And while we're on the subject of Freedom-Hater-care . . .

Perhaps the core truth that serves as conservatism's foundation is that everything in life is a trade-off.  It's the basis on which we're able to dispel a lot of nonsense about "rights" on the one hand while generally serving as the best vehicle for illustrating the nature of real freedom.

The overlords are up against a big-time trade-off regarding FHer-care:

Anger over limited choice of doctors and hospitals in Obamacare plans is prompting some states to require broader networks — and boiling up as yet another election year headache for the health law.

Americans for Prosperity is hitting on these “narrow networks” against Democrats such as Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, whose GOP opponent Scott Brown has made the health law a centerpiece of his campaign to unseat her. And Republicans have highlighted access challenges as another broken promise from a president who assured Americans they could keep their doctor.

It’s not just a political problem. It’s a policy conundrum. Narrow networks help contain health care costs. If state or federal regulators — or politicians — force insurers to expand the range of providers, premiums could spike. And that could create a whole new wave of political and affordability problems that can shape perceptions of Obamacare.

Just like the subsidies at the center of today's ruling by the DC Circuit Court, if you don't have narrow networks, you don't have any cost control.

Memo to Freedom-Haters:  Isn't it time to quit trying to outsmart the free market?