This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I rewrote the No Exit paragraph and dropped this:
I know the misuse of the "Cassandra" metaphor is rampant that I am never going to make a difference here, but nonetheless: In classical literature, Cassandra had the gift of prophecy and the curse of not being believed by anyone. Thus, when she forecast something awful (such as the murder of Agamemnon), her warnings would be disregarded and the catastrophe would happen. The McCaughey article was, if anything, the inverse of a Cassandra warning: she predicted that the Clinton health plan, if enacted, would be a disaster (denied by the plan supporters) but her warning was a key factor in the plan's defeat. Ellsworth 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Her 1993 attack on the Clinton healthcare plan was likely a major factor in the initially-popular bill's defeat in Congress." Seriously, you have got to be kidding. Can we delete this until someone comes up with a reputable source? This sounds like egomania.
DickClarkMises and I have been going back and forth on whether to highlight just how controversial this individual is. Pulitzer prize winning reporters and several academics have impugned the validity of her claims; it is very important that readers do not confuse her point of view as being as equally valid as those with reputations as experts health policy. I have adjusted my edits to account for DickClarkMises' complaints but he has been summarily undoing my edits without trying to retain the essential points. Can we get someone to adjudicate? Healthcaretruthteller ( talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I find this so-called bio of her an attempt by certain contributors to rebut her and to portray her in a unfavorable way than to explain her views and positions in a neutral or fair manner. Hence it reads as a political polemic (as unfortunately many articles are on this site.) There are many examples of this throughout the article. Many of the sourced articles are themselves polemical attacks on her such as the No Exit article used to point out that McCaughey's mother was an alcoholic.
The No Exit article from the New Republic makes no pretense at being fair or objective calling her "the most irresponsible, dishonest, and destructive players on the public stage." This may be a true statement or not, but it is definitely a hyperbolic statement motiviated by the politics of the writer more than anything else, thereby making The No Exit article a questionable source.
Readers see No Exit article sourced continually throughout to rebut and to make ad hominem attacks on the subject of this biography. I saw this same ad hominen tactic used in the article on Lone Star Dietz when there are biographies of him that do not concur with the sourced material used in that article.
Interestingly in the comments sections of The New Republic article is this shameful lunatic comment from one of the No Exit readers, "I happened to catch her appearance on The Daily Show and I have to stress that this woman's unbelievable dishonesty had me frothing at the mouth. I kept hoping Stewart would vault the desk and throttle her until her evil was extinguished forever. People like this woman amaze me. Mccaughey's utter lack of regard for truth and her unwavering desire to prevent "real" change that benefits all people ... and, not those with the money to influence legislation ... is so apparent it drips from her zeal. It also amazes me that this woman is completely blind to the damage she is doing to our society and country. She doesn't deserve the life she has and if it weren't for her supposed "good looks" and the tits to match, she wouldn't be anything more than a lunatic. - pburton16"
How can Michelle Cottle's article in any sense be seen legitimate source material when it provokes such violent passions as those of pburton16 who wants McCaughey beatened and claims she does not deserve to live?
Hate is hate, and hate is not neutral. Articles such as Cottle's are written to provoke dislike or hatred of the target and are in the strictest sense propagandistic. Hence, they can not be considered legitimate (Neutral) sources.
I believe this article is a violation of Neutral Point of View policy and attempt to discount her works and it does take sides as most of the so-called sources are themselves attempts to do so. There are also very few articles in this bio used as sources that support her positions and views.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.127.181 ( talk) 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"How can Michelle Cottle's article in any sense be seen legitimate source material when it provokes such violent passions as those of pburton16 who wants McCaughey beatened and claims she does not deserve to live?" What's the logical fallacy here? Avocats ( talk) 06:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this bio was listed at the BLP board or how I ended up here, but this bio seems to be getting pretty bloated with questionably noteworthy material/criticism and "qualifiers" sprinkler throughout. I trimmed a little but this could use a serious review it seems. Maybe its just me as usuall :). Cheers! -- Tom (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Fellow contributors, notable criticisms specifically directed at McCaughey may be useful in constructing this article. However, please note that the manner of their presentation is important. We should not take sides in a dispute, declaring that one side was "right" and the other "wrong," even if one side is a majority view. Please note that the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons states that Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. ...Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. DickClarkMises ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I assure you, I am not being "needlessly obtuse" I am attempting to ensure I comprehend your meaning. Do you, or do you not, think that the subject should confess to making false statements before we place any content wherein a reliable source states the subject did make false statements? Its a yes or no question. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not write this; I restored after removal by DCM with complaints of BLP violations, which these are clearly not. Page blanking, in whole or in part, is vandalism. We shall presume he did not intend such. As he now has amended his complaint to "unsupported by cites" (although inaccurately calling the content "my" content) I have placed the removed bit here for examination, vetting, and hopefully improvement.
