The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying for a simple reason.
We're right.
Documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
And we have a daily, relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
And we find it.
And when we find it, we proclaim it.
Drives liberals nuts.
It's a lot of fun.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, LRushbo at eibnet.com.
As I mentioned, four different stories here on Obamacare and the CBO.
And let me just give you the headlines first.
And in no particular order.
CBO to employers.
Obamacare has $4 billion more in taxes than expected.
Next headline.
Court's ruling may blunt the reach of the health care law.
That's the New York Times.
From thehill.com, CBO Supreme Court decision cuts cost of health care reform by $84 billion.
How does that work?
CBO to employers, Obamacare has $4 billion more in taxes than expected.
And yet the Hill CBO's Supreme Court decision cuts cost of health care reform by $84 billion.
And then, this is a repeat.
This is a dupe.
So it's three different stories.
It isn't four.
I've got the New York Times story in here twice.
So let's start here with the Washington Examiner first.
Business owners will pay $4 billion more in taxes under Obama's Affordable Care Act than the CBO had previously expected.
According to the updated estimates, the amount of deficit reduction from penalty payments and other effects on tax revenues under Obamacare will be $5 billion more than previously estimated.
The change primarily affects a $4 billion increase in collections from such payments by employers.
In short, the CBO revised the Obamacare tax burden upward by $4 billion for businesses and $1 billion to $1.5 billion for individual workers.
The CBO couldn't help but bump into Chief Justice John Roberts' controversial decision to uphold the mandate as a tax.
Okay, so we have that will put that over here.
And then the next story we will do is fromthehill.com.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of Obama's health care law made the law less expensive, but it will result in 3 million more people without health insurance, the CBO said Tuesday.
A report from the non-partisan budget scorekeeper was the first estimate of the law's cost since the Supreme Court ruling.
Now, just so you know, the non-partisan budget scorekeeper, CBO, is being headed at present by a woman, Melinda Bukes Bunton, or Bunton, who has been the deputy assistant director of the CBO's Health Services Department since the middle of 2011.
She has donated more than $26,000 to Democrat candidates, 2,300 of that going to Obama in 2008.
Before Obamacare was passed, she was cited as an Obama spokeswoman.
In 2009, 2010, she visited the Obama White House eight times.
She is the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper at CBO.
It's an Obama hack.
Now, this is a testament to how corrupted our government bureaucracies have become, if you ask me.
TheHill.com is reporting that the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper at the CBO has made their first estimate of the cost since Supreme Court decision.
And lo and behold, now it's going to cost $84 billion less than what we thought.
Now, they do note that this is largely due to the Supreme Court allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicare, as was required under Obamacare.
The states can opt out.
But what does that mean?
When the states opt out of Medicare, it means that this savings is only due to fewer people getting free health insurance from the government, quote unquote.
But you would never know that from the Hills headline or any of the other headlines in the mainstream media about this.
The only reason there are cost savings is because fewer people are going to get access.
Fewer people are going to get covered.
This takes us to, you know, we spent a lot of time shortly after the Supreme Court ruling.
I hope you were here.
I hope you remember it.
We spent a lot of time explaining all of the intricacies of the exchanges.
The states are required by Obamacare to set up their exchanges, but they don't have to.
The states get subsidized by the federal government.
They set up the exchange.
The federal government cannot fund its own exchange.
It was a mistake that the writers of the law made.
They goofed up.
And the states, people are reading this literally.
The states, with the freedom they have to opt out of Medicare and to not set up exchanges, have the ability to deal Obamacare a serious blow because the law does not permit the federal government to come in and take over and do what the states might refuse to do.
So one of the original purposes of Obamacare was to offload additional costs to the states by having them pick up Medicare increases.
But the Supreme Court ruling said that states can opt out of that if they want to.
And I think 26 or 27 states will, or have said they're going to.
So in the middle of all of this, we now have a new score from the CBO, which says the bill is going to cost $84 billion less.
$84 billion, when compared to the total cost of this debacle, is a nickel or a dime anyway.
Its importance is rooted in the fact that the savings, $84 billion, are derived from the fact that the money is not spent insuring the currently uninsured, which if you want to take, if you want to take everybody involved in Obamacare at their word, if you want to extend to them their best intentions, the whole point of the program was simply to cover uninsured people, which was whatever they got,
the number 30 million is the number they used.
Now, this is just an exercise of thought because we know that's not the purpose of Obamacare.
Purpose of Obamacare has nothing to do with health care, really.
It is the largest expansion of government ever.
It is the greatest encroachment on individual liberty ever.
And that's why it has to be repealed.
And that's what this election is all about.
But if it, if it, because if all we wanted to do was insure the uninsured, we could have done it for far less money with far less government, far less bureaucracy.
The real number of uninsured that want insurance and don't have it is around 10 million.
The 30, 40, 50 million number of changes that they throw around includes people who don't want it because they don't want to spend the money on it because they're young and vibrant and they're not thinking about dying.
They're not thinking about catastrophic diseases.
So these are the people that now have a new name, the free riders.
Prior to Obamacare, these people, oh, they were the poor, assaulted victims of an unfair and an unjust country, the richest country in the world.
And all of these gazillions of people didn't have health insurance.
Now they're a bunch of free writers.
And we're going to fine them or we're going to raise their taxes or we're going to make them pay through the nose if they don't have health insurance.
Because now it's mandatory.
Thank you, John Roberts.
So over here, Obamacare, $4 billion more in taxes, $4 billion more than expected.
And if it's $4 billion, they're admitting, you know, it's going to be higher.
Over here, $84 billion less in overall costs, but only because fewer people will be covered.
Right now in Congress, and this is the Obamacare exchange problem.
Right now in Congress, the GOP is trying to fix a typo in a bill that they are offering, but Steny Hoyer will not let them fix the typo.
Now, even though the Democrats admit that there's a clear typo, this could come back, bite the Democrats when they try to fix their typo about the exchanges.
In their last report back in April, the CBO reported Obamacare could cause as many as 20 million people to lose their employer-covered health care coverage.
So when you add this $6 million from Medicaid to the 20 million losing employer-provided insurance, you have 26 million people without health insurance.
Now, what was Obamacare supposed to do again?
This is an utter joke.
Now, I don't know what the typo is off the top of my head.
I'll find that quickly.
But neither The Hill nor any other mainstream news outlet has picked up the news that Daily Caller reported yesterday.
And that is the news of this scorekeeper, Melinda Bukes Bunton, who is the Obama hack, is now supposedly the nonpartisan scorekeeper.
I've given you her details.
So bottom line here, folks, is that we still don't know what's going on with all of this.
It's still a nightmare.
And I shudder to think it's just the foundation.
It's just the thing that is going to be what is built upon as we go.
Because, as is the case with every federal program, every piece of legislation of any significant size, once it's implemented, it's discovered that it doesn't work.
It doesn't work as advertised.
It doesn't work as intended.
And so a new law is required to fix a mistake in the original bill, and it gets out of hand, and it becomes a vicious cycle where the government screws up, creates a problem.
Everybody demands that the same people who made the original mistake go in and fix it, and it just repeats itself.
And you end up with out-of-control entitlement programs that nobody can understand that the only way to fix every year is increased funding.
Pure and simple.
The typo, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer says his party will not agree to fix a typo in a GOP regulations bill that significantly alters the meaning of the measure.
The bill calls for a moratorium on significant regulations, defined as costing the economy more than $100 million until the unemployment rate hits 6%.
Instead of unemployment, the GOP printed the word employment.
And they meant to type unemployment.
And Stenny Hoyer won't let them go in and fix it.
So the bill calls for a significant, a moratorium on significant regulations.
And again, significant defined as costing the economy more than $100 million until the unemployment rate hits 6%.
But the word is now employment until the employment rate hits 6%.
Well, that'll never happen.
The employment rate will never be 6%.
So there will never be a moratorium on significant regulations, which is exactly what the Democrats want.
They don't want a moratorium.
It's a simple typo.
They meant to type unemployment.
Instead, the word employment is in there.
Now, the New York Times story, courts ruling may blunt the reach of the law.
The CBO said yesterday, the Supreme Court decision would probably lead to an increase in the number of uninsured and a modest reduction in cost when compared with estimates before the court ruling.
It's just the Times version of this whole mess.
But the headline, court ruling, may blunt the reach of the law.
That's simply the New York Times with some tears.
And, oh, no, there's going to be fewer people covered.
The bill is actually not going to cover as many of the uninsured as we thought.
So that's a debacle.
It's an absolute embarrassment.
And it's so typical of big bureaucracies who have no idea what they're doing.
Everything gets messed up and screwed up.
And we're right in the middle of it.
And the things that will not be screwed up, the things that will not be misunderstood, the things that will not be overlooked are those that expand the power and reach of the government.
Every one of those will be found, and every one of those will be utilized.
Let me take a brief time out here, my friends, as broadcast excellence unfolds before your very eyes and ears yet again.
Let me strip this all down to the basic element here that you need to know.
All of this confounding data that's being dumped on us from the CBO, New York Times, Hill.com, Reuters, doesn't matter.
They are trying to say, they're putting out the story, not trying, they are saying that Obamacare is now, because of the Supreme Court ruling, going to save us money.
Yes, sir.
Obamacare just got cheaper.
Obamacare is going to cut health care costs.
Obamacare is going to really save us money because they say that the revenues from the new taxes and the penalties and the fees will offset the $1.7 trillion cost.
Before we had Obamacare, we were chugging along at a final budget deficit and a final national debt that was big enough.
This thing comes along and it's easily $1.7 trillion or hell, it's going to be $2 trillion.
And so now $84 billion, you know what we're going to save?
$84 billion?
Whoa!
Shazam!
$84 billion savings on $1.7 trillion.
It's like it is.
It's like saying you got $30,000 budgeted for a car and you go out.
No, you got $50,000 budgeted for a car.
You go out and you find one for $40,000.
You tell yourself you save $10,000 when you spent $40,000.
We're talking about a thimble filled with pennies in terms of the say, and then they're trying to tell us that this is savings.
Folks, it's more journalistic malpractice.
That's all this stuff adds up to.
They're trying to tell you that the Supreme Court decision was excellent because now this new nonpartisan scorekeeper has just figured out it's going to cost $84 billion less.
So take $84 billion from $1.7 trillion.
That's not even you couldn't even see it if you lined the dollars up.
Brian in Hopewell Junction, New York.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine and dandy, sir.
Thank you.
Just to give my background, I'm a business consultant, a management professor, also a motivational expert and author.
And I want to talk about how difficult it is to start a business because every aspect of government discourages and puts obstacles in the way of starting a business.
And there's nothing out there that really makes it easy.
As a matter of fact, four out of five businesses fail in the first three years.
And just to give you some of the things that are involved in starting a business, it's the capital investment, worries about taxes, not only about income taxes, also taxes that have to be paid for employees, regulations and compliance, insurances, employee paperwork and administration, accounting, and on top of that, long hours.
There's no business person that can say, oh, yeah, I put in a long 40-hour week.
Business owners typically put in 60 to 80-hour weeks because this is their first devotion.
It's their love.
And as you've had callers going in the past, that the business owners get paid last.
So there are so many things that go into starting a business.
Now, Brian, I assume you're calling here reacting to Obama saying, you did that business, you didn't do that.
Oh, absolutely.
You know, the whole thing is so inane.
Even when I teach college classes, we have a room full of students, and everyone's at the same school.
They pay the same tuition.
They have all of the same physical support and administrative support, yet not everybody gets A's.
Well, a few people get A's.
Some people get C's.
Some people fail.
But yet, they all have the same roads in front of them as Obama's claiming that every successful business has.
You know, about that, I have to tell you, by the way, he's right on the money here with what he's saying.
But Obama claims he was taking out a tax out of context.
He said he was talking about the roads in the previous sentence.
If he was talking about the roads, he would have said, you didn't build those.
Instead, he said, you didn't build that.
You didn't do that.
I don't think you can make a claim at all, but anyway, Brian, I appreciate he's exactly right.
Some of the, well, I got to take a break.
We'll conclude the thought when we come back.
Folks, let's take a look.
Let's go back in time.
Let us review some of the things Obama has said about the private sector over the past few years.
Oh, and one other thing.
One other thing in this healthcare business.
We can talk all we want about 30 million uninsured and how many of them will remain uninsured because of the various things happening resulting in the Supreme Court decision.
Oh, that's fine and nandy.
How many of these uninsured who finally get insurance are going to have doctors?
Does anybody stop to think how many doctors are going to opt out of all this?
A lot of people just assuming that doctors are going to hang in there and accept this.
I have news for you.
The doctors, great numbers of them, are already talking about how they are looking at finding something else to do.
It's not going to make any sense.
And I guarantee you, I don't know when it's going to happen, but I guarantee, in fact, I saw it.
I saw it.
I saw it on a television show recently.
The Democrats are going to raise the following issue.
Why should somebody get rich treating the sick?
They're going to claim that that's a fundamental characteristic error of capitalism.
Remember now, these are the intellectuals, the wordsmiths.
They think they're smarter than everybody.
They don't like capitalism because they're not the richest.
If capitalism were fair and just, the smartest would be the wealthiest.
It ought to work that way.
And they can't figure out why some dumb hick hayseed that owns a bait and tackle shop may make more money than they do while they lounge around sipping cocktails at 4.30 in the afternoon in a faculty lounge.
And so they're going to sit around and they're going to finally say how unjust it is and how it actually is immoral.
Why should somebody treating the sick?
Why should somebody helping somebody get better get rich?
Shouldn't that be almost like a Mother Teresa donation to society?
Certainly there shouldn't be any profit in it.
These doctors are not going to take that for very long.
The real opt-out is going to be the opt-out of Medicaid.
It's hard enough now for some Medicaid patients to find a doctor who will take new ones.
And Obama's slashing these Medicaid payments.
He's moving them over to the states, and the states now have permission to opt out.
And the doctors are getting paid later and later and less and less.
At some point, it's not going to make sense.
They're not going to be able to earn enough, justify all the costs of their education and all the hard work and all of these people can't make mistakes.
This is one, you know, medical education, that's one of you.
You have to know it.
You don't memorize the test and go out and swear to the Hippocratic oath and then start treating.
You've got to know what you're doing.
And they're going to, when Obama and the Democrats start talking about how unfair it is that these people make money treating the sick, and that's right around the corner.
What was the TV show?
Let me think of it.
What was the TV show?
It was the most recent episode of The Closer.
And it was about a cancer doctor who unwittingly was buying chemotherapy drugs, which were fakes.
They were just saline solution.
All these chemotherapy patients were being injected with saline, and they continue to die, but they were suffering no effects of chemo.
And the plot was that the phony salesman, well, the salesman of the phony fake chemotherapy drugs was a do-gooder crusaders.
These people are going to die anyway.
At least they're going to die looking good.
They're going to die having fun.
They're going to die living their lives instead of shriveling away after being poisoned by chemotherapy drugs.
And in the course of the program, there were a couple slams at doctors who make money treating the sick.
So it's coming.
Mark my words.
And just I have predicted, and I'm right about this, it's already starting to happen.
The calls for banning football.
That's going to be a while before it gets really serious.
But there are people suggesting high school football be banned and some college football be banned because of concussions and the brutality of the game and how unfair it is.
It's not something civilized people ought to do.
That's where we're headed with that.
Civilized people wouldn't do this.
That's something ancient Romans did.
But we're not the ancient Romans anybody.
You watch, it's going to happen.
Now, in the Atlantic.
It's the Atlantic?
Yes, theAtlantic.com.
Let me just read to you the first paragraph of this story by Alice Dreger.
Alice.
Alice Dreger.
No, I've never heard of her.
I just, it's Alice.
It's not Zeke Dreger.
It's not Bruce.
It's not Richard.
It's Alice Dreger.
Let me see if it explains who she is.
It doesn't, so she may just be a staff columnist there.
Anyway, to be perfectly honest, Kama, I follow football the way I follow television.
I read about it.
Breaking Bad sounds like something I would watch someday.
The only reason that I've been reading about football is my morbid fascination with the two major scandals in which the game has lately been sandwiched.
The long-term harm caused by repetitive head injuries and the Sandusky pedophilia story.
I can't stop wondering, could they be related?
So the latest salvo in the war on football comes from a noted sports expert at The Atlantic who has found a way to marry the concussion story to the Sandusky story to where the conclusion is head injuries can cause pedophilia.
We know that professional football players' helmets are not magically saving their brains from all the pounding they take.
The New York Times reports that to date, 20 NFL veterans have been shown to have suffered from chronic, traumatic encephalopathy.
That's swelling of the brain.
A progressive decaying of the brain.
Many more players have been living with the symptoms, early onset dementia, erratic behavior, major depression.
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy can only, you have to be a highly trained broadcast specialist to say that, by the way, without stumbling across it.
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
CTE can only conclusively be diagnosed in autopsy, so we need more people that die to learn more about it.
Just to say that, I'm adding it in.
Boston University Study Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, leading research institution in the field, has been doing most of the post-mortems.
In a 2003 study of 685 men published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that the pedophilic patients reported more head injuries before age 13 than did the non-pedophilic patients.
While it's true that the head injuries we are now most concerned with in football occur after age 13, it's also true that most NFL and NCAA players and coaches like Sandusky are likely to have started getting their heads game-bashed as children.
Well, so you see now in the Atlantic, which is a journal of high intellect, we now have a marriage, if you will, a connection here between brain injury and pedophilia.
I'm not kidding you.
I didn't predict this specific thing, but this certainly falls within the guidelines of what I did predict.
So she is dead serious.
Alice Dreger is her name.
She might pronounce it Drieger.
Now, here's the closing paragraph: Whether or not additional research bears out the theory that head injuries can contribute to pedophilia, the two ongoing scandals in football, repetitive head injuries and the possible cover-up of Sandusky's pedophilic activities at Penn State, do have one clear link.
In both cases, those in charge have taken big risks in playing the idea of putting the game first and the well-being of youngsters second.
I'm telling you, folks.
So, how long does it take before we get to the conclusion that Paterno was a pedophile in waiting or a pedophile by extension?
So, here you have it in a journal of high intellect.
Pedophilia is connected to concussions.
It may be why Sandusky did what he did.
And how can we allow things like this in a cultured, sophisticated, civilized society?
Now, Snirdley's in there shaking.
He can't believe it.
These are liberals.
I'm telling you, this is who they are: the boxing community.
Well, is the boxing community filled with pedophiles?
It only takes one, and then we've got a link.
So, is there a former boxer that's a pedophile?
A current boxer that's a pedophile?
I don't know.
But if they find one, guess what?
It's the second example.
It doesn't take much for these people to convince themselves that they're on to something and that they've got to take the risk out of life and they've got to take the risk of serious and major injury out of life.
In a cultured, civilized society, why would we permit people to engage in activity?
Why would we pay to watch such activity that people are going to end up brain dead?
Why would we pay them to do it?
Why would we pay to watch it?
Why would we generate so much money around it when it's nothing but barbaric?
This is where it's headed.
And you wait, it's not going to be long before they figure out that most of the participants in the NFL are African American, and you're going to lump that in with the fact that, oh, here you have people being used, abused, objectified, taken advantage of.
I can see it all happening.
So can you too, if you want to admit it.
So, brief timeout.
Be right back with much more after this, folks.
Sit tight.
I should have done this before I reported the story from Alice Dreger or Drieger, but actually, it came in during the program itself, so they didn't have time to do research.
So during the break, I would have found out who she is, the author of the Atlantic piece that compares concussions to pedophilia.
Now, the first question I had: have any of these pedophilic types at Penn State gone after young girls?
Did Sandusky go after young girls?
Or was it just boys that Sandusky?
Well, this is important given the scope of her article.
If no girls were approached by Sandusky or any of these other head injury types, had concussions and then turned to pedophilia, then why didn't she mention homosexuality as an aspect of this?
Sandusky was a coach.
Do coaches get head injuries?
I guess we're assuming that Sandusky played and got head injuries when he played, and the head injuries manifested themselves when he became a coach.
The pedophiles in this case all were coaches.
Now, who is she?
Alice Dreger is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University's Feinberg Schruel of Medicine.
Now, what are clinical medical humanities and bioethics anyway?
See, this is why the Journal of the Atlantic, Journal of High Intellect, Medical Humanities.
She's figured out there's a link between concussions and pedophilia, medical humanities.
Why should we play this game?
It's so barbaric.
Look what happens to some people who play it.
She's not an MD.
She's a PhD.
Would you like to hear what she wrote for her PhD?
Here's the title of her doctoral thesis, Doubtful Sex, Colon, Cases and Concepts of Hermaphroditism in France and Britain, 1968, 1915.
Who would even people ask me why I didn't go to college?
Who would even conceive of such a subject to do a doctoral thesis on?
Some people, obviously, I just don't relate.
Doubtful sex, cases and concepts of hermaphroditism in France and Britain, 1915, 1968.
Why that date range?
Why not examine the concepts of hermaphroditism in France and Britain from 1915 to the present?
And why only France and Britain?
Why not Penn State?
Why not Scotland?
Hermaphrodites of the world unite.
One of her articles, Alex Dreger, A History of Intersexuality from the Age of Gonads to the Age of Consent, Journal of Clinical Ethics.
Another, Alex Dreger, or Alice Dregger, Hermaphrodites in Love, The Truth of the Gonads.
That's what said, this is, this, I'm just telling you, this is her curriculum viche.
Or vitae, vitae.
This is what she has.
And this is, this, football and the sexual side effects of head trauma is her latest submission in the Atlantic.
This woman's fascinated by hermaphrodites and gonads and France and Britain and Penn State.
Here's another one.
Alice Dreger.
The controversy surrounding the man who would be queen.
A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the internet age.