O'Reilly Supports Public Option on show.

[SirNitram]

Hasty transcript.

NINA OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don’t necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O’REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

[Koolaidkirby]

i can see him denying/retracting his statement in...

[CmdrWilkens]

Hey at least its out there, and its out there forever now.

[Darksider]

Sometimes I wonder if Right-wing pundits actually forget that their shows are being taped and broadcast. The sheer number of times i've seen them try to backpedal and claim they didn't make a remark when it is recorded for posterity makes me bang my head against the wall.

You can retract your claims all you want, we all heard you say it.

[ThomasP]

Has O'Reilly been one of the hardcore "no socialized medicine" types before this?

Not that I'm saying he won't try to backpedal, but I'm just curious as to whether he's gone on record before as being against the UHC idea. I'd find it odd that he'd really support this, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

[Darmalus]

Sometimes I wonder if Right-wing pundits actually forget that their shows are being taped and broadcast. The sheer number of times i've seen them try to backpedal and claim they didn't make a remark when it is recorded for posterity makes me bang my head against the wall.

You can retract your claims all you want, we all heard you say it.

I don't think the intended audience for these shows watches anything else, so if they deny they made the statement, and never allow the clip to show up in a rerun, then it has been effectively erased. The people who will remember this, and trot it out to showcase their hypocrisy, are on shows that will never be seen by a Fox News devotee.

Plus, this just goes in my pile of evidence that the right wing doesn't even know what they are protesting, they just protest because they are democrats/the antichrist/Glen Beck told them too.

[Serafina]

Sometimes I wonder if Right-wing pundits actually forget that their shows are being taped and broadcast. The sheer number of times i've seen them try to backpedal and claim they didn't make a remark when it is recorded for posterity makes me bang my head against the wall.

You can retract your claims all you want, we all heard you say it.

Don't you see that the LIBERAL ATHEIST MEDIA are spinning the words of the poor, poor fascist right-wing nutjobs "normal people"?

[MarshalPurnell]

O'Reilly has usually preferred to present himself as a populist rather than a conservative as such, and not as a Republican. I obviously haven't been following him for years and years now, so I'm not sure what his previous statements on the health care debate are. This may not be inconsistent with what he's said in the past, or he may have decided that big insurance companies are a good target for his populist ire. I'd at least wait until he actually disavows the statement or says something contradictory before throwing around charges of hypocrisy, unless of course there's an established pattern of him attacking the idea of a public option.

[CmdrWilkens]

O'Reilly has usually preferred to present himself as a populist rather than a conservative as such, and not as a Republican. I obviously haven't been following him for years and years now, so I'm not sure what his previous statements on the health care debate are. This may not be inconsistent with what he's said in the past, or he may have decided that big insurance companies are a good target for his populist ire. I'd at least wait until he actually disavows the statement or says something contradictory before throwing around charges of hypocrisy, unless of course there's an established pattern of him attacking the idea of a public option.

The thing is that O'Reilly has been a hypocrite on so many things that th default assumption probably should be that he is just waiting to retract this statement...but, and its a huge but, this could be another T Boone Pickens. You can hate that guy (Pickens) for a lot of things but he certainly seems to be advocating the sort of energy change needed in the US in terms of wind power and renewables. Likewise O'Reilly could honestly believe that a low-cost public option is worth having. Its possible but I'd wait to hear him speak on the subject again before jumping behind that idea.

[Pulp Hero]

Him and Beck should have a cross show debate. Beck will end in tears.

[His Divine Shadow]

O'Reily has never been in favor of UHC, this transcript has never existed. Oceania has always been at War with Eurasia.

[Bluewolf]

May be a simple case of an arsehole that agrees with one good thing for the US. I don't think that is out of the question. Hopefully he wont flip flop now.

[Solauren]

More then likely, that's the case.

I've never, ever, known someone with resemblance of common sense, self-importance, independence, or mental ability to be 100% behind a given philosophy or ideology.

In this case, O'reilly is probably the rapid dog he appears to be, but honestly believes it's for the good of the American people. If that's the case, he could see other things that are not 'right-wing' as good for the American people and back them.

[Bluewolf]

Well hopefully he does not maintain his rabid views forever, at least not all of them. At least this shows that he realises something.

[Alferd Packer]

He has probably realized that the most likely incarnation of the public option won't really affect the bottom lines of private insurers. While their practice of rescission may end, they'll probably still be empowered to charge outrageous premiums and copays, since the public option will only be available to those who had no insurance anyway. If he truly is a corporate shill, it follows that he would endorse any plan that keeps the insurance companies rich.

Remember, health insurance companies aren't covered by antitrust laws currently, so many of them are effective regional monopolies. I would wager that if the plan was to scrap employer-based health insurance and force all insurance companies to compete nationally(thus driving costs, revenues, and profits down), he would be screaming and railing against it...despite this being allegedly in line with his political ideology.

[Lord MJ]

So if I'm getting reamed by my insurance company by outrageous premiums, I can't jump to the Public Option? What kind of reform is that...

[Mr Bean]

So if I'm getting reamed by my insurance company by outrageous premiums, I can't jump to the Public Option? What kind of reform is that...

The current public option that exists is only for the poor, since the ultra poor already have free heath care. Basically except of the Kennedy bill the other two house bills give the Public option only to those making less than 30k a year or over age 55.

[Vendetta]

So if I'm getting reamed by my insurance company by outrageous premiums, I can't jump to the Public Option? What kind of reform is that...

The Freedomerica kind. Where by dint of effort and application, every man* can achieve the American Dream. For his employer.

* (women and minorities exempted)

[CmdrWilkens]

So if I'm getting reamed by my insurance company by outrageous premiums, I can't jump to the Public Option? What kind of reform is that...

Wait where did this question come from? So far as I am aware all of the public options that are actually under consideration you can jump to at any point. Now things may get watered down in committee but the House, at least, seems intent on passing an actual national program that anyone can buy in to at any time. You may not get subsidies (unless you are poor) but you can jump at any point.

[Simon_Jester]

Him and Beck should have a cross show debate. Beck will end in tears.

Isn't that a fairly common event regardless? I mean, my understanding is that Beck is not exactly a manly man, and O'Reilly is a bully.

May be a simple case of an arsehole that agrees with one good thing for the US. I don't think that is out of the question. Hopefully he wont flip flop now.

Adages about stopped clocks come to mind.

So if I'm getting reamed by my insurance company by outrageous premiums, I can't jump to the Public Option? What kind of reform is that...

The Freedomerica kind. Where by dint of effort and application, every man* can achieve the American Dream. For his employer.

* (women and minorities exempted)

Now, now, this is the new reformed pluralistic Freedomerica we're talking about; women and minorities are just as free to benefit their employers as real people are...

[SirNitram]

Him and Beck should have a cross show debate. Beck will end in tears.

That's not impressive. He starts sobbing at random.

[Dominus Atheos]

So if I'm getting reamed by my insurance company by outrageous premiums, I can't jump to the Public Option? What kind of reform is that...

Yep, absolutely right.

From the transcript of Obama's September 9th speech:

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.

Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Which means it wouldn't be available to more then about 10% of the country. The other 90% are fucked sideways.

[Count Chocula]

As noted, O'Reilly's not really a conservative. From the bits I've seen, he's not even as rational a thinker as Beck or Limbaugh, who, though he has his faults, is at least consistent in his reasoning. Beck, IMO, thinks clearly about 70% of the time but couches most of his comments in lowest common denominator hyperbole, which makes taking him seriously a hard sell. When Beck and Limbaugh stick to facts, they tend to reach accurate conclusions.

O'Reilly's "Factor" seems to be whatever stance will make noise and notoriety. And his invited opposing viewpoint guests seem to be whoever he feels he can out-shout and out-denigrate.

[Thanas]

As noted, O'Reilly's not really a conservative.

Are you serious? Really?

From the bits I've seen, he's not even as rational a thinker as Beck or Limbaugh, who, though he has his faults, is at least consistent in his reasoning.

Yeah, right. What are you on?

Beck, IMO, thinks clearly about 70% of the time but couches most of his comments in lowest common denominator hyperbole, which makes taking him seriously a hard sell. When Beck and Limbaugh stick to facts, they tend to reach accurate conclusions.

Such as....?

O'Reilly's "Factor" seems to be whatever stance will make noise and notoriety. And his invited opposing viewpoint guests seem to be whoever he feels he can out-shout and out-denigrate.

Oh, I guess since he is not playing along with the rascist party line anymore, he can now be critizised at whim, right?

[Count Chocula]

My beef (if it even reaches that level of emotional involvement) against O'Reilly is that he does not seem to have a consistent moral or intellectual stand. One day, he's against cap and trade (so am I, but that's off topic). The next day, he's for universal health care. He's rude to his guests. He must have the last word. He's an asshole.

As far as ratings go, he's a little bit ahead of Sean Hannity in the same time slot; he picks up late night viewers, however, since he has two airings on Fox. He's Fox's lead, but it's a far cry from the six million viewers he claims.

Meanwhile, Limbaugh's listeners dwarf O'Reilly's telly ratings. Limbaugh had over 650,000 listeners in one week, IN ONE CITY, the liberal Los Angeles, CA. The arch-conservative is the most-listened to radio personality in arguably the most liberal city of the most liberal state of the Union. He's second-ranked in San Francisco. Fourth-ranked in New York City. Second in Chicago. First in Detroit. First in Seattle. First in Phoenix. First in San Diego. Whether or not you agree with the man, he's consistent. And obviously correct in most of his statements, as the opposing media has not made any "Rush got this wrong" or "Rush got that wrong" statements in quite a while. I know, saying Rush's opponents haven't called him on factual errors is a negative proof, but I'm not going to listen to old Rush shows for items to counter your such as?.. question. If you wish to take that as a concession, you got it.

As for Beck; he's out there. And I think that's part of his schtick. I guesstimated 70% accuracy because he jumps to unwarranted conclusions, especially on issues he should have known like the US' Founding Fathers' attitudes towards religion (see the I Hate Glenn Beck thread), but when it comes to reporting the news and commenting on it, despite his hyperbole, he's pretty much on target. Plus his show broke the latest ACORN scandal. He's a conduit for the two people who actually did the work, but he's nevertheless reporting facts.

Oh, I guess since he is not playing along with the rascist[sic] party line anymore, he can now be critizised at whim, right?

This is an amusingly ironic statement from you, Thanas, O Herald of the Ubermensch. Did you compare notes with Elfdart? You are saying, directly, that I'm a (Republican) party line hack, and therefore racist. And I'm criticizing O'Reilly because he's not sufficiently racist. I'll give you the same answer I gave Elfdart: Fuck. You.

EDIT: My Fuck. You. applies to your argument in this thread, and not to you as a blanket statement. Yep, my edit was prompted by my reading the Venting thread.