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.
Dec 3, 2025 8:30 AM

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
Rationing by Rudeness
In an article in the Journal of Markets & Morality, Ryan Langrill and Virgil Henry Storr examine “The Moral Meanings of Markets.” They argue that “traditional defenses of the morality of the market tend to inadequately articulate the moral meanings of markets.” Such defenses tend to argue from practical, even pragmatic or utilitarian, grounds. But for Langrill and Storr, “markets depend on and promote virtue.” Evidence of this virtue in the marketplace, they argue, is that “consumers are often willing...
Fortune 100 Companies Begin To Tackle Human Trafficking
The American Bar Association and Arizona State University’s McCain Institute and School of Politics and Global Studies have issued the first study of its kind: examining Fortune panies for policies regarding human trafficking and forced labor. The study also looked at whether or not Fortune panies had policies regarding conflict minerals (what are often referred to as “blood diamonds:” gems and minerals mined by children and/or forced labor.) The study is entitled, “How Do Fortune 100 Corporations Address Potential Links...
Right-to-Work and Human Dignity
Public policy wonks and economists frequently warn us to consider the unintended consequences of any given initiative. That would be good exercise when considering campaigns to raise the minimum wage and also calls to roll back “right-to-work” (RTW) legislation. The former presumably helps those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, while the latter is castigated as an attack on unions’ right to collective bargaining and, therefore, harmful to middle-class workers. It follows then, that if one prioritizes economic...
The 10 Commandments Through A Contemporary Lens
Rabbi Benjamin Blech, Professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University, reminds us that the 10 Commandments are not only relevant in our world, but needed more than ever. Writing at , Rabbi Blech says the Commandments are both universal and timeless. The first Commandment is “I am the Lord your God.” (Yes, I know that there is a bit of a difference in the numbering of the Commandments between Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Since this is a Jewish author, we’ll go...
What Might Christian Economists Contribute?
The latest edition of Econ Journal Watch has a symposium, co-sponsored by the Acton Institute, on the question, “Does Economics Need an Infusion of Religious or Quasi-Religious Formulations?” In his essay “Joyful Economics“, Victor V. Claar reflects upon his life as a Christian and how it has connected to his work as an academic economist. Claar offers a few suggestions about the distinct contributions Christian economists can make in this field of study: First, Christian economists simply municate to the...
Generosity From The Heart: Fighting Human Trafficking One Photo At A Time
Tanner Stewart did not intend to e an abolitionist. His passion is photography. But his gift for taking amazing photos led him to fight human trafficking. In 2012, Stewart was on a trip to Bulgaria, volunteering for A21, an organization that educates about trafficking and provides care for trafficking survivors. Stewart was bluntly confronted by trafficking in a chance encounter: Stewart, a Seattle-based photographer, had spotted a man holding a baby. Wanting to capture the beautiful moment, he asked the...
Richard Baxter on Private Meditation
Richard Baxter, profiled in the latest issue of Religion & Liberty, penned The Saints Everlasting Rest in 1647. In the book’s dedication, Baxter wrote that he had no intention of serving God other than preaching. But he recalled, “sentenced to death by the physicians, I began to contemplate more seriously on the everlasting rest which I apprehended myself to be just on the border of.” Baxter noted that because he was so near death that it quickened his “sluggish heart...
Loving the Hunt: Kuyper on Scholarship and Stewardship
In “Scholastica II,” a convocation address delivered to Amsterdam’s Free University in 1900 (now translated under the title,Scholarship), Abraham Kuyper explores the ultimate goal of “genuine study,” asking, “Is it to seek or find?” Alluding to academics who search for the sake of searching, Kuyperconcludes that “seeking should be in the service of finding” and that “the ultimate purpose of seeking is finding.” “The shepherd who had lost his sheep did not rejoice in searching for it but in finding...
Religion In America: Accommodation, Not Coercion
The Supreme Court recently decided (in Greece v. Galloway) that the New York town of Greece had the right to open its town board meetings with prayer, and that this did not violate the rights of anyone, nor did it violate the Constitutional mandate that our government cannot establish a religion. The town, the Court found, did not discriminate against any faith, and there was no coercion to pray. We know that the Founding Fathers were not all Christians. However,...
Explainer: What You Should Know About the EPA’s Proposed New Climate Rule
What is this latest news about an EPA rule change? On Monday, June, 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule change on “emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units.” Specifically, the EPA is proposing state-specific rate-based goals for carbon-dioxide emissions from energy producers (mostly from 600 coal-fired power plants) and setting guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to achieve new state-specific...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved