Last night, Megyn Kelly interviewed Bill Elliott, a cancer patient who actually announced on the air that he planned to let himself die rather than burden his family with the medical bills he thinks ObamaCare is going to cause. But, apparently, Elliott is another in a long line of ObamaCare "victims" that Fox never bothered to investigate whether they needed to suffer the way they say. Fortunately for truth lovers, and possibly Mr. Elliott, Tommy Christopher, at Mediaite, did the work that The Kelly File should have. And the news is good for Elliott.
Kelly seemed to have done absolutely no research into Elliott’s case beyond reading a post he left on The Kelly File’s Facebook page. She began the interview by asking Elliott why he thought Obamacare is the cause of his current insurance being canceled, right in the middle of his cancer treatment. As if it never occurred to her to do any digging of her own to verify.
As it turns out, Elliott seemed to be under many misapprehensions about his options. None of which Kelly investigated, much less reported.
But Christopher did. Among other dubious findings, he wrote:
(Elliott) reveals that his old plan cost him about $170, and the one his “insurance guy” offered would cost him $1500 a month, with a $13,500 deductible. However, the most expensive Obamacare plan offered to individuals over 50 on the exchange for South Carolina is $796.87 a month, for the most expensive Gold plan, and Bronze plans in the state start at $255.35 a month. Kelly didn’t ask him, but Mr. Elliott might qualify for federal subsidies as well. For example, if he makes $26,000 a year, that Bronze plan would be $163.42 /mo., less than what he was paying before.
He also said “Now with Obamacare, the man that I’ve got looked into it, they are not going to pay for pharmaceuticals or medical devices.”
But under Obamacare, both of those categories are mandated as essential health benefits. Either Mr. Elliott’s insurance man is giving him a bum steer, or something is being lost in translation. I’ve tried to get in touch with Mr. Elliott, but have thus far been unsuccessful.
Why didn't Kelly or one of the Kelly File staffers check any of these details? Sadly, one can only conclude it's because Kelly and Fox News only want to know the bad news about ObamaCare and are afraid to spoil their story with any verified information. Even if it might save a life.
Kelly can’t seem to go 15 minutes without complaining about President Obama’s misstatement about ObamaCare. But I have yet to see her take responsibility for enabling this misinformation that could potentially cost a man his life. Or perhaps another member of her audience. She really needs, pardon the pun, to take a dose of her own medicine.
Note: I missed a few minutes of The Kelly File tonight but I'll catch it on re-run in a few minutes. So if Kelly did issue a clarification and take any of the responsibility she demands in others, I'll post an update.
UPDATE: I watched the part of the show I missed and there was no mention of Elliott's situation, much less a correction. Also, in my original post, I neglected to link to Tommy Christopher's post at Mediaite I have now added the link. Here it is again, with my apologies for the oversight: Fox News Cancer Patient Bill Elliott Doesn’t Have to Die
Further, you seem not to have actually read the HHS reports that connect to your link. If you actually took the time to do so – just going from the 2014 report, you’ll find that your numbers are misleading in one part and completely false in another.
You say that the percentage of US citizens dependent on welfare is over 23%. That’s not what the HHS report shows. What it actually says is that 23% is the number for US citizens who have participated at ANY amount with any welfare program. That could be as little as a single food stamp, so to speak. (And by the way, in several states, there are employees of companies like Walmart who need food stamps to supplement their wages as they are so low) If you want to talk about dependency, the HHS report defines that as where you get more than half your income from welfare. In that case, the proper number would be 5.2% of US citizens.
You then go on to note that blue states somehow have 50% of their populations dependent on welfare. That’s not indicated anywhere in the HHS reports. But in another 2013 chart compiled from USDA data, I find the following top twelve states for participation in SNAP (food stamps) alone:
Mississippi – 21%
Oregon – 20%
New Mexico – 20%
Tennessee – 20%
Michigan – 20%
Louisiana – 20%
Alabama – 19%
Kentucky – 19%
West Virginia – 19%
Maine – 19%
Georgia – 18%
South Carolina – 18%
This does not line up with your contention of either the 50% number or the idea that the blue states somehow have greater amounts of their populations dependent on these programs. And just thinking logically, we’d all be amazed to hear that half of California and New York were all dependent on Welfare…
I think Hannity has more control over his radio show and I suspect he likes that better. I also think he is reined in on his attacks on the GOP mainstream. Because that’s where I think he wants to go: full out Tea Party.
I recall somebody in a position to know telling me around the time that Alan Colmes left that Hannity had wanted his own show for years. I believe it was a case of be careful what you ask for. Say what you will about Colmes (and I have been won over as a supporter of his) but he added contrast and interest to the Hannity & Colmes show. Hannity, alone, is too monotonous.
