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
Do you like this post?
Kevin Koster commented
2014-09-06 13:55:24 -0400
· Flag
Steve Spence, your comments don’t make sense. First you say that there are no subsidies. Then you say they “will go away”. How can they go away if you just said that they didn’t exist?
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…
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…
Josh Isgett commented
2014-02-16 14:53:15 -0500
· Flag
Oh, and as soon as you post your comment on here by logging in through Facebook, be sure to go to your Facebook app, then go to account settings, apps, click on nationbuilder app, then remove nationbuilder and all previous posts. :)
Josh Isgett commented
2014-02-16 14:49:40 -0500
· Flag
Stop copying and pasting what ONE web page wrote. I thought you wrote you liked the truth and investigated? Ok, I googled and went with the first web page that “disproved” what Megyn Kelly said. Took me 2 minutes. However, the same article from mediate you copied and pasted your “investigative” report about……..not true. I live in South Carolina and personally saw a plan offered to a 53 year old coworker with a monthly cost of $1237.00. Ouch. Don’t you feel stupid. Next time don’t google, investigate. Maybe all 40 of your viewers will appreciate it.
Critical Thinker commented
2013-11-30 17:24:45 -0500
· Flag
What is worse is the constant babble about “your subsidy” when comparing costs. So you pay taxes on one end to subsidize the other end. Brain dead morons can’t see this is shell game.
Jane S commented
2013-11-13 00:52:21 -0500
· Flag
Twaddle. That may be the old system, but under the ACA, the insurance company isn’t even allowed to ask about somebody’s health status, never mind change their benefits and costs as a result of it, and there are caps on out-of-pocket expenses, etc.
socialists suck commented
2013-11-12 23:41:57 -0500
· Flag
what no one is paying attention to is that you can get a policy even with a preexisting condition, but it wont cover your issue. it will specifically NOT cover it. the kind of cancer, and its stage have specific costs that can be easily predicted. the policy is then adjusted so that the deductible for dr visits and medications are far greater than the yearly cost of the treatments and meds, thereby NOT covering his cancer.
Ellen commented
2013-11-11 00:33:31 -0500
· Flag
Jane S. I ’d forbid it, too. I have seen some decent interviews on Hannity. But the phony studio audience shows? Enough!
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.
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.
Jane S commented
2013-11-10 18:16:50 -0500
· Flag
Ellen— agree with you 100 percent on the pre-taping business But the big difference is that O’Reilly is a genuinely talented performer, and Hannity is not. He cant get it up, so to speak, on a schedule, he has to be juiced by the context. (Frankly, it’s the difference between a professional and an amateur.)
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!)
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!)
Ellen commented
2013-11-10 18:04:52 -0500
· Flag
Re Hannity’s taped shows. He said something to the effect that he was happy to be in the later spot because now he can tape his shows and get home earlier. I’m fine with pre-recorded shows but couldn’t he do something more interesting than these round up of carefully chosen guests presented as a “studio audience?” After all, O’Reilly pre-records his shows and he manages to make them feel relevant and fresh.
Even an hour-long interview with Hannity’s various like-minded pals would be more interesting, if more nauseating for me.
Even an hour-long interview with Hannity’s various like-minded pals would be more interesting, if more nauseating for me.
Ellen commented
2013-11-10 18:01:26 -0500
· Flag
Jane S. wrote: One expects right-wing radio talk show hosts to spout volcanoes of misinformation, but I found it shocking to have that coming from physicians.
Maybe they’re all friends of Dr. Marc “people have too much health insurance” Siegel.
Maybe they’re all friends of Dr. Marc “people have too much health insurance” Siegel.
Ellen commented
2013-11-10 17:57:14 -0500
· Flag
W mace, Thank you for pointing out I left out the link to Christopher’s post. I have no added it to the post.
Sandman2 commented
2013-11-10 11:58:27 -0500
· Flag
“Fair and balanced” should mean that Ms. Kelly will also be interviewing someone who survived cancer because of the ACA, because they were NOT “thrown off” their insurance by the “mandate” that Insurance Companies can’t use the “pre-existing” condition excuse.
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.
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.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-11-09 21:36:56 -0500
· Flag
You liberals smearing a dying cancer patient. How TOLERANT OFF YOU!!!!
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.
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.
Bill Certo commented
2013-11-09 19:05:47 -0500
· Flag
It is unbelievable that you libtards still defend BO after he ADMITTED lying about people keeping their insurance. Obama has been a DISASTROUS FAILURE!!!
mlp ! commented
2013-11-09 18:54:35 -0500
· Flag
Say, ‘Bill Certo’, please indicate any of the previous comments that ‘smear’ Mr. Elliott.
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??
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??
Bill Certo commented
2013-11-09 18:20:17 -0500
· Flag
You liberals smearing a dying cancer patient. How TOLERANT OFF YOU!!!!
Kevin Koster commented
2013-11-09 16:11:30 -0500
· Flag
Jane, I think you’re right that they’re trying to distract from all their bad press and bad poll numbers. But I just don’t trust these guys. They always have another chess game they’re trying to play…
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.
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.
Jane S commented
2013-11-09 16:03:05 -0500
· Flag
Kevin Koster— that’s my sense of Hannity these days, too. You’re right that a lot of it is clearly pre-taped, somewhat understandable for a fair number of congresscritter interviews since they really don’t want to be still hanging out at work that late, but I note that Greta van Susteren used to say so when she had a pre-taped segtment like that.
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.
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.
Jane S commented
2013-11-09 15:41:06 -0500
· Flag
Agree with you entirely, Ellen, on his usual “studio audience” shows. 20 assorted professional bloviators all raving away at each other isn’t my idea of enlightening or entertaining.
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.
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.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-11-09 15:30:12 -0500
· Flag
Re Kelly’s “outraged coverage”, it’s pretty obvious that she just wants a reason to act indignant and angry that President Obama had the temerity to get a law passed and put into effect. And we continue to have people popping up on her show demanding that President Obama be impeached for what must be the umpteenth time. Given that Kelly and her producers must know that this will go nowhere, the approach strikes me as either one of stubbornness or of outright desperation.
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…
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…
Ellen commented
2013-11-09 14:30:58 -0500
· Flag
Jane S, I only caught a few minutes of Hannity last night. I find his “studio audience” shows completely uninteresting. Frankly, I’m surprised Fox News execs let him do so many of them.
Richard Santalone commented
2013-11-09 11:43:45 -0500
· Flag
@ bob shipp Yes indeed — they’ve been telling their viewers ONLY WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR (not the truth) for more than 17 years — and as a result, Jabba the Ailes (i.e. Roger Ailes) and Herr Goebbels II (i.e. Rupert Murdoch) are LAUGHING THEIR HEADS OFF ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!
ginger sitler commented
2013-11-09 10:25:22 -0500
· Flag
Plus, he says in the video that his insurance man told him he was cancelled because his cancer “was beyond a catastrophic pre-existing condition”. That has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. That is his insurance company cancelling him because of his cancer, something Obamacare is outlawing!
Jane S commented
2013-11-09 10:16:39 -0500
· Flag
Antoinette— one of the first docs Hannity called on was ID’d as I think the president of this group. Some of the others may also have been members, but they didn’t sound like they had their talking points lined up, so they could well be people the show found through comments on their Facebook, etc. They mostly just flailed and railed and screeched.
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..
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..
