Betsy McCaughey The Health Care Slayer

This time, Democrats are paying attention.

Betsy McCaughey made her mark on history in a 1993 op-ed for The New Republic, "No Exit," in which she fiercely criticized President Bill Clinton's health care plan as a government takeover of the health care system.

Splayed in the pages of the nominally-liberal magazine, the article dealt a fatal blow to to the Clinton proposal. After the debate died down, Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, hailed it as the "first decisive breakpoint."

Despite its impact, the article was later criticized for being misleading. And now, both the debate McCaughey, are back. Reform advocates are wasting no time responding: First by shredding her original piece and then by taking down her latest disseminations.

Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes said McCaughey's major critique of the Clinton policy was ill-founded:

"The law will prevent you from going outside the system to buy basic health coverage you think is better," McCaughey wrote. "The doctor can be paid only by the plan, not by you." Hence, "No Exit." You were trapped in the system.

McCaughey, it turned out, isn't a very good reader. Section three of the Clinton health legislation ("Protection of Consumer Choice") held that, "nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services."

Franklin Foer, incoming editor of TNR back in 2006, ended up apologizing for McCaughey's article.

With health care reform back on the table as a major issue, McCaughey returned to the national debate with a February 9, 2009 editorial in Bloomberg, with an assist from the Drudge Report, decrying that the Obama proposal will "Ruin Your Health."

So what is she saying this time around?? McCaughey claims that a provision in the bill "will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective." In other words, McCaughey says that government will be making your health care decisions for you.

As myriad sources point out, however, that this is not true. FactCheck.org writes:

Betsy McCaughey, a Republican former lieutenant governor of New York, claims that the bill creates a "new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology." Not true. The office was created in 2004 by President Bush. McCaughey, an adjunct fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, also says the office "will monitor treatments" and "'guide' your doctor's decisions." But that's nothing new. Bush's initiative called for creating a health IT system to transmit information to "guide medical decisions."

FactCheck.org also reprimands Republicans and conservative politicians for picking up the untruths:

Conservative politicians have claimed that the stimulus bill requires that doctors follow government orders on what medical treatments can and can't be prescribed. But, in fact, the various versions of the new health care bills bill don't say that.

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia says the measure creates "a national health care rationing board." Not true. What it creates is a council to coordinate research into which treatments work best, and are most effective for the money. And in fact, the new law states quite specifically that the council has no power to "mandate coverage" and that its recommendations are not to be construed as "clinical guidelines for ... treatment."

The Washington Monthly chronicles the conservative media's aggressive promotion of McCaughey's work:

Step One: Rush Limbaugh told his minions audience on Monday about McCaughey's piece, insisting that a "national coordinator of health information technology will monitor treatments that your doctor gives you to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective."

Step Two: By late Monday, Drudge was trumpeting McCaughey's mistake with this headline: "'National Coordinator of Health Information Technology' Slipped in to Stimulus..."

Step Three: Fox News and members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board got in on the act on Tuesday morning, arguing that the government will "essentially dictate treatments," thanks to the "secret" provisions in the stimulus bill. FNC's Megan Kelly said the non-existent language "sounds dangerously like socialized medicine," while FNC's Bill Hemmer said the recovery plan includes "new rules guiding decisions your doctor can make about your health care." All of this, of course, is patently and demonstrably false.

Step Four: Limbaugh took a bow yesterday, taking credit for the misinformation campaign, and telling listeners that his show "uncovered" all of this. "I found it," Limbaugh said. "I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media."

James Fallows, journalist for The Atlantic Monthly, slams McCaughey, nominating her for the award of "Most destructive effect on public discourse by a single person." He pleads: "Let's Stop This Before It Goes Any Further."

Newsweek magazine, in a seven-page exposé that invokes FactCheck.org, accusing McCaughey and the GOP of trying to distort the health care debate.

But McCaughey's motives might be more than just ideological. Not long before publishing her op-ed, McCaughey, a director of BioTech firm Cantel Medical, apparently received $11,250 in stock options. The Wonk Room at ThinkProgress writes:

As Health Care Renewal points out, "not noted in Betsy McCaughey's op-ed article was that she is currently on the board of directors of Cantel Medical, a device company, and formerly on the board of Genta, a biotechnology company."

In fact, according to a Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership Securities from the Securities and Exchange Commission, McCaughey received 750 Shares of stock options just days before writing the Bloomberg op-ed. Then, the total worth of the shares was approximately $11,250.