Another Hannity reading FAIL: misstates "choice" provision after claiming to have "read" bill
Sean Hannity again undermined his claim that he has "read this bill from start to finish," this time asserting that the bill contains "provisions about ... not being able to choose care on Page 16." In fact, the provision Hannity said is on "Page 16" allows individuals to choose to keep their existing coverage or enroll in coverage through a regulated health insurance exchange.
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.
From the August 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
SPENCER TILLMAN (CBS Sports reporter): If you look at the front-loaded language of this particular bill, this is scary to me. I'm not an attorney, but I can flip this language left and right, and it can become something totally other than what it was intended to be, or at least posited to be. That scares the heck out of me, and I'm not the sharpest guy in the world.
HANNITY: No, no, you are.
TILLMAN: But I'm telling you --
HANNITY: No, no.
TILLMAN: -- it scares the heck out of me, man.
HANNITY: I've read this bill start to finish --
TILLMAN: It's scary, man.
HANNITY: -- and let me tell you, the provisions about, you know, not being able to choose care on Page 16, the death counseling at every --
TILLMAN: 4143 [sic].
HANNITY: -- five years at the end of your life. Some of this is frightening.
Provision allows individuals to choose existing coverage or coverage through a regulated insurance exchange
Page 16 of the health care reform bill states in its entirety:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.-Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.-Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.-Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
Sec. 102 goes on to state in subsection (c): "Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."
Health Insurance Exchange allows individuals to choose between private and public insurers
According to a summary prepared by the House Ways and Means Committee:
The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help low- and middle-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules. [July 14, 2009]
Hannity previously misconstrued provisions he claimed to have read
Hannity's earlier claim to have "read the entire bill" undermined by falsehoods. On August 18, after saying he had "read the entire bill, all 1,018 pages," Hannity went on to falsely claim 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. [Hannity; 8/18/09]
From the August 20 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: Let me ask you this, because I have a headline here -- Canadian Medical Association -- CanadaCare is imploding. "Thousands of surgeries are cut in Vancouver because of underfunding." The Daily Mail in Great Britain: "Woman gives birth on pavement because she was refused an ambulance." Now, these -- this is only the tip of the iceberg. Your --
KAREN HANRETTY (Republican strategist): Well, listen, I don't think that the liberals want to pass government-run health care because they think it'll be efficient. They want to pass it because they believe in -- fundamentally believe that government should be involved in your personal health care decisions. This is about ideology.
SPENCER TILLMAN (CBS Sports reporter): You know --
HANRETTY: We're looking at it as a matter --
NINA EASTON (Fortune magazine): I disagree a bit.
HANRETTY: I think we're looking at it as a matter --
HANNITY: But have we conditioned, Spencer, the American --
HANRETTY: -- of efficiency and they're not.
HANNITY: Have we conditioned the American people to think that government is going to take away all of our fears and the government's the answer? They're going to pay for your car, your health care, your college, your kindergarten. They'll give you a baby bond. Whatever happened to the American spirit that you gotta be responsible for your life?
TILLMAN: Here's the problem with your proposition: When you make government officials regulators, they will trade in their halos for pitchforks, and they'll use this Dante's Inferno as their operating manual. That's what's problematic about this situation. We cannot assume that they're going to be efficient, they're going to do the right thing.
If you look at the front-loaded language of this particular bill, this is scary to me. I'm not an attorney, but I can flip this language left and right, and it can become something totally other than what it was intended to be, or at least posited to be. That scares the heck out of me, and I'm not the sharpest guy in the world.
HANNITY: No, no, you are.
TILLMAN: But I'm telling you --
HANNITY: No, no.
TILLMAN: -- it scares the heck out of me, man.
HANNITY: I've read this bill start to finish --
TILLMAN: It's scary, man.
HANNITY: -- and let me tell you, the provisions about, you know, not being able to choose care on Page 16, the death counseling at every --
TILLMAN: 4143.
HANNITY: -- five years at the end of your life. Some of this is frightening.
The statement "I've read this bill start to finish" has no possible purpose except to convert arguing from evidence to arguing from authority. Obviously Hannity is fresh out of evidence, as further evidenced by his failure to quote the bill directly, at all, ever.
However, even if Sean Hannity has read the entire bill, he still does not comprehend what he read. If I had to pick between the two of them, I would choose Conyers for a representative, because at least he may understand the legislation, once he reads it. I suspect he has by now, just to be able to field questions from his constituents, though I have no proof.
Actually, I believe all congressmen/women have staffers that read the bills for them and provide summaries and analyses of said bills.
The last thing that Sean ever read and understood was an Archie comic book.
