The Trials, and Response, of Zeke Emanuel

It's a fine piece, Michael. Good of you to explain how and where these lies were hatched. The question is why this woman gets a national platform. It's the right-leaning media, of course.

This was good:

The health-care bill that recently passed the House does not contain, as some have suggested, any provisions that would deny treatment to the elderly, infirm or disabled like Sola's son. One provision allows doctors to be reimbursed for voluntary discussions of so-called "living wills" with patients, but does not in any way threaten to deny treatment to dying patients against their will.

More of that, please.

This was a good and timely article. Dr. Emanuel sounds like a very interesting, likable, and enormously talented person. The only quibble I have is that you referred to Betsy McCaughey as a "scholar". No one who uses lies and distortions to boost their career deserves to be called a scholar. She also wrote one of the most dishonest reviews of the Clinton health plan.

Thank you for a fine and unfortunately important bit of reporting. The distrust of science and academia, of course has a long and sordid history, It's rare and tragic that it can reach the fevered pitch we find today.

The only thing I would have done different is add 1 additional paragraph explaining what a living will is and why they are important in averting tragedy, not hastening it.

What a pity that Skip Gates wasn't arrested this last week, so we could see side by side the spectacle of the right wing defending citizens screaming at their elected representatives, while primly applauding a man being arrested for disturbing the peace in his own home.

On a totally unrelated technical note, while Swampland works fine under IE, since 5PM yesterday my browser of choice - Avant - gets redirected to the time-mobile page.

Please inforn the HS's.

No post on Obama's town hall yesterday?

Paul, I'm sure you've seen this but there was extensive reporting in the Guardian this morning about the distortions - sorry, lies - being spread about the NHS. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs-united-states-republican-health.

Unfortunately, it appears that the US is demonstrating that, Obama's election notwithstanding, it is as ignorant a place as we had all imagined during the tail end of the Clinton era and the Bush II reign.

I would also add, and this is something that I haven't seen discussed anywhere in any great detail, that in the UK we have:

- free schooling up to the age of 18
- virtually free university (not limited to your local uni) with student loans etc to top up. I came out of 4 years of university with about a £10000 debt which was really just down to my own personal extravagance, i.e. not really required.
- free healthcare at the point of service
- NO road tolls (i.e. repair and maintenance of roads is done through taxes)
- very low property taxes compared to the US (as I understand it). The equivalent here is the Council tax which, depending on your local government authority, is about £150 a month per household.

The upper tax rate here is 40% (which kicks in around the £30,000 a year mark), which I think is only about 4% higher than the tax rate in the US; on my (admittedly good) salary, the lower tax rate would result in about £5,000 a year annual savings.

£5,000 a year to me is a pretty good price to pay for those additional things listed above that the UK government pays for and the US government does not.

Here's a story for you, Michael.

Tell me why a guy can carry a gun to Obama's town hall while holding a sign referencing the Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (2009) and he's free to walk around giving interviews to MSNBC, someone can drop their loaded gun in another town hall meeting in Arizona (2009), when just a few years ago Denver Man Sues Secret Service for Arrest After He Criticized Cheney on Iraq War(2006) and Man Arrested After Refusing to Remove Anti-War Shirt in Mall(2003). And then this Arrested Bush dissenters look to the courts(2006). That's not all, of course, teh google is full of news stories about people getting arrested for anti-bush bumper stickers and the like. Where were these freaks? I'll tell you. They were cheerleading the police and Secret Service for doing it. Writing OpEds in support of jailing these people. In short, crickets.

Of course, I know you'd never touch a story like that.

It's a good piece evaluating the honest and accurate side of a highly contentious issue.

The remaining question is this: When will the media confront the liars with the demonstrable truth, and report whether they are (a) willing to walk back their unsupportable claims, (b) unable to grasp reality, or (c) uninterested in the truth if it undercuts their demagoguery or their financial self-interest?

Why are you not addressing this issue in equal depth with the public figures who are consistently, and without any basis in reality, scaring the hell out of millions of Americans? The health-care liars need to be held up to the same degree of scrutiny, at least, as the marital liars that fill the media.

Thanks for this piece, Michael Scherer.

Incredibly, it seems that there aren't always two equal sides in a public debate over matters of fact.
.
There's also plenty of food for further thought, e.g. ""How does the Chief of Staff's brother end up with a paid policy position...isn't that a bit third-world?", "In what discipline exactly is Betsy McCaughey a 'conservative scholar'...in her case, is there a practical difference between 'scholar' and 'propagandist'?" or "When mainstream journalists complain about lies and overblown distortions 'a-buzzing' around the internet, we've always assumed that they meant those awful, unprofessional, parasitic bloggers...can we now assume that they're referencing opinion pieces by conservative scholars in high-circulation newspapers?".
.
Seriously, thank you so much for not doing He Said/She Said this time, Michael Scherer. It really does make for better quality journalism, no matter for whom the hard conclusions on matters of fact turn out to be inconvenient.

MS: I am one of your biggest critics here, and will be one of the first to thank you for having provided a well-written story regarding this situation. I look forward to more good journalism from you. Please?

Kudos.

When will the media confront the liars with the demonstrable truth
.
I avoid cable TeeVee like the plague but I did catch about 5 minutes of CNN in the bank yesterday. The whole thing reminded me of what would happen if someone farted in an elevator.

Everybody knows but no one can say a word.

This more like it.

I think this story is not so good. The information is out there for it to be a good story, but here is what I think is wrong with it:
1. In the top of the story you make it appear as though the "death panels" story in the Post wrote itself. That McCaughey both wrote it but was busted in the 1990's lying about the Clinton health care plan is extremely important contextual information that is either buried at the end or omitted. You don't respect your readers enough to tell them McCaughey has been lying about health care since at least 1993. Instead she is a "scholar".
2. You call the people lying about Emmanuel a "narrow slice of Americans who not only don't trust government, but also have come to regard it as a dark conspirator in their lives." you mention Bachmann and Palin, who last time I checked was a governor and ran for VP. You could include Prez candidate Gingrich, GOP leaders Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, and about 100 Republican Congressman as those who have lied about this. Not so "narrow slice" is it? By playing footsie with what is a rather large and sophisticated movement devoted to lying about health care for bald, partisan gain, you show your further lack of respect for not only your readers but your position where you can be an arbiter of truth. There are dozens if not hundreds of well known people you should be shaming for lying, and instead you make the story a case of a few bad actors. Why?

Good stuff, Mr. Scherer.

Very good reporting - a pleasure to read. I love Ezekiel's "I am an Emanuel" line. It reminds me of Frank telling Ziggy: "You're a Sobotka!"

Thanks for a good piece. MS.

I am struck by the fact that US interests in health care think that it is okay to bad mouth the Canadian and British systems with often dishonest and demeaning commentary. We may have some of the best brainics in the world but we sure have a more than a fair share of ignoramuses.

Thank you for writing this with two caveats:
In one paragraph you describe, accurately, I would assert, "that there is a narrow slice of Americans who not only don't trust government...". In another you assert that we are in a "country in which trust is in short supply." That is the narrative being driven by health care industry lobbyists and repeated by representatives of the media. Even if it is false or based upon falsehoods, it could become a self fulfilling prophesy. Do you really want to contribute to that?
Second, I wish you would spend some time explaining to people what a normal legislative process looks like when the topic of the legislation is as complicated as this, rather than repeating the mantra that Administration is partially to blame for the hysteria because they are allegedly being "vague".
Many took great exception to the power the executive wielded in the past eight years. That this administration appears to be attempting to restore some balance between the executive and legislative branches may not be the stuff of sound bites, but it is, I think a compelling and important matter for people to try to understand. That's where you and your colleagues might come in.

Well, this article proves the old saying, that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. MS proves he can be a good reporter but 99% of the time chooses to be a republican stenographer. My only quibble is that conservative scholar is a complete oxymoron.

Why do people assume that if Time says these are lies, that is the definitive truth? Read what Emmanuel wrote back in 96:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

Excellent piece and very informative. There are two sides to every debate, but it seems to me many members of the media only want to look at one side that is horribly skewed by people twisting comments and putting them out of context to get them to say what they want them to say.