Mrs. Brit Hume’s horrible Obamacare dilemma

You might have missed the tweet the other day from Fox News’ Brit Hume, who was very concerned that his wife would have to leave her current primary care physician if she bought a plan on the Obamacare exchange in their state.


Which of course begged the question of why Fox News, Brit Hume’s employer, wasn’t already providing Mrs. Hume with insurance:

brit-hume-aca-2Brit Hume then weighed in and explained that Fox News in fact was already providing his wife with health insurance, and that she was just browsing, so in fact she was in no danger of losing her doctor:

brit-hume-obamacare-3But why window shop, and then why complain about supposedly losing her doctor, if she has insurance and thus won’t be losing her doctor at all?  It all sounds like a bit of a typical Fox News feint:

brit-hume-obamacare-4But putting Mrs. Hume aside for a moment, this notion about not being able to keep your same doctor if you buy insurance on the exchanges strikes me as a bit of a red herring.  Where in America can you be guaranteed to keep your same doctor if you change insurance plans?  There’s no guarantee anywhere or with any insurance company.  If I switched from my PPO to an HMO a year ago, or five years ago, or ten years ago, I’d have lost my primary care doctor – and my specialists – and been forced to see HMO docs.  And even if you keep the same plan, your doctor can switch plans he or she takes on a whim, and insurance companies themselves can drop doctors as well.

So it’s entirely possible that Mrs. Hume can’t buy an Obamacare plan that includes her own doctor because her own doctor chose not to accept the Obamacare plan in question.  I know that’s what my primary care doctor did – he simply didn’t want to take one of the two ACA plans that I’m considering buying.  It’s his choice, not Obamacare’s.

So what exactly is Brit Hume’s point?  That the ACA isn’t more socialist and dictatorial – isn’t more a planned economy where we tell doctors that they have to see everyone and accept every plan (which would be fine with me):


Then there was this self-proclaimed “Christian conservative”:


Yes, how sad that people who would otherwise have died, can now get insurance, but as a trade off for, you know, not dying, might have to go to a different doctor.  I’d imagine that people who can barely afford health care are a bit more concerned about dying because they can’t afford any doctor, than which doctor they see if it means they get to live.  Their options are:

1. Not being able to afford any doctor at all, and dying.

2. Getting a subsidy helping them pay for the ACA insurance, living, and possibly not being able to go to the doctor they like in town (not to mention, they wouldn’t get to choose their doctor at all if they had no insurance).

But let’s talk a little more about those “who barely afford their care.”

That’s exactly who this program was created for.  It’s estimated that around 60% of those using the exchanges will get some kind of federal subsidy to help them pay for it.  They’d get nothing if Obamacare hadn’t been passed.  And Medicaid has been expanded under Obamacare, so more low-income people can now get insurance.  They couldn’t before.

So the last argument the right-wing should be using to knock Obamacare is that people who can barely afford insurance are somehow getting a bad rap.  Generally speaking, they’re getting the best rap of all.

(I’m told that in order to actually see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me – so say the experts.)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

137 Responses to “Mrs. Brit Hume’s horrible Obamacare dilemma”

  1. 1973m says:

    There really is no defense for ACA. From the debacle roll out with its huge price tag. Then onto the dismal number of people who are signing up versus what is needed. Then you can move onto WHO is signing up. Its the old the sick and the poor. Thats great, save one fact. Who is going to pick up the tab? The middle class taxpayer will in the form of skyrocketing premiums.

  2. Duke Woolworth says:

    My plan includes the Cleveland Clinic. Is that good enough? Can you do better?

  3. Duke Woolworth says:

    The ACA covers the roughly 15% who don’t get healthcare through Medicare, Medicaid, union, or employer. Many will be covered under Medicaid. The rest can choose from many plans, except a couple states that have only one supplier.
    Does that help?

  4. AlamoSpartan says:

    In 2008, I left a job and purchased the Blue Cross policy offered by COBRA. Iit cost about 400/month in California (where I had been working) but same plan was almost $700/month in TX, where I had moved. I was seeing a very good hand specialist in a large orthopedic group. One day, I got a letter from the group that they would not longer treat Blue Cross patients because of a tiff they had with Blue Cross. This was in 2008! People lose their chosen doctors for various reaons.

  5. AlamoSpartan says:

    I see the best hand specialist/surgeon in town (I live in 7th largest city in US) and that dr. is available on all the plans I looked at.

  6. LoftyOneDetroit says:

    I live in Michigan, a resident of Detroit. All my doctors are in the suburbs, since that’s where I first lived when I chose them. They are top-tier doctors affiliated with top-tier hospitals and they have all accepted every insurance plan I’ve ever subscribed to, from my employer’s plan through COBRA, all the way through the two federally-sponsored pre-existing conditions plans available to me since October 2012 and beyond. They accept every plan on the ACA exchange.

  7. ComradeRutherford says:

    “Likely because top bloggers have had their little talking to by Obama and were told not to say anything.”

    You are thinking about the conservatives, not the liberals. The non-conservative part of America doesn’t have the top-down, talking point memo, total control over all media that the Conservatives have now and have built over the last 40 years.

  8. ComradeRutherford says:

    Brit Hume says: Why doesn’t it do what I already know it won’t do??? That is PROOF that Obama must be impeached!!!

  9. BeccaM says:

    …of which there are plenty. But in my opinion, not enough to go back to the pre-PPACA situation.

  10. Bomer says:

    I agree. I don’t understand how, or why, people can get all worked up over things that have nothing to do with the ACA when there are plenty of legitimate things wrong with it to get worked up over. It doesn’t make any sense to me and seems like a compete waste of time and energy. Time and energy that could be better spent on pointing out the actual flaws in the legislation.

  11. Thom Allen says:

    You’re wrong. You’re making a blanket statement about all plans on the exchange. I’m sure that you haven’t checked all of the plans and you haven’t defined “top quality doctors.” My doctors are all board and specialty board certified. All are at least adjunct-level faculty at medical schools. When I picked my plan, I got to keep my PCP and four of the five specialists I see are in network. So, please, don’t generalize when, if you know anything at all, it’s extremely limited.

  12. BeccaM says:

    You’re right, it’s not new. And what I keep seeing over and over isn’t the legitimate criticisms of PPACA being cited, but complaints that have existed about the American healthcare system for decades suddenly being assigned to ‘Obamacare.’

