8.26.09 @ 6:05AM
A letter from Betsy McCaughey to the New York Times
correcting its inaccurate reports of her positions on health care
reform.
This is a letter from Betsy McCaughey to the New York
Times protesting its inaccurate reports of her positions on
health care reform as stated by her publicly, at
least
twice in The American Spectator, and elsewhere. As
the Times has thus far neglected to publish two of her
letters to its correspondence column, we publish it here to set
the record straight on what she has said.
Dear Editor:
Re: "Words and Meaning" (August
22) and "False Death Panel Rumor" (August
14). Both articles misrepresent my views and, worse, fail to
inform the public about why the House health bill (H.R. 3200) is
coercive to seniors. I support helping the uninsured gain
coverage, but a provision in the bill would use Medicare
reimbursement policy to force seniors to undergo the kind of end
of life consultation government deems appropriate, whether the
patient and family want it or not. Last week, the Senate Finance
Committee realized how wrong this would be and ripped a similar
provision from their health bill draft.
The August 14 article claims that the legislation "simply aims to
provide Medicare coverage for once-every five year conversations
with doctors" over end of life care. Wrong. The bill prescribes
what must be covered in the consultation (pages 425-30), a matter
that should be left to patients and doctors. Worse still, the
legislation states that the Medicare system will rate a doctor's
"quality" and adjust reimbursement based on the percentage of the
doctor's patients who create living wills and the percentage who
adhere to them (p. 432). Paying doctors for consultations is
fine. Penalizing them based on their patients' choices is wrong.
The "adhere to" part is especially dangerous. Some people say
"they'd never want to be on a ventilator," but when the time
comes, they choose it over death. Under the House bill, doctors
would incur penalties when families don't adhere to end of life
plans -- a horrible conflict of interest.
As a patient advocate, I see these difficult situations and know
that government should not be involved. As you can see, my
concerns are unrelated to and do not mention "death panels." Your
"Words and Meaning" column incorrectly identifies me as a
"proponent of the 'death panels'" interpretation. Even Jon
Stewart made it clear I had not made such a claim.
Betsy McCaughey
Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
P.S. To the public editor and staff, the August 22 article also
incorrectly claims that I am a Republican.
