All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
51:36
20131104_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Monday, November 4th, 2013, and here are our top stories.
Tonight, on the InfoWars Nightly News.
The TSA rears its treasonous head at the Breeders' Cup grope-down.
Then, Navy SEALs ordered to remove the age-old Don't Tread on Me symbol.
Plus, President Obama wants to put the fear of God in all of us.
All that and more on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, last Friday we didn't have much information about the L.A.
shooting.
Now we do, and we have a lot of questions.
Let's start with the context for what's going on all over the country at TSA checkpoints.
Remember back in 2009, on Christmas Day, the underwear bomber?
Remember how the very next day we had all of these machines ready to be rolled out nationwide, provided, of course, by the company that was then run by the former head of Homeland Security?
Now, that was suspicious enough.
But we also had Kurt Haskell, an eyewitness on that plane, describe how the shabby-dressed bomber, without any paperwork, was escorted onto the plane by a man in a suit.
Then the following Thanksgiving, 2010, people were fed up with the naked scanners and the invasive pat-downs, and they organized a boycott of the TSA.
It was going to happen on the Thanksgiving weekend of travel, the busiest day of travel in the year.
And the TSA just simply shut down all the machines.
That was an implicit admission that there was no threat.
That they would just simply shut them down and let people walk through on the busiest day of the year.
Then we found out, just a couple of weeks ago, that in their own internal documents, the TSA admitted that there was no threat at either airplanes or airports.
No terrorist threats.
They were not protecting us from anything.
This came to light in a lawsuit by John Corbett.
The government mistakenly posted an unredacted version of a lawsuit that quoted these internal documents that he was able to see and discovery they had redacted those documents.
They posted the wrong version on Pacer.gov where all lawsuits are supposed to be up.
After we reported that, they threatened him, they gagged him, and they took down the unredacted version, and the redacted version is down now.
They do not want people to know that there is no threat, there is no terrorist threat.
This is not only theater of security that's going on at the airports, but it's a theater for which there is no real threat.
That's the damaging admission.
They don't want to come out.
And at the same time, going back to 2011, that they admitted this in their documents, we also had a Texas state legislator, David Simpson, who produced a bill that would stop these child molestations at the airports.
They threatened the state of Texas that they would shut down air traffic control if that was passed.
So the TSA knew all along that there was no threat.
At the time that they were making these threats to the state of Texas, they knew there was no threat.
Now we have a shooting.
This is something that's going to be very useful for them to tell people that they're something to be protected for.
So even though they know there's no threat, they started telling TSA agents back in January of this year to expect attacks on the lines that they created, the lines that increased the security threat at the airports.
Then they told them, don't worry, save yourself.
This is up to you.
So they're not there to protect people.
They're going to save themselves.
Now, at the press conference that was held this weekend, the police chief said that they've been practicing this scenario for three weeks.
Then we learned that even though they were practicing this scenario three weeks ago, they conveniently removed the police to five minutes away from a response to these types of attacks that have been expecting, they said, since January.
We were told by witnesses that the shooter was a heavy man in a TSA uniform.
As a matter of fact, the witness was fairly heavy himself and said he was much heavier than him.
Then it switches and we see that it's a thin 23-year-old man who's not in a TSA uniform.
There are a lot of things that are changing.
We've been lied to and misled by the TSA for years for their agenda.
So we're waiting to see what their agenda is.
We're waiting to see what kind of new controls are going to try to enact at the airports and elsewhere.
And now we're told that the shooter had some kind of New World Order manifesto on him.
But just like the videotape footage that would show the actual shooter, whether it was a 23-year-old skinny guy, or whether it was a heavyset man in a TSA uniform, we're also not shown this manifesto.
But we're told that it's some kind of fringe idea, this New World Order.
Well, we've got a lot of people talking about the New World Order, and you'll see that clip right after the news, so stay tuned.
Now just in case you haven't caught on who the real enemy is, it's not the Al-Qaeda Frankenstein monster that the government has created, but it's actually the villagers.
Because the villagers are going to realize that they've had their possessions stolen, they've had their lives sacrificed in endless wars, and they're going to be upset.
The government knows that.
So they've been training in this Operation Urban Shield, and this is an article from one of our Planet InfoWars contributors, Kim M, and it says, 20 drills that prove the DHS's official new enemy Out of 47 scenarios being practiced by first responders during Urban Shield 2013, October 25th through 28th in the San Francisco Bay Area, at least 20 of them were domestic, either stated implicitly, explicitly, or implied.
Listen to some of these.
Anarchist refinery bomber.
A domestic terrorist watershed takeover.
High-risk search warrant.
Community justice system takeover.
Extremist manhunt.
Domestic terrorist school takeover, environmental terrorist sabotage, and a building collapse where a member of a sovereign citizen movement has driven a truck into a government building which resulted in a partial building collapse and fire.
These are their training scenarios.
They're very concerned.
They've got the cops so scared of just the words sovereign citizen If you're accused of being a sovereign citizen, that is something that gets the police ready to start shooting right away.
It's a very dangerous thing.
They're on a hair trigger about anybody that is labeled a sovereign citizen.
But here's what typically happens when the cops come to a scene.
We have cops have tasered a father who is trying to rescue a three-year-old from a burning building.
Now that's in Louisiana, Missouri.
A father was prevented from saving his three-year-old from a house that was on fire when the cops tasered him three times for attempting to enter the burning building.
It's just heartless.
How could they be so heartless, said the sister-in-law, Emily Miller.
She said, while they just stood around and waited for the fire department, what kind of police officer wouldn't try and save a three-year-old who's burning in a house?
And to make matters worse, they arrested the father after they kept him from saving his son from the burning fire.
Now, if you have any question about what's going on in the military or what's happening with our country, take a look at this.
Navy SEALs have been ordered to remove Don't Tread on Me.
After the 9-11 attacks, all U.S.
Navy ships of war were ordered to return to the traditional Don't Tread on Me rattlesnake design for the duration of the War on Terror.
I guess that would be forever, because that's never going to end, right?
All personnel are now authorized only to wear matching American flag patches on their right shoulder, according to a new memo.
The memo says you are no longer authorized to wear the Don't Tread on Me patch.
Again, the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder.
Well, this has been in the flag of the Republic since the birth of the Republic.
And one of the reasons they use a rattlesnake is because it warns before it attacks.
It doesn't attack unprovoked.
And it warns aggressors not to attack it.
And that's what that flag is.
It's a warning.
Now, over the weekend, Ed Snowden made a move for clemency.
He pointed out, he said, citizens have a right to fight against the suppression of information about affairs of essential importance for the public.
Those who speak the truth are not committing a crime.
He was rebuffed by Senator Feinstein.
Here's what she had to say.
He was trusted.
He stripped our system.
He had an opportunity, if what he was was a whistleblower, to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee.
Both she and Mike Rogers criticized him on Face the Nation.
But you know, this is what really happened.
It was really Feinstein and Mike Rogers who betrayed a trust.
It was really Feinstein and others who stripped the system.
They could have picked up the phone at any time, and they could still do it, to stop these illegal surveillance tactics that are being done by the NSA, these dragnet surveillances that are against the Constitution.
They could stop it at any time, but they haven't.
They're the ones who have betrayed the system and betrayed our trust.
We'll stick around right after the news tonight.
We've got a lot of extra reports.
And right after the break, we're going to be talking to Leanne McAdoo about purges in the military at highest levels.
We're on the march.
The Empire's on the run.
And the InfoWars Army is standing strong.
Wake up your family, friends, and neighbors and break the matrix at InfoWarsStore.com.
Learn the truth and spread the message of liberty with the world's most comprehensive collection of books and documentary films.
Maintain a healthy metabolism and energize your body to perform at peak health.
With Survival Shield Nascent Iodine.
Protect your family and be prepared with survival foods and emergency preparedness kits.
And now you can drink safe water with your own ProPure water filtration system, which removes fluoride and other harmful chemicals from your family's water supply.
Save 10% with the promo code WATER.
So join the revolution.
Infowarsstore.com Many anthropologists and archaeologists believe that before man even discovered the power to harness and use fire, we were involved in agrarian activities.
That is, taking the seeds of plants and then replanting them to produce more.
The very foundation of our modern civilization and human culture is centered around the planting and cultivation of edible plants.
Here are some of the amazing deals at InfoWarsSeedCenter at InfoWarsShop.com.
The Survival Seed Vault by My Patriot Supply features only the finest survival heirloom seeds for a robust and hardy garden, even in the toughest times.
We also have starter varieties of the deluxe seed packages for fruit, salad, salsa, peppers, medical herbs, and more.
Go to the InfoWarsSeedCenter at InfoWarsShop.com.
And remember, The revolution against tyranny is growing.
Welcome back.
Well, on today's Tyranny Watch, Obamacare crashes, so Obama goes on tour.
Welcome to Tyranny Watch, I'm Gigi Ornette.
This week, Obamacare continues to torpedo and President Obama goes on a mystery tour.
The first stop on the mystery tour, he puts his support behind Democrat Terry McAuliffe.
Nothing makes me more nervous than when my supporters start feeling too confident.
So I want to put the fear of God in all of you.
The fear of God?
God puts his fear in people, not the President of the United States.
And believe me, Christians would love it if the President spent more time in the Word, instead of touring and spewing propaganda.
The next stop on the tour is a closed-door meeting with political allies at his Organizing for America group, where he's expected to tout the program which is driving up health care costs for millions of Americans.
Then, on to immigration reform.
And for some reason, he's flying to Texas for a health care speech.
Then to New Orleans to talk about jobs.
Well, what we're concerned about is a president who acts as if he were God.
And one of the places that Obama is trying to instill fear is in the ranks of the military.
Leanne McAdoo has more for us.
That's absolutely right, David.
The Obama administration has just fired the 10th military commander this year.
This guy was in charge of the largest military base in Japan, and he was let go because of a lack of confidence.
That was all the details they had given there.
That's not very specific.
Yeah, exactly.
And they're not going to release further because there was no findings that he had any criminal misconduct.
So that's kind of where they're leaving it.
But basically we're definitely seeing that he is purging the military of anyone who does not go along with his communist agenda.
Anyone who questions the official line that he's given to the American people and the media.
Of the nine others that were fired, three of those generals were either critical of or directly involved with the scandal that happened in Benghazi.
In one case, the U.S.
Army General Ham, he was commanding the U.S.
African Command when the consulate was attacked.
He was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.
He said reinforcements could have been sent in time.
A second admiral who was also fired, he seconded that opinion.
He said aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans, and he was later removed from his post for alleged profanity and making racially insensitive comments.
These are very, very minor charges.
They're not very specific.
It's kind of like what we saw with the unprecedented dismissal of these nuclear commanders, the number one and number two.
When it happened to the number two guy, everybody said, this is totally unprecedented.
And then it happened to the number one guy for a reason that was even less believable, that he was on a special assignment somehow.
How do you have the number one nuclear commander on a special assignment they didn't like the way he performed?
No, yeah, if you don't like the way that Obama performs, you will be purged.
And they are sending that message loud and clear through the military.
But what we're seeing here is that people who are loyal to the Constitution, the military and our veterans, people who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, those people are being relieved of duty.
The people who are being replaced are people who are loyal to the President and loyal to Obama.
That's very troubling, because it's not just an issue.
We want civilian control of the military, but we want civilian control by people who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and really mean it.
And of course, we don't find anybody like that in Washington much, right?
Exactly.
Not just the President.
It's pretty much pervasive with everybody.
They take these oaths, but they really don't believe them, don't follow through on them.
Right, and Obama really takes advantage of the fact that the military adheres to that constitutional requirement to have civilian leadership over the military, but he is no civilian.
He is a tyrant.
He acts like a tyrant, and he is bought and paid for by the New World Order.
So we see that Obama has no problem firing high-ranking officials in the military, but he won't go after his own officials in his administration and investigate Benghazi.
And that's the key.
It's Benghazi.
That's what he wants to avoid people looking at in detail at all costs.
That's something the military takes very seriously.
They don't like being told to stand down and leave their personnel stranded to die.
That's made a lot of people in the military angry throughout the ranks.
And he's purging those ranks of people.
That's not a scandal that's going to go away.
That is something that is very serious that should take him out of office.
Well, thank you, Leanne.
Appreciate it.
Well, if you're tired of the privacy violations and the mandates of Obamacare, stick around after the break.
We're going to have an interview with James Lansbury of Samaritan Ministries.
He's going to describe what, in his terms, he calls islands of freedom.
They're exemptions that have been put in Obamacare for health care sharing ministries.
That'll be right after the break.
Stay tuned.
Why is nascent iodine so important?
Nascent iodine is so important because it goes directly to the thyroid.
It's not bonded to a salt, which means it doesn't have to be broken down, and it's the most usable form.
It's what the body uses.
It's what the body is designed to use.
If you have low energy levels, if you have pains, if you have thyroid problems, if you don't feel Up to par.
Well they've proven now that the fluoride and a lack of iodine causes a decreased IQ because you have all this stuff that builds up inside your system and builds up and builds up.
And that's why some people when they start taking iodine will have what's called a Hertzheimer reaction or a detoxification reaction.
That's a good sign.
That means you're detoxifying all that fluoride buildup, the mercury buildup in there, the bromine buildup in your system, and the chlorine buildup in your system.
You don't want those things.
All of those things have been proven as carcinogens.
That's one of the reasons prostate cancer is on the rise, too, is because prostate takes up iodine.
And the men that are lacking iodine causes the prostate to become cystic and causes the prostate to swell and eventually leads to prostate cancer.
There's been an extreme rise in polycystic ovarian disease, PCOS, with women.
Fibrocystic breast disease because iodine is stored in the breast tissue, the ovaries, the prostate glands in men.
It's utilized by every single cell in the body.
Why does this almost taste good compared to other iodine that tastes horrible?
That's because it's real iodine, atomic form.
We wanted something that's gonna go straight into the bloodstream and straight into the thyroid gland.
We wanted to put it in a vegetable glycerin base.
That's a USP kosher certified vegetable glycerin base.
And that product...
Is not tested on animals, it's vegan friendly, it's gluten free, it's GMO free.
Of all the things I've done, nascent iodine was just absolutely amazing.
So we developed with Dr. Group a double strength, low price.
Infowarslife.com, survival shield, the atomic nascent iodine available right now.
Welcome back.
How would you like to get off of the Obamacare grid?
Out of the surveillance?
Out of the mandates?
Well, we're going to talk to someone tonight who offers an option for that, if you're a Christian.
And also, if you're a Christian, a new way to think about health care.
And also, we're going to talk about how you might be able to save money as a cash patient.
Joining us today is James Lansbury.
He's the Executive Vice President of Samaritan Ministries.
Welcome, Mr. Lansbury.
Well, thanks.
It's great to be here with you.
