a living will is. It's when people demand to be REMOVED from life-support beyond their own comfort level, when a doctor may DISAGREE to pull the plug.

You -did- compare Jon to a Nazi, then denied.

[darwinkilledgod]

@OneVoiceMore But she wasn't off the mark, was she? Appropriateness of "life-sustaining" treatments means sometimes life-sustaining treatments will be inappropriate! Thus, you don't get them. Thus your life isn't sustained... NICE already does this in England.

I wasn't comparing John to a Nazi. My point was just about the ability of people to call something another name and pretend that changes what it is! Racial purity = murder. "appropriateness of life-sustaining medicine" = death panel.