# Bill O'Reilly now supports public option



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

In other news...hell freezes over! :drunk:

I would have never believed this myself, but then again.. we do have a black President! 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/1 ... 90658.html

Bombastic Fox News host Bill O'Reilly made a rather notable policy pronouncement on Wednesday's show: he supports the creation of a government-managed health care plan if it provides working Americans with an affordable option to other private insurance plans.

*In other words, he supports the public option now being hotly debated in Congress.*

As noted by DailyKos' Jed Lewison, O'Reilly had the following exchange with the Heritage Foundation's Nina Owcharenko:



> > *O'REILLY:* The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the video:

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002154/

Indeed, supporters of the public option do so for the very reasons O'Reilly notes. A study by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found that "a public coverage program similar to Medicare *would reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years,* and reduce premiums by about 20% on average. Within about a decade, 105 million people would be enrolled in the public plan, and about 107 million would have private insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund."

Here's my guess as to 5 possible reasons for O'Reilly saying this:


*1.* He realized that Obama was going to win over the masses if the public option got implemented (and therefore secure a second term), and O'Reilly wanted to either vie for those hearts & minds, or somehow co-opt the gambit.

*2.* O'Reilly is starting to feel neglected as Glenn Beck's star rises with the cranky-old-white-guy set, and is looking to get himself some attention.

*3.* Beck has taken away his angry white man schtick so going moderate is the only way for him to get ratings back.

*4.* He was probably diagnosed with something expensive to treat and has realized his private insurance will only be covering 80% of the cost leaving him to pick up the rest of the tab...which may range from several hundred thousand dollars to millions. Remember folks, even if you have insurance, cancer costs upwards of $300,000-1,000,000 (depending on type/stage) per year and even the best insurance will stick you with 20% of that bill.

*5.* Papa bear must have been slipped some LSD by a commie homosexual A.C.O.R.N. member

Discuss amongst yourselves!

:rollin:


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

Who cares what Bill thinks. The mistake you make is that most of us can think on our own and do not worship at the feet of Olberman, Maddow, etc. like some on the left.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jacobsol80 said:


> Who cares what Bill thinks. The mistake you make is that most of us can think on our own and do not worship at the feet of Olberman, Maddow, etc. like some on the left.


Ummm... millions of rabid O'Reilly conservatives care what he thinks... one only needs to look at his ratings from 2006-2008 to discern that. :roll:

I make no mistake. You obviously have no sense of humor. :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I happened to watch the exchange Ryan and the entire conversation revolved around the ablity of the Gov to do something but not simply create a PO with no alternative or a PO in which the end game was one that choice for the consumer was lost in the long run.

So without the first part of the conversation the tidbits you post is worthless and without merit. ORielys position was one where a Gov program that created true choice, and competition, by allowing companies to compete or people to shop in any state was what he was looking at as a PO option and if the Fed Gov was the facilitator fine!

Now stop peeing yourself in joy, because ORiely did not endorse the BS in Washington and said so at the end of the conversation, he made sure of that!!!

Some of us should have invested in Depends with the spike in use by you the last couple days!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> 4. He was probably diagnosed with something expensive to treat and has realized his private insurance will only be covering 80% of the cost leaving him to pick up the rest of the tab...which may range from several hundred thousand dollars to millions. Remember folks, even if you have insurance, cancer costs upwards of $300,000-1,000,000 (depending on type/stage) per year and even the best insurance will stick you with 20% of that bill.


That's not completely true Ryan. Many cover the 80% until you hit the max out of pocket and will then cover at a higher percentage. At the end of my health care it cost me only about 3% of the total bill that first year. If you look at many policies you will find that for certain illnesses, such as cancer, many cover at a higher rate.

As for O'Reilly, I don't get time to watch him. Too many kid's activities.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

R y a n said:


> jacobsol80 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what Bill thinks. The mistake you make is that most of us can think on our own and do not worship at the feet of Olberman, Maddow, etc. like some on the left.
> ...


Actually.... I think you're exceptionally funny Ryan. :toofunny:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Actually, if you watch him, he has always hinted around at it in some form, but also has stated the same worries as everyone else about gov't intrusion.

He also has stated that if a gov't plan/bill creating a public option which at the same time eliminated any new private insurance programs, which is what the wording of the original bill, when it came out, said, he didn't like it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

SD bears...

You are totally correct he is always leaning towards a public option....if it would not raise the national debt, be paid for by premiums, and was finacially responsible.

He also likes the ideas of no-pre existing conditions won't deny you private insurance....but he thinks you should beable to charge for them....well in some of this talks and rants.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> SD bears...
> 
> You are totally correct he is always leaning towards a public option....if it would not raise the national debt, be paid for by premiums, and was finacially responsible.
> 
> He also likes the ideas of no-pre existing conditions won't deny you private insurance....but he thinks you should beable to charge for them....well in some of this talks and rants.


Which for the record is identical to my feeling on HC...

for what it is worth Chuck...


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

R y a n said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > SD bears...
> ...


So O'Reilly and you think alike? Say it isn't so!!! oke:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bowstring said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Smith said:
> ...


:lol:

impossible! Someone must have stole my password!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan...

The big problem with the Public option is that it is not financially responsible, can't be paid for by premiums alone and will raise the debt. (with what they have outlined so far)

That is why I am totally against the Public Option. Because how can they Public Option cost less than private insurance with out assistance? It the public option is playing on a level playing field it will cost just as much as private insurance....period. They only way it could be cheaper is for pre-existing conditions thing does not get passed and private insurance companies can deny you still. Then how can the Public option stay afloat with out charging for the pre-existing conditions with out aid from somewhere.....which then makes it they are not playing on a level field. See the huge problem!

The other thing is Obama and his round of speechs says with the cuts, reconfiguring and so forth of the current system *will save $900 billion and will also lower costs of private insurance premiums*.....if this is true......why not just do that!

I do like the idea of not allowing insurance companies to deny people because of pre-existing conditions. But let the companies charge accordingly for them. Then set up a "fund" type program for the people with pre-existing conditions to help them pay for it if needed. Like a food stamp program of sorts.

Like I have stated about 90% of the HC bill i don't mind and want to see it passed.....but the Public Option is a huge mistake. I am not in fear that it is because Obama wants to country to be socialist. I am in more fear of what it will do to the national debt, the US dollar, and our economy. Because if it passes and the only way it will stay some what afloat is to take more of my money from me......and that is the bottom line.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> Because if it passes and the only way it will stay some what afloat is to take more of my money from me......and that is the bottom line.


can you say rationing? that is a fact, done deal, if it passes.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

A look at the constitution and the health care bill. Any of them.

After reading the whole health care bill ....
>
>
>
> The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
>
> Michael Connelly,
>
> Ret. Constitutional Attorney
>
> 08.24.09
>
>
>
> Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House 
> Bill
> 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it 
> with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional 
> law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were 
> being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse 
> than what I had heard or expected.
>
> To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its 
> implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media 
> are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, 
> particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are 
> involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion 
> services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
>
> The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of 
> business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions 
> about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal 
> bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. 
> Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of 
> necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
>
> However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In 
> fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention 
> of providing affordable health care choices.. Instead it is a 
> convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the 
> Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been 
> contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions 
> of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
>
> The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power 
> between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S.
> Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama 
> Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives 
> of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that 
> the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those 
> areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. 
> Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
>
> This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the 
> Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, 
> your personal financial information, and the information of your 
> employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation 
> of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution 
> protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also 
> forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into 
> oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
>
> If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private 
> insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices 
> Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. 
> It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid 
> application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, 
> that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that 
> allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is 
> definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.
>
> So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate 
> so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are 
> effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides:
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be 
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 
> 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States 
> by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved 
> to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of 
> this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the 
> states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas 
> that once were theirs to control.
>
> I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you 
> get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power 
> and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the 
> members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or 
> affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of 
> Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything 
> like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or 
> affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
>
> For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they 
> consult the source.
>
> Here is a link to the Constitution:
> <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htm
> l> http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti 
> on_transcript.html
>
> And another to the Bill of Rights:
> <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.h

> tml> http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_ri 
> ghts_transcript.html
>
> There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
>
> Michael Connelly
>
> Retired attorney,
>
> Constitutional Law Instructor
>
> Carrollton , Texas
>


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So Ryan tell us why that O'Riely tonight made the point that the left or you which are one in the same are lying and distorting what he said!!!!!! Hmmmm!!!!!!!! I think that is what we told you when you posted your nonsense!

So will you post a retraction???

Since you want to post without being called a dumbass I think this will go a long way towards showing you are not!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> So Ryan tell us why that O'Riely tonight made the point that the left or you which are one in the same are lying and distorting what he said!!!!!! Hmmmm!!!!!!!! I think that is what we told you when you posted your nonsense!
> 
> So will you post a retraction???
> 
> Since you want to post without being called a dumbass I think this will go a long way towards showing you are not!!!!!!!!!!


Ohh Ron...

Seriously get over yourself. Take a look at my original post again. I was re-posting a link from Huffington who made that claim. Why would I retract something they claimed? I'm not them! :eyeroll:

Further... I made a joke out of the possibility it was true! Geesshhhh... go take some tranquilizers or something...

Can you see with the list I posted it was supposed to be tongue in cheek humor? Others understood I wasn't being serious!

:lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So Ryan then the best thing to do is remove the thread since it is clear that Bill has cleared the air and pointed out that the left is wrong on what he said!

Or at least put a disclaimer on it to say, Huffington was again wrong!!!!!!

You want to kick sand while in the sand box, but whine when it gets kicked back in your face!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> So Ryan then the best thing to do is remove the thread since it is clear that Bill has cleared the air and pointed out that the left is wrong on what he said!
> 
> Or at least put a disclaimer on it to say, Huffington was again wrong!!!!!!
> 
> You want to kick sand while in the sand box, but whine when it gets kicked back in your face!!!!!


Huffington was wrong! Bill O'Reilly was misquoted! I stand corrected! :lol:

Thanks Ron for bringing this to my attention!

Bill got some good ratings out of this though! So everyone wins!

Here's for keeping the sand in the sandbox! :beer:


----------

