Bad trip indeed. I’m betting they decided to just chop the interview because editing would have made a total hash of an already jittery conversation- or because they realized they’d have been accused of making her look stupid with edits. I’m guessing they won’t be inviting her back. 
I think his point here was that she was jumping to a conclusion. It may or may not be a correct conclusion, but the facts she gave, on their own, didn’t support that conclusion. It’s like saying, “The bill allows those without healthcare to be seen by a doctor for a $50 copay. Everyone and their mother will be getting appendectomies just because they can.”
What I came here wondering was, it didn’t SOUND as if she knew what she was talking about, but as SenorBeef said… yeah, the audience seems to have faith on what’s going in Jon’s head without actually understanding what they may be applauding for. I wanted to make sure no one saw any merit in her criticism that I may have missed. It doesn’t seem like a simple process trying to find ALL the angles in these documents. So, when someone brings up something that could potentially be a problem, I’ll listen. I didn’t hear anything that would be cause for alarm.
Just skimming the thread and all, but it occurs to me that that competing google hits for “Bushitler” and “Obamafascist” have an inherent flaw in that the internet has not yet achieved complete market penetration (or at least not as much as, say, television or telephones), although the rates have rapidly grown since 2000 and topped at 72.5% in 2008 (cite). By comparison, over the same period, television penetration has steadily been 98% of American households (cite).
Thus, if anti-Obama internet cites are more common than anti-Bush cites, that could easily be because the internet was not as pervasive over most of Bush’s administration than it has been over these last six months of Obama’s. Anti-Bush postings would, it is safe to assume, fall off rapidly once he left office and tend to gradually vanish. I’d hazard a guess that a presidential comparison of this type won’t be fair until internet penetration levels stabilize, and even then will only be meaningful if sampling is timely, i.e. take a snapshot during Obama’s third year and then another snapshot during the following president’s third year. Once a president leaves office, I figure such stats are meaningless since active interest in him fades rapidly.
God, yes. I cringed so hard every time the audience cheered Jon. He could say “Purple monkey dishwasher” in that serious and incisive tone of voice he likes to use, and he’d get a standing ovation. I think he’s one of the smartest people there is covering the news, but having an audience cheer him on when he’s trying to engage in a debate is very off-putting to me.
He’s not engaging in a debate: he’s discussing with a guest whatever topic the guest is focused on. It IS a comedy shoe–albeit a very intelligent one (thank god). I doubt Stewart would want to seriously debate anyone because his forte is comedy and revealing that the Emperor is not wearing clothes. I have no doubt he could debate someone, because he strikes me as highly intelligent, but that is not his focus.
I didn’t realize that this was the rabble rouser who torpedoed Hillary’s plan back in the 90s. Either she is starting to decompensate and can’t hold a linear conversation or she’s off her meds. It’s not a matter of semantics or parsing or disagreeing on principles–she’s just flat out wrong about what happens now between doctor and patient and what would happen under this provision. I posted a bit about this interview this morning in the other thread, so I won’t duplicate it here.
Frankly, IMO, the debate should be should docs get compensated for having this discussion at all, since they are not the only health care providers that engage in it. I can see if it’s an office visit with prognosis and planning with the pt and family, but in the hospital? :dubious: But we can’t even get to that nuanced of a point, what with Blonde Chick running around crying that the sky is falling. :rolleyes:
Missed the edit window. It’s a comedy SHOW. I’m not sure just what a comedy shoe would look like, but I imagine it would fit a clown…
Doesn’t he shush them frequently?
I wonder if TDS should have someone to cool down the crowd before Stewart takes the stage. Sort of a reverse Hank “Hey Now!” Kingsley.
Or Ed Sullivan…
I find it incredibly hard to believe that if you removed those figures from the US that we’d skyrocket to number 1 if you similarly removed it from others. I think she lied tactically personally hoping Stewart wouldn’t call her on it. I even saw something in her eye when she said it, and I think it was a hope that he wouldn’t ask that question.
LOL reminds me of #i. Radar works by LASERS!!!
But yes, I totally agree and that’s how most of the political process is executed. As I was explaining to others in this thread in a different context. I think that lady far from being stupid was a clever political operative.
Well I think the point SenorBeef is making is that not too many people knew what they were talking about, including Stewart, and that the audience was mostly made up of retards who were PALATR.
Stewart didn’t have a good response because he didn’t know what the appropriate response SHOULD be, and that’s part of the problem here, at least as I see it, I don’t know if SenorBeef sees it the same way. A lot of the people doing the pointing and laughing don’t really know what’s in the bill either.
I always preferred a 0000 myself.
Of course you’ve read the 1000+ page bill and have the education and experience needed to support any claims you make.
Or is this an attempt to “fangoso el agua”?
Was I being too subtle? I was pointing out an irrational overgeneralization and then you come in and overgeneralize.
I’m more than willing to admit that there are plenty of conservatives out there right now who aren’t rational, and that they seem to be running the face of conservatism in America (the Republican party), and I’ll happily concede that the conservatives seem to winning the looniness arms race at the moment, but to simply say all conservatives are stupid and ignore facts just makes you look stupid and gives rhetorical ammunition to those loonies.
What the fuck is your point? Did I defend that sort of action? I said nothing about the OP, the woman in the OP, or anything about anything except for an asinine comment near the start of the thread.
It would be a really big shoe… 
mswas: Jon Stewart says at one point that he has read the bill. Where do you get the impression that he hadn’t? IME, he has always been honest about having prepped or not for his interviews. If he’s not reading the entire books etc, he is well briefed. What is PALATR?
I haven’t read the bill in its entirety (and have no plans to), but I can understand an English sentence, despite the poor writing and complexity, and what Stewart read aloud does not lend itself to the interpretation Blonde Chick aka Betsy McCaughey gave it.
The provision in the bill is intended to pay doctors to have end of life discussions with terminal patients. They have to discuss with the patient , hospices, DNRs , living wills, etc. If you think that is a death panel, have at it.
The repubs will not vote for health care reform for political reasons. If the dems get a bill through and it is successful, the repubs are up the creek. They will become a very weak ,dying party. They know damn well it has to be reformed, but they don’t care about that as much as attempting to save the party.
The bill was not rammed through. You want ramming look at what the repubs did with the financial bill. A 700 billion dollar bill jammed through in a flash using scare tactics.
I forgot about the Patients’ Choice Act. They actually had some interesting ideas in that bill (some were fairly similar to HB 3200). It was also a lot easier to read because it was a fraction of the length of the one at issue. But you’re right - there weren’t any figures. It was a lot more conceptual than directional/operational.
The whole thing sucks. I just wish both sides would shut up and fix it.
My girlfriend made me watch Rachel Maddow tonight. Maddow reported that Betsy McCaughey was fired today from the board of the medical supply company where she had been working. I don’t know if she was kicked out or decided to quit, but Cantel Medical says she resigned.
This is how it struck me - just defining an “end of life consult” with a list of subjects that must be covered. I would guess that a doctor won’t get paid unless he hits them all, which I guess prevents abuse of the system where a doctor charges the insurance for a “consult” that consists of “Here, sign this.” Or, conceivably, a doctor who neglects to mention a number of options because he has some vapid religious objection to them.
Similarly, I would guess a doctor can’t get reimbursed for performing an appendectomy in which nobody’s appendix is actually removed.
He said he’s read it but he clearly didn’t master the material. Not that there is something inherently wrong with that I don’t expect him to have mastered it. PALATR, Point And Laugh At The Retard.
Agreed, but he didn’t do a good job of explaining why her interpretation was poor.
I don’t think that’s a death panel, but the reality is UHC MUST be rationed, there are no two ways around it or else if we at some point figure out a way to repair DNA damaged in order to retard the aging process, and can replace any organ by growing it with stem cells in a vat, it becomes merely a matter of how much we are willing to spend on a single person. How would you feel if you knew for a fact that medical science COULD fix you, for certain, but it wasn’t affordable because the nation simply cannot afford to spend millions on every citizen when they get to the age where they need such therapy. Bottom line we are entering an age where it won’t be so much a matter of whether or not we can fix people who are ill, but a matter of the cost to do so. I’m not going to defend the term, ‘death panel’, but I do think it’s ridiculously naive bordering on ignorant to think that we can provide UHC into the 21st century without addressing that issue.
Nah, they can always run on hating the bill that gets passed. This line of reasoning is overwrought IMO. They’ll just find reasons not to like it so they can, ‘I told you so.’, their way back into a bunch of congressional seats.
Agreed, that was rammed through, and not the bill wasn’t rammed through but it was pushed with the same sort of urgency early on. Eventually they gave up on that urgency and we are all better for it.