I’m getting used to the tactics McCaughey deploys in situations like this: heavy-duty pretense that she supports health care reform, the Palin-esque answer-a-question-with-an-answer-to-a-question-of-her-liking technique, the ability to quickly provide information and opinion that’s completely beside the point, et cetera. Unfortunately, Ratigan wanted to have a discussion on health care competition and cost containment, and that didn’t dovetail too well with what McCaughey prefers to do in such a debate: set aside all substantive issues so that she can fearmonger about seniors being killed by the government.
McCaughey did her best, though, defaulting to the secondary position of insisting that there wasn’t enough tort reform in the bill. Ratigan was quick to point out that as a cost-containment measure, tort reform would be a spectacularly insignificant one: “Why would you start with tort reform when you have an aniti-trust exemption for insurance companies?” Weiner attempted to inject actual facts, noting that the CBO determined that eliminating 30 percent of all tort claims would yield marginal savings of .04 percent, because most of the states already cap tort claims.
And so, McCaughey just unleashed her SENIOR CITIZEN HEALTH CARE APOCALYPSE nonsense, accusing Weiner of being ignorant and telling Ratigan that he wasn’t a “fair moderator,” to which Ratigan replied, “Well, you’re not a fair answerer.” Ratigan gamely attempted to get McCaughey to reconcile how she’d continue to provide the current level of unsustainable funding to Medicare without updating the system to address its inefficiencies, to no avail.
And if you want more debate between Betsy “Death Panel” McCaughey and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) here is one they held the previous day.
Healthcare Reform Debate with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Dr. Betsy McCaughey, Health Policy Expert, Patient Advocate and former Lieutenant Governor of New York (1995-1998) more at www.dl21c.org