All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
March 19, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
Great to have you here.
I am your guiding light, America's truth detector and the doctor of democracy, El Rushbow, live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, El Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Okay, forget everything that you have heard today about they've got the votes or they're just two votes shy or they're just one vote shy.
Forget Clyburn saying, yep, we've got the votes.
We're voting on Sunday.
We're going to have health care by 2 o'clock Sunday afternoon.
The truth of the matter is, and no less than Obama's own network, MSNBC, just announced it.
Democrat leaders say they do not have the votes.
But it's even more profound than that.
There are 40 undeclared Democrats.
40 Democrats who have not declared how they're going to vote.
There is no way anybody knows that they're five short or one short or two short or what have you.
There are 40 undeclared votes.
And if this thing is to pass on Sunday, if they're going to have this vote on Sunday, Pelosi is going to have to get over two-thirds of that 40 voting yes.
There are 40 undeclared, 40 undecided.
Now, the conventional wisdom is that somebody telling you they're undecided is just buying time and trying to avoid hassles, that they actually are going to vote yes.
But it could just as easily be they're going to vote no and they don't want to get hassled because of that too.
It could go either way.
Now, as I mentioned, so there are 40 people, 40 members are undeclared.
And House leaders just said they don't have the votes.
Even Obama, at his declaring war on the insurance industry rally at George Mason University just this morning, said, if this vote fails, if this bill fails.
So it's still in his mind it could fail.
Pelosi's out there.
Remember, she's telling people to go ahead and quit their day jobs.
They're going to have health insurance.
The complaint about people being job locked, they have to keep a job they don't like just to get health insurance.
Forget that.
We're going to pay your health insurance for you.
Now, here's some things in the reconciliation package, the reconciliation fixes that will not be part of the bill if they vote Sunday and Obama signs it.
This is the demon pass thing.
I've told you about the increase, almost 1% increase in the Medicare payroll tax on investment income, capital gains.
There are even deeper cuts to Medicare advantage, which will mean fewer and less attractive Medicare Advantage plans available to seniors.
And as I mentioned yesterday, take a look at Walmart or Walgreens in the state of Washington.
They are not accepting any new Medicaid patients starting April 16th.
I mean, that's the future.
There are increases in the employer penalties for not complying with the mandates, which will hit all businesses with more than 50 employees.
It's deadly.
Now, what's in the Senate bill?
What's in the Senate?
The Senate Democrats' health bill cuts Medicare by $463 billion.
And by the way, folks, you should know this.
Steny Hoyer has sent a memo to all Democrats in the House.
Do not get into a discussion about specifics of the CBO report.
Do not get into specifics.
The reason is, if they get into specifics, they're going to have to admit that everything they're saying is untrue about how much it costs and how much premiums are going down and how much the deficit's going down because none of that's true.
Hoyer is pinning out a memo to staff members to tell their member, their leaders, and their members of Congress, do not get into a debate with anybody about what's in the CBO report.
Just focus on deficit reduction.
In other words, Hoyer has sent a memo out to his members saying, just lie.
Just lie and say this reduces the deficit, but get into no specifics.
You keep walking, you don't stop, and you do not get into a detailed discussion of CBO numbers.
They don't want a detailed discussion of any of the details here.
They lose if that happens.
They don't want it.
And that's why people are focusing on these details today.
The sum total, the sum total of Medicare cuts in the Senate bill is $523.5 billion.
That's the total.
And that's what will pass.
The Senate bill will be separated if they vote on this reconciliation thing Sunday.
Senate bill will be separated.
It'll be sent over to the Senate to be certified there, then on to Obama.
The reconciliation package will not be part of it.
The reconciliation package may never see the light of day.
Here are the way the cuts break down.
$202.3 billion in cuts to seniors' Medicare health plans, including massive cuts targeting the extra benefits and reduced cost-sharing that seniors receive through Medicare Advantage.
$156.6 billion in cuts to inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehab facilities, long-term care hospitals, inpatient...