    And those of us who point out those distinctions (“This problem can rightly be laid at Obamacare’s doorstep, this other complaint can’t.”) immediately are labeled as apologists and ‘tribalists.’ I mean, for god’s sake, go ahead and complain about the genuine shortcomings and flaws. Like the fact there isn’t anything like enough premium regulation, or that there do need to be more restrictions on how tightly these insurance companies can define their provider networks. Or how adding a public option would help immeasurably.

    But geez, I truly don’t understand why people are glomming onto this distracting side issue which has been part of the American healthcare system for decades. Change your insurance plan, there’s a chance you’ll have to change your doctor. Do nothing, and you still might have to do this, due to the doctor’s decision to leave a network or an insurance company’s decision to kick him or her out. ‘Obamacare’ didn’t create this situation. It’s not up to Obamacare to force a doctor or insurance company to include every option or to outlaw provider networks — that was never part of the legislation.

  13. BeccaM says:

    Not completely. HMOs were still fairly popular, but eventually many people gravitated towards PPOs and POS (unfortunate acronym there) plans, which with their ‘in network’ and ‘out of network’ distinctions were a hybridized form of HMO.

    Long ago, in the 70s or earlier, it was just “do you accept X insurance”? Now the question people have to answer for themselves — and this has been the case for quite a long while now is “do you accept X and are you in their network?”

  14. runfastandwin says:

    You make no sense.

  15. perljammer says:

    Don’t let it get you down. I have found that it’s incredibly difficult to make a simple, declarative statement about the ACA that is both easy to understand and correct. You can get the government document that attempts to explain the relationship between the ACA Marketplace and employer-provided plans by googling “OMB No. 1210-0149”. The main obvious downside to buying a Marketplace plan when an employer-provided plan is available (other than raw premium cost), is that you aren’t eligible for a subsidy (which the document refers to as a tax credit).

    As far as companies saving money by allowing their employees to foot their own entire insurance bill — that has always been an option for companies that feel they don’t need to subsidise employees’ health insurance costs in order to attract the people they need. But that option will disappear next year when the Employer Mandate kicks in. Unless it gets mysteriously delayed again.

    And yes, “Marketplace” is a synonym for “state or federal exchange”.

  16. BillFromDover says:

    Have you lost your doctors?

  17. BillFromDover says:


    This would imply that “any” company currently offering an ACA-compliant insurance plan can simply opt to let their employees choose to either drop or not buy it to become eligible for the exchanges?

    I don’t doubt your letter, but something just doesn’t smell right.

    However, think of all the money companies can now save by allowing their employees to foot their own entire insurance bill.

    I will close with a weak, grasping-at-straws, last-gasp argument:
    If ya no longer have coverage through your employee, then ya surely don’t have a qualifying plan?

    BTW, does the definition of the marketplace include the PPACA exchanges or simply any non-exchange coverage?

    As for now, I rescind my period pending… whatever.

  18. RealityBasedCommunity says:

    You’re comparing apples to apples here. Obamacare plans ARE HMO plans even when they claim to be PPO plans.

  19. RealityBasedCommunity says:

    The 80’s was the height of the HMO era. HMO’s were rejected. But Obamacare and it’s tight requirements has brought them back.

  20. RealityBasedCommunity says:

    Also, yes, insurance companies are doing this, but under Obama pressure to keep premiums low with all of the requirements of this everything from soup to nuts insurance. And why, pray tell, aren’t Democrats railing about the evil insurance companies taking advantage of Obama’s good policy and creating these narrow quasi-HMO, quasi-Medicaid networks? Likely because top bloggers have had their little talking to by Obama and were told not to say anything.

    I’m sure the narrow networks were part of the deal that allowed insurance companies to go along with this travesty of a law. And all the Democrats do is say, “yayyy, premiums are 16% lower than our expectations!” without saying why. But this is exactly why.

    And the whole, “well why isn’t Mrs. Hume on her husband’s plan” is a red herring. What she experienced while window shopping is what the middle class will experience and have no choice but to deal with.

    And you somehow defend that here? What the hell is the matter with you?

  21. RealityBasedCommunity says:

    What John doesn’t get is you don’t get to keep any top quality doctors on Exchange plans. I’m pretty sure that if John looked for his doctor on Exchange plans, he wouldn’t find his doctor. These plans have HMO networks. And the fact that Democrats defend them is sick.

  22. Dan Corjulo says:

    Well, I guess Brit’s wife should KEEP HER CURRENT INSURANCE (she happy with it) and stop her mini-denial of service attack on the ACA website

  23. perljammer says:

    I don’t think your first assertion is correct. I have employer-provided health insurance. In September, I received a letter from my employer (as required by ACA) informing me that, although our health plan meets ACA standards, employees could opt to drop their coverage and buy a policy through the marketplace if desired, even though it would probably cost more. This wasn’t something my employer made up; the wording of the letter was in accordance with ACA regulations.

  24. Bill_Perdue says:

    Correct, and it’s criminal behavior, or at least it would be in decent, democratically run society. The solution remains socialized medicine funded in part by the confiscation of the assets of insurance companies without compensation and their amalgamation in democratically run medical system.

    ObamacareRomneycare guarantees massive profits who the rich who private insurance and pharmaceuticals companies. Virtually all insurance companies are involved with and subsidized by ObamacareRomneycare.

  25. Bill_Perdue says:

    Whether the problem is health care managed by for profit insurance companies via guaranteed profits by Obamacare of the cuts made by company health plans the answer is the same – socialized medicine.

  26. Bomer says:

    “Hell, I remember having a doctor whose office informed me they simply
    weren’t accepting my insurance plan anymore — and this was during the

    Back when Secure Horizons first came out the doctor I was working for accepted it it for a few months but later on dropped that particular insurance plan simply because, at the time, Secure Horizons was really bad about paying the doctors. I used to feel so bad when I had to tell the folks who had it that the doctor wasn’t taking it any more. I understand people getting pissed because their doctor isn’t taking their insurance plan, but this isn’t anything new.

  27. lynchie says:

    Even with a company plan you must use the doctor who is approved by the health plan. That has nothing to do with the ACA. As a result they sign doctors who take less and give (in my opinion, less care to the patient based on compensation). My company changes health plans to cut costs for them which i partially understand, our out of pocket went up to $6,000 and we must use the health companies “approved” doctors. The closest is 40 miles away.

  28. Thom Allen says:

    Virtually all insurance plans do this, not just the ones in Obamacare. It’s inherent to the industry. They want to maximize profits, to do that, they boost premiums, decrease or restrict services and lower payments to health care providers.

