All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 17, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
September 17, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Now, for all of you Democrats who are back on your gun control high horse, I have one word for you.
Colorado.
You remember what happened in Colorado?
Two Democrats, thought to be in safe districts, were recalled in Colorado over their efforts at renewed gun control on the innocent and the law-abiding.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Here we are back at it, as promised yesterday, another three hours of broadcast excellence.
Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The shooting in Washington, it is what it is, and everything about it is predictable.
The reaction to this, everything about it is predictable.
The facts are predictable.
What we have here is a mentally disturbed individual on a military base where guns are banned.
We have the usual outcry from the left, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, we need to get rid of guns, which is not the problem here.
It is always the intent of a mentally disturbed person.
I don't care if it's a school shooting or what have you or a terrorist, it doesn't matter.
The law-abiding and sane do not engage in this kind of activity.
And so getting rid of guns, it's the same old thing.
Tired and worn-out argument.
We'll deal with it today, of course, because we must, because the onslaught of pressure once again is on the president and the Democrats, and they're going to take advantage of it.
They're going to try.
But it's a losing proposition for them, just as Obamacare is a losing proposition for them.
Just as pretty much everything Obama wants is a losing proposition when expressed in terms of public support.
The sad thing is that public opposition to Obama's policies is not resulting in Obama's policies being thwarted other than gun control and perhaps amnesty.
We'll have to wait and see on that.
The president yesterday, when he went to start selling all the great lies he's telling about his economy, went up within, what, hours of this tragedy and acknowledged it in a almost perfunctory way and then began an onslaught, a partisan onslaught against his best friends in Washington, the Republicans.
The Republican leadership in Washington wants to just, as far as I can tell, lay down and go along with whatever he wants.
They're not providing much opposition.
I mean, some of them are, but vast majority aren't.
And yet he felt the need to once again assault them and attack them in a purely partisan basis, even when it was the president who said after Gabby Giffords got shot that we got to stop this.
We got to stop the kind of behavior he engaged in yesterday.
So the drive-bys had their sensibilities upset for him.
They knew it wasn't cool.
And so they begun to construct excuses.
Well, he's under so much pressure.
You know, the Syria thing, and he's got the Putin column, and he's got the poison nerve gas in Syria, and who knows where it's going to go.
He's got Benghazi.
He's got all this going on.
And these Republicans are just so mean and nasty that he really didn't have a choice.
He had to go out and he had to go out and attack him.
It really wasn't cool.
It wasn't classy.
And so the drive-bys even were unnerved by what was clearly that people call it tone-deaf.
It wasn't tone-deaf yesterday.
It's exactly who the guy is.
Obama.
This is exactly who he is.
His number one objective, modus operandi, is to eliminate all opposition.
Anybody who opposes him is number one enemy.
It doesn't matter.
In fact, domestic enemies are his, domestic opponents are his number one enemies.
So everything that happens is going to get plugged into that narrative.
Whatever happens, it's going to be an opportunity to trash the Republicans or trash the conservatives.
And he did it yesterday.
It's who he is.
And the drive-bys understandably upset about it.
And they sought to defend.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
We have a little montage here.
This is an illustration of how they themselves recognize the impropriety of Obama's behavior yesterday, the tone deafness they say it is.
That's not what it was.
He's just not who people think he is.
And things like that yesterday portray who he really is.
And it's a question if you want to have the courage and the guts to admit it or pretend that it was just a faux pas.
And of course, the drive-bys very worried that it was a screw-up yesterday.
And so they immediately began the CYA.
And we have a little montage to illustrate that.
Did they ever consider not giving the speech as a result of this?
I was very surprised that they let this pre-planned event go on in light of what was happening.
Very jarring.
The moment the president was speaking, we, of course, were getting reports from D.C. police.
The president expressed empathy before going ahead with his speech containing deep partisan attacks.
At no time did they consider canceling today's events.
I really wonder now if they are having some second thoughts.
The tone was a little off for a day like today.
The timing of the speech was inappropriate.
