Betsy McCaughey is one of the most evil people in America. She is a big part of why healthcare reform died under the Clinton administration. She is also a big part of why we didn’t get a public option in Obamacare. Can you say, “Death panels”? Yeah, that was her.
I remember seeing her on The Daily Show with the whole ACA in a binder. The entire interview was just double talk. Jon Stewart kept asking her where these “death panels” were and she would take him to one page. He would respond, “I don’t see any death panel there.” So she would say, “You have to go over to this other page.” And the cycle would continue.
Here she is trying to kill the public option on The Dylan Ratigan Show. She is destroyed:
What I find most interesting about Betsy McCaughey is her political associations. She was a Republican until 1997 (up through the time when she destroyed the Clinton healthcare plan). And then, after Dole lost big in 1996, she became a Democrat. She stayed a Democrat until—Can you see it coming?—2010! With the rise of the Tea Party, she became a Republican again! Is there any chance she’ll become a Democrat again? After all, Romney lost pretty bad. I do hope not; there is enough to be ashamed of in the Democratic Party.
Oh: who was she working with while destroying the Clinton healthcare bill? Philip Morris. Of course!
Afterword
I don’t care about tweeting his weenie, I miss Anthony Weiner.
H/T: Mark Ames
Recently, here in Minnesota, state Republican leaders vowed their determination to prevent any kind of "public option" for residents. One claimed it was to protect all those good jobs in the insurance industry.
Those aren’t very good jobs, but being bought off by the industry must be fairly lucrative. One would hope. I could imagine being offered so much money that I publicly lied on the behalf of murderers, but it would have to be a LOT of money. Like, "I do this for a year and I never have to work again" levels. Somewhere in the eight digits, at least. Most people who sell their souls go much cheaper than that. I imagine there are other factors at play. Or they just enjoy being bullies, as many people do.
Wendell Potter has a good book about how he stopped pimping for the insurance lobby and switched sides to fight it ("Deadly Spin.") Potter describes taking seriously industry claims of service and efficiency, until he learned those claims were horsepucky.
Now there probably are still a few industry mouthpiece types who, like Potter, believe the hype. But there can’t be too many of those left. If I’m running a multi-billion-dollar business, who would I trust more? Believers in the faith, who might develop a conscience and turn on me? Or complete and utter whores? I’d stick with whores all the way. For one thing, they come cheap, and for another, many Americans can’t tell the difference. The few who can often prefer the whores — people who come across as intensely mean-spirited are generally well-liked by Yahoos.
Thanks for pointing McCaughey out. I never knew who she was (there’s so many of her ilk around) but her record is worth committing to memory.
@JMF – I read of some research on whistle blowers and they are all very idealistic–people who were true believers. Much of my political thinking is based on the fact that I feel I was lied to all through school. I’m all for folklore, but don’t lie to me and tell me it’s true. There is no such thing as a blue ox! What I particularly hate is all the Cold War propaganda I was fed growing up.
McCaughey is just the vilest of people. But I don’t doubt that she suffers from what I call the Manson Effect. Before he had his people start killing, Manson first had them break into houses and move stuff around. People don’t become corporate whores all at once. It is a gradual process. Given the interviews that I’ve seen McCaughey in, she must know that she’s spouting bullshit. But I suspect that she justifies it as being in the service of something better. (A pay check?)
I’m torn on Wendell Potter in the same way I’m torn on Jack Abramoff. I’m glad they are both on my team now, but these guys were both major evil players once. At least Potter’s awakening didn’t come via indictment.
@Frank — I put Potter in a slightly different category from Abramoff. He describes in his book getting more and more bothered by his role (plus boozing heavily to compensate.) His turnaround came from seeing a free clinic for people who couldn’t afford medical care, talking to the patients, and realizing most had insurance — many through his company.
I’ve done rotten things in my life and regret them now (nothing so rotten as pimping an American health insurer, thank the gods), so I give people who changed their tune out of a late-developing moral awareness the proverbial free pass.
As for Abramoff — one of my many disappointments with the Obama administration’s near-complete refusal to prosecute financial crime is that busting these goons would be a perfect opportunity to flip a few, Henry Hill-style. So often we hear that regulators can’t understand complicated financial shenanigans. Well, let’s get some people on the payroll who do! Namely, perps. Scare the hell out of some mid-level crooks, and use the promise of immunity to get them turning in former bosses, or catching new malevolent behavior akin to the scams they pulled.
Not gonna happen, but it would be delightful to watch if it did. That’s my fantasy of the day . . .
@JMF – You’re right about Potter. I was being mean. I still think there is a difference between someone who screwed up and robbed a bank and someone who actively perpetrated a crime for decades. But I’m all in favor of redemption as a concept (if not as a reality).
On the issue of Abramoff, I think it is interesting that he goes to jail but all the politicians who committed treason are not only free but most are still in office.
I suspect that the fact that the administration might have made some Henry Hills out of people in the finance business was probably a big reason to [i]not[/i] move forward.
I’m feeling pretty cynical these days and will continue to be so until after the debt ceiling fiasco is over.
Last comment of my day off, where I’ve spent way too much time fucking around on the Net . . .
I was almost losing interest in "Breaking Bad" (c’mon, really, nobody in the family can figure this out?) until the show introduced Bob Odenkirk as the world’s sleaziest attorney, ever. He’s just such a delicious dirtbag.
And he’s fun to watch because most people (like the show’s main characters) never see themselves as bad; Odenkirk’s a parody of what we’d like to think moral nullities are, so we can laugh at him and not feel as though we’re laughing at ourselves.
My favorite line in the entire series (and why I mention this in a thread talking about Abramoff) is the one where our antihero is cued to hire Odenkirk: I think it read along the lines of "for this shit, you don’t need a criminal lawyer; you need a Criminal. Lawyer." (I actually like lawyers, but who doesn’t enjoy Odenkirk?)
Ideally, we’d use crooks to catch crooks. You may be right that Obama’s team won’t go after crooks because that might make bigger crooks more vulnerable. Sigh . . .
@JMF – I’m a big Odenkirk fan. Also his brother who was a writer on [i]Mr. Show[/i] as well as [i]Futurama[/i]. Bob is great on [i]Breaking Bad[/i]. But I was a fan of the show through season 4. I thought season 5 was terrible. I expect season 6 to be awful too, but I’ll watch a bit of it to see. But it is hopeless: they are using Walt as a puppet for their plot ideas. That’s what happens when art (craft?) turns into commodity.