  29. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    There is nothing wrong with them. In fact, a very close friend of mine has been an emergency room doctor for his entire career, and I have a very high opinion of him. They are great for handling emergencies, but they can’t give patients the care that a personal physician can. If a patient returns to the emergency room, they will probably not see the same physician. There is no continuity of care. That’s really not good for chronic conditions. I’m a type 1 diabetic, and i know that I couldn’t have gotten by without personal physicians.

  30. benb says:

    Yeah, the ‘Keep your own doctor’ thing has bothered me, too. I am much more concerned about the quality of medical care I get in an emergency; at those times—in the ER—I don’t get much of a choice. I don’t want to be taken to (a typically) underfunded County Hospital but the ambulance takes me where they can…

  31. Bill_Perdue says:

    So, Obamacare is not an improvement.

  32. jmillsintacoma says:

    Why? I mean, what’s wrong with ER doctors?

  33. Bill_Perdue says:

    If by single payer you mean a democratically controlled socialist health care program we agree. That will never come from either of the two parties owned by the rich – Democrats and Republicans.

    It will only be accomplished by the creation of a workers state that abolishes private insurance companies and confiscates their assets without compensation.

    I’m a socialist, you reject socialism. Whether our political philosophies are congruent or not is unimportant, the facts are important and the fact of the matter is that Obamacare is a scam to preserve private control of health care.

    Obama very clearly puts profits ahead of the needs of patients. Some health care may be cheaper for some but in the end, if the private insurance company that insures you decides to deny coverage and murders you, your ‘savings’ are moot. There are no provisions in Obamacare or regulations that inhibit private insurance companies from denying care even when it leads to death.

    If you think that’s not an important consideration then examine the record of the Obama regime in regulating BP and their operation of DeepWater Horizon. “The Interior Department exempted BP’s calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.” (1)

    Or in the matter of enforcing mine safety. “Ken Hechler, former West Virginia congressman and lead sponsor of a 1969 law that overhauled mining safety, said that his bill gives MSHA officials all the authority they needed to close down the troubled mine — if they had chosen to exercise it.” … “The legislation is there on the books. You can tell in black and white precisely what it means,” Hechler said in a recent phone interview. “This is why I regard MSHA as partially responsible [for the tragedy].”(2)

    Obama care is a fraud. It’s not an advance, it’s a disguised (for those willing to believe) version of the status quo ante. Obama has not and will not enforce the pathetically feeble regulatory provisions of Obamacare because they own him.



  34. BeccaM says:

    We need single-payer, I agree. What I don’t agree with, and what many seem to be suggesting, is we’d all be better off with how things were before PPACA.

    Call me selfish if you want to, but simply being able to buy any insurance at all, at a price that won’t bankrupt my family, is a desirable improvement over the status quo ante. And apparently there are also something like 1.5m Americans now enrolled in Medicaid, with more yet to come.

    Also, you and I already know that our general political philosophies aren’t congruent.

  35. chris10858 says:

    Honestly, if you have no health insurance to begin with, the only doctor you usually are able to see are the ones who work in your local emergency room.

    For those folks, I am sure they would gladly accept being able to get a new doctor in lieu of an ER doctor.

  36. Bill_Perdue says:

    That’s the problem with private insurance plan like Obamacare. Heath care is guided by the profitability of insurance companies and their bankster allies, and ignores the needs of patients.

  37. Bill_Perdue says:

    Democrats are lining up to support Obamacare in spite of the fact that it’s a Republican plan little different than Romenycare.

    Like all health care plans introduced since the Nixon regime, it was written by insurance and pharmaceutical companies and is based on the massive ‘campaign contribution’ bribery of Obama and key Congressional pimps. It’s key failure is that it maintains the insurance companies control and the influence of price gouging pharmaceutical companies.

    Obamacare/Romneycare is fatally flawed scam from the point of view of those needing health care. Obama and the Congress gave into bribes and accepted all the demands of the insurance companies and their bankster allies and preserved the old and that, for patients, is a fatal and unworkable system.

    We need socialized medicine. That is the only answer to the ongoing health crisis and we’ll never get that from Republicans and Democrats. We will get that from socialists.

  38. BillFromDover says:

    Lookie loos:

    If you are already covered by a qualifying plan, you are not eligible for anything offered on this site.

    Browse to your heart’s content, but until ya actually enter valid data to enroll in a plan, ya have no idea about the costs.

    And if ya don’t like Obamacare, what is preventing you from purchasing your insurance on the free market?

    BTW, Obamacare is basically for those without insurance, not for ka-billionaire wives who have nothing better to do than cause hate and discontent.

  39. ezpz says:

    As I said (not verbatim of course), rain your smug self down upon someone else. I’m done with the likes of you.

  40. Thom Allen says:

    “Republicans had nothing to do with passing Obamacare, and they will not bring the program down.” He’s right. They won’t bring it down. But, clearly, not from lack of trying. The House feebly trying to repeal nearly 50 times? Having nothing to offer themselves to replace it? Knocking it constantly. The Iran nuclear weapons accord, just to cover up the “problems” with the ACA? Oh, come on, even you are not that far out there to believe that. If the RepubliCONS really wanted to do something constructive, vs. obstructive, they’d make proposals about how to improve Obamacare. But they don’t. If they wanted to do something constructive, they’d set up their own health care legislation. Not mumble about “vouchers.” Or deny what Twitt did with healthcare that was partially the model for Obamacare.

    No, ezzy, your ideas, arguments and quotes don’t cut it. I give you an A for persistence, but you’re all about missing anything good in Obamacare and prattling on about things like limited physician networks that have nothing at all to do with the ACA – nothing.

    Now get some rest. You might be able to think more clearly in the morning.

  41. BillFromDover says:

    BTW, who/what is forcing anybody onto the exchanges in the 1st place?

    Last I heard, this was still a free country and there are insurance companies more than willing to deal with you directly … yes?

  42. ezpz says:

    Go condescend to someone else with your holier than thou-ness, k?

  43. ezpz says:

    No, I haven’t said anything differently than before.

    To me, the ACA, aka obamacare, IS the govt. You can split hairs and say that the ACA is a ‘legislative act’ – I know that – BUT — it is one that was created by the govt and will be enforced by the govt (IRS) on behalf of the insurance industry. I have no problem interchanging the words ACA, obamacare, govt, Obama, Democrats, insurance industry. For the purpose of this discussion, they are all one and the same.

    Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History

    Also not a RW site. Au contraire. This is written by Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese.

  44. ezpz says:

    Republicans had nothing to do with passing Obamacare, and they will not bring the program down. The falsely named Affordable Health Care Act is coming undone on the strength of its own contradictions. It’s not a national health program, at all – “just Obama working a scam for the insurance companies.”

