O'Reilly's whopper: "Nobody" on Fox said failing to buy health insurance could result in jail time
Responding to Sen. Tom Coburn's suggestion that Fox News perpetuated the false claim that under the health care reform legislation individuals can be sent to jail for not having health insurance, Bill O'Reilly repeatedly insisted that "nobody" on Fox advanced that assertion. In fact, Fox has relentlessly pushed that falsehood, including on O'Reilly's own show.
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.
O'Reilly falsely claims "[n]obody" on Fox ever pushed health care jail-time falsehood
O'Reilly: "[W]e researched" and "[n]obody" on Fox "ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance." On the April 13 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly told Sen. Coburn: "[Y]ou don't know anybody on Fox News -- because there hasn't been anyone -- that said people will go to jail if they don't buy mandatory insurance." He added: "[W]e researched to find out if anybody had ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it. What it seems to me is you used Fox News as a whipping boy when we didn't qualify there ... you were wrong to do that, Senator, with all due respect."
Fox News has repeated pushed the false claim, including on O'Reilly Factor
On The O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck told O'Reilly you "go to jail" for not having health insurance under bill. From the November 13, 2009, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Couldn't they do [liposuction] at the same time [as your appendectomy]?
BECK: No, they wouldn't. No. I don't have universal health care.
O'REILLY: No, let's get -- well, you will soon.
BECK: Or I'll go to jail.
O'REILLY: Are you going to be a conscientious objector to health care?
BECK: You know, this is the first time in history in our country where, just to be a citizen, just to be -- just to not go to jail, you have to buy something.
On his own Fox show, Beck falsely claimed that "if you don't get into their government health care, there will be jail time." On the November 12, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck claimed that "if you don't get into their government health care, there will be jail time."
On Fox & Friends, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed the health care bill "puts people in jail" for not having health insurance. On the February 4 edition of Fox & Friends, Limbaugh asserted: "This is not even a health care bill. This is a bill that raises taxes 14 times; puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance mandated by the government to buy. This is an avenue to control every aspect of life."
Dick Morris has repeatedly made the false claim. On the November 9, 2009, edition of Fox News' Hannity, Morris asserted: "One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance. It says if you don't have health insurance, you have to pay a fine of 2.5 percent of your income to the government. And if you don't, you face $250,000 or five years in prison. Can you imagine your prison yard? 'What are you in for?' 'Murder.' 'I'm in for rape.' 'I didn't have health insurance.' " Sean Hannity then replied: "Well I don't mean to laugh, but, I mean, this is the reality." Similarly, on the November 23, 2009, edition of Hannity, Morris asserted that among young people the question "has gone from 'Oh, yeah, we really need insurance' to 'What, am I going to go to jail if I don't have it?' "
Hannity cites Morris' false claim that jail is a penalty for failure to buy insurance under heatlh bill. During the November 10, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity stated, "Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance, uh, jail time, a possibility?"
Judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano falsely claimed that under the House health care bill, the government could "even put you in jail" if you fail to purchase insurance. From the November 10, 2009, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
NAPOLITANO: For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical making decisions with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats. It was not intended to be this way.
Bill Hemmer: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?" Hemmer perpetuated the debunked myth on the March 19 edition of America's Newsroom when he asked a guest: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?"
Van Susteren: "[I]t is theoretically possible" that if "you can't afford insurance for whatever reason" the government could "send you to jail." From the October 6, 2009, edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:
REP. JOHN SHADEGG (R-AZ): So if you don't buy government-approved health insurance -- and that's an important part of it. If you, for example, have an HSA and the government doesn't approve it and you don't go buy another plan, you get fined or maybe go to jail.
VAN SUSTEREN: Can you...
SHADEGG: If you want to go to a naturopath or a homeopathic, no, no, no. That's not approved by the government.
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm not suggesting that anyone should get into trouble with the law, but can you imagine anything so bizarre as to put, like -- let's say you can't afford insurance for whatever reason -- that, I mean, can you imagine the sheriff going out and running you in, throwing you in jail? I mean, it is theoretically possible under what you tell me.
SHADEGG: People find it bizarre, but it shows how far we've gotten away from what we ought to be focused on. We ought to be focused on bringing down the cost of health care for every American so they can afford it, deal with preexisting conditions, deal with people who can't buy coverage, help them buy coverage, not punish them with fines. Obama had it right in the campaign when he said if you can't afford coverage to begin with, how much better off are we to fine you? But the big insurance companies --
VAN SUSTEREN: Or send you to jail.
Fox Nation: "Pelosi: It's 'Fair' to Jail People Without Health Insurance." On November 11, 2009, and November 12, 2009, Fox Nation posted a video clip with the headline: "Pelosi: It's 'Fair' to Jail People Without Health Insurance." In the clip, a local reporter asked of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a November 9 press conference the false question, "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?":
Fox & Friends graphic: "Comply or go to jail." Fox & Friends aired the following graphic on November 10, 2009:
Under reform law, no "criminal... penalties" for failure to have health insurance coverage
JCT: "Non-compliance with" the insurance mandate "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties." The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its analysis of the revenue provisions of the Senate health care reform bill and the health care reconciliation bill that "individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential [health insurance] coverage in 2016 are subject" to a fee, but that "[n]on-compliance" with that provision "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties":
Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size.
This per adult annual penalty is phased in as follows: $95 for 2014; $325 for 2015; and lowest $50. The percentage of income is phased in as follows: one percent for 2014; two percent in 2015; and 2.5 percent beginning after 2015. If a taxpayer files a joint return, the individual and spouse are jointly liable for any penalty payment.
The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
Earlier versions of reform legislation provided for "criminal penalties" only for those who refused to pay the fee. Both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform required individuals to be covered by a minimum level of health insurance or pay a monetary penalty. A November 2009 letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation on the House health care bill stated that individuals who did not have such coverage and refused to pay the fine would be subject to "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance." The committee's letter explains that the tax code provides penalties to prevent tax evasion of any sort: "The Code provides for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent attempts to defeat or evade tax." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
media matters likes to play the technicality card on the jail time issue since fines would precede any jail sentence, as if there would be no other recourse should one elect to opt out and not buy health insurance, nor pay any fines from not having done so... furthermore, several state attorney's general have seen fit to file lawsuits against mandated buying of health insurance...
all that aside, though, this is a rather curious assertion on o'reilly's part... fox news pundits have beaten that jail time mantra like a drum... perhaps he'll use steve martin's excuse for not paying income tax: "i forgot"... or maybe he'll even use the same technicality media matters does...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
You mean like in Louisiana, where Bobby Jindal had to either bribe or blackmail the AG to join in that frivolous waste of taxpayer money? Oh, and Fox once reported that Ohio was going to join in. Richard Cordray, Ohio's AG, will not, Gov. Strickland (D-OH) will not force him to, and the Ohio House, currently under Dem control, will kill any attempt to force him. I wish those other states had the common sense to admit defeat gracefully, instead of school-age hissyfits because their rhetoric didn't work this time.
You point out technicality while there is none in this MMFA article. MMFA points out that Fox News employees have said something numerous times that O'Reilly claims they never said. There is no technicality in that. Either they said it or they didn't say it. Either O'Reilly is lying or he is telling the truth. He's not technically lying or technically telling the truth. There is no gray area here, it is very black and white.
DellDolly already debunked your worthless post before yopu wrote it. Go back under your bridge, troll.
dookie von sipper, the clever troll, likes to sip said Kool-Aid. Dooky flavor of course hence the name.
What our beloved trolls fear to admit is that fair and balanced is doublespeak for conservative agenda. Notice how unacceptable it is for them that media matters holds Fox and others accountable. Fair and balanced means that the conservative real American view gets distributed without rebuttle. How dare anyone point out hypocracy, lies and distortions when it comes from a reliably conservative source.
Nobody's taking that bait. With your O'Reilly like fake voice of reasonability, you add some cheap shot at MMFA or liberals. Middle of the line, unbiased, yeah, you try to play that role, but you're see through as if your daddy worked for Victoria's Secret.
Your typical posts go something like this: Say something negative about one of the conservative blow hards who most people on this site do not like, then insert a dig on Media Matters or liberals. Something like 1)Rush is an imbecile, but MMFA needs to stop obsessing over all the conservative media. OR 2)Yeah, Hannity did tell a lie, but why is mmfa always whining and so up in arms about such small and irrelevant stuff? OR 3)Of course Sarah Palin makes idiotic statements. MMFA is no better for pointing out her low ratings. To top it all off, you try to pull off humorous clever wise cracks but fail miserably.
so please excuse the hell out of me for not being a racist nazi homophobe who eats baby back dolphin ribs while performing late-term abortions on pandas...
and for the record, my father works at frederick's of hollywood...
Your opinions are sincerely ignorant. Hannity misinforms and lies constantly. Media Matters does not. You are not excused for equating Media Matters to Hannity. Far from it.
perhaps you believe the people that do not comply will simply pay the fine and all will be right with the world, and that's the end of that... so think i'm dumb if you must, but i agree with you there is no gray area here, that being the lack of gray matter on your part...
There. Is. No. Enforcement. Provision. In. The. Bill.
There is nothing -- no language -- in the PACA bill anywhere about jail. None.
Stop lying.
Cite it. Specifically.
Good luck... it doesn't exist.
Fabricator.
Same as what would happen to a childless couple if they decided they were going to take a tax break for children anyways and not pay those taxes. Or if I decided I was not going to pay property taxes that a church does not have to and did not pay my taxes. Or if I decided I was going to take a home ownership tax break even though I did not own a home because I felt it was unfair.
We all pay our taxes here or we suffer the consequences. Even if we do not agree with all the tax breaks in the system. That's what happens when you are part of a democratic civilization. You participate even when the majority disagrees with you. And I think you are kidding yourself about anyone who owes on taxes going to jail. If you owe the federal government a few hundred bucks, they have other ways of collecting that money other than sending you to jail. That's just silly.
dipshiite...
Just look at my opportunistic AG< Bill McCollum. I wrote to the AG's office regarding an issue about a corporation infringing on almost 1000 homeowner's property rights. His office redirected me to the Department of Business And Professional Regulation's site on homeowners associations, which did not relate to my complaint, claiming that I needed to file with the DBPR, but what was even more absurd was that the DBPR was stripped of their authority to govern matters between homeowners and HOAs! The matter I was complaining about did not even involve a homeowner versus their HOA!
Maybe if AGs like McCollum stopped seeking glory in the courts to secure their political future and start standing up for the citizens of their states, then maybe real progress can be made.
----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
It's not a technicality.
I think a little linguistic change might make this easier for some to accept. Instead of calling it a fine for not purchasing insurance, we need to call it a tax on the uninsured to pay for providing care when they need it and don't have insurance to pay for it.
I know that jail time almost never happens.
My point was that jail time, if it DOES happen, isn't a result of the thing that led one to be assessed a tax or fine or penalty.
"Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."
So, "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties" is completely fair. Not a technicality. The truth.
Basically they are saying you are forced to buy helath care but they do not have enforcement. Its like if your boss said you will be docked pay for being late but he never docks you.
And those on the right DID say that the thing that causes you to owe money could cause you to have to go to jail, and they were 100% wrong.
And O'Reilly's 100% wrong for claiming that no one on FoxNews ever said that.
Look on the bright side Sue, since you were exposed on yesterday's thread as either having dual personalities or at least another active screen name (since you were obviously responding to yourself and forgot to log out and back in as DellDolly), well, perhaps the thumbs down is for your "Sybil" side.
Thumbs down for the irrelevant personal attack, dipsh!t
This is not rocket science.
And nope, I'm not whining about the thumbs down at all - I am mocking your stupidity and your lack of a valid and functioning argument, as I have explained to you multiple times (why exactly is it that you want it explained to all readers that you need to read something multiple times before you get it? How is it that you think it helps you?).
And no, you didn't "expose" anything in yesterday's thread.
Here's a link to the total and absolute debunking of your bogus allegations.
So, once again, you accuse me of being someone I'm not, and you have a MASSIVE FAIL when you try to accuse me of wrongdoing, and I'm happy to debunk your attempts every time you do it!!! Please, keep it up - keep making a fool of yourself!
You clearly are operating here with LESS than half a brain if you think this line of attack is going to work.
I made a comment about the bogus spinning that the right was doing on a topic, and made another comment about the ACTUAL meaning of the topic under discussion. That's not a split personality, nor the behavior of two differing screen names. That's one person thinking about one aspect of an issue, and then thinking about another aspect of the same topic, and replying to the original post with the second thought that wasn't inlcluded in the first post.