Now it's interesting because there's an exception in the Obamacare mandate for health care ministries like yours.
It's a very narrowly crafted exemption.
They have to have been in business since December 31st, 1999, so there's not going to be any new ones coming out.
But there is an exemption there, so people can get out of the Obamacare mandate.
Should we care to talk about that?
Sure, we like to look at that as an island of freedom, still among the individual mandate for health care sharing ministries.
We don't like how narrow it is, but It's still there, and we're trying to look at this from a perspective of it's better to have this small island of freedom than to have no island of freedom at all.
We certainly, from a philosophical basis, favor the idea of more choices, more freedom for Americans.
We think more choices are better in the sense that more people making more informed choices tends to drive quality up and Cost down better than anything else.
Absolutely.
Even a little bit of freedom is still better than none at all.
So I want to talk about how it's different from insurance, but before we do, let's pull up on the screen.
This is the 26th United States Code, Section 5000A, Subsection D, Subsection 2, Subsection B, and there's some things in here.
That's the health care sharing ministry, and it says there that it's members in this ministry that share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs, and they share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs.
Without regard to the state in which a member resides or is employed, they retain membership even after they develop a medical condition.
So let's talk about, it's clearly in the Obamacare as an exception, as you mentioned, an island of freedom.
So let's talk a little bit about how Samaritan Ministries differs from insurance.
First of all, Christians don't really look to government for their protection, they look to God for that protection.
And so that's one aspect of it, but just as your name implies, Samaritan Ministries, as Christians, we're not just looking at it for what's in it for us.
We're also looking always for ways that we can share God's love, as you've got behind you in that quote, bear one another's burdens.
So let's talk about that, a way that you can actually help other people and exactly how your ministry works.
Start with differentiations from insurance, things that make us very different from insurance.
First is the faith-based nature of what we are.
And when we talk about a faith-based nature, we're talking about it from two ends.
First part is that if you don't have a standard biblical faith, you're going to have a difficult time trusting that God's going to provide you this kind of mechanism.
There are no guarantees.
There are no promises.
There's no government regulation.
From that side, we certainly are overseen as a non-profit charity, but we're not regulated in the same way as an insurance company would be.
Let me interject something right there, too, because for anybody, whether they're Christians or not, we've seen the government fail to deliver on its promises, and everybody knows instances where someone has insurance and they fail to deliver on their promises as well, because if you're not going to trust, it just depends on where you're going to put your trust.
Are you going to put your trust And an insurance company that's got massive bank accounts and all they're looking at are ways to make those large bank accounts larger if they love money.
And are you going to trust them?
Or is it maybe better to trust God, to trust your fellow Christians to help you in a time of need?
I think that's a real fundamental thing here, isn't it?
Oh, I think it is.
And that's part of the core of who we are.
Trusting one another and trusting God to provide through one another is a big part of why we do what we do.
I joined Samaritan Ministries myself in 1996.
I've been around here for a long time, even long before I came on staff.
We've grown from just 100 families at that time to over 27,000 families today, over 90,000 people who are taking part in just Samaritan Ministries, over 200,000 people taking part in health care sharing nationally in the United States alone.
So we're excited to see Yes.
how it's grown over the years.
The second faith-based prong that we talk about is that it's consistent with our faith.
You know, if you buy insurance today, especially insurance under the new regulations, under the Affordable Care Act, you're going to be helping fund so-called emergency contraceptives.
You're going to be helping fund abortion.
And with Samaritan Ministries, you can have the confidence of knowing that not a single dollar is ever going to go to something that you find morally reprehensible.
In particular, no dollar will ever get spent to help fund abortion.
That's right.
And that's a key thing to remember, because it's not just the wastefulness of the mandates, because you have single males who are having to pay for maternity care, for example.
That's mandated.
But it's also, as you mentioned, having abortion care mandated.
And we see a company, Hobby Lobby, fighting that millions of dollars of fines that they're looking at because they don't want to provide abortion care.
You should not be forced to do something like that.
This is a way to opt out, not for a company necessarily, but for individuals to opt out.
They can get into Samaritan Ministries and other ministries like that, that offer that kind of option to get out, that kind of freedom to get out.
But it's also the expense.
Because of these ridiculous mandates, like I said, a single man having to get maternity care, people are seeing their Premiums skyrocket by four to five times as well as their deductibles.
So they're winding up with something that looks like their house payment, and yet their deductibles are going up from three or four thousand to twelve, thirteen thousand we've seen in many cases.
That kind of a jump in their deductible, which means that they don't really have any insurance at all really provided for them.
And that's kind of a major, major health care issue in the year to get anything from the insurance company.
Well, I think that's the key is that these mandates are not new.
From an individual policy standpoint, health insurance mandates have been around in every single state.
The Heritage Foundation estimated a few years ago that state-based mandates that are on insurance policies were adding somewhere between 20 and 50 percent to the cost of an insurance policy, even before the Affordable Care Act kicked in.
And so that depended on your state.
New Jersey had more mandates than Pennsylvania right next door.
California more mandates to Nevada.