In October 2007, Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani's health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow David Gratzer—identified as the source of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" repeated by Giuliani for three months and then in a radio ad attacking Democratic health care reform proposals as "socialized medicine" [1]—cited the NCPA's Goodman and McCaughey's NCPA Brief Analysis as other "experts" using his method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics.
[2] The Washington Post and [[FactCheck |blp=yes|FactCheck.org]] consulted cancer experts and statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's claims and called calculations such as those by Goodman, Gratzer, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do" for which "you would get an F in epidemiology." [3]
Following a September 2007 McCaughey Wall Street Journal op-ed column attacking the American Cancer Society's Access to Care initiative, [4] libertarian economist John Goodman, co-founder and president of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), asked McCaughey to expand her op-ed into a NCPA Brief Analysis [5] giving her calculations of cancer "survival rates" from a NBER Working Paper by Republican free-market economist June O'Neill [6] and McCaughey's analysis of a Lancet Oncology article comparing estimated five-year relative survival rates for sixteen types of cancer in parts of Europe and the United States. [7]
In October 2007, Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani's health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow David Gratzer—identified as the source of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" repeated by Giuliani for three months and then in a radio ad attacking Democratic health care reform proposals as "socialized medicine" [8]—cited the NCPA's Goodman and McCaughey's NCPA Brief Analysis as other "experts" using his method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics. [9] The Washington Post and FactCheck.org consulted cancer experts and statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's claims and called calculations such as those by Goodman, Gratzer, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do" for which "you would get an F in epidemiology." [10]
Discussion here, please. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
McCaughey's notoriety fifteen years ago—and today—is due to conservative media, conservative think tanks and Republican politicians not treating her as a
pundit, but instead treating her as a health care
expert and
scholar, and treating her opinions as facts.
The updated "selection" of McCaughey's writings cited in "Opinion columnist" section are all of McCaughey's published work from 1989 through August 1994.
McCaughey's entire (relatively limited) published work prior to her 1994 TNR article "No Exit" is cited to:
The 2007 use of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" by
Rudy Giuliani and
David Gratzer during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign was the most widely-covered extended episode of
scaremongering about "
socialized medicine" since McCaughey's 1994 "No Exit" scaremongering about "socialized medicine"—until McCaughey's 2009 scaremongering about "socialized medicine."
apparently referencing NBER Working Paper 15213 Low life expectancy in the United States: Is the health care system at fault? [26] by University of Pennsylvania Professor of Demography and Sociology Samuel H. Preston and University of Pennsylvania undergraduate student Jessica Y. Ho, the title page of which says:Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else.
This research was supported by the U.S. Social Security Administration through grant #10-M-98363-1-01 to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the SSA Retirement Research Consortium. The findings and conclusions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of SSA, any agency of the Federal Government, or the NBER.
Apatens ( talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
References
I'd like Apatens to explain here why it's important to point out that her experience as an 18th century historian was critical in her obtaining primary source documents, such as a draft of a health care reform plan. Any one in politics who isn't an idiot knows the importance of using primary sources, or in other words, reading the actual bill. I'll keep striking the following portion in bold till Apatens provides an adequate reason to keep it.
"McCaughey, skeptical of what had been reported about the Clinton health plan and accustomed as an 18th century historian to using primary sources,[24] asked for and received a copy of the draft health care reform plan from the office of U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA) the following week.[25]"
-- Waxsin ( talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The article currently does not cite any source for her DOB. The NYT article [27] gives a different DOB than that currently mentioned in the article. Accordingly I am deleting the DOB from the article until a source can be cited. In any event it might be better just to leave the day and month out of the article entirely, for reasons of privacy. Moreover, the article quotes Tom Wolfe saying that in 1994, McCaughey was "a 35-year-old Cinderella". I guess Wolfe underestimated her age by a decade, but it's confusing to leave that quote in the article without some kind of note mentioning the error. -- Citefixer1965 ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
With this debate being a hot topic with americans, I think caution should be taken in any language in this section. I can already see POV language creeping in such as "the Pulitzer prize winning fact check site" which is attempting to lend authority through language to Politifact. "fact-check site" would have sufficed here. Max.inglis ( talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a consistent problem on wikipedia, please people, follow the links to sources. The main quote on the opening section claims that she stepped down out of humiliation? That is int he article! Does that not raise any red flags? The link is from an obscure website called Thaindian news which itself includes this highly professional statment: "Host Jon Stewart was quite aggressive on his stance thereby proving McCaughey a complete mis-informer," and the site has google ads.
In any event, has this been confirmed by a reputable news sources? Of course not, because obviously she wouldn't announce she was stepping down out of humiliation, and if we are to post that speculation on A ENCYCLOPEDIA article, it should at least come from a serious authority, not just some random opinion. 173.34.42.113 ( talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The section of Betsy McCaughey's Commentary on 2009 Health Reform contains the following sentences:
Sarah Palin said that Emanuel's philosophy was "downright evil" and tied it to a health care reform end of life counseling provision she claimed would create a " death panel". [1] [2] [3] [4] The nonpartisan Politifact.com Web site described this claim as a "ridiculous falsehood." [5] [6] [7] [8]
None of this has anything to do with Ms. McCaughey and should be removed. That Ms. Palin and Ms. McCaughey share the same views of the 2009 healthcare reforms is irrelevant and OR, the only connection (aside from some editorials connecting the two) is the fact that Michele Bachmann mentions McCaughey and Palin mentions Bachmann. Sticking the two together here is obvious OR and I am going to remove these statements. Bonewah ( talk) 16:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not OR if the sources describe the connection. If you still feel that Palin's comments don't belong, that's fine, but if you remove them again, please do not also remove material like Politifact directly responding to McCaughey's claims.
Gamaliel (
talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
References
This article was a bit of a mess - evidently a few editors have been adding as much negative stuff on Betsy McCaughey to this article as they can, especially about her commentary on the Affordable Care Act. I would hardly suggest that criticism doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but this was not very well done:
I tried to remove as much of this stuff as I could, to make the article more unbiased and less coatrack-y. I also tried to streamline the wording in general, to make the article more readable. Korny O'Near ( talk) 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archives.timesunion.com/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5749882{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archives.timesunion.com/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5736721When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I rewrote the No Exit paragraph and dropped this:
I know the misuse of the "Cassandra" metaphor is rampant that I am never going to make a difference here, but nonetheless: In classical literature, Cassandra had the gift of prophecy and the curse of not being believed by anyone. Thus, when she forecast something awful (such as the murder of Agamemnon), her warnings would be disregarded and the catastrophe would happen. The McCaughey article was, if anything, the inverse of a Cassandra warning: she predicted that the Clinton health plan, if enacted, would be a disaster (denied by the plan supporters) but her warning was a key factor in the plan's defeat. Ellsworth 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Her 1993 attack on the Clinton healthcare plan was likely a major factor in the initially-popular bill's defeat in Congress." Seriously, you have got to be kidding. Can we delete this until someone comes up with a reputable source? This sounds like egomania.
DickClarkMises and I have been going back and forth on whether to highlight just how controversial this individual is. Pulitzer prize winning reporters and several academics have impugned the validity of her claims; it is very important that readers do not confuse her point of view as being as equally valid as those with reputations as experts health policy. I have adjusted my edits to account for DickClarkMises' complaints but he has been summarily undoing my edits without trying to retain the essential points. Can we get someone to adjudicate? Healthcaretruthteller ( talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I find this so-called bio of her an attempt by certain contributors to rebut her and to portray her in a unfavorable way than to explain her views and positions in a neutral or fair manner. Hence it reads as a political polemic (as unfortunately many articles are on this site.) There are many examples of this throughout the article. Many of the sourced articles are themselves polemical attacks on her such as the No Exit article used to point out that McCaughey's mother was an alcoholic.
The No Exit article from the New Republic makes no pretense at being fair or objective calling her "the most irresponsible, dishonest, and destructive players on the public stage." This may be a true statement or not, but it is definitely a hyperbolic statement motiviated by the politics of the writer more than anything else, thereby making The No Exit article a questionable source.
Readers see No Exit article sourced continually throughout to rebut and to make ad hominem attacks on the subject of this biography. I saw this same ad hominen tactic used in the article on Lone Star Dietz when there are biographies of him that do not concur with the sourced material used in that article.
Interestingly in the comments sections of The New Republic article is this shameful lunatic comment from one of the No Exit readers, "I happened to catch her appearance on The Daily Show and I have to stress that this woman's unbelievable dishonesty had me frothing at the mouth. I kept hoping Stewart would vault the desk and throttle her until her evil was extinguished forever. People like this woman amaze me. Mccaughey's utter lack of regard for truth and her unwavering desire to prevent "real" change that benefits all people ... and, not those with the money to influence legislation ... is so apparent it drips from her zeal. It also amazes me that this woman is completely blind to the damage she is doing to our society and country. She doesn't deserve the life she has and if it weren't for her supposed "good looks" and the tits to match, she wouldn't be anything more than a lunatic. - pburton16"
How can Michelle Cottle's article in any sense be seen legitimate source material when it provokes such violent passions as those of pburton16 who wants McCaughey beatened and claims she does not deserve to live?
Hate is hate, and hate is not neutral. Articles such as Cottle's are written to provoke dislike or hatred of the target and are in the strictest sense propagandistic. Hence, they can not be considered legitimate (Neutral) sources.
I believe this article is a violation of Neutral Point of View policy and attempt to discount her works and it does take sides as most of the so-called sources are themselves attempts to do so. There are also very few articles in this bio used as sources that support her positions and views.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.127.181 ( talk) 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"How can Michelle Cottle's article in any sense be seen legitimate source material when it provokes such violent passions as those of pburton16 who wants McCaughey beatened and claims she does not deserve to live?" What's the logical fallacy here? Avocats ( talk) 06:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this bio was listed at the BLP board or how I ended up here, but this bio seems to be getting pretty bloated with questionably noteworthy material/criticism and "qualifiers" sprinkler throughout. I trimmed a little but this could use a serious review it seems. Maybe its just me as usuall :). Cheers! -- Tom (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Fellow contributors, notable criticisms specifically directed at McCaughey may be useful in constructing this article. However, please note that the manner of their presentation is important. We should not take sides in a dispute, declaring that one side was "right" and the other "wrong," even if one side is a majority view. Please note that the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons states that Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. ...Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. DickClarkMises ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I assure you, I am not being "needlessly obtuse" I am attempting to ensure I comprehend your meaning. Do you, or do you not, think that the subject should confess to making false statements before we place any content wherein a reliable source states the subject did make false statements? Its a yes or no question. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not write this; I restored after removal by DCM with complaints of BLP violations, which these are clearly not. Page blanking, in whole or in part, is vandalism. We shall presume he did not intend such. As he now has amended his complaint to "unsupported by cites" (although inaccurately calling the content "my" content) I have placed the removed bit here for examination, vetting, and hopefully improvement.
In October 2007, Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani's health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow David Gratzer—identified as the source of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" repeated by Giuliani for three months and then in a radio ad attacking Democratic health care reform proposals as "socialized medicine" [1]—cited the NCPA's Goodman and McCaughey's NCPA Brief Analysis as other "experts" using his method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics.
[2] The Washington Post and [[FactCheck |blp=yes|FactCheck.org]] consulted cancer experts and statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's claims and called calculations such as those by Goodman, Gratzer, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do" for which "you would get an F in epidemiology." [3]
Following a September 2007 McCaughey Wall Street Journal op-ed column attacking the American Cancer Society's Access to Care initiative, [4] libertarian economist John Goodman, co-founder and president of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), asked McCaughey to expand her op-ed into a NCPA Brief Analysis [5] giving her calculations of cancer "survival rates" from a NBER Working Paper by Republican free-market economist June O'Neill [6] and McCaughey's analysis of a Lancet Oncology article comparing estimated five-year relative survival rates for sixteen types of cancer in parts of Europe and the United States. [7]
In October 2007, Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani's health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow David Gratzer—identified as the source of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" repeated by Giuliani for three months and then in a radio ad attacking Democratic health care reform proposals as "socialized medicine" [8]—cited the NCPA's Goodman and McCaughey's NCPA Brief Analysis as other "experts" using his method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics. [9] The Washington Post and FactCheck.org consulted cancer experts and statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's claims and called calculations such as those by Goodman, Gratzer, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do" for which "you would get an F in epidemiology." [10]
Discussion here, please. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
McCaughey's notoriety fifteen years ago—and today—is due to conservative media, conservative think tanks and Republican politicians not treating her as a
pundit, but instead treating her as a health care
expert and
scholar, and treating her opinions as facts.
The updated "selection" of McCaughey's writings cited in "Opinion columnist" section are all of McCaughey's published work from 1989 through August 1994.