As steeve also pointed out, he is trying to argue from authority (a logical fallacy), rather than from evidence. Hannity is either willfully lying, or extremely ignorant.
He did admit to being unfamiliar with a passage that, if I remember right, was claimed to eliminate private health insurance. That's not surprising, though, as there is no such section in the bill. My personal belief is that this was dry humor, and a bit above the crowd that heard it. This is why they all immediately began running in circles yelling "He hasn't read the bill! He hasn't read the bill!" (the sky is falling!)
He talks far too knowledgeably and intelligently about what's in it to be unfamiliar with it. Sean Hannity, who claims to have read the entire thing, can't quote it one time correctly, just for contrast.
As I said, he speaks about the proposed legislation in such a way that I believe he has not only read the original (as it was -sent- to the committees), by now, but also understands it. A claim Sean Hannity cannot yet make, in case you have not been following along.
He isn't trying to push something through without even knowing what it is, starkcr31. The bill hasn't even been brought to the floor of the House yet, for heaven's sake.
Hardly anyone read the stimulus package? Do you mean the first one, that Bush signed? Or it's continuation? And where is your proof that no one read it? It's a large claim to make, absent any facts.
I'm saying he could have pushed it through, and I wish he would have. Instead, he allowed Congress to recess for August, hopefully to explain to people what he was trying to accomplish. Would he like to pass it this year? Certainly. Is that pushing it through? Well, why don't you go and see how long the Patriot Act was in Congress, and we'll compare, okay?
You said "hardly anyone read the stimulus package" and then that you heard congressmen stating they had never read it. Fine. Just one name, please.
I don't only need proof when it disagrees with my agenda. This sweeping condemnation of elected officials, while probably warranted, should take you all of ten seconds to prove with Google. If you don't wish to, we can drop it.
I wish that President Obama had held Congress in session until health coverage reform had passed. I -do- know what's it in. I have a copy of the proposed bill as it was sent to the committees. I expect I will download the version that gets voted on as well. Why? Same reason I own several Bibles: so that when someone quotes it, I can go and read it for myself.
http://digg.com/politics/Stimulus_Package_reaches_1_100_pages_not_one_member_read_it
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/02/stimulus-bill-p.html
Perhaps it was just Boehner who didn't read it? And voted against it anyway, even though it may have actually been good law?
i could easily say there are living aliens in Area 51, and you would have a very difficult time disproving such a claim. when someone makes an assertion, it is not up to others to disprove the assertion. That is simply not logical.
The statements of a few legislators does not count as proof that "hardly anyone read the stimulus package" - only that those people who made the statements did not read it.
You could always use Tiny URL. Or you could create a live link using Ctrl L or the Button in your HTML editor.
I would like to read your source so I can thoroughly discredit it. Please hurry.
So what?
That was John Boner's tantrum. First of all, what was he holding up? A ream of paper is how many pages? Do you have a printer? He was holding up at least 5000 pages.
Do you know the meaning of the word "hyperbole"?
That was a crock of sh*t. The bill was not produced overnight. Even the final version sat in committee for longer than a week before it was finally passed to the floor.
Boner was speaking for the entire congress? You are truly uninformed and gullible.
There is no bill (yet). Only proposed bills. I suggest you remember that when referring to the "bill". I also recommend watching the old cartoon about how a bill becomes a law.
That sure seems like future, not past, tense to me.
Again, I suggest you google the old cartoon about how a bill becomes a law.
Gibbs was asked if the president would read the final bill - not if he had read any of the versions.
and was Gibbs asked if he has read the bills? You can't infer from the question or the answer given that he hasn't read the bills.
This is why I honestly wonder if English is your first language - you don't know how to understand the simplest of sentences.
You are a complete right wing tool.
You don't trust government.
You have made the mistake of believing that is what the founders want you to do. the founders want us to elect representatives to make the right decision and, failing that, to elect new representatives. The founders bemoaned the lack of representation in the taxes coming from England and from King George, so they designed a governmental system that would, in theory, alleviate that problem. They absolutely never said we should hate our government. They want us to keep an eye on them, but they also expected the system to work.
The system you hate produced a congress that is dominated by Democrats. Guess what, genius? That means that is what the people wanted. That means that your turn comes when and if the people now making decisions are up for re-election.
That is the system put into place by our founders.
People who don't like the current representatives don't like the system our founders created. that is pretty unpatriotic, if you ask me.
Now, back to your point: you will have to show me where I have said anything, anywhere that is not intelligent. I should warn you that no-one here or on any website has ever produced a single instance where i could not substantiate what I have said with scholarly citations.
Better get busy, genius.
He will have to read it -again- in the future when it comes out of committee and is offered on the floor of the House. It will have been changed, perhaps substantially, by the committee process. Plus, any changes the House and Senate make will have to be reviewed. So, yes, he will be reading it in the future.
