Bill O'Reilly Is Lying To You About Obamacare
By: Steve - October 19, 2013 - 11:30am

On Friday night Bill O'Reilly (THE RIGHT-WING LIAR) said this:
O'REILLY: The rollout of Obamacare is a disaster, but the President has not acknowledged that. The woman he put in charge, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, is obviously way over her head, yet she has not been replaced. The whole thing is unacceptable because the Obama administration is spending billions of dollars just to put the program together.

The administration has had more than three years to get up and running yet today we have chaos. This is not an ideological play on the part of Talking Points; I was willing to give Obamacare a chance. But now it's apparent that not only is the software not working, but the promises about the cost and accessibility are not coming true.

When we elect a president we expect efficiency and we expect clarity - if something goes wrong, tell us. But when there is no accountability and no explanation, that's scandalous.
And now the truth, Bill O'Reilly is almost 100% wrong. There is no chaos, and there is no disaster. What we have is a couple small website bugs in a very complicated website program. So Bill O'Reilly is lying to you, because a lot of those bugs have already been fixed, which O'Reilly fails to tell you about.

And part of the problem was that so many people tried to sign up it overloaded the system. If Obamacare is so bad (as O'Reilly and the right claim) how is it the system was overloaded from so many people trying to sign up? O'Reilly has no answer for that, and never even tries to answer it, he just spins out right-wing propaganda about it as he claims to be a non-partisan.

Not to mention the LIE that he has given Obamacare a chance, when he has been trashing the program since it passed, and even before that. He is lying, plain and simple, and he is a biased Republican so you can not believe anything he says about it. Here are some facts about Obamacare, none of which O'Reilly ever reports to you, these are FACTS, not made up propaganda from a biased right-wing cable tv news show host.

This is actually how the individual health-insurance market works. And understanding why is crucial to understanding a lot of what you're going to read about health reform in the next year.

Last week, California released early information on the rates insurers intend to charge on the new insurance marketplaces -- known as "exchanges" -- that the state is setting up under Obamacare. They were far lower than anyone expected. Where analysts had anticipated average premiums of $400 to $500, insurers were actually charging $200 to $300. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, director of the state's exchanges.

The Affordable Care Act's critics saw it differently. Avik Roy, a conservative health writer at Forbes, said Lee was being "misleading" and that "Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.” Obamacare, he said, would trigger "rate shock," the jolt people feel when they see higher rates. That doesn't sound like a home run at all.

Except Roy is lying, just like O'Reilly is lying.

Here's the first thing to know: We're talking about a small fraction of the American health-care system. This is not about people on Medicare or Medicaid or employer-based insurance. It's about people joining Obamacare's insurance exchanges. That’s people who buy insurance on their own now, as well as some of the uninsured.

In 2014, 7 million people, or 2.5 percent of the population, is expected to buy insurance through the exchanges. By 2023, that will rise to 24 million people, or 8 percent.

So we’re talking about a small portion of the market.Read that again folks, by 2014 only 2.5% of the population will buy health insurance through Obamacare, and by 2023 only 8% will buy it. That means by 2014 a full 97.5% of the people will not be buying health insurance through Obamacare. By 2023 - 92% of the people will not be in the Obamacare health care exchanges.

Think about that for a minute, O'Reilly is flipped out over 2.5% of the people, calling it a disaster and chaos, over a couple minor bugs on the website. When it does not even effect 97.5% of the people. And even 10 years from now it will only involve 8% of the people. Because most people get their health insurance through their employer, medicare, and medicaid.

O'Reilly NEVER TELLS YOU ANY OF THIS, he ignores it. So he is screaming bloody murder over 2.5% of the people who are actually going to sign up for Obamacare.

The dishonest Republican Avik Roy got his 146 percent by heading to, running a search for insurance plans in California and comparing the cost of the cheapest plans to the cost of the plans being offered in the exchanges. That's not just comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to oranges that the fruit guy may not even let you buy.

I ran the same search Roy did. I looked for insurance in Irvine, Calif. The average monthly premiums of the five cheapest plans is $114.

Under Obamacare, the out-of-pocket limit for someone making 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line is $1,983. Obamacare also has subsidies for people making up to four times the poverty line. The poor pay next to nothing. The rich pay full freight.

"We as a society have never really said here's what reasonable insurance is," says Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "It's just been anything goes. For the first time they're setting a minimum about what reasonable insurance should be."

And of those who have tried to use ANY of the government websites, 75% said they had problems. But from a tech standpoint, many experts have allowed that the introduction of the portal is remarkable mostly because it didn't go worse: "Of all the terrible websites I've seen, ranks somewhere in the middle," wrote David Auerbach at Slate.

There are actually 51 or so separate IT projects here"; "the site has to have interoperable channels of communications with the department of health, treasury, social security, state agencies, employers, health insurance companies, and consumers"; "they didn't put thought into the sort of traffic they'd receive at all and it turned into a huge news event."

Many people posted about the bugs, just to re-post later that the problem had been addressed. Which O'Reilly somehow failed to report, he only reported about the bugs, but he never reported that most of them were later fixed.

Almost all the technical analyses I've read conclude the same way: the project was poorly tested and over-bureaucratized, but it'll probably straighten out.

I am not sure conservative critics read to the end of these articles. One Ted Cruz staffer gleefully tweeted out a link to a piece about the site's password woes (headline: "Obamacare site hits reset button on passwords as contractors scramble"), but apparently didn't get to the second paragraph: "Now, a week later, the site appears to be stabilizing, with waiting times dropping dramatically for those who haven't been able to register before."

All in all, proper coverage of the rollout would treat it not as "man bites dog", or even "dog bites man", but rather, "dog displays indifference to man, but man will be back later with beef jerky and some toys, hopes to create bond with dog that will last a lifetime."

Of course, it's that lifetime bond that makes critics so nervous. Their real fear isn't that ACA and its attendant infrastructure won't work; it's that it will.

Some people will find the new rules make insurance more expensive, that would be the wealthy, and why O'Reilly does not like it. That's in part because their health insurance was made cheap by turning away sick people. The new rules also won't allow for discrimination based on age or gender. The flip side of that, of course, is that many will suddenly find their health insurance is much cheaper, or they will find that, for the first time, they're not turned away when they try to buy health insurance.

That's why the law is expected to insure almost 25 million people in the first decade: It makes health insurance affordable and accessible to millions who couldn't get it before. To judge it from a baseline that leaves them out -- a baseline that asks only what the wealthy and healthy will pay and ignores the benefits to the poor, the sick, the old, and women -- well, that is ridiculous.

O'Reilly does not like it because it makes the wealthy pay more, which includes him, and he also is a Republican who hates all Government programs that take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. So he is LYING to you to try and make you think it's a disaster and chaos.

When the truth is that only 2.5% of the people are involved in it. Which means 97.5% of the people are not involved in the Obamacare plan at all. And over the next 10 years only 8% of the people will be using the Obama health care plan.

Think about that, the Republicans shutdown the Government, which cost $3 Billion dollars and hurt the economy, over a health care plan that only involves 2.5% of the people. Then O'Reilly screams bloody murder and calls it chaos, over a minor and temporary website bug, that only 2.5% of the people have to deal with. Which is why you can not believe one word O'Reilly says about any of it, because he is a biased partisan hack that is LYING to you.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: