If we believe the president when he promises there will be no “death panels,” does he lose honesty points when instead the government sends doctors who “counsel” the elderly about their “end of life options”?- Cal Thomas, Boston Herald 09/15/2009Lets gloss over the fact that "death panels" were the invention of... let's just say a certain group of people who oppose health-care reform- I'll address it later.
What if the administration plans to bar illegal immigrants from purchasing health care coverage, but, as The New York Times [NYT] reported, continues to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense? -Cal Thomas, Boston Herald 09/15/2009Apparently, despite the very humanitarian idea that hospitals must render emergency aid to whomever needs it, Mr. Thomas would rather all emergency patients have proof of citizenship before a nurse will let them through the door. You can read the whole disingenuous op-ed piece "No truth to set us free" here.
Well, I'd read about as much as I could stomach when I had to close the paper, until I realized that not only were other people reading it, but that there was a way to comment back to Mr. Thomas- online.
So I posted the following response in the comments section:
It's shocking to me that in an article about trust and disingenuous statements, Mr. Thomas makes so many disingenuous statements himself. Are "death panels" (which are solely the invention of opponents to health-care reform) the same thing as "providing counseling" to people who need it? They are not. The American Medical Association seems to think such counseling is good for people, so a specific benefit was to be included so people could get the counseling.
Is granting illegal immigrants health-care coverage the same as granting them emergency room care? It is not. Do Herald readers really want *anyone* bleeding to death on the doorstep of a hospital because they can't provide ID? So much for Americans being humanitarians.
Lastly, is Mr. Thomas *really* suggesting that the majority of Herald readers are too stupid to see these faults in his disingenuous arguments?
I'm afraid he is. But don't worry, Mr. Thomas, and Boston Herald; those of us who aren't that stupid will be ashamed not only of you, but *for* you.
I know he may never read it, but I do hope someone will, and realize what a bogus opinion Mr Thomas has foisted upon his unsuspecting, and apparently naive, readership. I urge you all reading this to add comments in whatever local paper Mr. Thomas' op-ed piece appears, has he is, for reasons passing understanding, a syndicated columnist.