    You probably think that was written by a RWinger, maybe even a racist, huh?

    Nope on both counts.

    The author is Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report….the black left

  45. Badgerite says:

    Yeah, I don’t think they’ve discovered any cure for that condition yet. Too bad.

  46. Thom Allen says:


    What you’re saying now is different from what you said previously. If you reread your initial post and my reply and THEN READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE, you might be able to see the difference in your initial post and this one.

    I think in this latter post, you’ve finally managed to say what you were not adequately expressing in your first post.

    If, indeed the insurance industry is being subsidized by billions of dollars from the government, then the RepubliCONS can give the $24 billion they owe us from the shutdown directly to the insurance companies. That should take care of the problem.

  47. ezpz says:

    Confused…flat out wrong


    When a law is passed that is literally written by the insurance industry, FOR the insurance industry, and said law guarantees TO the insurance industry millions of new ‘customers’ that will yield billions, probably trillions in new profits – on top of the old already obscene profits…well, to me, that’s a partnership. And when the govt that passed this law guarantees to the insurance industry that if the risk pool is such that their profits ‘suffer’ then the govt will subsidize the industry with billions upon billions, well, that’s a partnership. There’s no getting around that. Why do you think the insurance company stocks have been going up, up, up every since this law was passed, and even before that? Look up United Health Care to see the trend if you don’t believe me.

  48. Thom Allen says:

    See? You almost got it right. The insurance companies – definitely. The RepubliCONS – without a doubt. The consumers? No. But for you, getting 2 out of 3 right is a major improvement. Congratulations!

  49. Thom Allen says:

    You may want to reread what you wrote when you say ACA=insurance companies. You’re right, you’re not confused. I was being polite. You’re either guilty of a major misstatement or you just fail to understand. Either way, you’re flat-out wrong.

  50. ezpz says:

    Yeah, the insurance companies, the republicans, the stupid consumers…

    Everyone but obama and team blue is to blame.

  51. ezpz says:

    I’m not the one confused here. Not at all.
    I’ve paid close attention to this from the very beginning.
    You may want to do some reading before your make such bold and false proclamations.

  52. cole3244 says:

    when you lay with tools you get grease on you, i will save my sympathy for someone who deserves it.

  53. ezpz says:

    I understand it’s an issue. What I don’t understand is how people can fail to understand that “new insurance plan” = “can equal new network” and point to it as a failure of PPACA.

    As I’ve said in another comment, I’ve had many PPOs, HMOs, both private and group, and never have I had to change doctors. Never. Nor has anyone in my family. You may ‘fail to understand’ it, but please don’t imply that those of us who don’t accept this are in any way uninformed or worse, stupid. As I said, this is a first, and I probably have a couple of years on you.

    The incredibly stupid mistake was Obama saying “If you like your doctors, you can keep them.” It never made sense, and most of us paying attention knew it was a falsehood, a phony promise.

    And yet, with this blog entry and most of the comments here, it seems that not only was it no big deal that Obama and the dems lied, but shame on us for believing and expecting them to keep their promises.

    Again, let’s just blame the stupid consumers who should have known better, right?

    The tribalism is stunning.

  54. Thom Allen says:

    How about pressuring the insurance companies to fix this? After all, the insurance companies are the ones that ultimately decide who the providers in a network are and how many of them they want for that network.

  55. Thom Allen says:

    No, ezpz, you’re still confused. The ACA is a legislative act that was voted upon and approved by Congress and signed into law. It is a law, not a business like an insurance company. The ACA and insurance companies are separate entities. One is a lot of words on paper that comprise a law. The other are for-profit businesses. And many of the insurance companies are separate, competing businesses. Though they may sometimes act in concert, they are separate.

  56. ezpz says:

    No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t a monolithic thing, and it’s not something doctors can refuse to participate in. C’mon, I know you know better. ‘Obamacare’ isn’t an insurance plan.

    See my reply to FauxReal:

    And yes, as far as I’m concerned, if someone does feel that keeping their current doctor or specialist is important and they go buy some plan without checking first whether the doc or specialist is included in the group — they didn’t shop very smartly.

    Did you see my comment quoting Neera Tanden?
    Not everyone can afford to pay for the plans with larger provider networks, but let’s just blame the consumer for ‘not shopping very smartly’ rather than holding team blue accountable and even putting pressure on them to fix this.

  57. BeccaM says:

    No, I’ve run into such before. One was even one of my closest friends growing up and into early adulthood.

    She was constantly inviting me to go do things with her — go horseback riding or on a hike, or get together for dinner, or whatever. And constantly she would cancel at the last minute, most often because she wanted to do something else with someone else. She’d also promise to do me favors, then always have some excuse as to why she just couldn’t follow through.

    Eventually, I realized the endless promises were just to keep me on the hook, as the one commitment she’d always keep was when she called me because SHE needed a favor. I had to accept there would only be two kinds of phone calls from this friend-turned-annoying-acquaintance: Invitations and promises she’d break at the last minute, or to ask inconvenient favors.

    As for Obama, he’s the politician variant. He has to know what people really want, or he wouldn’t keep promising it. Yet if you’ve noticed, he always has a handy excuse as to why he couldn’t follow through. I think this has been one of the more glaring instances where people should’ve recognized all along this was never a promise he could keep — not without an entirely different PPACA bill.

  58. ezpz says:

    Newsflash: The ACA was WRITTEN by the insurance industry. Literally.
    They (ACA & Insurance companies) are not separate entities. They have partnered up to become one and the same.

  59. docsterx says:

    Sometimes neither doctors nor patients have a choice. In Connecticut, United Healthcare is dropping almost 20% of the doctors from one of its networks. About 2,200 doctors, PCPs and specialists, are being eliminated from one of their Medicare plans. The practices weren’t given a choice, the physicians weren’t given a choice and their patients weren’t given a choice. They were all notified that those physicians were being removed from that network. The patients have three months to find other physicians who are still in network, or they can continue with dropped physicians and pay out of pocket. This has nothing to do with the ACA. The insurance company is doing this to increase profitability. There is not much the patients or doctors can do in this circumstance.

  60. FauxReal says:

    It isn’t the ACA that’s excluding doctors from the networks. The networks are established by the insurers who enter into contracts with the providers, whether it’s a doctor, a lab, a hospital. This was also true before the ACA.

  61. FauxReal says:

    Brit Hume should hand in his journalist credentials for stating this like his wife didn’t have insurance.
    But that aside . . .