You can imagine if a similar thing had happened under George W. Bush, that a lot of people would be outraged.
That's John Heileman there on the MSNBC, and he's exactly right.
I think it was half of the duo that wrote that book, Game Change, and HBO turned into a hit piece on Sarah Palin.
That's who he is.
But he's exactly right.
Any Republican president who would have done what Obama did yesterday, how many people were killed and how many people were shot, how many people wounded?
It was a major, and they canceled a baseball game.
The Senate, Harry Reed sent the Senate home.
And there's Obama up there attacking the Republicans for it.
And you got the D.C. mayor blaming it on the sequester.
And so the drive-bys, no, we've got to somehow explain this and cover for Obama because they see everything through the prism of, oh, gosh, is it going to help Obama?
Is it going to hurt Obama?
Jay Carney, the White House spokeskid yesterday afternoon, a press briefing, Ed Henry of Fox said, why did the president go ahead with what became a series of attacks on Republicans about the health care law?
By the way, there are four or five, maybe ten now, Republicans who are actually trying to stop the implementation.
The vast majority of Republicans, so-called Republican establishment, are Obama's buddies on this, for all intents and purposes.
So he, it's even worse when you realize he's thinking about three or four people.
He's thinking Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and some of the others.
So Kearney's asked about it by Ed Henry.
Why'd the president do that?
All these attacks on Republicans about the health care law, the debt ceiling and all.
I mean, it didn't seem a little bit off.
The middle of this manhunt, people being informed about lives lost for the president to move forward with an attack on the Republicans.
What was that about, Jay?
Time is short.
We need to address these challenges.
It is also true that we have an unfolding situation here in Washington with regards to violent action and shootings, and it's entirely appropriate for the president to address that at the top of his remarks.
Jeff, of course, it is, is the Republicans are so mean.
The Republicans are so evil.
The Republicans are so terrible that even in the midst of such a disaster like this, we cannot lose sight of the focus of a real important matter in Washington.
And that's what a bunch of creeps the Republicans are.
Last night on the Kudlow report on CNBC, he spoke with Washington correspondent Eamon Javers, well-known drive-by reporter.
I'm sure you've heard of Eamon.
Kudlow said the president's remarks today.
He had a planned speech about the economy.
He started with some comments about the shooting, kind of threw them away, which Kudlow says, I thought they were entirely appropriate, by the way.
But then he launched into a vicious partisan political attack on the economy.
Very jarring to hear what you heard from the White House at a time when there was an active shooter investigation here at the Washington Navy Yard.
I have heard folks at the White House say time and time again that you've got to be able to do one, two, three things at a time because the rest of the nation may not be as focused on a local law enforcement situation as we are here, and the rest of the country wants to hear about other things.
And of course, they also talked about Syria in that speech.
So the president addressing a wide range of calamities and disasters all in one speech.
It gives you some sense of the breadth of the scale of the problems that the president has to deal with.
Whoa!
Gosh, I hadn't thought of that.
My God, it must be hard to be president.
I hadn't thought of it that way.
Old Eamon here has helped me understand it.
He's got so much to do.
The breadth of the scale of the problems that a president has to deal with.
Oh, my God.
We've got to understand that he's got to do all these things together at the same time every opportunity he has, Larry.
Oh, my God.
It's just, it's just amazing the workload this great, courageous young president has.
So we've got to understand that.
We really do.
So there you have it.
Now, you heard this guy and you heard Jay Carney.
But this guy, particularly, Eamon Javers, you know before I played this on, but I didn't call him he or she because I didn't know whether this guy was male or female that I played the soundbite.
I'm sure many of you have heard of Eamon.
I hadn't.
It was my bad.
I should know these things.
But Eamon said people didn't care about that.
He didn't care about it.
It's a local issue.
You know, 12 people being shot by a lunatic at the Washington Navy Yard, where members of the military are not allowed to have guns.
You didn't care about that.
You didn't care about that so much that the only thing the Democrat Party is focused on today is gun control again.
And I just want to remind all you Democrats, Colorado.
Don't forget it.
Yes, the rest of the nation may not be as focused on a local law enforcement situation as we are here.
The rest of the country wants to hear about other things.
Healthcare.
Well, the rest of the country wants nothing to do with the other things, old Eamon, old buddy, old pal.
And now Warren Buffett has come out, one of the early supporters of Obama, one of the early supporters of Obamacare.
Warren Buffett says we got to scrap it.
We just got to get rid of it altogether.
Get rid of Obamacare, scrap it, and start all over.
We have a health system that, in terms of cost, is really out of control.
And if you take this line and you project what's been happening in the future, we're going to get less and less competitive.
We need something else.
And Buffett went on to say that without changes to Obamacare, the little people will suffer.
Average Americans will suffer.
Warren Buffett, early Obama supporter, early supporter of Obamacare, all of a sudden now wants no part of it.
Like the vast majority of the American people want no part of it.
And that's why I continue to urge, and I'm sure you do too, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, to keep on.
The American people do not want this.
The polling data continues to be overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare every time a new poll is released and the results publicized.
Now, maybe Warren Buffett here has figured out that it's also going to hurt his investment holdings.
I don't know, but he's at least here claiming it's going to hurt the little guy.
He said, what we have now is untenable over time.
That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.
Buffett does not believe that providing insurance for everyone is the first step to take in correcting our nation's health care system.
Attack the costs first, he says.
Warren, I can call him Warren because I've played in his golf.
Warren, where were you at the beginning of all this?
You knew you had to know this at the beginning of this.
You had to know.
I mean, it was clearly seeable what this was going to be.
But he's right about this.
Attacking the costs is it has to happen, and there are ways to do it.
To reintroduce market reform, the best thing could happen to healthcare.
I'll say it again.
Reforms that establish an economic cost relationship between patient and provider, just like there is a cost relationship between any other product or service and someone's ability to pay for it.
If you reform the healthcare system with that objective, introduce competition, give people choices, massive choices, massive competition, prices will come down.
But when the vast majority of people don't think they're paying for it, they're not going to care what it costs, which is, of course, folly.
Take a brief time out here, my friends.
There's even more in the healthcare stack and the gun control stack and the gun shooter stack and everything else today.
So you sit tight.
We'll come back and continue with all the rest of today's exciting excursion into broadcast excellence right after this.
And a bunch of global warming news in the stack that I did not get to yesterday.
And let me just give you this, this pretty much, and it's about the IPCC, the United Nations unit, I guess, that is the repository for the hoax.
You know, the University of East Anglia in Britain, they've got the hoaxers are there, but they reported to the UN, this guy at Penn State with his fake hockey stick.
These guys all reported to the IPCC.
All of these models that they constructed over the years that predicted calamity by now, the calamity.
I remember I was still living in California in 1985, and I'm watching this week with David Wrinkley on Sunday morning.
And there's this guy named Oppenheimer, and he's a global warming guy.
And he's saying, we've got 20 years.
It's 1985.
We've got 20 years.
He said, I don't know if we're right.
We're not sure if we're right, but we can't take the chance.
If we don't get started now on reducing greenhouse gases and all that same DS, then we're not going to have any chance to stop this.
And that was 1985.
So those 20 years ended in 2005.
The bottom line is there isn't any warming.
Their models have been all wrong.
UK Daily Mail, a leaked copy of the world's most authoritative climate study, reveals that scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
This is not news to you, because you listen here, you're on the cutting edge.
But it's just added information to put in your back pocket and have on file.
The UK Daily Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It's the IPCC, which is the holding company, if you will, for all the hoax data.
The final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN.
The IPCC, the ultimate watchdog, whose massive six yearly assessments are accepted by environmentalist wackos and politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify increasing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its latest assessment, or last assessment, published in 2007, despite the fact that there is a bunch more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The so-called greenhouse gas has just been expanding at geometric proportions, and yet the temperature increase is negligible.
Back in 2007, the UN said the planet was warming at the rate of two-tenths of a degree centigrade The grade every decade.
A figure it claimed was in line with the forecast made by their precious climate models, computer models.
But the new report says that the true figure since 1951 has only been 0.12 centigrade per decade, which is a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
A 31-page summary for policymakers is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis, which will be issued at the same time, and it reveals IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taking enough notice of natural variability.
Natural variability.
They didn't account for nature.
The left never does when it projects anything.
Taxes, rates of increase or decrease.
Anyway, the hoax continues.
Back in a sec.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
El Rushbo and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Well, it had to happen.
My upcoming book to be released to a world clamoring and craving it.
The Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, Time Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans.
We were number one in pre-orders and sales and all of that at Amazon for 11 days.
On day 12 yesterday, we slipped to number two.
And I didn't say anything about it.
I didn't say a word because unlike others, I'm not going to devote every moment of every program to my upcoming book.
You know it's coming on October 29th, the audio version, the e-book.
And we were back and forth at number one on Barnes and Noble for the same period, number one, after the third day there for most of the remaining time.
So 11 days at number one, almost unprecedented, unless you're talking about a Harry Potter book.
And I just want to take the opportunity to thank you all again.
Now, there is an advantage if you pre-order.
The pre-order price is just a little bit under $11, and the retail price at launch is around $19, $19.99, I think, $1950, something like this.
So there is an advantage to pre-order, but I'm not goosing pre-orders.
No, no, no, I wouldn't dare descend to that level.
I'm just mentioning facts and reality here, and I wanted to take the occasion to thank you again because it's, you know, you all in this audience continue to make my day and thus my week and my month and my year every day, week, month, year.
And I can't thank you enough.
It was a fun book.
Are there going to be more?
I'll never tell.
I'll never tell.
But we can do a lot with the character, what we've done here.
Rush Revere and the horse can time travel, go anywhere in American history and bring things to life as they really happened.
Written for 10 to 13-year-olds.
The book is for everybody.
And it was really fun.
I'm excited about it.
And I wanted to thank you for keeping it at the top of the list just as pre-orders for as long as you did.
Now, before getting back to healthcare, stick with the global warming here for just a second.
Again, you in this audience, because you're here, are fully aware of the facts about it.
You're fully aware that I keep, I call it a hoax, and that might be off-putting to some.
I mean, the simplest way to explain to people who want to believe it's true, and you know who they are.
Those are people who are looking for ways to make themselves matter.
They run around and they hear that they're to blame for the world getting warm, that the country is actually, America is to blame, our prosperity, our high standard of living, and the fact that we've stolen all these resources from around the world, and we're using more oil than we have any right to, and all of that.
That when they're hit with a solution, whoa, then they can be big people.
They can do something about it.
Everybody wants to matter, and that's the sales pitch.
So, all you have to do is go out and buy some new kind of newfangled hybrid car, or agree to raise taxes, or if you go to the store, buy everything and anything but a green label on it, and you are saving the planets.
I understand it's seductive for people who want to believe it, but it is a hoax in the sense that it's nothing more than another of the never-ending issues, political issues, by the left, by the Democrat Party, to advance their ultimate agenda of bigger and bigger government and more and more control.
That's all global warming ever was for the scientists involved in it.
It was a living.
You go out and promote what the leftists wanted to hear, and you got grant money.
And if you run around and really sound like you believe it, then they're going to make you a star.
And if you're Al Gore and you realize you can capitalize on your vice president, you can become a multi-millionaire spreading this hoax, which he has done.
But Al Gore, 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be ice-free by 2013.
Al Gore made this prediction.
He cited it in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
There's another totally fraudulent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Gore hadn't done anything but make a movie that itself was filled with misrepresentations about the amount of ice that poor polar bears have to live on, doctored photos.
He said in his acceptance speech in 2007, getting a Nobel Peace Prize, that the North Pole would be ice-free by 2013.
If that was the case, New York City would be underwater by this year.
