Critics of comparative effectiveness research, which the government has been funding for decades, claim that it will lead to treatment being approved or denied based on costs. Proponents say it will improve the quality of care and can, in some cases, show that more costly treatments aren't as effective as less expensive alternatives.
We can't predict what will happen in the future, but we can say that several claims being made about the impact of ...
Full Story »
Certainly the best coverage I have seen to date of the controversy that Betsy McCaughey stirred on February 9, 2009 when she challenged language in the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In her Bloomberg piece, McCaughey voiced fears that the language of the bill would foster the creation of an intrusive federal bureaucracy that would negatively impact healthcare in America. A thorough examination of the final bill reveals that McCaughey's initial concerns, while overstated, did result in much needed clarifications that will at least partially safeguard the patient/doctor relationship as we move towards the creation of a national healthcare system. McCaughey has written a follow-up to the ... More »
I interviewed Betsy McCaughey on February 19, 2009. I had expected to discover that she might indeed be as she has been described--a Republican ideologue intent on sabotaging any attempt to create a national healthcare system. I was relieved to discover that she is a registered Democrat, that she favors the creation of a well-designed national healthcare system--perhaps modeled on the French system--and that she is an extremely knowledgable woman dedicated to improving healthcare ... More »
As FactCheck.org makes crystal-clear, McCaughey is up to her old tricks — misrepresenting health-care reform in a way that provides fodder to conservative critics. Given her track record, McCaughey's Bloomberg commentary never should have been taken seriously in the first place.
Much of this was brought out weeks ago by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters, which I have added to the Links. And it gets worse. Though FactCheck doesn't note this, McCaughey's think tank, the Hudson Institute, receives considerable funding from the pharmeceutical industry. In Links.
“[S]he gets some facts wrong, and often gives the incorrect impression that her view of what the bill could mean is what the bill actually says…. But ... More »
Excellent reporting on claims made by Betsy McCaughey and Rep. Tom Price about health care provisions of the new stimulus law passed by Congress. The author provides a detailed analysis of these claims, and debunks them one by one, based on extensive factual evidence from multiple, credible sources.
Kudos to NewsTrust editors Walter Cox, Mike La Bonte, Beth Wellington, Marsha Iverson, Dan Kennedy, Jim Lang and Dale Penn, for diligently researching this story over the past few weeks, reviewing multiple stories from opposing viewpoints, to help us reach an informed conclusion on this topic. This FactCheck article summarizes effectively what we think is a reasonable conclusion on this issue.
I am so glad FactCheck.org took a hard look at the claims made by some during the stimulus bill debate. This is thorough, factual and unbiased reporting, and an important addition to the legacy of the stories that prompted it.
I must admit that I jumped the gun when I read the original article by Betsy McCaughey and called it a "hit piece," but perhaps my overstating this opinion caused us to delve deeper into understanding where she was coming from. Ironic, no?
With tons of sources, this article exhaustively analyzes controversial claims regarding the new stimulus bill. Well linked, and very fair in that McCaughey was interviewed to explain her position.
I was one of the people who asked FactCheck to investigate this, because I could not corroborate McCaughey's claims even after looking at the stimulus bill pages she cited. FactCheck went further and got the loose rationale McCaughey was using directly from the author. Not bad.
FactCheck does its usual excellent job of debunking false claims -- this time scare stories concerning the health care related provisions in the stimulus bill.
Impeccably sourced. Extremely fair. Based solely on explaining facts and clarifying which statements are inaccurate or simply opinion. This investigative analysis gets to the core of what this debate is — and it is not what Betsy McCaughey says it is.
Each person is entitled to his or her opinion. However, intentionally creating deception, fear or confusion around an issue is unethical. I would like to know what McCaughey's agenda is, and whose interests she is really serving.
A good report that clarifies what is in the bill and what is bull. You can't argue with Rush. You can't argue with Hannity. Why try arguing with this conservative who will twist and turn words in a way only the less educated, who are their base, will understand.
I'm not knocking the less educated, they work hard, go to church and pay their taxes. But when people like Rush start yelling about taking their guns, that's all they hear.
I always like FactCheck's fromat; the ways it breaks down the story with headings and such. I partucularly like how it refutes--pooni-by-point--thew quotes by McCaughey & Price.
Factually organized and sourced, debunking yet again Ms. McCaughly and her intentional misrepresentations. Fact Check's does a very good job when they put effort into a piece. At some point I hope ther efforts are applied evenly to both sides of the aisle.
Fact check is capabale of doing great work, they do however have a history of slanting to one side by omission of information. This is not the case in this report. The reality is, the current Private Pay health care system already systemetically allows and disallows covereages and selection of treatments as well as physicians used.
I think the earlier Media Matters report (thanks to Dan Kennedy) gives a better image of the lack of journalistic checking of facts on the part of Fox, Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal, as they echoed the erroneous claims with great outrage. The Fox video link there shows the nature of the beast if you know the distortion in the claim.
The wikipedia info on Betsy McCaughey_Ross shows her rather bizarre path through politics, including earlier attacks on the Clinton health care proposals.
This is not a fun read, but it is quality research and reporting. Its focus remains on the ball, so broader perspectives are omitted. It excels in thoroughness - you couldn't ask for more - yet it is well-organized enough to give plenty of information to a skimmer, not just to a reader.
FactCheck has done its job. It's on us, now, to pick up what they've said and convey it to the public - since hardly anyone is likely to plow through the entire report. Healthcare is a particularly vulnerable area for extremists to sow fear through misinformation. There are no simple issues, fact or policy, in healthcare. Only a patient and thorough effort across a wide range of sources can yield a fair assessment of any healthcare fact analysis or policy proposal. This is ... More »
This is naive journalism. Th authors don't understand that the stimulus bill does indeed provide sufficient legislative authority to allow centralized control of medical care to be established via regulation.
Clearly the Obama administation wants to nationalize medical practice and they are using a stealth approach with plausible deniability just as Daschle proposed in his book.
Retrieving Comments