Folks, there's no expanded care anywhere, especially for you seasoned citizens.
There are massive cuts.
And this $523 billion is being taken away from Medicare and is being spent elsewhere.
They're taking it away from senior citizens, spending it elsewhere in the new entitlement.
This is in the Senate bill, not this reconciliation stuff.
This is what has been passed last Christmas Eve in the Senate.
$39.7 billion in cuts to home health reimbursements.
$22.1 billion in additional cuts to hospitals by slashing reimbursements designed to assist hospitals that serve low-income patients.
$20.7 billion in cuts to the Medicare Improvement Fund.
$13.3 billion in yet-to-be-determined Medicare cuts from the hands of an unelected federal board.
I'm going to stop with the numbers because they get blurred after a while.
And we're talking about a couple of different things, reconciliation and the Senate bill.
We start talking about these numbers.
The bottom line is there are no expanded services.
There are no smaller premiums.
There are nothing that they're saying about this.
Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama, none of it is true.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
And remember, again, the Senate leaders said, House leaders said today, they don't have the votes yet.
Clyburn went out and said he's got the votes.
He doesn't have them.
There are 40 undeclared House Democrats on this.
So there's no way any of these accurate whip counts that say one vote short, two votes short, five votes short.
Nobody knows what they're talking about.
All of this is just PR put out by the Democrats.
Media is lapping it all up, trying to create an inevitable.
It's a done deal.
It's like I said, the people predict they're going to win.
Okay, let's not play the game then.
If you think you're going to win, you win.
It's over.
Nope, not going to do it that way.
It never happens that way in real life.
But that's what they're trying to do.
Just get us to stop playing the game.
It ain't going to happen.
James Clyburn this morning, MSNBC, F. Chuck Todd said the soonest you can call a vote as far as the pledge you guys made is 2 o'clock Sunday.
But is it fair to say that you won't call the vote until you know you have the votes, or will you possibly call the vote, even if you're not quite sure?
Nancy Pelosi will make that call.
But I'm very hopeful that by the time we get to 2 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, we'll see our pathway forward.
You know, a lot of momentum has built over the last day or so.
And from what I hear, the wind will continue to blow out our backs throughout the day.
Now, that's this morning.
He's the whip.
He's talking about this like he's looking at it from afar, from what I hear, a lot of momentum built over the last day or so.
From what I hear, the wind will continue to blow on our backs very often.
He's the whip.
He is the wind.
He is the wind that's supposed to be blowing in everybody's back.
They don't have him yet, folks.
Do not doubt me.
Last night, Charlie Rose asks Clyburn, does this CBO report close the needle for you to get to 260 in votes?
I think so.
I really believe that the people who were very leery about what this would do to the country's debt and deficit are very pleased with this.
It makes it easier.
As well as on the progressive side, they wanted more people covered.
And we will be almost doubling the size of community health centers.
Not true.
Not true.
Don't forget, Stenny Hoyer has a memo to all Democrats.
Don't discuss the details of the CBO report.
Don't discuss.
Just say it cuts the deficit.
Just say it cuts the deficit.
Don't focus because they don't want anybody looking at the real CBO numbers.
People have looked at the real CBO numbers, even though they're just estimates.
It's a disaster, folks.
It is a disaster.
It would cost over $2 trillion.
Jeffrey Anderson, Weekly Standard, CBO's most recent analysis is out.
It's not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence.
It's $2 trillion, over $2 trillion, and not $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction.
We are being fully, totally lied to about it.
It includes 2010 as the initial year.
As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time.
Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year in its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House bill in the middle of 2009.
But under strict instructions from Democrat leaders and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.
If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year the bill could easily or possibly be in effect.
The CBO says the bill's 10-year cost would be $1.2 trillion.
So it's no wonder they don't want to focus on any of the details in the CBO report.
So, Charlie Rose then said to Clyburn, see, you have said, and you've compared health care to the civil rights bill, and in the context that it wasn't done in one fell swoop, that civil rights came to America legislatively over a period of time.
How are you going to do that in health care?
You know, you look at what we did in civil rights in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it did not have voting in it.
It only outlawed discrimination in the private sector of employment.
It was a year later before we got voting, and it was three years after that before we got housed.
And so I believe that what we're doing here is laying a solid foundation which over time will have complete universal access to quality health care by all Americans.
And there you have it.
We're laying the foundation.
We will have complete universal access to quality health care by all Americans down the road.
Kucinich has opened up.
Kucinich has said that he was assured a robust public option is coming in Obamacare 2.
Obama himself, let's go back and revisit this.
March 24th, 2007 in Vegas, talking to the Service Employees International Union.
This is a campaign stop.
And remember now, these are his boys.
These are his buddies.
These are the people to whom he speaks the truth.
My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.
I would hope that we set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort.
But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.
There's going to be potentially some transition process.
I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately, but we're going to do it.
Meaning, we're going to get rid of private sector health insurance.
Go back to 2003 at an AFL-CIO conference while campaigning for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama said this.
I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.
A single-payer health care plan.
Universal health care claim.
And that's what I'd like to see.
Yet he's out there saying, oh, these people are throwing every scare tactic in the world.
It's a government takeover of health care.
Granny is going to die.
It is a government takeover of health care, and Granny is going to die.
Granny always dies at some point.
We all do.
It's going to be hastened under this bill.
And it is a government takeover.
They're lying through their teeth.
Here's Barney Frank, July 27, 2007, National Press Building.
A reporter for singlepayeraction.org had this exchange with the banking queen.
Congressman, real quick, why is single payer off the table?
You guys should have the votes.
I wish you weren't.
I'm all for it.
I'm a big sponsor.
You've been a co-sponsor of single payer for a very long time.
Don't you think we should scratch everything and start anew with single payer?
No.
Why shouldn't we start with single payer new?
Because we don't have the votes for it.
I wish we did.
I think if we get a good public option, it could reach a single payer, and that's the best way to reach single-payer.
I think the best way we're going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate its strength and its power.
So that's an elevator bell you hear in the background.
Barney's trying to go up or down.
I don't know which way on this particular occasion.
But ladies and gentlemen, they're laying it out here.
That's back in 2007.
Here's Jan.
It's 25A, and I can't find it, but I know I've got it here.
Jan Schakowski, she's a Democrat congresswoman from Illinois, and she has said basically the same thing.
And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete.
That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and they pay a high school and unfortunately.
The man was right.
Here's what I told him.
I said, excuse me, sir.
The goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance.
And I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option that I think he has every reason to be frightened.
Our objective is to wipe out the private health care industry.
Jan Schakowsky, Democrat from Chicago, from Illinois, and that was April of last year.
So they're open and honest about what they really want to do, and they're doing it.
And this is what they're telling people like Kucinich and others to get their votes.
We'll take a break.
You've heard it from their own words.
Openline Friday and back to the phones we go.
This is Nancy, Incline Village, Nevada.
Great to have you, Nancy.
Hi.
Hi, how are you today?
Very well, thank you.
I'm calling about the Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
The House Republicans can still stop this health care bill right through the Constitution.
Section 5 provides that the yays and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
In other words, the Republicans can require that there be an up or down recorded vote on the health care bill regardless of the slaughter rule.
Now, so you're talking about the Senate bill that they're trying to deem to have passed.
You're saying the Republicans can demand with 20% a vote up or down on the Senate bill?
Yes, sir, they can.
I called my House Representative to ask them to do this, and I was told that the House leadership is taking the position that another section supersedes this.
The leadership is quoting also Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.
But I am a retired attorney.
I worked for the Department of Justice for many years.
I practiced appellate law.
I was involved in a lot of cases regarding statutory and constitutional interpretation, and I can tell you that they're wrong.
There's a general rule of statutory interpretation, which provides that a specific section of the law will overrule a general section and will control the issue.
Therefore, the specific section of Article 1, Section 5, which says you can require an up or down vote, in this case is going to trump the general part, which says that they get to make their own rules.
Well, now, have you explained this to them as authoritatively as you just have to me and my audience?
Well, yes, I tried to tell them that, and they said, well, the House leadership is taking this position.
If the congressional leadership is taking this position, are we going to take Nancy Pelosi's word for what the Constitution says when John Boehner and the Republicans can get out there and actually require a vote?
Well, no, I understand, but they did get a vote on whether or not the slaughter solution would be used at all, and they shot that down, of course.
They got 30 minutes of debate on that, and that vote was mincemeat.
Yeah, but that's a different legal issue.
If they pass a law where the Republicans have requested an up-or-down vote, or any 20% of the House requests an up-or-down vote, the law wouldn't be voidable.
It would be void.
It would be illegal and unenforceable.
And the reason I'm calling is I tried to call my own representative.
I don't feel like the word got through.
And I hope the Republican House is listening and that they will not take Nancy Pelosi's word on this and that they will actually make a formal request under Article 1, Section 5.
Run me through it again, because this is news to me.
Article 1, Section 5.
What does somebody, I guess you're talking about Boehner, but any Republican could do what?
Anyone who can get together 20% of House membership can require an up or down vote because it does say the yays or nays of the members of either House on any question shall at the desire of one-fifth of those present be entered on the journal.
They can force the names to be taken down and the up and down vote to be given.
Hmm.
I am, of course, not a constitutional scholar nor constitutional lawyer, and I'm going to have to defer to people who are, but you were an assistant U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice.
I was an assistant U.S. Attorney.
I was a chief assistant U.S. Attorney.
I worked in appellate law specifically for several years.
I also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement at the Treasury Department.
Huh.
Okay.
Impressive.
I'm glad you got through.
I really am.
Because they are listening.
They do listen.
And there is a cowed factor with Pelosi.
There's no question.
In more ways than one, by the way.
Hey, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Constitutional scholars are at this moment looking into this.
And I got a hold of F. Lee Levin.
Andy McCarthy is also looking into this.
A fascinating phone call from a woman in Incline Village, Nevada.
Yeah, her name is Nancy.
You there, Flea?
I'm here, boss.
All right.
Article 1, Section 5 was all Greek to me in terms of procedure.
What was she actually suggesting?
Well, she's saying that 20% of the members can demand that a vote be taken on a bill.
Now, let me ask you something.
If that were the case, don't you think the Republicans would have done that already?
Well, I don't know.
I'm literally, when I say this is Greek to me, it's Greek to me.
No, that's why you have a House Rules Committee, and the House Rules Committee makes determinations over what bills will be voted on and what bills will come to the floor and what amendments there will be.
I mean, you can call for a voice vote, yays and nays, on a bill that's presented to the House.
But 20% can't force a bill to come out and be voted on.
So she's mistaken, or is she just...
Well, I believe she's mistaken, but let's pretend that she's right.
All right.
Yeah, go at it that way because a lot of people are fired up about this.
Yeah, all right.
Well, let's suggest that she's right.
And you go into court, and what do you say in court?
You say, well, the Republic, you know, 20% of them wanted to vote on this bill and they couldn't, which I don't think that's the way that works.
And if I'm wrong, then we have 200 years of mistakes going on.
But 20% of the Republic, or 20% of the members say this needs to come to a vote.
And so the court says, so what?
That's their problem.
They didn't do it.
That's not our problem.
What do you want us to do?
So in other words, what's the relief?
Well, wait a minute.
You've already lost me going to court.
The way I understand what she's saying is, let's just say Boehner can say, if he's got 20% of the House, we want you to vote on the Senate bill.
Yeah, but I'm saying it doesn't work that way.
They can say, we want a yay or nay vote.
And you hear them do it on the floor.
I want to hear the roll call.
I want to hear the yays or nays.
Not just a voice, you know, we want to take the names down on a particular bill that's before the House.
So we want yays or nays on reconciliation.
You'll get it.
But you can't have yays or nays on a bill that the rules committee hasn't presented to the floor.
Oh, okay.
So the Senate bill is technically, they're deeming it to be passed, so it's not really a bill.
They're pretending it doesn't exist.
That's correct.
So look, there's no easy way around this.
I'm getting callers to my show with 4,000 ideas, everything from amending the Constitution to that rule there simply means, and how it's been practiced traditionally over the last 200 and some years, is a member can get on the floor and say, take down the yays or nays, or we want to hear the votes, or give me a roll call on that, or something.
If 20%, and they usually say okay, because if 20% is not hard to get to get that done.
But it's not that 20% can force a bill to the floor.
And that's what you would be doing.
You would be saying 20% say, no, we want to vote on the Senate bill, up or down.
And I know that I remember her saying, though, that in her opinion, that the Rules Committee ruling would not take precedent.
But she's misreading the Constitution.
That's not how it works.
It's not a question of precedent if it doesn't work that way.
20% of the House members can't call up a bill.
20% of them can demand a vote on a bill that's called up.
And the only bill is the slaughter solution or the reconciliation amendment.
Well, that's exactly why they're doing it this way.
Right, okay.
So the Senate bill can be obviated, avoided, and pretended to exist at all costs.
Yeah, and you know, they have all kinds of smart people, Republican parliamentarian types on Capitol Hill.
And I can assure you that if it was as easy as that caller just said, it would have been done already.
Okay, well, nevertheless, a lot of interest has been sparked in this, and I appreciate you trying to...
That's good, because we need to kick ass and stop this.
Well, I know, and it's all about Sunday.
It's all about Sunday the Senate bill.
So thanks for the clarification on this, Flea.
All right, College.
Mark R. Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation, he was the chief of staff to Ed Meese as Attorney General during the Reagan administration.
And stopping the bill is exactly what this is all about.
Now, here's a post from Ramesh Panuru at the National Review's corner blog, and it's from yesterday, a whip count going around K-Street, has fewer than 30 undecided, with Pelosi needing two-thirds of them.
Don't believe Democrats who say they're within five.
Well, it was just a half hour ago, 40 minutes ago now, that NBC, the Obama network, announced that there are 40 undecided Democrats, not 30, and that she needs two-thirds of those.
Clyburn said this morning they've got the votes.
House Democrat leaders quickly ran out and said, no, we don't have the votes.
It's not over.
Just because they make predictions of how this is going to end up does not mean that that's how it's going to end up.
And let me run through, again, I did this at the open of the program because even I, ladies and gentlemen, got confused watching media this morning.
I thought I had this all figured out, and I'm watching and reading media, and I'm saying, wait, wait, wait, something's wrong here.
Because what I was reading was that the reconciliation package, the amendments, if you will, that the House Democrats are being promised to get to secure their yes votes, was going to be part of the deemed to have passed Senate bill and sent to Obama, and that when Obama signed it, that the Senate bill plus these changes would become law.
And I got that impression because people, two things, they were saying it, and A, they were treating this reconciliation like it was more important than the Senate bill.
And my instincts, what I thought I knew, said, no, no, no, no, the reconciliation bill is not nearly as important.
I, my instincts were right.
Here is what is happening.
Once the House passes reconciliation, I hate that word because it is not accurately describing what's going on here.
This is an amendment package.
This is the House changing what they don't like about the Senate bill in a separate piece of legislation.
They are not going to vote on the Senate bill.
They're going to vote on their changes.
They're going to have deemed the Senate bill to have passed as they vote on reconciliation.
That's what they're trying to get 216 votes for, is this package of changes.
What the House Democrats need to know is that they're not voting on that Sunday in reality.
They are voting on the Senate bill.
They are being misled to and lied by their own leadership.
If their own leadership is promising them all these special deals, like the Bismarck Bank and whatever else that these people are being given, those are not going to see the light of day until the Senate agrees with them.
Obama is not going to be signing those into law.
All Obama is going to sign is the Senate bill.
And this vote Sunday, the House Democrats have to know that that's what they're voting on.
Because after they vote, now they think they're voting on reconciliation, this package of amendments.
And that's what Pelosi is telling them they're voting on.
And in their minds, they are.
They don't want to vote on a Senate bill.
They want to be able to say they didn't cast the vote.
Oh, yeah, that was deemed to have passed.
But after they vote, whenever they vote, Pelosi is then going to separate the Senate bill, take it out, break it out.
That will alone be sent over to the Senate, and whoever's running it, either Biden or Byrd, the pro tem, will certify it.
Pelosi will certify it for the House.
After the Senate certifies the Senate bill and the Senate bill only, that gets sent to Obama.
He will sign it in five seconds and throw the biggest party you have ever seen.
And we will have national health care.
We will not have any of the amendments, the reconciliation that the House voted on.
They have to go over to the Senate.
And they will do so separately.
And there is where the Republican senators are saying, look, you House Democrats, we're not going to make this easy for you to get these promised changes.
You're not going to get all these amendments.
So don't vote for reconciliation and think you're going to get away with telling your constituents that you voted for reconciliation under the assumption that these amendments would be enacted.
If you vote for reconciliation, House Democrats, you are knowingly voting for the Senate bill, warts and all.
You are not voting for these changes you've been promised.
So Obama's up there.
He's waiting at the White House to sign the Senate bill the minute Pelosi and Biden or whoever over there certifies it.
And he flies off or throws his party or whatever.
He's not going to wait around.
There's not going to be debate next week on the reconciliation package.
There's going to be debate next week on these changes.
Obama's not going to wait around for the Senate to act on that before he signs this.
And this is what got me confused.
I'm hearing news media people, obviously, even if they vote Sunday, this ain't over.
Oh, no, it goes over to Senate and all these debates have.
No, it doesn't.
The Senate bill is going to be separated.
Obama's going to sign it, and we've got national health care.
And we're in a horrible bill.
The Senate bill is rot-gut horrible.
So what needs to happen here is that these House Democrats have to know, somebody's going to have to sit them down and tell them that they are in fact voting for the Senate bill when they vote reconciliation.
They think they're voting for their changes to keep their base happy or to keep their reelection chances looking strong.
They think that they're voting X, Y, and Z, but they're not.
They are, in effect, voting for the Senate bill because that's all that Obama will see.
And then the Republican senators are saying, okay, every one of you House Democrats that got a special deal, a bribe, or a promised job, we're going to know who you are.
We're going to know what you got, and we're going to tell everybody what you got.
And we're going to prevent you from getting it.
We're going to stop every one of these things as best we can.
We're going to hog the process.
We're going to use amendments.
You may need only 51 votes over here in the Senate to get this stuff, but we're going to make sure that you don't get very many votes, period, on any of these things.
That's what Coburn has said.
That's what McConnell has said.
They're going to do everything they can.
That's why Coburn said yesterday, you better be prepared.
If you're a House Democrat and you vote for this, you better be prepared to defend the bribe that you got.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh here, the Cutting Edge of Societal Evolution on Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882.
Ladies and gentlemen, particularly Nancy from Incline Village in Nevada, I'm not trying to referee an argument here and say that anybody's right or wrong.
I'm very appreciative of Nancy's call.
I'm very appreciative of her effort here to find a way to stop this.
And I think everybody who is looking into this in any way, shape, manner, or form is to be applauded.
And I appreciate her calling in here.
And we got a lot of people that are looking at this.
It does appear that you can't call for an up or down vote on a bill that doesn't exist.
And right now in the House, the Senate bill doesn't exist.
That's what this is all about.
We got a Senate bill.
Everybody knows we're voting on the Senate bill, but they're hiding it.
They're using reconciliation.
We can call for an up and down vote on that, which is what they want when they've got the votes.
But you can't call for a vote on a bill that hadn't been presented.
And the Senate bill hadn't been presented, and it's not going to be presented.
But I didn't, we didn't put Mark on to knock down Nancy.
I don't want anybody thinking that.
We're just here at the EIB network.
We're always trying to get to the truth.
And when I don't understand it, I'm not going to pretend I do and act like I understand it.
I'm going to find out people that know more about it than I do and have them explain it to you.
And that's what it is.
Now, here's something Politico has as an exclusive.
This doc fix.
This doc.
This is another.
What the hell is the dock fix?
Well, here's a story involving it.
Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, repeal those cuts permanently, but they are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform.
The plans, the doc fix actually undercut the Democrats' message that reform lowers the deficit.
This is according to a memo obtained by Politico, and they've got a PDF copy of it here that you can link to.
Democrats removed the doctor fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371 billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit.
The Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the dock fix from the bill, the Democrats are playing a shell game because they're going to put it back in later, which is happening.
They've uncovered a secret memo.
They're going to do the doc fix in a separate piece of legislation.
And abortion, federal funding for abortions, is coming in a separate bill.
Mark my words.
I heard Pelosi today talking about the law of the land, maybe it was yesterday, the law of the land is that there are no federal funds available for abortions, and that is the law of the land.
Well, it's going to happen in a second bill.
Just like this doc fix is going to happen on a separate bill.
Hell, there's going to be more than second bills.
There'll be third, fourth, fifth, and tenth, and twentieth bills.
They get this to single payer that Obama said in 2003 and 2007 that he wants, that Kucinich said he was promised yesterday that we're going to get.
That Clyburn said on Charlie Rose last night, oh, yeah, yeah, we're going to do it just like we did civil rights in stages.
But we're going to get it.
Barney Frank, we don't have the votes for single payer right now, but we're going to get them.
Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, our purpose is to shut down private insurance and go to single payer.
Well, all of those things are not in this reform package, but the steps that lead us there are when you have to have insurance, when it's mandated that you buy it, and a fine is incurred, and 12,000 new IRS agents to police this, if you are fined if you don't buy it, and the fine is much less than what it would cost you to buy the policy, what are you going to do?
You pay the fine.
And then when insurance companies are required to cover you only from the moment you get sick or have an accident, and then no pre-existing condition can cause you to be denied coverage, well, we're no longer talking about insurance.
We're talking about welfare.
And when we have the public option, when we eventually get that, the government does not ever have to show a profit.
So there's no way a private insurance industry can compete with it.
So no matter how you look at this, Schikowski has telegraphed for us what's going to happen.
Buy-by private insurance industry.
And Obama declared war on them, full open warfare today in his speech.
at George Mason University, his rally to get this going.
So it's clear what's ahead of us.
It's clear.
Everybody knows it.
And the deficit reduction that they're lying about doesn't exist.
Hoyer, with another memo today that's been uncovered, to members of the Democrat Party, do not get into a discussion about specific CBO numbers.
Do not get there, especially what they say on page two.
Don't go there.
Just keep talking about deficit reduction.
It reduces the deficit.
So the simplest way to explain what's happening here is that not one Democrat in a leadership position in the House or in the Senate or in the White House is telling anybody the truth.
Not one truthful thing is being said about the cost, about the result, about the purpose, about the scope of this bill.
Not one truth is being told.
And memos are going out from Democrat leaders in the House to members to not tell the truth.
And don't get caught, don't get sucked into a conversation where you might have to discuss specifics because you'll be caught in the lie if you do.
So keep lying is their message.
Former Colorado Governor Roy Romer this morning in Washington, D.C. I'm going to name names.
You know, I unfortunately get on the radio sometimes with Rush Limbaugh.
He's on too many stations.
I can't avoid him.
I think this is poisonous to have everybody just drill daily upon the irrationality of the extremes.
Brainwashing really can be effective.
I'm worried about it.
Governor, you need to direct your attention to the White House if you're worried about lying.
We'll be back, folks.
▲
Export Selection