Can you not even be bothered to read and understand the plain language of the Taxation Committee statement:
Is that plain statement of fact just too complex -- because it does not explicitly say "Hey dilettante dummkopf, no effing jail! -- or is it the case that when such stark and irrefutable reality contradicts your fantasy world of made-up mumbo-jumbo that you just jettison the reality to keep your head from exploding?
Next: there is no merit to the states' legal challenges:
Go ahead... try to find a similarly serious scholar of constitutional law who has published anything like a merits-based defense of states' legal challenges (good luck with that)... but you will find scads of statements agreeing with Balkin.
And AGs filing a lawsuit doesn't make them 'right' . .
Anyone can sue and askin' ain't gettin' . .
This means you are technically completely wrong which is so odd since you were defending Fox. That almost NEVER happens here!
BTW, we both know the first person that gets arrested for tax evasion that didn't have health insurance at the time will become Fox's martyr of the week and will, according to Fox, have been arrested for not buying insurance. Of course, they will forget to mention he owes $150k in back taxes and will pretend it was somehow about the mandate (you know, the one you can't get arrested for ignoring).
Fox lies all the time. At any other network, they would be fired/forced to apologize.
Howard Kurtz, how about some media criticism regarding this issue?
Of course I know wrestling is fake and pure entertainment. Which is yet another parallel between Fox and the WWF. Maybe the RNC should hire that McMahon guy as a consultant.
Actually I am amazed he can peddle that "no spin" crap and maintain a straight face.
His defense will of course be the old "Media Matters is a liberal smear sight who takes things out of context".
Hey Mr. O'Reilly!
You said..."[n]obody" on Fox "ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance".
MMfA provides several examples showing your statement is false.
Try spinning that as out of context.
So much for the voice of reason from the right, which Coburn is trying to position himself as. I was going to email him to roast him but figured it was useless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yzDbnMY4hg
I can't believe we're all (myself included) riled up about this, as if we expect Fox to present anything legitimate or have any credibility or integrity.
I may just stop hangin' on this board... completely frustrated.
But on the other hand it's undeniable that these groups are getting their propaganda out there and they are actually influencing a large number of Americans. With the Obama presidency their influence and power has only grown and people take as faith that what they say is actually factual. So in that respect I think it's important to keep up with what they are saying just so you can explain to people why they are wrong when you hear it in everyday conversations with people who watch this crap.
But I'm frustrated too... O'Reilly doesn't bother me so much because I think he's been the way he is for years now. But Hannity and Rush - the things they are saying are just completely outrageous. Those guys make my head hurt - and there is no one on their show to shoot down their claims as bogus.
Bill O'Reilly has a habit of denying things regardless of truth or evidence.
This is the same idiot who defended Rush Limbaugh by saying he never said anything racist, even though Rush has a history of saying racist things (and doing it over the airwaves). It doesn't matter to Bill O'Really because he thinks he can make anyone doubt themselves and before they can set the record straight he will cut you off and change the subject, leaving the impression he is right. This is a common technique Bill uses on his guests.
Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a GREAT BIG LIAR.
And then there was the "hippie" papers, the "alternate" news. The editorial policy was completely different. The facts reported were different. The world the paper came from was different. If there was a shooting, a demonstration, a be-in, whatever, it would be reported, and often distorted. The cops, city hall, the state government, and so on, were continuously caricatured as fascist thugs. Strong on commitment, weak on facts.
Is Fox the new hippie, alternate press?
From the Statement of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation:
Why do so many of you persist in regurgitating this proven falsehood? Do you have some deep psychological need to make things up?
So what, is Obama bringing back the debtors' prison?
One of the original versions of the bill DID have jail time as a potential penalty, but the final version didn't.
Clearly you're TRYING to play the fool here, because anyone who wasn't would have READ the article and known that fact.
And no, it was NEVER going to be because you failed to buy health insurance, just like Richard Hatch didn't go to jail because he won $1 million because he won Survivor - he went to jail because he didn't pay taxes owed. The REASON he owed taxes isn't why he went to jail. The REASON ANYONE owes taxes isn't why they go to jail for tax evasion. The REASON doesn't matter!