ABC’s Kate Snow, who early on Monday couldn’t find time to show any Republican opposition to a controversial provision in the health care plan relating to end-of-life care, reversed course on World News and briefly highlighted a GOP voice. Congressman Thaddeus McCotter appeared and asserted, "And there should never be any doubt as to whether your end-of-life decisions are influenced by its effect on the United States Treasury."
Snow was filing a piece for Monday’s World News about a section in the House health care bill that reimburse doctors for discussing end-of-life care with their patients every five years. And although the segment was billed as a "fact check" to debunk incorrect claims, this report at least looked into something that her earlier piece on Good Morning America didn’t, Republican opposition.
On Monday, I asked Snow about this on her Twitter page. She justified the absence: "We often cut down pieces to fit time allotted. But always aim to include all pov's. On end of life v impt [sic] to fact check too."
On World News, anchor Charles Gibson began the segment by pronouncing, "A lot of people are clearly upset with what they think, or have been told, or think that they've been told, is in the thousand or so pages of proposed legislation." He suggested that this fact check series would become a semi-regular feature to look into misinformation about health care.
Certainly, there is much liberal misinformation about the health care bill, such as the claim by some journalists that the legislation doesn’t cover abortions. It does. Hopefully, ABC will look into these issues as well.
A transcript of the August 10 segment, which aired at 6:45pm EDT, follows:
CHARLES GIBSON: We are going to take a closer look tonight at the intense and often angry debate over one aspect of health care reform. A lot of people are clearly upset with what they think, or have been told, or think that they've been told, is in the thousand or so pages of proposed legislation. So, tonight we begin an occasional series to fact check what's really in the bills. Tonight, so-called end of life questions for patients and their families. Here's ABC's Kate Snow.
KATE SNOW: The accusations are shocking.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: They’re going to give us classes on euthanasia.
SNOW: Inflammatory-
SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Adolf Hitler called his program the Final Solution. I kind of wonder what we're going to call ours.
SNOW: And often incorrect.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I don't want the government to do it for me.
JOHN ROTHER (Exec VP policy, AARP): Right now it seems that there's an intentional effort to distort what's in the legislation. And that's confusing the public debate.
SNOW: At issue a ten-page section of a thousand page House health care reform bill. It would reimburse a doctor for talking with a patient every five years about what kind of care they want near the end of life. Form Alaska governor Sarah Palin calls this "down right evil." Asserting her parents and child with down syndrome would have to "stand in front of an Obama death panel so his bureaucrats would have to decide whether they're worthy of health care." The facts, the provision would create no such panel. It calls for only a consultation between the individual and a practitioner. So, how did this misinformation start?
BETSY MCCAUGHEY: The vicious assault of elderly people.
SNOW: Former Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey comments spread and seniors asked pointed questions.
[At town hall]
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This is being read as saying every five years you're told how you can die.
BARACK OBAMA: Well, that would be kind of morbid.
SNOW: The facts, the intent of the measure is not for doctors to tell patients what to do but give doctors more incentive to talk to patients about all of their options. In La Crosse, Wisconsin, such end of life consultations are already common.
ANN KOTTNOUR: And by the time we completed it, her health had started to fail more.
SNOW: Ann Kottnour knows her mother Margaret, who has Parkinson's, and some dementia, would rather die at home than in a nursing home.
KOTTNOUR: So we knew from a long time ago that that was her wish.
SNOW: If La Crosse is any example, people do often choose limits on care for their final months. And the fact is that saves money. In La Crosse, medical spending in the final year of life averages $18,000. The national average, $25,000. And those figures are at the crux of an argument against the House bill. That any focus on cost cutting will push people toward decisions to limit care.
THADDEUS MCCOTTER (R-MI): And there should never be any doubt as the whether your end of life decisions are influenced by its effect on the United States Treasury.
SNOW: But again the counter argument for proponents on this measure, and there are republicans among, them say that is a false argument, because these are patient driven consultations. They’d be available to anyone but not mandatory. And patients dictate what they want, not the cost of the procedures.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"We often cut down pieces
August 11, 2009 - 12:09 ET by Chris Norman"We often cut down pieces to fit time allotted"
Curiously, this includes the Republican side of any story and/or any identification by party of a Democrat caught in a scandal.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
no gov pannels
August 11, 2009 - 12:24 ET by wingnut55No government death panels...yet. We all know how the government works. Start small and add as the years go by.
it would be kind of morbid
August 11, 2009 - 12:35 ET by katainkentbut with rationed care it would be necessary. Just ask Rahm Emmanuel's brother. Out of curiousity did Obama deny this or just deflect it. Is there more to that clip?
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
How is discussing your
August 11, 2009 - 12:37 ET by balboaHow is discussing your options becoming "Let's talk about how you can die"? Is that a wild over-simplification?
heh not really
August 11, 2009 - 12:42 ET by katainkentsince my husband was military submariner we've had to keep meticulous care of wills, life/medical planning and life insurance and such. When you engage in these conversations that's pretty much what it comes down to. It's crude but its the truth. But its a conversation I'd rather be paying for myself (with a lawyer/attorney/medical professional) and not having someone else dictate its content.
When we were getting out the military we wanted to get as far away from the govenment decision "nudging" process as possible.
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
Yet I haven't heard Sarah
August 11, 2009 - 13:10 ET by balboaYet I haven't heard Sarah Palin decry that aspect of the military's health care as "evil."
I just think we need to stay away from such extremes when discussing these matters, and anyone, from either side, that doesn't is flat-out not helping at all.
huh?