In his December 10th, 2007, Earth has a fever speech.
Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Meslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could completely disappear by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.
Now, if you haven't heard this, the ice at the North Pole, Arctic ice, is at a record amount this early in the post-summer season.
Al Gore said six years ago there wouldn't be any Arctic ice.
Today, the truth is there is a record amount of Arctic ice for this time of year.
Couldn't have been more wrong.
Let's go back.
Here's a story from the AP.
Documents released last Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library showed that members of Nixon's inner circle discussed the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.
Now, one of Nixon's favorite people was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
He's a Democrat, but Nixon liked the guy.
UN, I think he was Ambassador of the United Nations for Nixon.
Moynihan told Nixon in an inner circle meeting 30 years ago that we would be underwater by the year 2000 because of the rapidity of global warming and the North Pole and the South Pole ice would melt and flood the coasts of this country.
Moynihan said that there was widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25% by 2000.
This is a September 1969 memo to Nixon from Moynihan.
He said this could increase the average temperature near the Earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit.
That in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.
Goodbye, New York.
Goodbye, Washington for that matter.
30 years ago, Moynihan, smart guy.
George Will thinks he's the smartest guy who's ever lived.
George Will loved Moynihan.
And Moynihan bought into this.
That's how seductive it is.
Otherwise, intelligent people buy into this notion.
Their vanity and everything else makes it possible.
Oh, yeah, we have the power to destroy the planet.
Oh, yeah, we have the power to raise temperature and melt all the ice in the North.
Oh, yeah, we don't have any such power.
We couldn't do any of this if we wanted to.
But never mind.
Moynihan was Nixon's counselor for urban affairs in January 1969 when Nixon began his presidency.
He later served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
So in 1969, I was 18 years old, Moynihan tells Nixon, temperature is going to rise seven degrees Fahrenheit by 2000 and bye-bye New York and Washington.
And it's just progressed.
I mean, that's about the beginning of the modern era of the feminist movement as well, by the way.
Coincidence?
Hmm, there are no coincidences.
I learned that from the Clintons.
So the hoax is out there.
Every one of these proponents is dead wrong about everything they say.
And yet, people like me and you who object to it, we are called deniers, and we are targeted for some sort of character assassination and attack because what this is is nothing more than a leftist political effort to expand the size and role of government.
Okay, back to healthcare and your phone calls when we get back.
So don't go away.
Minor, minor, minor, all caps, minor correction, antarctic sea ice.
The ice at the South Pole just reached a record high during their winter.
It is the North Pole ice, Arctic ice, that's increased by 60% compared to last year's melt season.
So it's a South Pole where there's a record amount of ice, and at the North Pole's 60% more ice than last year.
Remember, the North Pole ice was supposed to be melted by now.
That's what Al Gore said, accepting his Nobel Prize in 2007.
If we didn't change it anyway, and we haven't.
All we've done is add more CO2.
The supposed killer.
CO2 is supposedly the primary agent of warming.
We've added it out to Wazoo because we can't help we exhale it.
There's nothing really we can do.
And yet, not only did the ice not melt, there's 60% more of it.
Now, Moynihan, back in 1969, talking to Nixon about this, said it was air pollution that was causing the warming.
He didn't really specify CO2 because the left hadn't really arrived at that.
I mean, they were on the verge of it.
Remember, they're coming off of, they're getting ready for global cooling.
A 1975 newsweek cover was going to talk about the ice age coming.
So they were really confused how to play it back then.
Moynihan told Nixon it was air pollution that was causing global warming.
Now we're being told, by the way, air pollution is what stopped global warming.
Like volcano eruption.
Yeah, yeah, that's putting so much smog and dirt and junk up there that it's interrupting the warming process.
And brilliant models didn't account for any of this, damn it.
And then there's the dust from the Sahara Desert.
That's what's being blamed for no hurricanes.
Oh, they're really ticked off about that.
The left is beside themselves.
There aren't any hurricanes because after Katrina, global warming is supposed to be every hurricane, you know, a week and it's deadlier than the one before it.
And there haven't been any.
They're just vacant, folks.
They're empty.
They're so devoid of facts to back up any of their claims or contentions.
Let's start in Grafton, Ohio with Rich.
Glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor and a pleasure to talk to you.
I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you.
I wanted to talk to you a little bit about models.
I work for NASA, and a couple years ago, I went to the Goddard Space Flight Center website where you can download the models that they use.
And in the process of going through them, I found out that one of the biggest variables in determining what the temperature is going to be is what the cloud cover is.
And we don't have a way of figuring out or even modeling exactly what the cloud cover is going to be.
And it can swing the model one way or the other.
Go ahead.
Are you familiar with the name Dr. Royce Spencer?
Yes, I am.
Well, that's one of Dr. Spencer's areas of investigation has been the role of cloud cover in global warming.
And like you have to do it, it's impossible.
You can't measure it.
You can't predict it.
It's really you can't measure cloud cover worldwide.
They dissipate and form so quickly.
And there's in all of weather forecasting, in all of weather forecasting, predicting cloud cover, what percentage of the sky is to be covered by cloud other than when you have a storm system moving through.
It's such a variable, nobody can get a handle on it.
It's as much as we can do to understand how they're formed, but when and how much it's going to happen, we're clueless.
It's chaos modeling, and you can't do it.
But the other thing that I want to tell you is when you go to figure out a model, because you can't sample every place on Earth, you have to figure out a grid size that you're going to use.
And the size of the grid that's typically used, whole islands like Japan fall through the grid.
So you have to go back.
I believe we should study this better.
But the reality is the models just aren't mature enough to be able to make the kind of predictions that people are making.
Yeah, they never have been.
And I, look, you know what?
The school's out, as far as I'm concerned, on how many of these scientists are actually knowingly participating in a hoax and how many of them really are true believers on this stuff and think their models are infallible and so forth.
This is the one thing that I don't know, the impossible to find out, really.
The political movement funds these people with donations if they produce the right outcome in their research.
And so that tends to Dictate what kind of research you're going to get if your lifestyle, if your living depends on it.
But there's no question that they have in this movement, they've converted a bunch of just average, ordinary, everyday meteorologists into huge proselytizers for it.
And they've turned them into the average, ordinary, everyday local news weather guy has become one of the biggest proponents, whatever market you go to, one of the biggest proponents of global warming.
It's almost required in order to get that little stamp of approval from the AMS that you buy into this.
But the modeling, my problem with this, I'm not a scientist on any of this stuff.
And yet I feel, and I've talked to scientists, and they cannot deal with my reasoning on this because it isn't scientific.
And I've talked to many of them about this.
And so the left asserts that there's global warming, and they assert that there's man-made global warming.
They assert that it's caused by CO2 and they assert that they've got models for it.
I can dispel all of that with my religious beliefs.
I can dispel all of that with common sense.
But they can't rely on that, the scientists who oppose it.
They say they have to come up with other science that contradicts the science that's put forth by the believers, if you will.
And so they've embarked, and some have done great work in doing so, but they are routinely denied permission to testify at government committees, like Senate and House committee hearings on this stuff.
And if they are allowed to testify, they're shouted down and they're not shown much respect, which is just more proof that the fix is in regarding this.
But I've never, I have never believed the global warming, man-made global warming allegation.
But I fully understand however people do.
All it takes is a 105-degree day in July.
And the normal man's getting hotter.
I wonder if when I was a kid, everybody, are we getting closer to the sun?
This is a natural thing.
This is really where the left is really smart.
They have the ability to tap into what people of their own volition are already concerned about.
And then they give them a reason and they give them substantiation for it.
But the whole thing is a joke.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
I got to take a break.
I just saw the time.
Sorry, folks.
Back right after this.
So, Warren Buffett says today we should scrap Obamacare, start over, and not worry first and foremost about ensuring those that don't have it instead focus on costs.
Will that have any impact?
It could.
We'll see.
▲
Export Selection