So sometimes if you're living on a state state border, you might be able to save 30 or 40% on your insurance just by moving across the state line because of the mandates that were available in your state compared to the state door.
Yeah, but we can't move anywhere now that it's a national mandate system.
And it's not working.
It's also, I mentioned before, at the very beginning, it's kind of an off-the-grid healthcare approach in the sense that people are finding that their privacy, their financial records are being exposed at this website.
And, you know, that comes along with the mandates, doesn't it?
Well, any time you centralize control over something, you centralize the risk, you centralize Problems that are going to go along with it and you centralize the quantity of use there Which is going to make things even more difficult to maintain the larger something gets the harder it is to provide a personalized and safe service And that's what we're seeing is the website rolls out it is we start to deal with the various glitches as they were called in the first few days concerning the website you were people were signing up for insurance and
The insurance company was getting their form through the website, and instead of a wife and two daughters, a man was told that he had three spouses, which obviously is not the case even in the state of Utah these days.
So we need to really look at how effectively can you provide a service when you're trying to provide it in a one-size-fits-all approach.
And we're going to talk about that right after the break, Mr. Lansbury.
Stay tuned.
We're going to be right back after the close of the program to finish this interview for Prison Planet subscribers.
We'll stick around right after the show.
We're going to continue that interview.
We're going to talk about real reform, what real health care reform would look like.
We're also going to talk about Being a cash patient, what would that look like?
The L.A.
Times looked at that and they found that some patients in L.A.
were getting up to 90% off of what people were being charged who had health care insurance plans.
Cadillac health care insurance plans.
That's something to think about.
If you've got a deductible where you're going to have to pay $2,000 and you can get that same health care for half of that, that deductible in most cases is going to be coming right out of your pocket because the skyrocketing deductible is coming along with Obamacare.
Now, if you want to take care of your family's health and your health, the best way to do that is with preventative health care.
Go to Infowarslife.com and get some Survival Shield Nascent Iodine, a great way to take care of your health and your family's health.
That's ultimately your responsibility, not the government's.
Well, that's it for tonight's show.
Join us weekdays, 7 p.m.
Central, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
And if you're a Prison Planet TV subscriber, stick around right after the program for the continuation of this interview.
Stay tuned after the news for more special reports.
Now you can watch the Alex Jones Show live as it happens at infowars.com slash show.
You'll find links to all of our content there and a free 15-day trial for Prison Planet TV.
More than 60 movies and documentaries all in one place at Infowars.com/show.
Welcome back.
We've been talking to the Executive Vice President of Samaritan Ministries, James Lansbury, and we're going to continue that discussion about what real health care reform would look like.
Well, let's pick up this interview here with what you were talking about, the repercussions that we're going to see on a one-size-fits-all health care system.
Go ahead, continue with that.
Well, sure.
One of the things that we're going to notice very quickly is the rising cost of care is going to increase in speed, not decrease in speed.
Finally see through things like patient-directed plans like HSAs and healthcare share ministries that the cost curve in healthcare was starting to bend down, you know, slow down in its rate of growth at the very least.
And the economic drivers in this law, the affordable care, are able to drive the cost up faster.
One of the most egregious examples of this is the preventative care mandate, where all insurance fans have to cover 100% of preventative care with no co-pay whatsoever.
Well, when the consumer doesn't have to pay anything out of pocket for preventative care, something that we ought to be able to pay for out of pocket if it was really health insurance as opposed to the prepaid health care that they're trying to design, if we pay anything out of pocket, we would be able to drive those costs of preventative care down and make them affordable without insurance. we would be able to drive those costs of preventative I've heard people compare it to the fact that if you had homeowners insurance that paid for your lawn being mowed, you wouldn't be able to afford it.
And that's the kind of thing that we're seeing now.
That's what you're talking about.
It's total maintenance.
It's not just something that's there when you have a catastrophic problem.
Right, and that's where health savings accounts can be a, or healthcare share industry can be a wonderful change where those routine care is actually taken care of out of pocket.
So the individual patient is actually in a position to drive costs down and quality up.
The problem is we have less than 11 cents out of the dollar spent for by individual patients in healthcare, and the Affordable Care Act only doubles down on that system.
So you have this colonoscopy, which right now might cost $1,500 on average nationally.
Well, now that it's preventative care, it has to be covered without any copay.
So the cost of a colonoscopy is going to go up quickly, 30-50% a year, just because there's absolutely nothing to drive that cost down because the patient doesn't see a dime of the cost.
And again, if we were to pay for computers out of someone else's pocket instead of our own, iPhones would cost $70,000.
Because again, It's that individual consumer, the patient, in our case, being involved in that decision that bends quality up and cost down.
Well, as Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the designers of this, Rahm Emanuel's brother, said over the weekend, the insurance companies don't like individual health care.
They want to see that go away.
The future is not to have that in.
And he made it very clear that this was designed to fit the insurance company's needs, not the needs of individuals, not the needs of the people.
This has all been set up to design things that the insurance companies want.
And the individual choice, we already don't have any information in the marketplace.
We're not allowed, even at healthcare.gov, they're hiding a comparison shopping of what the rates are.
And of course, in a marketplace, you not only need choice, but you need information to make those choices.
And we don't, we're not allowed to see what the comparative costs are between different doctors, between different hospitals.
We're not allowed to see the comparative results, for example.
how well they do their job between different doctors, between different hospitals.
Those types of things in a marketplace with medical savings accounts, that could really get health care costs down, but we're not given any information.
Instead, they're hiding even more information from us.
This is going to be the most transparent presidency, and yet it's becoming the most opaque presidency, isn't it?
Yeah, there's a Twitter campaign out there called Be Transparent, trying to get HHS and the exchanges to start to publish more information so that you can see things like what doctors are in the network for a particular policy when you're looking for that.
And that's really the big deal here is that the insurance companies were vilified as a part of selling this bill.
Everyone told horror stories about insurance companies up and down.
They were the big villains in why we need to pass the Affordable Care Act.
And what we're seeing is that this isn't something that's designed to punish insurance companies.
It's actually a bailout for insurance companies.
Absolutely.
People that are out there.
Many of who are uninsured by choice are going to be forced into that insurance picture.
The uninsured who qualify for Medicaid are going to be forced by law to go.
Sign up for Medicaid, unless they choose something that's more freedom centered, like Samaritan Ministries, where you can choose your own doctors, you can choose your providers, where you get to be in control of your health care decisions, and everything is completely above board.
Everyone knows exactly how Samaritan Ministries works.
Our members get to vote on the guidelines, they vote on our board of directors.
So it's a very member-led organization compared to what we're seeing now, where the insurance companies are even going to have less accountability to the individual patient, and where We're seeing the individual patients unable to interact directly with both their insurance company and then the providers.
And that just confuses the situation greatly.
So doctors and hospitals, they don't work for patients anymore.
They work for insurance companies.
And that picture is actually the reason we're bending quality down and cost up instead of the other way around.
And I think this all goes back to this third-party insurance payer scheme that really goes back to World War II.
At that point, they had enacted wage and price controls during World War II, and employers got the permission or started doing it and got permission to make it a deductible.
As far as income tax goes, they could provide benefits to people as opposed to a wage increase, and that was a way that they could give them a wage increase that would satisfy the IRS.
And from there, we got into this third-party payment system.
I remember a friend of mine who had a child, and he was absolutely outraged that he got his bill back from the hospital.
And they charged him like $30 for a diaper and $5 for an aspirin.
The prices were ridiculous.
And what was even more ridiculous, they didn't even provide those things.
And he went to his employer, who was IBM, and said, this is crazy.
They didn't even give us this stuff, and look at what they're charging us for it.
And the insurer at IBM said, oh, don't worry about it.
It's built into the cost.
And just moved along.
They don't care if those costs are astronomical, and they do move those costs along.
There was an article in the LA Times back in May of 2012.
Let's pull that up on the monitor.
They were talking about how many hospitals and doctors offer cash discounts for medical bills.
This was a year and a half ago.
They said the lowest price is usually available only if patients don't use their health insurance.
In one case, blood tests that cost an insured patient $415 would have been $95 in cash.
That's the kind of things we see as a cash patient.
I've done that.
I've been on Samaritan Ministries, where we go in and you negotiate with the doctors.
They don't run unnecessary, expensive, dangerous tests on you.
And you can work out a more reasonable price with them.
Sure and sadly though, sometimes it happens the other way around where the cash patient actually gets poorer service at higher prices because the insurance companies come in and negotiate those prices.
And that especially happens at the hospital level.
We're trying to make sure we can find a way to see more transparency in medical pricing.
I think that can be a solution that will help everyone.
But the big deal is people have to insist upon it.
There's not going to be any transparency in medical pricing.
To the patient is insisting on knowing what something costs.
And right now, because of that tax exclusion, because most people get their insurance through their employer, don't pay anything out of their own pocket.
Because of that, there's really not a lot of pressure for price transparency, because people prefer to be insulated from the cost.
They're nervous about the cost.
They're scared by those numbers.
And so they much rather be insulated from those.
And that's really the big deal, because it's not just that employers started adding it in the 1940s during the wage and price freezes.
The bigger deal was when they got that tax exclusion in the 1950s, which gives that perverse incentive to spend as much as possible on health care, but only to buy it through your insurance.
If they could just level that tax playing field so that you or I would get the same tax benefit that an employer provided insurance gets, If we bought insurance or we paid for health care out-of-pocket, then all health care expenses get treated exactly the same.
Whether you make them all taxable or all non-taxable really doesn't matter.
And that would be a better way to handle the transportability, in my opinion, to attach it to the person rather than to the employer because you get, in the way it used to work, you would be locked into a particular employer if somebody in your family had a major health condition.
Right, and that's one of the few positive influences that the Affordable Care Act may have, is especially for some smaller and middle-sized employers that might just decide to drop their insurance, pay the penalty related to the employer mandate, so that people can go out and buy their own policies in the exchange.
That at least would solve that portability issue if people are starting to own those policies individually again, which could be a good thing.
But the rest of the system is so poorly designed that even that small positive is going to be so outweighed by overwhelming cost drivers that are going to take the cost and drive them up even faster than they've been for the last decade.
Well, we're seeing that the marketplace is being blamed for all these failures and yet we don't really have a marketplace because people didn't have choice.
Most of them were in a system that was designed by their employer as a third party.
They weren't really looking at costs.
We were not allowed to look at our costs.
We were not allowed to look at our doctors.
So we didn't have any information where we could make that decision.
We had no financial incentive to make that decision because we didn't have a medical savings account.
So, are you saying then that basically the way to fix this would be to give people some individual choices to make about their life?
Individual choices are always the way to improve any industry.
But what we've seen is just the opposite.
Now they're putting more mandates on, and we're seeing more mandates.
Just today it broke from natural news that the U.S.
government may force doctors to accept Obamacare and Medicaid patients.
You know, so instead we have had doctors that we've dealt with that only would deal with cash patients, because they didn't want the extra expense and hassle of dealing with an insurance company.
Right, that's going to be a big deal.
You're going to find if that kind of policy goes through where doctors are forced to take Medicare and Medicaid patients.
You're going to find that more and more doctors are choosing to leave medicine.
It's going to be harder to recruit doctors coming into medicine in the first place.
And so what's already a doctor shortage that we're seeing in the next 10 years is going to be exacerbated by those kind of rules.
And so what we really need to hope for is alongside of the Affordable Care Act, that a robust cash economy is going to spark up like these Dockinaboxes that you see in Walgreens or Walmart, where you can go in and get in and out in 25 minutes for less than $50.
and get a doctor's visit, get your prescription, get everything taken care of.
All of those cash options that have sprung up in the last five or ten years, if we can find ways to actually allow those to continue alongside of the Affordable Care Act, I think you'll find that a whole side economy of a free market health care system will exist there on the side.
Now, some people won't use it because they won't take insurance.
I think you're going to find providers either all insurance or no insurance.
And as long as those economies are allowed to exist side-by-side, I think we'll find that there will still be some quality healthcare available to people in the United States.
But if they start making rules like, if you're a doctor, you have to take Medicaid patients, at that point we're going to see the destruction of our healthcare system very quickly, which would be a one-stop shop to make everything into a single-payer, which is certainly what some people want.
But I think you're going to find that the American economy just won't support that very well because American doctors are used to having quite a bit of freedom in their choice of patients and their choice of costs.
And I think you're going to find it very difficult to get doctors when you start forcing them into salaries that are much less than what they're making now.
I think the reason we have some of the best doctors in the world in the United States is because doctors have a personal interest in being able to be a great doctor because you can make more money.
Well, we're certainly going to have to see a kind of a sea change in the attitude coming out of Washington, because instead what we see is every day we're seeing new mandates coming out of Washington.
And if that doesn't change, we're going to get to the situation like we already have in England.
I know that Paul Joseph Watson and others who work here at InfoWars, they have to go to a government facility And get permission to go see a private doctor.
That's how bad it can get if we don't roll this thing back and start bringing in freedom instead of mandates.
Allow people to have choices.
Allow markets to work.
And just treat people as if they're rational enough to make decisions that are some of the most important decisions of our life are these health care decisions.
They're life and death decisions.
It's ridiculous that these things should be taken out of our control.
And as we see with these price Uh, increases in Obamacare.
This is really nothing but a socialist plan to redistribute money, really, because even the people who supported it and thought that they were going to be helping people get affordable healthcare, now they're seeing that it is a massive redistribution, and the question is, will it help anybody?
And what we've seen from country after country is that when you have a one-size-fits-all, mandated healthcare system, it doesn't serve anybody very well.
No, in fact, what's propping up things like the National Health Service in Britain and in Canada is that most of the R&D and healthcare is actually done in the United States, where pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies have a profit opportunity, whereas there's almost no medical R&D going on in the rest of the world.
And so just like people argue that the American military is subsidizing the military aptitude of the rest of the world, I think that our
Medical device in our medical pharmaceutical companies are actually subsidizing the rest of the world by Having all that R&D money spent with profit motives here in the United States and profits a wonderful thing because profit requires That you actually please someone to sell your product Yes I have no problem at all with Apple making a profit off my iPhone because it's an amazing device and it wouldn't exist if there was no profit involved no one would go out and make an iPhone if there was no rate way to make money off it and
Well, you're talking about the difference between persuasion and coercion.
And that's all the difference in the world.
And you're talking about medical devices.
This tax that they're putting on medical devices, that's going to raise that, again, through the roof.
We're even going to have an effect, as somebody has pointed out, even on veterinary bills, because they have to use those same medical devices that there's going to be higher taxes.
And that's just the beginning.
The tax rates, as they put them on, they're relatively low, but they're going to continue to increase.
When has anybody ever seen a tax where the rate doesn't Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lansbury.
Thank you for the service that you offer with Samaritan Ministries.
It's a great way for people who are Christians to help other people as well as, I think, get some freedom of choice in their own life.
Well, thanks for having me.
And if you want more information on Samaritan, you can certainly find us online at SamaritanMinistries.org.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Well, Samaritan Ministries is certainly a win-win situation.
It's a way to save money on your health care, to take charge of it, to have choices.
It's also a way to put your trust in God.
And it's a way to be a good Samaritan to other people, to show the love of Christ and to bear their burdens.
Well, that's it for tonight.
We'll be back tomorrow at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order.
A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations.
When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order.
An order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders.
It is a big idea.
A new world order.
A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order.
After 1989, President Bush said, and it's a phrase that I often use myself, that we needed a new world order.
The President of the United States, to use this disaster, to carry out what his father, a phrase his father used I think only once, and hasn't been used since, and that is a new world order.
So that the problem of the Bush presidency will be the emergence of a new international order.
Within the next four years we will see the emergence of a new international order.
The beginning, the beginning of a new international order.
The pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again.
Before they do, let us reorder this world around us.
I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a new world order can be created.
It's a great opportunity.
It isn't just a crisis.
It's about the future of Europe and a new world order.
There's a need for a new world order, but it has different characteristics.
In different parts of the world.
But today, with Asia already outproducing Europe, India and China are clearly becoming part of our new order.
We are now facing a common challenge.
And the challenge is how to build a world order for the first time in history.
So, in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, a new world is emerging.
It is a new world order with significantly different and radically new challenges.
The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order.
Good evening everybody, President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon today calling for a new world order to tackle our global economic crisis.
And the President outlined his vision of a new world order in which the U.S.
would participate fully.
We've got to give them a stake in creating the kind of world order that I think all of us would like to see.
So I see a world order in the future with a multipolar world order.
I think a New World Order is emerging, and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international cooperation.
But in a globalized economy, we are going to have to take global responsibilities.
And there is going to have to be some semblance of global governance.
Never before has a New World Order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale.
Nor has any previous order had to combine the attributes of the historic balance of power system with global democratic opinion and the exploding technology of the contemporary period.
And I strongly believe India will be a central actor in the new world order.
There also exists an extraordinary opportunity to form for the first time in history a truly global society.
2009 is also the first year ...of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis.
The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.
New World Order is the headline in the Globe and Mail in Canada.
Is this global governance at last?
Is it one world, the central bankers in charge?
But aren't we all just living and dying for what the central banks do?
Of course we are.
We are absolutely slaves to central banks.
Dan Badandi, 54's Nightly News.
Have you registered online for Obamacare yet?
Are you having problems on the website?
And once again, P.S.
Morgan takes a stab at our Second Amendment and dares to insult our Founding Fathers.
Now, we're in the heart of the Industrial Revolution, historic Pawtucket, Rhode Island, and now we're going to ask the general public their thoughts about all this.
Do you have trust in the government in white?
No, I do not trust the government.
They're corrupted.
Some want, some I do, and some I don't.
No, I do not have trust in the government.
And why is that?
Well, because they're full of snakes.
They're all corrupt, you know?
Not too much.
Absolutely, he's a good government.
He looks out for the poor and the Americans.
Yes, I do.
And why is that?
Because it's America, and they take care of things, you know what I'm saying?
And your thoughts about Obamacare?
I think it's a good thing.
Everybody should have it.
I think it's good and bad at the same time.
It doesn't seem like too many people like it, and Or Obama.
It's not really going to be for the people, more for the government itself.
My guess is it's not perfect, but at least he's the first one that got something through.
Yeah, I think it's a good thing.
Okay, now CNN's Piers Morgan recently stated the Second Amendment, which is the right to bear arms, he stated that it was clumsily written and it's time to rephrase it.
Now do you disagree or agree with that and why?
I disagree and I can't explain why.
I believe when the government, you know, tries to do something, they're trying to take away our guns so we can't fight back against them.
Oh, I agree.
I looked at the Second Amendment and I couldn't figure out what it said.
I actually agree with it because they should, but you see, a lot of people are taking it the wrong way, using it for different things.
They shouldn't be doing it, you know what I mean?
And are you aware that according to FBI statistics, states with little to no gun control have the lowest crime and murder rates in the country?
I was not aware of that, no.
Yeah.
Yep.
I don't believe that.
And are you on any form of government assistance?
Yes, I am.
Yeah.
No.
No.
Medicaid.
Yes, I am.
No.
Okay, and what do you think would happen if all government assistance were to be cut off, such as EBT, Social Security, and everything?
What do you think would happen?
The crime rate will go up.
Everybody in the hood will go crazy.
They will go crazy.
There will be riots forming.
Nobody knows how to pay their bills.
They won't eat.
They'll be robbing everybody.
Do you think it will cause total riots everywhere?
Yes, I do.
There will be a lot more crime.
I think crime rates will go up.
Do you see riots?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think all hell would break loose.
Standing here at the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution at the old Slater Mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, I could only imagine what the founders would have thought to know that our Second Amendment is being eroded and that we are being forced to purchase Obamacare.
▲
Export Selection