NYT’s Jim Rutenberg Calls Out Death Panel Liars
It’s days late, but this article from Jim Rutenberg at The New York Times on the “death panel” smear is quite good, and even a strong headline “False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots.” Beyond the headline, the article is solid. In particular, it stays appealingly first-order and just explains that this business isn’t true, who started it, who’s spread it, and what they’re trying to achieve.
The real test, however, goes beyond any one article or one reporter. What can be devastating to a person’s national reputation is when a consistent narrative develops around them as being dishonest or ignorant or what have you. Is Chuck Grassley going to be able to run around Iowa telling outrageous lies about an issue he’s allegedly an expert in and maintain his reputation as a serious, sober-minded, centrist dealmaker? If he is, then there’s really no deterrent force to lying.
35 Responses to “NYT’s Jim Rutenberg Calls Out Death Panel Liars”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
yes he is, and no there isn’t.
and i don’t know how to make it better, other than to encourage grassley’s opponents to actually call him a liar rather than pretend he’s a nice man.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am
What you’re missing is that there will never be a consistent narrative. Fox news will continue to argue that black is white, and “two sides” will be created on this issue. And really, isn’t providing tactical air support for the death panels just the sort of ting you’d expect from the liberal New York Times.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
WHERE THE HELL ARE THE OTHER DEMOCRATS ON FINANCE?!
Isn’t it about time to start pulling the process away from Max Baucus here? When your counterparty is accusing of wanting to set up euthanasia panels, it’s pretty clear he has stopped acting in good faith. And when the guy representing you keeps dealing with that bad faith party, it’s time to get a new negotiator.
These are the Dems on the Finance Committee that aren’t involved in the Baucus Caucus:
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
BILL NELSON, FL
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ
THOMAS CARPER, DE
I’m no expert on parliamentary manuevering, but couldn’t they draft an alternative bill and try to peel away Conrad and/or Bingaman? Or try to lure Olympia Snowe over? Or just threaten to make life very, very difficult for a Finance bill without certain elements?
August 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Grassley’s lying is a shock. My sister once saw a defrocked priest (a former pastor at a church we’d attended when we were kids) at the butchers where he was busy being surly and short-tempered about the service. The same guy who’d once preached sermons on brotherly love and heard our confessions.
Grassley had a long reputation as being a Good Republican. Suddenly, he’s revealed as a craven, lying creep. What a world.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Did Grassley vote for the death panels in the prescription drug bill? That Republican bill had the same call for death panels (aka living wills, end of life planning) as this one does.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am
In a way, this could be a good thing for proponents of the bill. The Dems can say they’ve made this compromise: We’ve stripped out anything that could be construed as fostering “death panels.” Since that’s been the right’s primary objection, we can now act like the non-death-panel bill is a bipartisan, popular effort.
By the way, the story is by Jackie Calmes as well as Jim Rutenberg.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:30 am
only if the Times – now that it has stated it is a lie – follows up by stating that every time someone makes a claim about death panels.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am
The whole “death panel” stuff is steaming horse shit for the most obvious of all reasons: Congress is so fiscally irresponsible it wouldn’t have the balls to say “no” to anybody even if there were death panels.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
While we are talking about accuracy, let’s be sure to credit coauthor Jackie Calmes.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Yes Virginia, there is a death panel.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am
David S. Broder
Oh please.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Holy crap. Pooter242 links to Broder. It’s like a perfect storm of idiocy.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
In the death panel debate, the Republicans who claimed they’re fair and balanced, must be closely examined because it will be apparent that they had their THUMB on the SCALE.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
The concluding sentence of Broder’s article: “And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.”
As opposed to our current system, in which health insurers trying to maximize profits make that decision.
It’s almost as if Broder lacks the capacity for independent critical thinking.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I think you’re missing the point, Edward. Broder’s beef is that the IMAC board would be unelected, whereas the insurance CEO who sits on that company’s Death Panel is elected by the BoD of the company.
Yes, I’m kidding.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Aetna, Humana, UHC and Blue Cross are fully staffed when it comes to deciding life and death.
Families who have been denied care or have no insurance don’t need lectures on the evils of “commissioners” from goldplated plan David Broder.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
If only WaPo’s opinion page had a death panel (figuratively speaking, of course).
August 14th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Yes.
.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Ultimately it’d probably fall to someone at the Des Moines Register to really make a reputation like that stick to Grassley. That’s not just a local Des Moines paper, it’s sort of a regional paper covering much of the lowland midwest. If something like that gets into the Register then it’s more likely to make its way into TV news not only in Des Moines but in the Quad-Cities area along the Iowa/Illinois border and other parts of Iowa and bordering states.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
And meanwhile, all those folks who really are being killed by the healthcare system waste their energy fighting a bill that will improve things because they think it will kill them. Brilliant. Cartoon here.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
What I liked about the NYT’s article is that it focused on the moneyed republicans and not the anti-reform “protesters.” Less sensational; more informative.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Rachel Maddow + 10 days = sensible article in the New York Times
August 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Apparently, this is what a Death Panel does:
I must have missed the part of deciding anything about patients’ course of treatment.
But, still: RUN EVERYBODY! RUN!
August 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
@22 Randy: “Rachel Maddow + 10 days = sensible article in the New York Times”
How true. Like her or hate her she is way ahead of everybody on just about everything.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Last April, in an interview with David Leonhardt of the Times, Obama talked about his grandmother’s decision to have an expensive hip replacement even though she was terminally ill with cancer. Obama admitted that this was a tough cost/quality of life decision and went on (my emphasis):
Is that a “death panel”? Well, the guidance is “not determinative”, but doctors subject to federal rules on licensing, hiring, and billing might be inclined to volunteer to follow the voluntary guidelines.
So as I read this, Obama is expecting the legislative process to produce some sort of independent group that will recommend the tough calls on expensive end-of-life treatment, with an eye towards balancing the patients quality of life against other’s people’s pocketbooks.
After the hue and cry I think Obama’s expectation of such a group appearing in the final bill will not be realized.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I have a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care. I’m glad I do. I drew them up based on publicly available medical information, in consultation with my family and a lawyer. No authority figure got paid by federal bean-counters to influence me. I have a hunch I’m not the only one who would rather do it that way.
By Charles Lane – Washington Post
’nuff said!
August 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Shooter says “yes there are death panels” and links to a Broder column that says nothing of the sort.
What a vile little man he is. There’s no point arguing with a person like shooter. The only practicable option is open abuse. A man so fundamentally dishonest needs to be drummed out of the debate.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
While I assume there will be some quality of life vs money issues, that isn’t all of it. A lot of end of life care reduces quality of life. When a hospital has a dying elderly patient, they can pile on treatment without fear of being sued. Future earnings? None. Pain and suffering? None. I can’t see any lawyer taking a contingency case concerning a dead retiree being put through unnecessary and unproductive medical procedures.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I suppose it’s possible to think that. However, when you look at what he’s actually proposed for this – the IMAC, Broder’s description of which I quoted above – you see that it wouldn’t be involved in making decisions about appropriate treatment for individual cases at all. This talk about a board that looks at a patient’s “productivity” and the cost of treatment, and decides if that patient is going to get that treatment – it’s all just nonsense. There’s nothing remotely similar to that anywhere in any of the bills under consideration.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
[...] airwaves, thanks to his campaign’s enormous fundraising advantage. Then, as now, you had random, stray fact-checks in the media that debunked the lies. But the crucial multiplier was Team Obama’s ability to leverage [...]
August 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
One wonders observing Grassley whether it is more senility than mendacity. He just looks like a stupid, confused old man to me.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
It’s almost as if Broder lacks the capacity for independent critical thinking.
Almost
August 14th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
It would be nice to see more stories about the Medicare fraud that is being cracked down upon. White collar criminals cost a lot of money and provide nothing but unnecessary tests and imaginary services.
August 15th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
MattY said:
“….The real test, however, goes beyond any one article or one reporter. What can be devastating to a person’s national reputation is when a consistent narrative develops around them as being dishonest or ignorant or what have you….”
Agreed.
But an even more important test is the one which results in the media actually ignoring the codswallop spewed by serial liars in the first place so that they can instead report on the truth.
Truth like this.
OK?
.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:08 am
I hate to admit it but I’ve pretty much given up arguing with right wing fundamentalists. It’s like talking to a brick wall but much more irritating and anyway, bricks think better.