    Back in the day I used to manage employee benefits. I have several instances where employees received notices during the plan year that their primary care physician was no longer part of the network. The employee could select a new primary care or continue to see their current primary care under the terms of out-of-network coverage.

    Also, if an employee was changing insurance plans they may have learned that their current primary care physician was not part of the new insurer’s network. Or maybe it was the lab or their preferred hospital.

    This is not a problem with the ACA but it is how insurance networks work.

  62. BeccaM says:

    No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t a monolithic thing, and it’s not something doctors can refuse to participate in. C’mon, I know you know better. ‘Obamacare’ isn’t an insurance plan.

    What doctors can do is opt not to participate in the Blue Cross / Blue Shield network. Or HealthNet. Or Kaiser. Or whatever other network is defined by the insurance companies.

    The insurance card I expect to receive in a few weeks isn’t going to have OBAMACARE stamped across it. It’s going to say ‘Lovelace Health Plan’ — and it’s going to look exactly like every other Lovelace health insurance card, even for those people who enrolled in Lovelace through their employer or individually.

    Ezpz, if you end up having to change doctors, it won’t be because of Obamacare. It’ll be entirely due to your chosen insurance company and your doctor’s decision whether or not to participate in the network defined by and run by the insurance company. This is why for many people shopping for or state exchange plans now, their starting place isn’t the site, but the provider directories for the individual plans.

    Hell, even I did that, to make sure that both of the local doctors’ offices nearest to me participate in the plans I was considering. (Turns out I could’ve gone with Blue Cross, because they accept that, too.) And yes, as far as I’m concerned, if someone does feel that keeping their current doctor or specialist is important and they go buy some plan without checking first whether the doc or specialist is included in the group — they didn’t shop very smartly.

    Seriously, if you have to go through the site or your state exchange and keeping your doctor is important to you, follow the links to the providers directories for the individual plans. Again, I think you’re missing the point: PPACA/Obamacare doesn’t address the issue of “new plan” = “might equal new doctors” because that detail is built into the entire danged American healthcare system. Change your job, employer changes offerings, have a significant life change — all of these things can force a change in insurance coverage.

    Is it right? No, we should outlaw provider networks and have universal coverage, period. Is PPACA any different than the current status quo for all Americans? No, it’s not. It’s not a step backwards either.

  63. BeccaM says:

    I understand it’s an issue. What I don’t understand is how people can fail to understand that “new insurance plan” = “can equal new network” and point to it as a failure of PPACA.

    Changing an insurance plan has almost ALWAYS carried the risk of no longer having an in-network doctor. As I remarked above, NO plan short of legislation outlawing insurance networks would do away with this. And by the way, it’s looking more and more like the deliberate cancellation of existing plans by the insurance companies has been their own attempt at sabotage. They’d LOVE to go back to the status quo.

    The incredibly stupid mistake was Obama saying “If you like your doctors, you can keep them.” It never made sense, and most of us paying attention knew it was a falsehood, a phony promise.

  64. Houndentenor says:

    They can also afford to go to an out of network doctor and just pay the bill if that’s what they want to do. most people can’t. It would be that bill or the electricity.

  65. Houndentenor says:

    From about 1996-2009 I temped in between singing gigs. I worked for several CEOs and high level executives. I saw the full range from people very concerned about lower level employees and very involved in charity groups. I also had someone complain to me about how much he was paying in taxes when he didn’t even have to buy his own lunch (there was a chef for the executive floor to cook for about a half dozen people…cooked for us when the boss was out of town LOL). Anyway. It’s not all of them. But it also didn’t seem to correspond to whether they grew up rich or not. I really do think it has to do with buying into a Randian world view that the rich are givers and everyone else is a leech. The difference is that people like Paul Ryan don’t even feel the need to hide this attitude when speaking to the public at large. I would also like to note that the higher the income level the more likely someone is to be a Democrat, not the other way around. Not all the rich people in this country are like the Koch brothers. Unfortunately they do their giving in private and aren’t publicity whores like Donald Trump. What we have left of charity organizations couldn’t exist without these folks and their money.

  66. MassBill says:

    She’s a tool of her husband who used her to make a non point and humiliate her.
    Nice guy….

  67. ezpz says:

    *You* may be getting ‘getting sick of these BS red herring complaints” but can you not understand that to many of us, changing doctors is NOT a BS complaint, but a very real issue?

  68. ezpz says:

    “So it’s entirely possible that Mrs. Hume can’t buy an Obamacare plan that includes her own doctor because her own doctor chose not to accept the Obamacare plan in question. I know that’s what my primary care doctor did – he simply didn’t want to take one of the two ACA plans that I’m considering buying. It’s his choice, not Obamacare’s.”

    Actually, no. While it’s true that the doctor can sometimes decline to participate in obamacare, it’s a fact that obamacare will exclude many primary care doctors, specialists and the more expensive hospitals….

    Neera Tanden, president of Center For American Progress and one of the obamacare authors:

    TANDEN: So, here’s the reality of this situation. There are insurers who are offering narrower networks, right?

    WALLACE: Under ObamaCare?

    TANDEN: Right. So, in the exchanges, there are people who are offering narrower networks under the new law, right? For — and you pay less for those plans. You can pay more for a plan that has a larger network. That is — that is the issue here. There are choices in the market. People are paying more for better benefits.

    I’ve had the same ‘family doctor’ for many years — through different HMOs, PPOs, both private and employee group plans. Maybe it’s no biggie to the defenders of this law, but for me to change doctors now WOULD be a very big deal.

  69. perljammer says:

    It’s really very strange. There really wasn’t any reason at all for him to make those ridiculous “If you like your [ ] you can keep your [ ]” promises. It’s almost as if he just can’t help himself. I think this is the first case I’ve ever heard of, of someone being a compulsive promiser.

  70. BeccaM says:

    For the plutocratic class, the habit of philanthropy was a fad that lasted for several generations in the aftermath of the Robber Baron era, but finally died around 1980.

    What you term sociopathy is also the pathology of wealth and entitlement. Those who already have millions all too often come to believe they deserve their wealth and there’s nothing wrong with making others suffer for it.

  71. BeccaM says:

    In the particular case of not being able to “keep your doctor”, I think
    this is just another unfortunate example of our President making a
    promise that wasn’t his to keep.

    Bingo. Exactly. It was and is up to one’s insurance plan, doctor, and for those who have employers, up to the employer as to whether you get to keep your doctors and/or specialists from year to year. Short of enrolling everyone in Medicare and/or having a law requiring all healthcare providers to accept Medicare and every single insurance plan out there (i.e., outlaw provider networks), this was never a promise the President could or should have made.