August 11, 2009 - 13:20 ET by katainkentcould you expound on that a touch more?
the first part - not the second. We've had a discussion on 'tone' control already... that's a dead horse we disagree on.
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
Palin said that these 5-year
August 11, 2009 - 13:25 ET by balboaPalin said that these 5-year meetings to discuss options were evil. Has she said the same thing about the meetings that you and your husband have had to attend re: healthcare from the military?
I opted out actually.
August 11, 2009 - 13:35 ET by katainkentI (we) did not attend the base provided seminars.
And we opted out the the military life insurance. And we went with the lesser of two medical evils and decided on the more expensive tricare plan - we couldn't use them anyway since we're +50 miles from a base now (yay!). As I said far far faaar away. I don't need Palin to provide me with first hand experience with the government run health care to define my position. For the most part it sucked. I won't bore you with anecdotal stories.
As to the rest. Not sure if the Tricare has a post 65+ panel honestly. We haven't reached that stage. If that becomes case we'll drop it for my Primera Blue Cross through my own work. That is, if we still have that choice after this.
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
So you are going to do what
August 11, 2009 - 14:28 ET by bedmondsonSo you are going to do what ever you can to avoid insurance that will pay for you to develop a will? Why just not use that provision in your insurance?
no..
August 11, 2009 - 14:42 ET by katainkent(edit) ah wait I see you're a troll... nevermind I won't waste my breath
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
Perhaps Palin failed to
August 11, 2009 - 13:51 ET by Chris NormanPerhaps Palin failed to mention the military options for the same reason the Democats don't point to the VA as a shining example of what we can expect from government controlled and run health care.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
The helpful media
August 11, 2009 - 12:45 ET by KC MulvilleImagine a courtroom. Right now, the prosecution and defense present their case. But imagine if a news reporter decided to come into the middle of the court, and offered to "explain" to the judge or jury what the two sides are arguing.
But think about it. When the media offers to "fact check" the issues in the healthcare debate, isn't this exactly what they're doing? Instead of allowing all sides to speak for themselves, the media is "helpfully" offering to explain each position to us. Then, of course, they're criticizing the positions in the act of explaining them to us. It's as if someone in the court told the judge that "the defense's idiotic and weak argument is ..."
I've become convinced that the only way to discuss public issues is to get rid of the host. The media is not qualified to present the arguments for both sides. Instead, let both sides have their say, and allow time for cross-examination, and let them present their arguments. But let them do it by themselves.
The moment the media tries to present different points of view, instead of just allowing the people to speak for themselves, they distort the debate to the point of defeat.
Bravo......
August 11, 2009 - 13:08 ET by pantrymanBravo, KC...well said, well done !!
Of course it was a "fact
August 11, 2009 - 13:05 ET by mattmOf course it was a "fact check" story. I wonder if they'd do a fact check with Obama and ask him to produce this non-existent health plan of his that he keeps referring to. There IS NO Obama plan - just a House Bill and a Senate version of it - which few of them even read.
But then we can't expect Obama to produce documentation that doesn't exist, now can we?
SNOW: The facts, the
August 11, 2009 - 13:10 ET by Jack BauerAnd what would that "incentive" be? Oh yes. MONEY.
So the Doctor is being paid by the government for every death chat just to remind the victim, I mean patient, that maybe it's time to END IT ALL.
Who knows, maybe the Doctor could eventually get a bonus based on outcome.
Soylent Green is... Obamacare: DEATH FOR CLUNKERS.
Another brick in the building of the culture of death...
August 11, 2009 - 13:55 ET by Chris NormanI can picture Dr. Kevorkian hovering overhead, laughing softly in approval...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris -- funny you should
August 11, 2009 - 14:03 ET by Jack BauerChris -- funny you should mention Dr Death. The liberal democrat Wash Post journalist who decided to read the damn bill, was astounded to find that HE AGREED with conservatives on many issues.
Including the death panel. He asked sarcastically who would be on that panel, Dr. K?
Jack, Funny, isn't it,
August 11, 2009 - 14:09 ET by Chris NormanJack,
Funny, isn't it, how many liberals support these things in theory, but when (and if) they read the details... Did he get past the realities of the bill and stay a good little liberal soldier in favor of it?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Liberals don't support the
August 11, 2009 - 14:30 ET by bedmondsonLiberals don't support the creation of wills? Did not know that.
If you're going to comment
August 11, 2009 - 14:37 ET by Chris NormanEven if you're a troll, when making a silly comment via a reply, at the very least, make it apply to what the comment was about.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
You see, this is why I
August 11, 2009 - 17:44 ET by bedmondsonYou see, this is why I troll. It really gets to the truth. You (and probably most others here) don't even realize that "decisions on end of life care" is drafted in a will. When you create a legally binding will, it includes your end of life wishes. Thank you.
Bawahahaha!
August 11, 2009 - 17:47 ET by BlondeYou, sir, are an idiot.
I hope he fails, too.
Why do you immediately
August 11, 2009 - 14:41 ET by balboaWhy do you immediately assume "end it all"?
President Obama promises
August 11, 2009 - 13:36 ET by Jack BauerPresident Obama promises little girl he is not in favor of Death Panels who could pull plug on grandma...
Doesn't rule out BUS option. Doesn't say who DOES favor Death Panels. I think Rahm and Easikill Emanuel wouldn't mind so much.
Oh -- is Sarah Palin GREAT or what. She invents phrase, and three days later forces the President to go out on a limb in saying he's against DEATH PANELS.
The Democrats are on the run. Seriously. Republicans, try not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.