The Trib. Again. This Time It's ObamaCare. Again.

A few notes from today's Thursday Wrap:

Uh-oh, don't look now but the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, says it's time to scrap ObamaCare and start over. “Attack the costs first and then worry about expanding coverage,” he told Money Morning. Bottom line: If President Obama has lost the usually ardent support of Mr. Buffett, ObamaCare is a lost cause. [Bolding in original]

Uh-oh, don't look now but the crack research team at the Trib has done it again - or rather failed to do it.  Adequate research, that is.

Take a look at this from the Scaife supported Newsbusters:

When Warren Buffett proposed higher taxes on millionaires in 2011, the media gushed and fawned giving him and his views airtime as if Elvis Presley returned from the dead.

Will they be as fascinating by the Oracle of Omaha stating that ObamaCare should be scrapped? [Emphasis added.]

Before moving on, let's all note the use of the phrase "Oracle of Obama."  Good clue that this was the braintrust's source for their Thursday Wrap blurb.  Anyway, Newsbusters then quotes the Monday Morning piece:

"Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage," he said.

And so on.

So what's the problem?

This is the problem for the Trib.   It's what's posted above the story at Newsbusters:

Executive editor's note: Due to an error made by a secondary source, the piece below incorrectly claimed that Warren Buffett had called for the repeal of Obamacare in 2013. The interview which was cited actually took place in 2010. We regret the error.[Emphasis added.]

In fact, the Money Morning piece that Scaife's own Newsbusters page links to no longer contains that "Attack the costs..." quotation.

So let's sum up.  The Scaife's braintrust at the Trib uses a quote to assert that Warren Buffet thinks that "Obamacare should be scrapped" while another Scaife supported "news" source corrects itself and says that it's piece (one that used the same quotation) was incorrect in saying exactly the same thing.

Oh, and that "Attack the costs..." line was actually from 2010.

If you can't even get this stuff right, then what good are you at all?

Then there's this:

The New York Post reports that under ObamaCare, doctors will be required to ask you “Are you sexually active?” and “If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?” To which any true-blue American should respond, “Tell the president it's none of his (expletive deleted) business.”

What they didn't tell you is that it wasn't a report from the Post, it was a column by Betsy McCaughey.

And as Wonkette points out:

If there’s anyone we can trust for her expertise on health care policy, it’s Betsy McCaughey, the genius who decided that if Medicare pays for seniors to meet with a doctor to discuss living wills, that’s a DEATH PANEL.

And then Mediamatters elaborates:

As Wonkette pointed out, McCaughey offered no evidence for her claims that the ACA changes existing practices. In fact, despite her fearmongering, sexual history questions are routine medical practice. The Centers For Disease Control calls such questions "an important part of a regular medical exam or physical history" and recommends that "[a] sexual history needs to be taken during a patient's initial visit, during routine preventive exams, and when you see signs of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)." In fact, the very questions that McCaughey claims doctors will now be pressured to ask are the exact questions the CDC recommends doctors ask their patients.

In a post on The Incidental Economist, Aaron Carroll, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, accused McCaughey of inventing inaccurate "reasons to dislike Obamacare," pointing out that doctors ask about sexual history "because having multiple sexual partners greatly increases your risk of sexually transmitted infections. They're looking out for my health, and want to advise me best on how to manage it."

It's always amazing to me how Scaife's braintrust can get so much absolutely wrong in such a tiny space.  But once you fully grasp the depth and breadth of their various mendacities, how can you trust anything they have to say?

No Death Panels

Reg Henry starts out his column this morning with:

Today marks the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the Affordable Care Act, if you support it -- or Obamacare, if you don't.

As one who supports the law but is disappointed in one aspect, I have a question: So where are the death panels already?

No death panels are in sight, and some of us are dying to see them implemented. It just goes to show that Big Government can't organize a booze-up in a brewery.

Not that he thinks they're lurking. A few paragraphs later:

Actually, we were told by the critics of health care all sorts of bad things would happen that, in fact, haven't happened.

No Death Panels. Mediamatters has a history of the lie and how it spread and that got me to thinking.

The lie started with Betsy McCaughey (transcript via mediamatters):

And one of the most shocking things I found in this bill, and there were many, is on Page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory -- absolutely require -- that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care. And by the way, the bill expressly says that if you get sick somewhere in that five-year period -- if you get a cancer diagnosis, for example -- you have to go through that session again. All to do what's in society's best interest or your family's best interest and cut your life short. These are such sacred issues of life and death. Government should have nothing to do with this.

Politifact debunked the claim:

Republicans have found many reasons to oppose the Democrats' health care proposal, but this is one of the oddest.

Betsy McCaughey, chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and former lieutenant governor of New York state, says the bill goes too far to encourage senior citizens to end their lives.

On the radio show of former Sen. Fred Thompson on July 16, 2009, McCaughey said "Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."

And their summation:

For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire.

Didn't stop our very own Jerry Bowyer from chiming in. In the video clip Jerry's screaming about Section 1233 of HR 3200. You can find it here. Though you won't find the "death panels" in there.

Never were there in the first place.

Baby Jesus hates health care reform

Via TPM:

C-SPAN Caller: "I have taken my Christmas wreath off my house. I have taken all the lights down," she said. "This is supposed to be a nation under God, and it isn't. They absolutely have ruined Christmas."

[snip]

She also explains that members of Congress are sullying "God's holiday for the birth of his son" and that she opposes the bill so fiercely because its death panel provisions will unleash a "genocide"on seniors.

.

More On Jerry Bowyer's NightTalk Death Panel

Thought I'd spend a little time fact-checking Jerry's NightTalk appearance. First on the so-called "Death Panels."

Jerry, as you may recall, said that Sarah Palin was "sort of onto something" regarding the death panels.

Uh, no. Politifact.org, a fact-checking subsidiary of the St Petersburg Times has found this to be such a huge lie, they use their "Pants on fire" label:

We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether he or she is "worthy" of health care.

Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire ! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctor appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues. These types of appointments are optional, and AARP supports the measure.

The AP has also debunked the "death panel" story, after quoting Governor Palin's description of the "panels" they say:

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes.

But what of the broader questions - are there any "euthanasia" issues" to the bill? The AP has the answers to those questions as well:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required?

Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini - then let me go."

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Not sure where Jerry Bowyer is getting his news on this one - if he has a problem with these facts, he has them with the AP and the St Petersburg Times, not with me. But those are the facts. And spreading anything else is, well, just a lie.