Just one place. I have heard it all over Fox and all over rightwing radio, but I have never heard him say it. I heard him say that he hadn't read a non-existent provision. You and hannity are the only people I have found who have apparently found a way to read non-existent provisions.
That's the way I heard it too, Cat. More polite than saying "BS!", but it wouldn't be the first time Obama has hurt himself by overestimating the average American.
Even after your explanation, some still seem confused.
The "he" seems to refer to Hannity. And you're defending him.
I refer you to Wall Street. How did deregulation work over there?
And how will deregulation lead to more "choice and customization"? Will deregulation also reduce costs?
Will you at least admit that the single BIGGEST waste of premium dollars is HMO profits and CEO salaries?
Health care is not a commodity. I think that's the first hurdle you have to get over. And if you can't, then you obviously do NOT care about insuring everybody.
1. "Choice" will not be improved, you'll just have more names to call your existing coverage.
2. If the gov wants more particpants/funding in the public plan, they can regulate the private plans out of competition.
The only way for a company to set themselves apart in this environment will be to offer better or unique coverage at a competitive rate. Companies who fail at this will likely go by the wayside. As I've pointed out elsewhere, though, in a land where women are willing to pay $6,000 for a purse, there will always be those willing to pay more simply because they can.
If you accept that the outcry against a public option is indeed a grassroots movement, then there will be plenty of people who keep their private insurance just out of a fear of socialism, dexteritas0071418. Enough to keep at least some of those companies alive, don't you think?
If the government really wanted people in the public plan, they could just pass single payer. The problem is, you could as easily say 'If the government got tired of paying all those health costs, they could round everybody up and shoot them.' With one 'if' you can put all of Paris in a bottle.
I'm not sure what bells and whistles are included in the bare minimum that you can do without, but I would like an example or two. I have a copy of AAHCA as it was sent to committee, so a page number would be fine.
I am sure there will be things in the final bill that I will think could have been done better. And there will be things along the way that are tweaked or changed for improvements. But, this is not really any reason to keep from passing any of these bills, is it? I think with something this big it is important to keep our eye on the big picture as much as possible.
Can the government tilt the playing field, gathering ever more people into the public plan? Yes. Could the world end today at 3 pm EST? Yes. Will costs continue to skyrocket if we do nothing? Yes.
Two of these are mostly fantasy, but the last one is pretty generally agreed on by economists. We've already seen a -huge- increase in premiums and a drop in coverage since 1980.
I suppose my response is: It may seem unfair, yes, and perhaps it will be in operation. Is having one insurer to choose from (as many Americans do currently) a fair competitive environment? Between what -may- happen, and what I see the insurers doing -now-, I am more than willing to risk it. After all, we can always elect a Republican majority and have it repealed, right?
Which, of course, will not happen because people will embrace their full-coverage, lower-cost health care. THAT is what's scaring the pants off the neo-nuts. When reform passes, and when it succeeds, they are smart enough to know they are facing another 40 years in the desert, kinda like after social security was enacted. Party over people.
Moreso, presently we can't vote out the over-paid insurance company CEOs unless we buy a few million shares of stock.
Currently, most markets in America are dominated by a single large insurer, and so under the current system you actually have your choices proscribed by the insurers themselves.
Hilarious, Stewart kept trying to get her to read directly from the bill, and McCaughey just kept retreating to "what the bill is saying...".
Even after finally forcing her to read the actual words, her interpretation of the wording is LOL funny. Jon Stewart did in a few minutes what most of our so-called journalists have been unable to do in months.
... Here you have two people who've read it and they can't agree on what it says, the language is so unclear. You may say that their politics drives what they read in the bill and I would agree... If these guys have this much trouble with the bill, what will happen when the executive branch gets it...? Do you really trust Obama's administration that much?
Again, the most unabashed liars are just "another opinion".
If the one who is imagining is on the conservative side, then it is important to report that they are both confused, and point it out as just another problem with the health coverage legislation. Had it been the other way around, you can be sure the headline would've been about how the poor ignorant liberal has to have even the simplest legislation explained to them.
Maybe if they wrote a bill in crayon, or using pictures instead of words.
I'm not quite sure what McCaughey is even pretending to be confused about, she's piling on so much. I think she's trying to take the words "adhere to" (as applied to Doctors scheduling consultations when requested, and reporting them)and twist them to mean that Doctors must ignore patients who change aspects during later consultations, and "adhere to" the original .
That's more of a question than a statement, as I said, it's difficult to even say for sure what McCaughey is trying to misinterpret. Which is exactly what she wants, to portray this as very confusing.