McCaughey's entire (relatively limited) published work prior to her 1994 TNR article "No Exit" is cited to:
The 2007 use of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" by
Rudy Giuliani and
David Gratzer during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign was the most widely-covered extended episode of
scaremongering about "
socialized medicine" since McCaughey's 1994 "No Exit" scaremongering about "socialized medicine"—until McCaughey's 2009 scaremongering about "socialized medicine."
apparently referencing NBER Working Paper 15213 Low life expectancy in the United States: Is the health care system at fault? [26] by University of Pennsylvania Professor of Demography and Sociology Samuel H. Preston and University of Pennsylvania undergraduate student Jessica Y. Ho, the title page of which says:Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else.
This research was supported by the U.S. Social Security Administration through grant #10-M-98363-1-01 to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the SSA Retirement Research Consortium. The findings and conclusions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of SSA, any agency of the Federal Government, or the NBER.
Apatens ( talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
References
I'd like Apatens to explain here why it's important to point out that her experience as an 18th century historian was critical in her obtaining primary source documents, such as a draft of a health care reform plan. Any one in politics who isn't an idiot knows the importance of using primary sources, or in other words, reading the actual bill. I'll keep striking the following portion in bold till Apatens provides an adequate reason to keep it.
"McCaughey, skeptical of what had been reported about the Clinton health plan and accustomed as an 18th century historian to using primary sources,[24] asked for and received a copy of the draft health care reform plan from the office of U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA) the following week.[25]"
-- Waxsin ( talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The article currently does not cite any source for her DOB. The NYT article [27] gives a different DOB than that currently mentioned in the article. Accordingly I am deleting the DOB from the article until a source can be cited. In any event it might be better just to leave the day and month out of the article entirely, for reasons of privacy. Moreover, the article quotes Tom Wolfe saying that in 1994, McCaughey was "a 35-year-old Cinderella". I guess Wolfe underestimated her age by a decade, but it's confusing to leave that quote in the article without some kind of note mentioning the error. -- Citefixer1965 ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
With this debate being a hot topic with americans, I think caution should be taken in any language in this section. I can already see POV language creeping in such as "the Pulitzer prize winning fact check site" which is attempting to lend authority through language to Politifact. "fact-check site" would have sufficed here. Max.inglis ( talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a consistent problem on wikipedia, please people, follow the links to sources. The main quote on the opening section claims that she stepped down out of humiliation? That is int he article! Does that not raise any red flags? The link is from an obscure website called Thaindian news which itself includes this highly professional statment: "Host Jon Stewart was quite aggressive on his stance thereby proving McCaughey a complete mis-informer," and the site has google ads.
In any event, has this been confirmed by a reputable news sources? Of course not, because obviously she wouldn't announce she was stepping down out of humiliation, and if we are to post that speculation on A ENCYCLOPEDIA article, it should at least come from a serious authority, not just some random opinion. 173.34.42.113 ( talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The section of Betsy McCaughey's Commentary on 2009 Health Reform contains the following sentences:
Sarah Palin said that Emanuel's philosophy was "downright evil" and tied it to a health care reform end of life counseling provision she claimed would create a " death panel". [1] [2] [3] [4] The nonpartisan Politifact.com Web site described this claim as a "ridiculous falsehood." [5] [6] [7] [8]
None of this has anything to do with Ms. McCaughey and should be removed. That Ms. Palin and Ms. McCaughey share the same views of the 2009 healthcare reforms is irrelevant and OR, the only connection (aside from some editorials connecting the two) is the fact that Michele Bachmann mentions McCaughey and Palin mentions Bachmann. Sticking the two together here is obvious OR and I am going to remove these statements. Bonewah ( talk) 16:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not OR if the sources describe the connection. If you still feel that Palin's comments don't belong, that's fine, but if you remove them again, please do not also remove material like Politifact directly responding to McCaughey's claims.
Gamaliel (
talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
References
This article was a bit of a mess - evidently a few editors have been adding as much negative stuff on Betsy McCaughey to this article as they can, especially about her commentary on the Affordable Care Act. I would hardly suggest that criticism doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but this was not very well done:
I tried to remove as much of this stuff as I could, to make the article more unbiased and less coatrack-y. I also tried to streamline the wording in general, to make the article more readable. Korny O'Near ( talk) 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Betsy McCaughey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archives.timesunion.com/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5749882{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archives.timesunion.com/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5736721When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)