Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
No, John Oliver Did Not Give Away $15 Million. You Did.
No, John Oliver Did Not Give Away $15 Million. You Did.
Mar 9, 2026 5:43 PM

Have you ever watched HBO’s Last Week Tonight? It’s a show where edian John Oliver reads a teleprompter explaining to Americans what is wrong with our country. It’s also a show where smug, self-satisfied progressives who miss John Stewart can be entertained while thinking they are watching “smart” content.

In reality, Last Week Tonight is frequently one of the dumbest shows on cable (in the sense that watching it makes you less informed about the world). And yet it is almost inescapable if you have an internet connection. Even if you don’t subscribe to HBO you’ll find clips every Monday morning on left-leaning media sites, or someone who wants to feel self-righteous and pseudo-intelligent will slip it into your social media channels.

A prime example is the most recent episode where Oliver takes on the debt collection industry. A representative headline reporting on the show (from a site that should know better) is “Watch: John Oliver just topped Oprah with one of the largest giveaways ever on TV.”

Oliver didn’t top Oprah nor was he involved in one of the largest giveaways ever on TV. The actual amount of money that Oliver gave away wasn’t that significant — $60,000 — but he was able to fool people who don’t know much about economics into thinking he actually gave away $15 million.

I’m not kidding. There are a lot of people this morning who really think a third-tier cable talk show host gave away $15,000,000.

You can watch the clip here. But I warn you it’s crude, simplistic, misleading, overly long, and filled with Oliver’s attempts at what he considers to be “humor.”

We could spend all day parsing the economic fallacies and Nanny State assumptions in the video. Essentially, Oliver thinks that one of the most regulated industries in America simply suffers from a lack of regulation. He also thinks we should pay our debts “when we can” but if we can’t, well, that’s why rich people exist: so that we can redistribute money from the haves to the have-nots.

But let’s set aside plaints and focus on the absurd claim that Oliver “gave away” $15 million.

Here’s how it works: Oliver starts a debt collection business (and is shocked and horrified to find that it’s relatively easy to start a business in America). His pany then buys nearly $15 million dollars of medical debt for less than half a penny on the dollar ($60,000). He then donates the debt to a non-profit that “forgives” medical debt (i.e., refuses to seek collections). Then Oliver claims he “gave away $15 million.”

Not quite.

Oliver says he bought “out of statute” medical debt from Texas. According to Texas law, debt collectors cannot sue individuals in an attempt to collect debts that are more than four years past due. So the debt is essentially uncollectible anyway. Yet Oliver falsely claims that is “medical debt they no longer have to pay.” That is not true — the legal obligation to pay the debt remains even if the statue of limitations has expired.

So how much did Oliver actually give away? Probably less than $60,000.

What Oliver bought was a very strict and limited right to attempt collections on a large amount of debt. Essentially, Oliver bought the right to ask people “Will you pay me what is owed?” and if they say “No, I don’t think I will” he has absolutely no legal recourse. None.

That is why the debt Oliver bought is not worth $15 million — because attempts to collect the debt when people still had a legal obligation to do soalready failed. So how much is the bad debt worth? It’s worth what Oliver could collect.

If Oliver was able to get the 9,000 people on the bad debt list to send a check for $6.67 he might be able to recoup his $60,000 investment. But panies that sold the debt doubted they’d even recoup that trivial amount, which is why they sold the debt at the price they did.

Oliver therefore didn’t give away $15 million; he gave away the right to collect about $60,000 in uncollectible debt. If you think this is semantics ask HBO’s accountants if they’ll be writing off this “$15 million debt” on pany’s tax returns next year.

So what does it matter if Oliver pulls this silly, dishonest stunt? Because it allows him and his viewers to feel better about themselves (“Oliver is so generous, and I’m a good person for supporting him!”) when the reality is that thousands of hospitals and medical businesses are the ones that were hurt when they came up $15 million short of what was owed them.

In 2014, U.S. hospitals provided $42.8 billion in pensated care, representing 5.3 percent of annual hospital expenses. You know who paid for that pensated care? You did. You paid more in higher insurance premiums, higher deductibles, higher taxes, and higher cost of medical care pensate for those who couldn’t — and those who merely wouldn’t — pay what they owed.

The salaries for the nurses and hospital janitors didn’t go away just because John Oliver bought some bad debt. The cost of the electricity to run the heart monitoring machines didn’t disappear either. The $15 million represented actual expenses that have already been paid. That means all of the $15 million of bad debt Oliver bought was already absorbed by the hospitals and passed on to you and other health care consumers.

So when you see a smug Brit on TV tell you he gave away $15 million you can correct his ignorance by responding, “No, you didn’t. We did.”

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
First Things imbroglio
A former editor at First Things, Damon Linker, has written a piece for The New Republic, which attacks, among others, his former boss, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Linker claims that Neuhaus is a “theocon,” who wants to merge religious authority and political power. Rick Garnett at Mirror of Justice has all the details, including links to blog discussions and his previous post, criticizing Linker’s argument. I’ve read First Things for years and, in my judgment, the truth lies with Linker’s...
Equipping the armies of compassion
Pat Nolan, president of Justice Fellowship, writes about the challenges that non-profits face in seeking funding, in the latest Justice eReport, “Equpping the Armies of Compassion.” Nolan highlights the Acton Institute’s Samaritan Guide and We Care America, which has a grant center that assists charities in getting proposals together. And on a related note, Joe Knippenberg at No Left Turns critiques an article by Amy Sullivan in The New Republic, “Patron Feint,” which depicts the faith-based initiative as a mere...
Kierkegaard and Christianity
I ran across some of these tidbits over recent months that I thought worth passing along, and it’s a fitting time to do so at noon, typically the lunch hour. The first two are taken from an article by Martin J. Heinecken, “Kierkegaard as Christian,” Journal of Religion 37, no. 1 (Jan. 1957): 20–30. Heinecken was a professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. He writes of Kierkegaard’s critical project against the state church of Denmark:...
Proof positive of marxism at Catholic universities
The resemblance is uncanny. Who said liberation theology was dead? ...
Budziszewski on subsidiarity
Following up on yesterday’s entry about Ronald Aronson’s call for a renewed socialism in American politics, I offer this paragraph from J. Budziszewski’s book, What We Can’t Not Know. Discussing the principle of subsidiarity as first explicitly articulated by Pius XI in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, Budziszewski writes, As Pius explained, what pushed the principle of subsidiarity to the forefront was the crisis in civil society brought about by the industrial revolution. For a time it seemed as though the...
Socialism redivivus
Ronald Aronson argues that the political left in America needs to get back to its true socialist roots in order to e a coherent and clear alternative in this article from The Nation, “The Left Needs More Socialism.” He points to contemporary political movements in other countries as models for success of the American left: But Americans need only glance around the world to see that there are alternatives. The vibrant World Social Forums are an example, under way since...
Reform & Resurge Conference 2006
A brief Q&A with Acton research fellow and Covenant Theological Seminary professor Anthony Bradley has been posted here, “How Jacked-Up Punks Will Change The World,” in preparation for Anthony’s speaking engagement at the Reform & Resurge Conference 2006, May 9th – 11th in Seattle, WA. ...
Immigration is a symptom
Large numbers of migrant populations going out of a particular area or nation should be viewed in large part as a signal of something. There are reasons for people to pick up and move, and policy and governing bodies would do well to examine these reasons. When business close facilities and open elsewhere, it is usually because the destination location has a better economic and business-friendly environment. So the natural course of action when examining this phenomena is to ask...
The 2006 Texas distinguished scientist wants you dead
Well, maybe not you personally. But in his speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March, University of Texas Professor Eric Pianka did announce his hope that a mutated Ebola virus would wipe out ninety percent of the human population–soon. His motives are, of course, the essence of nobility. We’ve bred like rabbits, you see, and drastic measures are needed to restore the balance. Amateur scientist Forrest Mims broke the story in his column for The Amateur Scientist. (Full...
Apples and oranges?
Here’s an interesting story–Apple Corps is suing Apple Computer for breach of contract. You probably recognize the first Apple as pany owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the widows of the other two Beatles. Since 1991, Apple Corps has had a deal with Apple Computer: in essence, the pany agrees to stay out of puter and munications business, and pany agrees to stay out of the music business–technically, each has agreed to keep its trademark out of the others...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved