All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
March 24, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Tom Colburn has a great idea with this amendment.
And they're trying to gum up the works here in the reconciliation bill just so they have to send it back to the House.
And Colburn has an amendment to not pay for Viagra for sex offenders.
What's great about that is let's a Democrat on the record voting for giving Viagra to sex offenders.
Oh, there are all kinds of amendments like that the Senate Republicans are doing to try to tie these guys in nuts.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882.
And the email address is lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Say, have you ever wanted an MRI just to say you had one so people think you're a jock?
Go get one.
Show up at a doctor's office or hospital and tell them you want an MRI.
If you think you need a colonoscopy, just show up.
Ask them.
Nancy Pelosi said, we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Well, let's find out what's in it.
We had this guy call from Saginaw, Michigan, asking me not to flood the emergency rooms because they're already overburdened with people.
Well, Obama and everybody's saying that this is great and pre-existing coverage for kids.
So if your kid has some kind of a disease and up to now you haven't been able to get coverage, call an insurance company and say you want him covered.
Free, obviously.
Not going to cost you anything.
I mean, we may as well do this, folks.
Like I told you the story here at the top of the show.
A woman I know went in to get a mammogram yesterday.
Was this a doctor's office or is it a breast center?
Great.
Biopsy mammogram surgeon, breast center.
Well, it's a new one on me.
I didn't know there were a breast center.
Okay, so a friend of mine went to the breast center.
No enlargements.
No cosmetics there.
Just, well, you know, those get taxed now.
You go to tamming salon people who get, there's a tax now on that.
Snerdley is, in fact, he's going to call his insurance company and ask where his refund check is because premiums are going down $2,500.
I think you all ought to call your insurance company, say, where's the check?
Or when's it coming?
When do I get my $2,500 reduction in the premium?
And the insurance people are going to say, what are you talking about?
Well, Obama said throughout the campaign and just, you know, the past months or so that insurance premiums are coming down $2,500 and I want to know when I'm getting my check.
Just call them up, folks.
Anyway, my friend's in the breast center getting a mammogram, and a woman comes in, don't know what she needed done, but she walked in and she literally said, okay, I'm here to have my procedure done here.
And the nurse or the administrative person said, well, there's where you're not covered.
This treatment isn't covered.
And the woman said, what?
Didn't you know that it passed yesterday?
Yeah, but you're still not covered.
Well, when will it be?
Oh, I don't know, said the administrator.
Well, Pelosi said that we have to pass the bill to find what's in it.
So show up, folks.
You know, just for the fun of it, just show up.
Make up an illness.
Make up a disease.
Say you want to colonoscopy, and of course, you now expect that it's not going to cost you anything, and see what happens.
Just find out what's in the bill.
Same MRI, whatever medical treatment you've always really wanted, you could brag about saying, even if you just need a couple stitches for the wound of your choice, go in there and say, I need this done, and I'm sure it's covered now, right?
Well, now, I don't want to segregate the types of people who should call.
Folks, do it now.
Do it now because it won't be long before the government is going to be controlling you.
John Dingell again with Paul W. Smith, WJR Detroit yesterday.
Paul W. We're not ready to be doing it, but let me remind you, this has been going on for years.
We are bringing it to a halt.
The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
To control the people.
That means when you want your MRI, you may not be able to get it.
What does control the people mean?
Control the people means controlling you and deciding what you get, what you don't get, where you're going to get it, and where you're not going to get it as it relates to healthcare.
Highest-ranking, longest-serving Democrat in the House of Representatives, John Dingell.
It's going to take a long time, Paul W.
I mean, we've been working on this a long time.
It's a big legislative deal here.
It took a long time to put it all together to control the people.
Now, he's saying today he was tired.
He's trying to walk it back.
Well, he's not tired.
He just didn't censor himself.
That's what happened.
Okay, let's see what else.
Let's do, let's do these next series of audio soundbites.
Because, well, here, I'll share with you what I'm thinking of and why I have a dilemma.
These headlines, TARP watchdog slams Obama foreclosure program.
New home sales sink 2.2% to record low.
PASAR cuts top earners' pay at bailout firms.
You know, that is so appalling to me on so many levels.
I don't believe now I live in a country when an unelected person that I don't know anything about has this kind of power, a PASAR.
The United States of America has a PASAR.
And he says here that he can determine what people are making.
And he says that in this story that people are not leaving when he cuts their pay, that everybody worried about we're going to be losing our greatest talent cutting their pay.
Where is there for them to go in this economy?
Where is there for them to go?
Another story.
Try this one.
Obama excludes private and Catholic school children from the Easter egg roll ticket giveaway.
They give away 3,000 tickets for the Easter egg roll in the White House every year, but not for children who attend private school or Catholic schools.
Why?
Because they want to focus on public schools.
Banks to lose billions in student loan revamp.
And listen to the way the AP writes this.
Banks and other private lenders are about to lose a $70 billion a year student loan business, part of a massive overhaul of college assistance programs that has received an unexpected boost from Obama's health care success.
The school loan, what unexpected boost?
College assistance programs.
So only when the government does it does it count?
Only when the government does it is it any good?
We got Kathleen Sebelius saying yesterday that their objective is to reduce and practically eliminate drug company profits.
And this is the United States of America.
Also on that story yesterday where the woman shows up at the breasts, is it really called a breast center?
I mean, if you look it up on the wow.
It's actually, it's not just your parochial term for it.
It's actually called the breast center.
All right.
So my friend's in the breast center, and this woman that came in and wanted to be treated was told, ma'am, your insurance is not paying until you pay your out-of-pocket costs, your copay.
So you have to pay the entire portion today, and you'll get reimbursed.
She was shocked.
She was stunned.
She thought it was Christmas.
She thought there was no payment anymore.
And I just wonder how often that happened yesterday and is happening today with people thinking that it may be free.
Brief time out.
We'll come back and continue after this.
Welcome back, Rushland Blog, Cutting Edge, Societal Evolution.
There was that a drive-by call that we just had.
Female bus driver from Delaware.
We had just had a, I'm just reporting this to you, my friends, a drive-by caller from a bus drive from Delaware said when you go in to a doctor's office, the breast center's medical facilities, they always ask, well, who's going to pay for it?
You just answered Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Well, who's going to pay for it?
They will ask you that.
I mean, even folks, I have to think that somebody, even the people that love this, have to think somebody's paying for this.
They just don't think it's them.
So when you go in there, you know, you want to get your MRI so you can show people you're a jock, just so you can say you had an MRI.
Just go get it.
And they say, well, who's going to pay for it?
Just Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Put the phone number on there.
Well, you don't even need that.
Just put whitehouse.gov or what have you.
There's a great piece today, speaking of, well, a great piece, a psychiatrist, I think a clinical psychiatrist, in the Wall Street Journal today, I think it's Wall Street Journal, about health care or medical records not being private and not working.
Obama said we could take a lot of the cost out of this by digitizing everybody's health records, making them electronic, therefore save a lot of administrative costs and so forth.
This woman's point is that they're not going to be private.
The government's going to be in charge of this and the IRS and others, Health and Human Services, are going to have access to your health records.
No longer will it just be you and your doctor.
It will be the government will have access to your health records.
And this woman's theory is that people will not report to doctors diseases they don't want anybody to know that they've got.
Like they won't even show up if they have a drug addiction or if they have alcoholism or if they have any of these other things because they don't want the government knowing it.
They won't want anybody because it's her theory is that it's going to lead to a lot sicker nation.
People will not seek treatment once they figure out that what they tell their doctor is not private anymore.
And I'll tell you there's another area to be concerned about this because your medical records are going to have your social security number.
They're going to have everything about you.
The theory is that if you're in an accident and you're out of town and they need to know what your medical history is, they call them up on a computer without having to make a phone call to a doctor to find out what your medical history is, streamline things.
But it's going to be available to much more than just medical personnel.
And that opens up the whole concept of identity theft.
And already, my friends, 9% of Americans have experienced an identity theft crime directly or through an immediate family member.
This, according to a new survey, the National Study on Medical Identity Theft, conducted by the Ponyman Institute, Traverse City, Michigan-based research firm, 156,000 recipients, a medical identity theft.
9% have already experienced one.
And it's going to become even worse if they do digitize medical records because more people than you could ever imagine will be able to access all of our medical records.
Now, Life Lock is what you can do to at least protect your identity.
Life Lock will not keep the government out of your life, but they will prevent, or they're a better job than anybody else of protecting your identity, making sure it doesn't get stolen.
Call them.
In fact, they're not going to sell the information.
Nobody else will know the information you have to give them in order for them to set up their identity alert system, which is the best there is.
Call 800-440-4833.
That's Life Lock.
And you'll save 10% off your membership if you mention Rush.
Opens lots of doors.
That's 800-440-4833 for Life Lock.
What happened to the.
Oh, no.
We had a liberal up there who claimed to have a whole bunch of examples of me engaging in hate speech against liberals.
And I guess he just got tired of waiting.
Anyway, well, let's go to Lawrence, Kansas.
Dale, you're next.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
I can tell you that my son, who is here with me, he was not a Rush baby initially.
And over time, you won him over, and he even purchased me a 24-7 membership.
Wow.
How old is he now?
He's 23.
Wow.
I love hearing that.
When he's not in classes, he's actually spending time sitting down with me listening to you.
And we're doing everything that we can to be as educated on what's going on in the world.
God bless you.
You're a big part of it.
God bless you, sir.
This is calls like this that make everybody listening here have hope that we can reverse all of this.
That's fabulous.
Thank you.
Well, the question that I had for you, Rush, had to deal with the Commerce Clause.
Oh, well.
And the reason I have a question about it is because to move forward and to deal with what this administration is doing, and when I say this administration, I'm a black man myself, and I say black, not African American.
That's up to anybody to call themselves what they want.
My stance has nothing to do with race.
And I hate to see race being abused and used as leverage for every hyphenated weirdo group to link themselves to the quote-unquote civil rights movement and then step over the civil rights movement and step over the Constitution and go into all this extra constitutional stuff.
And it seems that that's what the Commerce Clause is being used for today.
It looks like it's being interpreted to the exclusion of all of the rest of the Constitution.
And I would like to see our leaders speak up on that.
Which rights, you know, which rights can be negated because of the Commerce Clause?
They say it's for the common good.
We have court precedent.
I mean, where does it end?
Well, let me give you a little history on this.
The courts are going to be a pretty big obstacle here with this.
I heard David Axelrod say the other day that, oh, there are all kinds of lawsuits after Social Security, and we won those.
We'll win this one.
And I didn't know that there were lawsuits after Social Security.
I looked it up, and there were, and there were quite a few of them.
And one of them even got to the Supreme Court, and they were all shot down.
They were all shot down.
Not so much to do with the Commerce Clause, but although it is relevant in a way that I'll try to explain in a minute.
I'm going to have trouble explaining this with specifics right now, but what I'm going to say to you is factual, and I'll find what I want to support it here in my stack in just a second.
But the court, the courts have codified socialism with several rulings.
They have also codified that they will not look at how a bill becomes law based on separation of powers.
Now, the Commerce Clause has, I think, already been corrupted a bit by previous courts, so it's tough to overcome it.
And this is why the left is feeling so smug here and thinking these lawsuits aren't going to work.
Now, legal people I've talked to admit the tough slog, but they think it can be overcome with the right approach.
But I hear what you're saying about corrupting.
Everything is a civil rights movement.
This is, like Clyburn said, this is a civil rights act of the 21st century.
Well, I mean, I think it's an absolute debasement of the Civil Rights Act to compare the purpose of that legislation with the purpose of this.
Well, now, the Supreme Court had a decision some time ago that said that this government cannot tax, penalize, and control the citizens' conduct.
I mean, there are some things, the way they talk about it, they say, oh, well, this is the smart people think this way.
And these issues are so complex, you know.
And I even heard one talking head on television saying, well, you know, we don't want, you know, the people in the military and the police, you know, out there interpreting the Constitution.
I happen to know a little bit about the police and the military, but I can't go into, but they interpret the Constitution every day.
They have to.
We all have to.
Exactly.
You know, that's.
What do they mean by complex?
We're hiding something.
We're contorting something.
And they're trying to be ubiquitous, you know, in what they're doing.
They're not hiding anything.
It's right out in the open if you know how to translate the lingo when they say that they don't want the cops of the military interpreting the Constitution or understanding because they want to be in control over what is and what isn't constitutional.
Exactly.
Exactly right.
They don't want citizen freedom here.
It's a tough thing for people to get their arms around when I say this, that this group of leftist radicals is anti-freedom.
People don't think this kind of thing can happen in America.
It happens in Cuba.
It happens in this way.
It happened in Old Soviet.
You're not here.
And it's, you know, the old story about the frog, put a frog in a pot on a stove in some cool water and turn it on, and it takes a long time to boil.
Yeah.
And before the frog realizes it, he's dead.
And that's the stage here.
We're just percolating along.
The effervescence of statism is now bubbling over the edge of the pot.
It's a little warm here, but nobody is really in a state of panic except people who are informed and educated and understand history and understand what will happen if we don't put the brakes on at this point, which I think is what you are doing.
Now, there's a story.
You mentioned the Commerce Clause.
The House Judiciary Committee Chairman is John Conyers.
And he cited a non-existent clause in the Constitution in order to substantiate Congress's authorizing and forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
Called it the good and welfare clause.
There's no such thing.
This is the guy heading the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.
I will give you details when we return.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you with us.
As I meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
All right, here, John Conyers said that the Good and Welfare Clause gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill.
The only problem is there isn't a good and welfare clause in the Constitution.
Now, Conyers was articulating all this during an interview on Friday with the Cybercast News Service.
And they asked him, the individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance.
The CBO has said that never before in the history of the country has the federal government required anyone to purchase any good or service.
What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?
And Conyers said, under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple of others, all the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know, and I'm chairman of the judiciary.
Pardon me, folks.
That's like I used to always, in conversation with people, when I would utter a legal opinion, and trust me, my dad was a lawyer.
I know this.
So here's Conyers making up a clause.
The good and welfare clause and a couple others, all the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know, and I'm chairman of the committee, they all say that there's nothing unconstitutional in the bill.
And if it were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.
The only good, the word good, only appears once in the Constitution, Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the judicial branch, not the powers of Congress.
Article 3, Section 1 says in part, the judges, both of the Supreme and the Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall at state, like Alce Hastings.
Do you know what Alcy Hastings did?
Alce Hastings is a congressman representing part of the district we're in here.
He used to be a federal judge.
He was taking bribes from guilty people, a federal judge taking bribes from the guilty to let them off.
He was gotten rid of by the U.S. Senate.
It's hard to get rid of a judge appointed for life.
And Alcey Hastings is now a member of Congress, and he's the guy that said rules.
What rules?
We make up the rules and we go along, meaning the Rules Committee in the House of Representatives.
So, according to the CBO, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.
In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan's provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance, determined it was an unprecedented act.
And it stated so in a statement.
Now, our previous caller was exactly right on the money.
And he's speaking for a lot of people.
You know it.
In your heart and in your gut, forcing somebody to buy a service that they choose not to is going against everything about freedom and being an American.
And the complex legal interpretation allowing this is mind-boggling.
And it's gotten to the ridiculous point that Conyers is making up a clause.
The Good and the Welfare Clause.
There's a column written about this today by David Harsanye in the Denver Post.
The mugging of personal freedom.
What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people?
And, if I might add, hiring 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce the coercion.
When House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers was recently asked to identify where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to force everybody to buy health insurance, he said, well, under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others.
I'm chairman of committee.
Well, for those of you who aren't familiar with the good and welfare clause, it states, Congress shall have power to make citizens of each state compelled to partake of the privileges of health care insurance, and those who refuse will be fined, charged with a misdemeanor crime, or lashed or receive Medicaid.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Constitution features a good and welfare clause, though obviously Washington has done a laudable job fulfilling the latter part of this imaginary passage.
They was making a joke here.
If Conyers says there's a good and welfare clause, then David Harsania here was writing one.
It doesn't exist.
There's no such thing.
He says we'd be better off mandating elected officials own a copy of the Constitution.
It has actually been widely speculated that Conyers, a lawyer, was referring to the general welfare clause that gives Congress the authority to tax and spend to promote the general welfare.
The other clauses he mentions are likely the long-abused Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
And that's where this whole lawsuit stuff starts because the 14 states, Attorneys General, said, you can't make us do this.
You can't make us do this.
Now, I'm not going to have time before the end of the program today to find, maybe I can during the next commercial break, to find the detail here that is going to make this a tough slog.
Common sense says we can't be forced to buy something.
Now, this is, all I'm doing here is trying to prepare you here.
The fact that it's not a slam dunk, and it's a great effort, and it ought to be applauded, but there are some obstacles in the way because of previous and prior rulings.
Richard in Shreport, Louisiana, welcome to the program.
Hello, sir.
Richard.
Yep.
You're next.
Are you Richard from Shreport?
No, I'm not.
Then Richard from Shreport hung up.
We'll find out who you are in just a second.
Dave and Bland, Washington.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi.
Good morning, sir, and mega dittos.
Thank you.
Rush, I have a question for you.
And I know you're an avid golfer, and so am I.
And, you know, you're welcome to come up here to the Pacific Northwest anytime, and I'll treat you to golf.
But if you were being an avid golfer, would you pay today for a brand new driver that you wouldn't get for four years, which is exactly what Obama is trying to make us to do?
No, I wouldn't.
So why would you buy anything from any retailer or eBay or anything else, pay the money up now, and not get the benefits of what you purchased for four years?
Because you may not have any choice.
But that's where the destruction of personal freedom comes.
Of course.
Yes, exactly.
This whole healthcare bill is an assault on that.
And it's being applauded today by people in the New York Times.
It's being applauded by people throughout the media.
John Conyers.
I'm sorry, John Dingell.
I got my John's confused.
John Dingell on WJR radio yesterday morning when asked, why is it going to take so long to implement all this?
Well, W, we're not ready to be doing it.
But let me remind you, this has been going on for years.
We are bringing it to a halt.
The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
To control the people.
Controlling the people does not fit in the equation that includes the word freedom.
We'll be back.
And I don't even think it's genuine.
I think all this was strategized.
I don't think anybody spat on Cleaver.
I don't think anybody called Barney Frank the F-word.
I don't think anybody called John Lewis the N-word.
There's no evidence of it other than them.
And now the bricks are going through Louise Slaughter's office bill.
Well, that's obviously happening.
We've seen the pictures.
And the brother of some Virginia congressmen's had his gas line cut.
So now up on the MSF, breaking news, Stenny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, Democrats targeted after health care reform vote.
I told you this at the beginning of the show.
I'm sorry to sound hysterical here.
But there are, at the beginning of the show, they're going to criminalize all this and they're going to try to segregate every critic of this health care bill as somebody throwing bricks or threatening lives or what have you, which is not the case.
These people simply know they're facing a majority opposition here.
And this is how tyranny happens.
This is how statists act.
Run to the media, whine and cry.
I have yet to call a press conference all the death threats that I've got.
I refuse.
I have not called a press conference to describe all the security steps I've had to take because of all the meanies that are out there who are threatening.
We could do it every day.
But it's a league we play in.
And these guys are in the big leagues too.
People are criticizing.
And they're attacking us with words.
And we got to shut them down.
Now, folks, here's what I was looking for to explain how the Commerce Clause has already been used in this way.
The best way to find it is Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny.
This is page 101.
How could the federal government legally force employers and employees to contribute to an insurance program?
In other words, how could they make you buy insurance?
Well, the program's constitutionality was challenged, and in 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that the proceeds of both taxes, unemployment program, and Social Security pension, are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally and are not earmarked in any way.
Therefore, while FDR was insisting to the public that Social Security was an insurance, remember, there were lawsuits against Social Security.
My point here.
So while Roosevelt was insisting to the public that Social Security was an insurance program based on segregated funds and earned benefits, his lawyers were in court insisting there was no such thing.
And the Supreme Court played along and betrayed the Constitution.
Now, the point of this is the government could not force people to buy insurance.
So what the court said in their ruling is, okay, we're going to treat it as a tax.
And that's the precedent that has been set.
You're paying taxes just as if you were being taxed for other programs.
So the difficulty today is that the government will be mandating that we buy insurance not as part of a pension program or unemployment program, but for our own direct use.
So the Supreme Court today could make the distinction, or it could go one more step towards statism and extend the Roosevelt ruling from 1937 to mandate to certify the mandate that Obama seeks to impose on us.
So all they basically have to do is call this a tax, basically, and get around it.
Now, the purpose, this is what everybody knows, and this is why this is such a gut wrench.
The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to promote commerce and not to empower the federal government to obstruct it.
And it was put in the Constitution because no such clause existed in the Articles of Confederation.
And the states were discriminating against each other with all kinds of parochial taxes aimed at preventing interstate commerce.
They were trying to keep all the commerce within the states, like the insurance company has commerce within the states today, state-mandated.
So what the framers were trying in the Constitution to codify capitalism for the entire country.
So there's no way any of this is truly constitutional from an originalist perspective, but the court has already said that it is.
They've already destroyed the Constitution on the Commerce Clause.
Now, it's not unbeatable.
It's going to be, I keep talking about how difficult the road is.
And it's, I just, I don't want anybody to get their hopes way up simply because there's already precedent here.
It depends on a whole lot of things we don't know who's going to argue these cases, how well and persuasive their cases are going to be argued and what the predisposition is of the court in the first place.
And there really aren't a whole lot of people who have studied these Supreme Court cases to this degree.
And a lot of people are out there saying things about this that they're really not totally informed on.
The name of the case is Helvering versus Davis.
That's the 1937 Supreme Court case where the, if you want to look it up, is where the supposed precedent exists.
I'm not saying this to be a downer on anybody.
I'm just right.
The court went along with FDR's lawyers and ignored what FDR was saying to the public.
Lawyers were arguing something totally differently at the court.
Now, remember, you know, FDR was trying to pack the court at the same time.
But we got a court now.
I mean, you never know how these things go.
These are human beings, too.
We got a court that now feels really, well, a majority feels really disrespected and insulted by Obama.
So there are a lot of variables here.
It's going to take time.
But these people doing this need to be applauded.
They need to be supported.
But you need to understand that it's not a slam dunk, even though common sense says that it should be.
All right, a brief time out, my friends.
We'll take it.
We'll be back and return.
All right, after this.
Okay, now let me give you a little upper here and tell you the difference between what this case is and what Helvering, this 37th Supreme Court case is.
The problem that the government's going to have in opposing the state lawsuits in this situation is that it is hard to call a mandate which compels individuals to buy health insurance for themselves a tax.
They're not buying health insurance for the government or what they're buying it for themselves.
It's going to be hard to call that a tax, which they're going to have to be able to do ostensibly because that's the precedent from the 1937 case.
In this case, being forced to buy insurance, the individual is not sending money to the government as some kind of tax.
He is being told to buy it for himself.
So that's the narrow opening that our guys have.
And some people aren't going to send any money.
Some people are going to pay a fine, which is a tax, by the way.
And the tax or the fine is much less than the policy will be.
And so the hope is, I think, for the people who wrote the legislation, is that people opt for the fine.
And here's the IRS coming in to supervise it.
So you're volunteering.
Well, not volunteering, but here's a self-paying tax for not having insurance.
But then, of course, when this thing fully implements, you'll be able to go get insurance at any time, the day you have the accident, the day you get sick.
And they have to cover you.
Not for long because they won't be in business to cover you.
Okay, that's that.
Where else are you going to get anything like this in the media?
Nowhere, folks.
That's why you're here.
Thanks much for being here.
We'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection