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

















(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.
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?
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.
Teabaggers need to realize that interpretation and flat out lying are not the same time.
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.
With a whopping 24 LINES OF DOUBLE-SPACED TEXT PER PAGE and 1.75" margins, averaging about 175 words per page, including line numbers.
Said like Jethro Bodine
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.
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.