However, he has taken it to extremes with these stupid studio audience shows.
When I hear clips on MSNBC or CNN of Hannity on his radio show, I’m struck by how much more energy he has. But if he’s just done X hours on the radio on a particular topic, it sounds like he can’t rev it up again a few hours later for the TV show.
If I were Fox, I’d flat-out forbid him to do those phony “studio audience” panels both because they aren’t good television (unless you love the sight of pretty young women shrieking away with their faces screwed up with rage and hate) and because they bring out the absolute worst in “phone-it-in” Hannity.
(I shoulda been a TV producer… maybe in my next life!)
Even an hour-long interview with Hannity’s various like-minded pals would be more interesting, if more nauseating for me.
Maybe they’re all friends of Dr. Marc “people have too much health insurance” Siegel.
You would agree wouldn’t you, Bill Certo?
There are a lot of people out there that she could interview about this and their stories can be verified as the truth and not just made up, like Fox likes to do.
That is one determined troll!
Not very good….but determined!
(to flaunt its ignorance!)
No one’s smearing the guy for being a “dying cancer patient.” We’re smearing Megyn Kelly for using a man dying of cancer to lie about the ACA- A lie which, by the way, when it was debunked, came up with that what treatement he could get would be much more expansive and affordable.
But perhaps you’d rather he die with his medical bills leaving him and his family destitute.
If someone on MSNBC used a dying man to tell an easily debunked lie, one where the truth means a better chance for him, and a better standing for his family if he dies… You’d be here demanding that we talk about that. But it’s Fox News, so you’re defending it.
Actually, the article above clearly points out that Mr. Elliott, given the proper information, really doesn’t need to die, and could actually realize a reduction in his insurance costs. His existing insurance, as the Fox video shows was cancelled "because his cancer “was beyond a catastrophic pre-existing condition…”.
Funny that ‘fair & Balanced’ Fox (looking out for you!!!) neglected to offer that possibly life-saving information to Mr. Elliott, isn’t it? How MURDEROUS of Fox, eh??
And as for the anti-ACA doctors Hannity cherry picked to have on his stage, I agree with the comments about considering the source. These guys went on there with an agenda and a predetermined hypothesis. Which is why Hannity had them on.
We should also keep in mind that Hannity and all these conservative talk show guys that keep going on Fox News and decrying the changes to their health coverage are all covered by AFTRA medical plans. These guys make a pretty good salary and they quietly enjoy union health and pension plans – even while they are condemning the idea of other people getting health coverage in public.
As for Fox and the GOP, the whole reason they’re pounding on Obama care 24/7 is because they think ramping up hostility to it is their “get out of jail free” card for their bad odor post-shutdown.
This one was different, though, because they were all (of the dozen or so I heard) physicians, not commentators and radio hosts and “strategists” and the like.
One expects right-wing radio talk show hosts to spout volcanoes of misinformation, but I found it shocking to have that coming from physicians.
I believe what they’re trying to do is lay a groundwork for justifying another GOP shutdown come January or February. Idea being that they show how horrible and untrustworthy Obama and the Dems are, and then when the hard right wing GOPers in Congress shut everything down again for another month, they can try to blame it all on the Dems. It’s the only way they could even think of getting away with another shutdown, this time in an election year.
At another level, I think these guys really don’t know what to do about next year, given how angry most of the country is at them these days. If I were in the upper echelons of the GOP, I’d be very worried about what could happen next fall, given that the hard right doesn’t seem be showing any repentance for their behavior, and given that the more mainstream GOP guys don’t seem to have any control over them. I would think that this problem would massively dwarf any issues Dems are having with the current rollout of the ACA.
Re Hannity, I’m really wondering if he’s just phoning it in these days. He seems to be spending less and less time actually trying to work on his show. He’s either airing specials or these interminable “studio audience” shoutfests, none of which involve actually discussing anything of substance. A lot of this seems to me to be pre-taped material so that he doesn’t have to actually do his show at 10pm. If I didn’t know better, I’d think he was sending a message upstairs that this is what they’ll get for giving him the late slot…
If I remember right, doctors were also wildly opposed to Medicare back in the ‘60s, too, though I wasn’t paying close attention back then since I was in high school.
They also proudly had some very right-wing Tea Party dude doctor who claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s and is running for Senate in Kansas, wanting to unseat Sen Pat Roberts for being insufficiently right-wing.
In the half hour or so I watched before I couldn’t stand it anymore, they didn’t even have the one or two token liberal supporters they usually do..