    Unfortunately, that’s one of Obama’s biggest failings and character flaws: He’ll glibly promise things he has to know he either can’t or simply won’t pursue.

  72. Houndentenor says:

    What kind of sociopath can only think of themselves and not even pretend to give a crap about people not as well off? At least in the past the rich had to pretend not to be so cold-hearted towards the less fortunate. Has Ayn Rand so infiltrated the right that they don’t even feel the need to pretend to have compassion for anyone but themselves?

  73. Houndentenor says:

    He just barely got this plan passed. Medicare for all couldn’t have even gotten out of committee in either house, much less passed. Sorry, but that just wasn’t an option.

  74. BeccaM says:

    I for one am getting sick of these BS red herring complaints. What hasn’t changed about health insurance due to PPACA? If you change plans, there’s a chance you’ll have to get a new doctor. This has been the case for decades. Premiums are indeed too expensive, but hey, since PPACA their rate of increase and the degradation of benefits have been reversed.

    I mean, Jeebus, who here who’s had insurance on the private or employer-provided market who hasn’t had to deal with imposed plan changes? Employers do it all the time. Insurance companies do it all the time. Hell, I remember having a doctor whose office informed me they simply weren’t accepting my insurance plan anymore — and this was during the 1980s.

    What has changed? No more annual or lifetime benefit caps. No more rescissions or pre-existing condition denials. Guaranteed issue and community premium pricing — no more being charged through the nose just because you had cancer once and having insurance that specifically disallows any future cancer coverage. Minimum benefit regulations, so there’s a disincentive for the junk insurance market. And let’s not forget the massive Medicare expansion (which should’ve been made mandatory to keep the GOP governors from f*cking with it) and the premium subsidies for low and middle income individuals and families.

    What at minimum should be fixed? A public option for insurance. That’d create even more downward pressure on premiums. Same thing with drug re-importation. And yes, ideally they ought to simply remove the “and you have to be 65 years old” rule for Medicare — plus add a rule, “You want to practice medicine in America, you have to accept Medicare patients, period.”

    But hell, at least there are the possibility of choices with PPACA. Which is more than I had three years ago.

  75. BeccaM says:

    She can and does. Mrs. Hume was just bitching because the Chevy-Ford-GMC dealership at which she was window-shopping/slumming didn’t carry the specific model of high-end tricked-out BMW she already owns. So to speak.

  76. karmanot says:

    Bam!!!! Well read!

  77. karmanot says:

    OMG older than dirt?

  78. karmanot says:

    No amount of insurance will cover the lethal stupidity and culpability of the Hume trolls.

  79. karmanot says:

    The writers of the law knew that Max Baccus ( insurance lobby stooge of the highest ranking) would deliver America into the hands of insurance with no cost control. It was a cynical play with everyone on board.

  80. Whitewitch says:

    I agree – the fifties I remember are nothing like that many American’s paint. It was a harsh time, where women and children were routinely abused or at the very least minimized. It, to me, was an ugly time.

  81. karmanot says:

    If we had Medicare for everyone it wouldn’t be a problem. Obama is a two-bit sell out.

  82. karmanot says:

    What complete and utter bull s**t. The doctors , nurses and their staff that I know are incredible healers, work long hours and are very dedicated.

  83. Monoceros Forth says:

    I joke to hide the hurt, karmanot :p

  84. Monoceros Forth says:

    Thanks :) I like to think I have my moments.

    I’ve long cherished a hypothesis that the American right-winger has a concept in his mind of an America that doesn’t actually exist and never existed, a concept that is largely pictorial. You see this notion of a fantasy America come through in the persistent right-wing obsession with the ’60s, for example, because that is supposedly when dirty and selfish hippies ruined it for all of us. I daresay that hallucinations about this fantasy America come into play when health care is debated–a fantasy world in which everyone gets personal attention from a Norman Rockwellesque doctor until the gummint steps in.

  85. karmanot says:

    They haven’t changed Russ. Don’t go back.

  86. karmanot says:

    Couldn’t agree more about Kaiser, which I had through my union—-caused incredible damage.

  87. karmanot says:

    You are too funny MF. :-)

  88. cole3244 says:

    sounds like mrs hume is as much of a tool as he is.

  89. Naja pallida says:

    Insurance companies love the part where people are forced to buy into their scam. They just hate the parts where they are required to actually give customers something for their money, and where they have to cover already sick people who they know are just going to cut into their potential profits.

  90. Cletus says:

    Agreed, just saying they really set themselves up for that one.

  91. SkippyFlipjack says:

    Brit to his wife: “Honey, can you spend the day refreshing the Obamacare website as many times as possible? Get your friends on it too. See if you can jam it up, OK?”

  92. Monoceros Forth says:

    Being a millionaire, his real or fictional wife probably has a Cadillac plan that pays for almost any doctor.

    But isn’t it part of the usual Beltway pundit method to pretend to be jes’ folks? Sort of like David Brooks pretending to have his finger on the pulse of real America because he dined at an Applebee’s once.

  93. Houndentenor says:

    It seems to me that the insurance companies want that to fail which makes single payer look like a more attractive option every day. I was against that option in 2008. I can see that the insurance companies are going to screw us over until we can elect a Congress that they haven’t bribed into allowing them full reign over our medical care.

  94. Fill2 says:

    Jerks fooling around like that are keeping others from getting on and might be causing a lot of problems with the website.

  95. Houndentenor says:

    There is no insurance plan that you can promise you that you can always keep your doctor. That’s up to the insurance company and the doctor. Doctors are under no obligation to take your or any insurance. It was a pretty stupid thing to promise. I think most people who’ve ever dealt with an insurance company knew that wasn’t what he meant. What he was promising was that this wasn’t going to be single-payer but people heard something else.

  96. Houndentenor says:

    I hate defending the ACA. it’s not what was proposed by the Obama campaign in 2008 and it’s certainly not the best possible option. And yet my choice is defend the law or acquiesce to my Teabagger nutjob relatives. I’ll stick with the law as it is and hope that some people will realize that fixing it is a real option. Repealing it is not.

  97. perljammer says:

    OK, fine. Now, how are you going to restrict access by those who aren’t “legitimate” shoppers? By appealing to their better natures? My attitude is, “The more people who look at this stuff, the better.” See my reply to Whitewitch below for the reasons.

  98. Houndentenor says:

    He’s an anti-gay bigot whose closeted son killed himself rather than admit he was gay. He’s a total asshole. I know people who worked with him when he was still at ABC and they all hated him for being such an anti-gay asshole (and not all of them were gay).

  99. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I had the same thought, but saw this as a couple of separate things — Obama’s sweeping promises about keeping doctors and insurance plans that weren’t realistic and are vulnerable to say the least to conservative attacks, and Brit’s disingenuous attempt to make those arguments with a bogus personal example.

  100. Houndentenor says:

    She can’t get insurance through his job?

  101. Whitewitch says:

    I love Kaiser…I wish we had it here at my job. My husband has it as his Medicare provider and they take very very good care of him.

  102. Whitewitch says:

    I think our President is a silly man and probably has no idea of what reality is. I doubt he even understood that most people don’t “have a doctor”. Like me, I have one sure – but she is part of the HMO provider and she might not be there tomorrow…in fact probably won’t be. I suspect the Rich have no idea what the real world truth is…and I doubt that any working man is really complaining when they loose a doctor.

    What is fascinating to me is how may working Americans listen to these Rich Bastards and give any credence to what they say at all about anything.

    You are right – anyone can look…

  103. nicho says:

    I had a friend who had what was supposed to be a good plan. He got cancer. They would cover his chemo. His co-pay would have been $1,100 a week. He didn’t have it. On the other hand, the health care plan provided extremely good hospice care while he died.

  104. nicho says:

    Horse’s ass would be putting it mildly.

  105. nicho says:

    That is just a bald-faced lie.

  106. nicho says:

    Older. I remember when they built the hills. They were supposed to be condos, but they ran out of money and they had to fill them in with dirt.

  107. perljammer says:

    Well, I have an employer-provided plan, but you can bet your bippy (oh, man, did I ever just date myself!) that I browsed the plans, just to find out how deep a puddle I’d be standing in were I to suddenly become unemployed, or to find my employer dropping that benefit.

    Anyway, my personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that it’s fruitless to be concerned about who is browsing and why. If browsing is possible, people are going to browse — some because they’re seriously shopping; some because they’re curious, and yes, some because they have ulterior motives. As to that last group, I say, “Go right ahead.” If they expose weaknesses in the system, then the weaknesses can be fixed. If the weaknesses don’t get fixed, then shame on the administration. If they’re making sh*t up, then the very openness of the browsing will make it that much easier to debunk their lies.

    In the particular case of not being able to “keep your doctor”, I think this is just another unfortunate example of our President making a promise that wasn’t his to keep. It’s been pretty widely known for a while now that one of the ways the insurance companies were going to try to constrain costs was to limit the number of doctors and hospitals within networks, so this isn’t simply a case of “the evil doctor decided not to accept my insurance”, though there’s undoubtedly some of that going on as well.

  108. SkippyFlipjack says:

    FWIW, I really liked Kaiser and was disappointed that my current employer didn’t offer them — got our family through a birth and cancer with very good care, and I love having all the specialists in one place and the coordination between them handled by Kaiser and not me. Love the 24-hr advice nurse too. The Kaiser model of tracking all interactions — surgeries, checkups, medications — in a single database is really the best way to do medicine. (Fair amount of annoying billing screwups but felt the medical care outweighed that.)

  109. Russ says:

    I dunno – I’d probably do the same thing again I’m still so agitated about working w/ Kaiser scum -I’m still angry… Who knows, maybe someday, since that was only 8 years ago.

  110. emjayay says:

    Good thing you didn’t get cancer or anything while you righteously went without insurance. I found Kaiser to be extremely convenient when I had it. I would still be on it but I’m not in the area.

  111. emjayay says:

    The website was changed to what anyone would know it should have been in the first place for the convenience of shoppers, not to encourage “lookie loos”.

  112. emjayay says:

    I think Brit Hume works in DC. So he and presumably his wife live in DC, Virginia, or Maryland. Does one of those places actually have only one provider on the ACA exchange?

    Being a millionaire, his real or fictional wife probably has a Cadillac plan that pays for almost any doctor. Assuming she exists, she goes to high end doctors who don’t want any HMO or PPO patients because they can charge much more than the prevailing rates and don’t want or need any of those patients. When I had to switch plans, I had to check to see if my regular primary care doctor was on it, and check for the dermatologist etc. I had to switch dermatologists, but the more important specialists were in the new plan. A few months later either the insurance dropped that dermatologist or they quit, and I had to find another one. This is of course typical. And if you get into a traditional HMO like Kaiser, all the doctors are different because they all work there.

    I don’t know anything about this Brit Hume guy, but he’s obviously a privleged horse’s ass just based on this crap.

  113. Russ says:

    My company changed providers a few years back – I had been lucky that when I started my position, I went into an Aetna plan which allowed me to keep my current plan and specialist care I was undergoing at the time. The company then ended that option and I was to be forced into a Kaiser plan. At that point I just ended my coverage rather than go to a new doctor and what? try to restart my specialist care over with from the get-go? Much less, having had a truly horrible experience working at Kaiser, I wasn’t about to pay them ANYTHING for ANY plan, I just went completely out-of-pocket. Lucky for me, my company brought back the Aetna option, which I’m still under to this day, same doctor, etc. That was my experience with the “free market” which, yes, caused me to “lose” my regular doctor.

    Man, that Britt Hume really IS an idiot!

  114. silas1898 says:

    She (or the staff) went fishing for a “Horror Story” and this was the best they could come up with. Pathetic.

  115. timncguy says:

    Obama’s promise was that Obamacare would not force them to see a different doctor. He has no control over what the insurance companies do. The righties would blame Obama if a doctor retired or died and then someone couldn’t continue to see the doc they liked.

  116. Whitewitch says:

    Thanksgiving was GREAT! Hope your holiday was wonderful.

    I have no objection to lookie loos who are going to use the plan. I have not browsed because I don’t need it – have employer insurance through my work. Why does Ms. Hume need to browse and the point I was trying to make was I doubt she actually did – just more FAKE whinning from the Fox & Friends (who are not really your friend) playbook.

    But you are right – it was one of the complaints and I am happy they fixed it!

  117. runfastandwin says:

    I just went through this and it had nothing to do with the ACA, my Healthnet HMO decided to drop my doctor of 20 years, no warning, no nothing, just here one day and gone the next. Just like that.

  118. timncguy says:

    Yes, that would be for lookie loos who actually need insurance, not lookie loos who already have employer provided insurance. Ms Hume had no reason to be looking at anything

  119. ArthurH says:

    For his next act, Britt Hume and Fox News will argue that healthcare,org is waging a war on Christmas. But the only wreath they’ll deserve is the kind commonly found in cemetaries.

  120. perljammer says:

    To be fair, the website was modified to encourage “lookie loos”. That was the point of changing it so you wouldn’t have to create an account to browse plans. Remember all the (in my opinion, completely valid) complaints of “Oh noes, I have to apply and wait for approval before I can look at what’s available”? Can’t have it both ways — if perljammer and Whitewitch can browse, so can Brit Hume and his wife and staffers.

    PS Hope your Thanksgiving was a great one!

  121. Naja pallida says:

    Kinda hard when the first thing they ask you for when you apply for almost any insurance, often before they even ask you your full name, is your social security number. The wording in the ACA was just icing to appease the Blue Dogs and other right-wing assholes who did finally vote for it in the end. It makes no practical change to the insurance market. But really, I could see not allowing undocumented persons to get government subsidies, but not allowing them to buy private insurance seems rather absurd. That goes back to the risk pool thing. The wider the pool, the better off everyone is. When we intentionally force 12 million people to go without insurance, many of them are still going to need medical care at some point. Since very few people, even citizens, can afford full health care out of pocket… someone’s going to end up paying for it, most likely the tax payers, when they go to the ER.

  122. Whitewitch says:

    Sometimes, like today, I love you! What a wonderful post and TRUE.

  123. Whitewitch says:

    Errr nicho – I think that makes you “old as the hills”. Could be wrong. Sorry you had to work with him…yuck and double yuck.

  124. Whitewitch says:

    More lookie loos bogging down the system…no wonder it crashes…I would crash too if Ms. Hume was shopping me. And I call BS to the whole story – I doubt that she tried to even get on – some staffer for Brit probably did it. Lazy, lying buttheads.

  125. Naja pallida says:

    Obama made promises that the insurance industry never ever had any intention of keeping, and the writers of the law did not have the imagination to think that the insurance industry was going to find every possible loophole to screw them in any way it could – and put in language to make sure those promises were kept. They had this delusional belief that the insurance industry would be so grateful to have millions of new customers, that they would just calmly go along with even things that weren’t explicitly spelled out for them.

  126. Cletus says:

    A little off topic, but wouldn’t it be great right about now for someone to rub good ole Rep Joe Wilson’s nose in the fact that he was full of shit when he shouted “You lie” during Obama’s joint session to Congress when he said illegal immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for coverage – just for old time’s sake?

    Section 1312 (f)(3) of the Affordable Care Act expressly denies health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants:

    Access limited to lawful residents. If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.

  127. lynchie says:

    The problem is between the doctor and the insurance company. the doctor doesn’t want to accept what the insurance company is paying for the procedures. This is another off shoot of the insurance industry. In a single payer system all surgeons are paid the same. the company I work for changed insurance companies I no longer can go to my primary care doctor or my heart specialist (after 10 years) and must drive 40 miles to someone they approve of or pay the full cost of seeing the doctors i have seen for years. The ACA was not designed to deal with this. It is among the many things that will continue to crop up as we move forward. The GOP still have no plan to offer, no fixes, no suggestions just lets repeal the ACA and leave people with nothing. Every news show has a spot on how this or that is a disaster and the smug, sarcastic comments from Morning Joe, Fox and Friends, etc. is starting to suck the oxygen out of the room. Fox and Friends started this mornings segment with Douchey saying they only hired 6 people to fix the web site as if 100 would be better or 25 or 60. Tiring and it does fall on O and his staff who screwed the launch up and didn’t make sure it worked. Did they not consider the GOP would eat their testicles if it didn’t perform at 150%.

  128. gaylib says:

    Most doctors are self-serving over privileged scum. They are the reason we don’t have universal health care in this country. They are grossly overpaid, and most of them are woefully incompetent.

  129. Cletus says:

    Not to defend Hume, cause I’d rather swallow glass than defend anyone on the right, but the promise was made that if you had a doctor you liked, you could keep them. Just one of the many promises anyone who knows the insurance industry would have never made.

  130. MyrddinWilt says:

    Which will be another demographic advantage for Democrats in decades to come when all the dirt poor rubes who buy the Faux News propaganda are dead due to preventable illnesses because they took up Rupert Murdoch’s advice not to get health care insurance.

  131. Naja pallida says:

    Even if she did have to take a plan from the exchange, and that plan forced her to change doctors… that isn’t really the fault of the Affordable Care Act. That is the fault of the insurance companies, and what seems to be a monopoly in her area. Insurance companies are the ones who decide which health care providers are paying them the appropriate homage.

  132. Hue-Man says:

    Next Fox News breaking story: “Obamacare caused me to lose my family doctor. She retired.” (I’ll skip past the reality that doctors are not exempt from mortality tables.)

    I sense some serious cherry-picking going on – all the rotten outcomes are trumpeted and the lower premiums and lives saved for the formerly uninsured completely ignored.

  133. Badgerite says:

    A person of Brit Hume’s income level can purchase any insurance he feels he needs. Their marketplace is affected only in that what is available will have to meet certain minimum requirements of coverage. This was a Heritage Foundation Plan after all, and it leaves the health insurance marketplace pretty much intact and the same as before for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
    It was meant to affect, and does affect primarily those people who were completely shut out of the system due to unaffordable ( for them ) or substandard insurance policies. That would be quite a lot of people in those deep red states.

  134. nicho says:

    I worked with Brit Hume in the mid-’60s. Biggest self-important asshole you could ever imagine.

  135. Monoceros Forth says:

    So saith Millie Landin: “Just think of how many who barely afford their care will feel to find they can’t see a ‘Dr’ [sic] they are comfortable with!”

    Er, Millie, I’m in that category at the moment. Seeing a doctor I’m “comfortable with” isn’t even something I care to waste time worrying about. Seeing any doctor at all is more worrisome to me.

    Seriously, this canard about how even the slightest government involvement in the health care industry will rob the people of the ability to see “their doctor” just sticks in my craw. I don’t have “my doctor”. I’ve not had “my doctor” for decades now. There’s no kindly, grey-haired GP in my life who greets me by my first name with a smile and asks me how my mate’s doing and whether the crocuses are coming into bloom yet. Even when I had something like a proper insurance policy I didn’t have “my doctor”, not unless picking a primary care physician out of a catalog counted as acquiring “my doctor”. The whole notion of having “my doctor” whom the evil gummint is going to prevent me from seeing is just laughable to me.

  136. Indigo says:

    Why window shop needlessly? To stir the kettle, obviously. Predictably, it smells because Mrs. Hume (a prop?) was looking for the smelly part. You know, the more you stir the sh*t, the more it stinks.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS