About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Reading FAIL: Hannity's claims to have "read the entire bill" undermined by falsehoods

August 19, 2009 2:50 pm ET — 32 Comments

After claiming to have "read the entire bill, all 1,018 pages," Sean Hannity falsely claimed that if small businesses "don't go for the public option" under a House health care reform bill, "they're going to be punished," and that end-of-life provisions in the bill would establish "a bureaucrat that is designated to save money talking to an elderly person and offering them end-of-life advice." In fact, the penalty on small business would apply to businesses that don't provide health care, not specifically on those that "don't go for the public option," and the end-of-life provisions would reimburse physicians -- not "a bureaucrat" -- for voluntary counseling sessions.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Legislation does not require employers to "go for the government option"

HANNITY: Frank, I've read the entire bill, all 1,018 pages of it. And not only that, they will tax small businesses that have a payroll of $250,000 more if they don't go for the government option, to use your phraseology, then they're going to be punished.

8 percent tax is actually a penalty on employers who do not provide health care coverage to their employees. The House tri-committee bill does not require businesses to provide health care under the public option. Rather, the relevant provision states that the tax applies only to employers who elect not to provide sufficient health care coverage as described in the bill:

''(c) EMPLOYERS ELECTING TO NOT PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS. --

"(1) IN GENERAL. -- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).

Employers can provide health care coverage other than through public option. An employer's obligation to provide qualified health insurance is not limited to the public option. The relevant provision states:

(a) In General- An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE- The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION- The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION- The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES- The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

Legislation allows a patient to request end-of-life counseling from a "qualified care provider," not a "bureaucrat"

CAROLINE HELDMAN (assistant professor of politics, Occidental College): We're in the land of fiction with health care, where there are death panels and euthanasia and abortion.

HANNITY: Fiction? I've read the entire bill.

HELDMAN: None of that is true.

HANNITY: Have you read the entire bill?

HELDMAN: I have read the entire bill, as well as --

HANNITY: Wait a minute. Page 425 and 430, and Chris, I'll throw this to you. It was very, very clear that end-of-life counseling -- I don't want a bureaucrat that is designated to save money talking to an elderly person and offering them end-of-life advice. Do you?

The provision that Hannity pointed to requires Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- which includes pages "425 and 430" -- amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233], not from "a bureaucrat."

According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09]

Practitioners limited to physicians, nurse practitioners, and qualified physician's assistants. The relevant provision -- on page 428 -- defines "practitioner" as follows:

"(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

"(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and

"(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.[America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]

Numerous media conservatives have advanced myth that provision provides seniors mandatory counseling to end their lives. On July 16, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill would "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors "that will tell them how to end their life sooner." Since then, numerous media figures -- including Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh -- have echoed McCaughey's claim -- even after the falsehood was debunked and McCaughey herself backtracked.

From the August 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

FRANK LUNTZ (Republican consultant): I think that this debate can and should be conducted in a civil and meaningful manner. That said -- again, I point to the language that -- "Not these wild misrepresentations." I started to read the bill. They're talking about lowering the reimbursements for Medicare. That is not a misinterpretation. That is a fact. And every senior has the right to know exactly what will be paid for and what won't be. And every doctor, Sean, has the right to know whether they're going to be reimbursed for their services.

HANNITY: Frank, I've read the entire bill, all 1,018 pages of it. And not only that, they will tax small businesses that have a payroll of $250,000 more if they don't go for the government option, to use your phraseology, then they're going to be punished.

But I'm all for civility, Frank, but I don't think the grandmothers and the veterans and the stay-at-home moms that are expressing passion have been disrespectful. As a matter of fact, I think it's quintessentially American what we have witnessed here. I can't think of an instance where anyone really crossed the line that I think that was inappropriate. You know, it seems that the fact that the American people have spoken up has offended them.

[...]

HELDMAN: Well, health care is a really complicated issue, and, so far, we're in the land of fiction, not the land of fact. We're in the land of fiction with health care, where there are death panels and euthanasia and abortion.

HANNITY: Fiction? I've read the entire bill.

HELDMAN: None of that is true.

HANNITY: Have you read the entire bill?

HELDMAN: I have read the entire bill, as well as --

HANNITY: Wait a minute. Page 425 and 430, and Chris, I'll throw this to you. It was very, very clear that end-of-life counseling -- I don't want a bureaucrat that is designated to save money talking to an elderly person and offering them end-of-life advice. Do you?

CHRIS CHOCOLA (CEO, Club for Growth): No, I don't.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Vincenzo (August 19, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
      6 2
      I was underwhelmed by the length of the bill...probably no more than 200 words per page...but had to slow down to understand what was going on with the legal wording. However the thought the Hanny read anything aside from the Cliff's Notes version published by United Healthcare is ridiculous.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jackson23 (August 20, 2009 2:26 am ET)
        1  
        I agree with your assesment of 200 words per page but that means that you have to sift through 13+ pages of contents and definitions before getting to section 101 which is the first section of the actual legislation. Most people will give up before then. The same way they give up before page 3 on a Google or Yahoo search.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by subguy (August 20, 2009 3:05 am ET)
          1
        I am suprised you were underwhelmed. I am working on this bill for a disertation. Can you explain the following to me:

        (B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph
        (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
        ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
        ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
        is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)

        I am currently against this because of the vague languaged used about order regarding life sustaining treatment. If you understand this please explain in a paragraph; this can help me identify what it is accomplishing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Vincenzo (August 22, 2009 11:38 am ET)
             
          Lose the ideology and maybe your dissertation will mean something to someone besides yourself. Judging from the direction your research is taking you would be torn apart in a peer review, that is unless all of your peers are used to thinking in exactly the same way as yourself.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
          1  
          OK. Clearly you listen to way too much Fox News and right-wing radio. However, no matter how much you crap you digest if you are a student you must be able to read and comprehend for yourself.

          What do you think "life-sustaining treatment" means? And what is it about the medical professionals that you have dealt with in your life that lead you to believe that they are wanting to kill sick people against their will and are just waiting for the political cover.

          It's the lack of common sense that drives me nuts with you guys. No matter what anyone on the left told me I would never believe that the politicians on the right-wing have some grand scheme (in cahoots with medical professionals) to kill old people. Do you really need this explained to you? What is it about life-sustaining treatment that is confusing to you? And if you truly believe that physicians and nurse practitioners are willing to kill sick people I have to ask, what school is it you attend?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Scotty Johnson (August 19, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
      12 1
      He may have read the bill, but does anyone think he has the mental capacity to understand it?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 19, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
        1 1
        I was going to post that, you beat me to it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jackson23 (August 20, 2009 2:28 am ET)
           
        More to the point, do any of our politicians actually understand this bill?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by subguy (August 20, 2009 3:22 am ET)
          1
        I believe he does. It is amazing how you might criticize his mental capacity but you don't understand his concerns. How has he made you so scared that you feel that you must belittle him? I feel that you could fully understand the bill if you sat down and read the bill. It is more than 1018 pages because it references over 30 different bills that are required to fully understand this bill. It takes over 4 days given 3 hrs a day to research and read this bill to fully understand it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
          1  
          I find it amazing that you are confused by "life sustaining treatment". I find it amazing that you find that term vague and difficult to understand. I find it amazing that you find it plausible that medical professionals are looking for political cover to kill sick people, yet implausible that Hannity is lying about reading the bill.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (August 19, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
      6 1
      Hannity lying??????? The devil, you say! LOL!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IowaDem (August 19, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
      6 1
      I love this talking point "I've read the bill" because it is inarguable. There is no way to refute it unless you have watched them 24/7 since the bill came out. So one can just say it and it gives the IMPRESSION that one knows what one is talking about. However, it is clear that "reading" and "understanding" are clearly two different things here regardless. For Hannity may read, but he rarely understands anything he reads (even his teleprompter)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (August 19, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
        1 9
        Iowa,

        I guess that is why we have 1,000 page bills, lawyers, courts of law, and courts of public opinion. It is all in how one interprets those 1,000+ pages.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dr. matt (August 19, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
          8 1

          Teabaggers need to realize that interpretation and flat out lying are not the same time.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (August 19, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
            8 1
            I've seen Hannity, too many times to count, unable to understand simple sentences spoken to him by guests on his show.

            I've heard him wildly misinterpret very straightforward thoughts expressed to him by callers to his show who disagreed with him.

            I've heard him play audio of Democratic Pols making very clear statements, and twist what was said into ridiculous strawmen on a regular basis.

            And people are supposed to believe that he can read this bill, understand it, and honestly "interpret" it?

            Maybe Hannitized people. And dining room tables.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by fawltylogic (August 20, 2009 1:15 am ET)
              2 1
              It's also probably just a total coincidence that the things from the bill he chooses to talk about are the ones that have been reported in detail elsewhere.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by jackson23 (August 20, 2009 2:37 am ET)
               
            Not just Teabaggers need to realize this. We have been fed so many lies, distortions and "interpretations" in the past 40 years that the average citizen has developed a great distrust of most politicians. I am tired of having to sift through all the BS to try and figure out the real facts. Remember "WMD"s and "what the definition of "is" is? Just tell us the truth the first time and we as Americans will let you know our opinion quick enough.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (August 19, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
          5 1
          "I guess that is why we have 1,000 page bills"

          With a whopping 24 LINES OF DOUBLE-SPACED TEXT PER PAGE and 1.75" margins, averaging about 175 words per page, including line numbers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Soapm (August 20, 2009 1:28 am ET)
            2 1
            Yep, but he gets to brag about his accomplishment just the same. "I read it uncle Jed"... "No, I read the whole thing. Honest, I read it all. Every page I did... Even the page number, I read them too".

            Said like Jethro Bodine
            Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (August 19, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
          1 1
          "that is why?"
          what is why? Did you ever not see hannity waving tissue paper and saying 'I have read it. It's right here!'?
          Did you read iowadem's entire post, or the article, before trying to slip in your 'interpretation', 'lawyers' canard?
          I guess I am replying to a Republican Talking Point Repeating Zombie.
          As the Colonel said, you start fresh every day.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (August 19, 2009 9:55 pm ET)
      2  
      Don't forget that Hannity is an uneducated individual. His only job has been to "talk". He has no credentials. How can anyone voice an opinion without knowledge of the subject? You might as well ask a crack-head what he thinks about Jean Paul Sartre.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by FNC Liberal (August 20, 2009 2:05 am ET)
        2  
        You are absolutely correct about Sean. He is not the sharpest tack on the board. Also, with his busy schedule: Freedom Concert, his radio and television show, I don't know how he found the time to read over 1,000 pages. He's too busy prepping for his shows. I bet if you had the entire bill in front of you, and you gave Sean a quiz on what's in the bill, he would fail. He's just a paid teleprompter reader.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pongotwistleton (August 20, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
             
          He's also busy running "hannidate" for us lonely christian conservatives
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (August 20, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
        1  
        Ah, but he was a carpenter . . . he built houses.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (August 20, 2009 1:12 am ET)
      2  
      Hannity read it? I didn't even know the For Dummies version was out already.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Soapm (August 20, 2009 1:23 am ET)
      1  
      Why would Hannity bother reading the bill? His version is made up and had nothing to do with the actual text so that was a big waste of time. I see he's also gone to naming page numbers. It would add more credibility if what he was saying was actually on the page (or anywhere in the bill for that matter).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 20, 2009 1:32 am ET)
        2  
        I've seen many right-wingers online name those specific page numbers (where the end-of-life counseling provision are mentioned) as proof that they know what they're talking about. Obviously, Hannity just repeated that bit of info that he found somewhere. These people seem to think that this is what smart people do (remember page numbers... as if anyone actually does that), so that's how they pretend that they too are smart.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jackson23 (August 20, 2009 1:59 am ET)
             
          I am curious about something. Have you or any of your friends downloaded and looked at any of the bills being considered. There are 6 of them at last count. I have downloaded the one that made it out of the last House committee before this break. It is very hard to understand since I am not a lawyer but I was looking for the parts where it specifies that this bill will educate more doctors. There has to be that requirement since all of our Democratic leaders from the President on down have stated that one of the main purposes of Health Care Reform is to improve quality of care. I do not beleive that they would mis-speak about such an important part of this bill. I do not see how you can increase the number of users of health care without increasing the number of providers and still maintain quality much less improve it. That just does not make sense. Has anyone else found what section of the bill covers this?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by subguy (August 20, 2009 3:14 am ET)
             
          How does your response help the problem? How did you interpet those pages? What are your thoughts about 'order life sustaining treatment'? How would you solve the problem? This is what you need to be discussing instead of critiquing people.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by RealTruthseeker (August 20, 2009 8:01 am ET)
      1  
      Shouldn't surprise anyone since the IBD was the first to misrepresent "page 16" of HB 3200 the day after it was posted on the House Ways and Means website. Remember when they said that clause somehow did away with private insurance?

      The fact is, it doesn't matter if these people read, don't read, or line their birdcages with any bill. They will lie, cheat, distort, misrepresent etc. everything they DO and DON'T read.

      This is a conversation the kooky-cons as Rachal Maddow correctly states "don't want to have". Somehow, they think the status quo is sustainable, and think that the current health insurance system is "the free market". It is insomuch as one Alexander Hamilton fought for where a priviledged few control it, and which the father of our Constitution James Madison fought vehemently against.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Smarty_Pants (August 20, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
      1  
      Hannity....read....HAHAHA
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.