Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bill O'Reilly is insecure

It's one thing to be an ideologue willing to lie for your cause. It's a whole other to be embarrassed about being an ideologue willing to lie for your cause. So c'mon, Bill O'Reilly: Have some pride!

Just for the record, it is flatly untrue that failing to pay the individual mandate's fine will land you in jail. In fact, the law specifically says that failure to pay the individual mandate's fine will not land you in jail. It's right there in Section 1501 of the bill: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

By Ezra Klein  |  April 16, 2010; 11:13 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is there a middle way on obesity?
Next: The rich are like you and me -- but so much richer

Comments

Ezra,

You are no longer being objective and now are simply a shrill for the liberals. There have been many people, including the president and congress people who have made blatant mistatements about the healthcare legislation. It is so massive that mistakes are understanable. The house version of the bill did have criminal penalties for not having insurance. I saw an interview with Nancy Pelosi last year where she admitted that. You should consider working for the Huffington Post or for the White House if you are only going to present the liberal viewpoint without any context.

Posted by: cummije5 | April 16, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Ezra,
The problem is not what the O'Reilly-the Gorrila, or Rush Limbaugh-the Bimbo, or G. Beck who is as smart as a Deck in any back yard, say. It is more important what are we going to do about it, to shut up these talking heads who outright lie to the public in such obvious manner.

Posted by: Lev10 | April 16, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Ezra,

did you know there is imprisonment POTENTIAL for HIPAA violations? The issue is whether or not they'd be enforced or not. When HIPAA first came out there were 3 regulators nationwide that were set up to determine if a violation occurred and to regulate them. Needless to say I've never heard of one prosecuted although I expect HIPAA violations happen EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Posted by: visionbrkr | April 16, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I can't see the video at work. I did see on Media Matters the other day that almost immediately after O'Reilly forcefully stated that no-one on his show or the network had stated that there were criminal penalties they had compiled a list of something like 20 times it had happened. And O'Reilly said they "researched" it to make sure.

Posted by: MosBen | April 16, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

@cummije5

Let's get the facts straight. There was never a provision providing criminal penalties. The jail time would have resulted from failure to pay the tax penalty. Like with tax fraud and tax evasion, criminal charges can and are enforced. What you see here is an exclusion to usual enforcement. Furthermore, O'Reilly is misrepresenting Fox's documented use of the lie. I'd say this post was quite fair.

Posted by: Dan_B | April 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

He has always been insecure, and extremely thin skinned. This was funny on a regular basis many years ago. He has also a company man- regularly defending the integrity and balance of Fox News, despite the evidence. The two are related.

Posted by: StevenDS | April 16, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-health-care-reform-strongsville-ohio: "How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise. (Applause.)"

Of course, the 3000% fall in premiums is as false as the statement that citizens will be jailed simply for failing to pay the Obama health penalty, making the President as honest (and as desirous of TVQ ratings) as Bill O'Reilly.

I'd add that Capone was jailed for perjury and tax evasion, not for murder: a citizen who fails to understand the PPACA might check the wrong box on the tax form signed under oath... and then might be jailed not for failing to pay the penalty, but for failing to properly admit not paying the penalty.

Finally, I'll note that the penalty will be collected (a priori) as part of payroll withholding, to be refunded to each taxpayer only at the discretion of the IRS (when speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, April 5, 2010, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman "said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate.").

Posted by: rmgregory | April 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

i love when politicians on both side use terms like "as much as" and "could".


I wonder how the whole Anthem increase of "as much as" 39% is shaking out? Still not much word out there and May 1st is right around the corner.


http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/12/business/la-fi-anthem12-2010apr12


Posted by: visionbrkr | April 16, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

A vision of whats to come. From the April 9th WSJ:

"The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90 percent of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal coverage in 2006, and Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits, says the Journal:

* Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009.
* In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims.
* It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies, so until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in, says the Journal: Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs)."

Someone please explain to me why the system is working so swimmingly in MA.

Steve

Posted by: FatTriplet3 | April 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

A vision of whats to come. From the April 9th WSJ:

"The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90 percent of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal coverage in 2006, and Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits, says the Journal:

* Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009.
* In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims.
* It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies, so until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in, says the Journal: Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs)."

Someone please explain to me why the system is working so swimmingly in MA.

Steve

Posted by: FatTriplet3 | April 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The big issue now is whether O'Reilly will run a correction and retract his statement.

Posted by: etdean1 | April 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

A vision of whats to come. From the April 9th WSJ:

"The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90 percent of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal coverage in 2006, and Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits, says the Journal:

* Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009.
* In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims.
* It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies, so until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in, says the Journal: Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs)."

Someone please explain to me why the system is working so swimmingly in MA.

Steve

Posted by: FatTriplet3 | April 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The big issue now is whether O'Reilly will run a correction and retract his statement.

Posted by: etdean1 | April 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It is impossible to catch a right-wing ideologue in a lie. Because even when confronted with the bold faced evidence of the lie they will look bug-eyed at you and claim some liberal commie fabricated that evidence.

I had a discussion with my conservative SO this morning about this O'Reilly issue, and he claimed Bill O'Reilly was right. I didn't know it at the time that O'Reilly had been caught in a big lie. But it is apparent now that the reason my SO was talking about this issue was that the Fox talking points had already gone out to defend O'Reilly. I.e. my SO's comments were a pre-emptive strike on the outing of O'Reilly's lie.

Posted by: Lomillialor | April 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It is impossible to catch a right-wing ideologue in a lie. Because even faced with the bold faced evidence of the lie they will look bug-eyed at you and claim some liberal commie fabricated that evidence.

I had a discussion with my conservative SO this morning about this issue, and he claimed Bill O'Reilly was right. I didn't know it at the time that O'Reilly had been caught in a big lie. But the reason my SO was talking on this issue was that the Fox talking points had already gone out to defend O'Reilly. I.e. my SO's comments were a pre-emptive strike on the outing of O'Reilly's lie.

Posted by: Lomillialor | April 16, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It is impossible to catch a right-wing ideologue in a lie. Because even faced with the bold faced evidence of the lie they will look bug-eyed at you and claim some liberal commie fabricated that evidence.

I had a discussion with my conservative SO this morning about this issue, and he claimed Bill O'Reilly was right. I didn't know it at the time that O'Reilly had been caught in a big lie. But the reason my SO was talking on this issue was that the Fox talking points had already gone out to defend O'Reilly. I.e. my SO's comments were a pre-emptive strike on the outing of O'Reilly's lie.

Posted by: Lomillialor | April 16, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

A vision of whats to come. From the April 9th WSJ:

"The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90 percent of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal coverage in 2006, and Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits, says the Journal:

* Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009.
* In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims.
* It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies, so until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in, says the Journal: Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs)."

Someone please explain to me why the system is working so swimmingly in MA.

Steve

Posted by: FatTriplet3 | April 16, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The big issue now is whether O'Reilly will run a correction and retract his statement.

Posted by: etdean1 | April 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

And I'd just like to point out that politicians and the media have different responsibilities. Everyone should tell the truth, but it is the primary function of the reporting media to report the facts accurately. I'm not saying it's ok for politicians to misrepresent facts (nor am I weighing in on any of the examples in this thread related to politicians), but that a politician may have lied/misrepresented is not an excuse for a reporter/media representative to lie/misrepresent the issue as well.

O'Reilly and Fox have a duty to accurately present the facts. Many times on his show and on the network, people falsely claimed that HCR would result in jail time. O'Reilly then denied anyone on the network ever had done so and claimed to have researched the issue to back it up. I certainly don't expect Fox to do very well with holding up their ethical standards these days, but they clearly violated them here.

Posted by: MosBen | April 16, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The big issue now is whether O'Reilly will run a correction and retract his statement.

Posted by: etdean1 | April 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The video posted by Ezra shows outdated video clips from earlier in the health care debate when criminal penalties were in the health care bill. They were later taken out. If Ezra and his Huffington post friends were balanced they would show this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TJb7trBXk8 where Nancy Pelosi is admitting that there are crimnial penalties possible for not having health insurance.

Ezra is just a young Dan Froomkin that regurgitates anything that is found on the interenet that is critical of conservatives.

Posted by: cummije5 | April 16, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Find Instant Medical Insurance coverage for you at http://bit.ly/dqJw9Z

Posted by: MaryJames1 | April 17, 2010 5:06 AM | Report abuse

Mr. O'Really was payed a big bonus for saying all he did. Check out Murdoch's personal check #27362 in the amount of $10,000 payed to one B.O. Reilly dated 3 days after the lie. Ain't parody grand?

Posted by: hoser3 | April 18, 2010 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Bill O'Relly posts under the name cummije5.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 18, 2010 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Mr. O'Really was payed a big bonus for saying all he did. Check out Murdoch's personal check #27362 in the amount of $10,000 payed to one B.O. Reilly dated 3 days after the lie. Ain't parody grand?

Posted by: hoser3 | April 18, 2010 3:55 AM | Report abuse

It's not enough for Brillo to lie, he has to make a joke about the 45,000 that will die without health care access by saying, "We'll do it live". What a soulless ghoul. I don't really know if this is true because I read it in a 1967 issue of the L.A. Times.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 18, 2010 4:01 AM | Report abuse

cummije5, you are incorrect.

Posted by: MosBen | April 19, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company