Sean Hannity Show - Repeal and Replace with Kellyanne - 3.7

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 8, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:42:53

Repeal and Replace with Kellyanne - 3.7

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster.
	I stay asleep longer.
	And now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two GoAnywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	Wow, what a newsday we have unfolding before us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	We'd love to hear from you today.
	It's 800-941 Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
	And we got four major stories we are following today, and that is WikiLeaks downloading on the CIA.
	And it is a term more significant than Snowden documents.
	Remember, WikiLeaks has never gotten it wrong in almost 11 years.
	And what does it mean?
	And how much, you know, we had this guy on yesterday who was with the NSA for 32 years, Bill Benny, and he left the CIA because he said every one of our emails is being hacked.
	Every one of our text messages is being hacked.
	And metadata is accumulating all of this.
	And that includes, by the way, every conversation you ever have.
	And he is adamant about it, which means, by the way, James Clapper, who you just heard in the opening of the show, who was already accused of lying before Congress when he said that wasn't happening, probably has a lot of, as we say, splaining to do at some point down the road.
	That's story one.
	Then we've got, we'll update you today on the new executive order on extreme vetting that the president signed yesterday.
	We have the latest on what a sitting administration, were they actively surveilling an opposition candidate?
	Well, the only thing I have to say is, well, either that or the New York Times and Washington Post and the BBC and McClatchy and every other news organization that reported, quote, wiretapping of the Trump campaign lied to us.
	And here's the amazing part of that story.
	The alt-left propaganda destroyed Trump at all costs media.
	And that's what their goal is.
	Are they ever going to criticize their own?
	They're looking at the president's tweet, but yet they don't even recognize that their own publications, their own friends that they go to their dinners with and parties with, are the people that published it.
	And that it's not a vast right-wing conspiracy to quote the ever-so-smart New York Times.
	So it's beyond frustrating.
	But the implications of this are beyond anything that I think I've ever seen in the history of my career.
	Now my 30th year in radio, 21st year at Fox.
	And this goes deep, deep into this, what I call shadow government.
	Obama influenced outside sources, and you got deep, deeply embedded Obama loyalists, especially within the State Department, but even more especially, more dangerously, within the intelligence community.
	These leaks are not happening by accident.
	They're happening by design.
	And whatever surveillance took place, remember, Obama's words, well, he didn't order.
	Nobody at the White House ordered surveillance or ordered the FISA court.
	And then his speechwriter tweets out, well, he said he didn't order it.
	That doesn't mean that FISA didn't happen.
	Well, how else do you interpret that, in fact, it did?
	And the process of making all of this available to the public is long and difficult and arduous.
	But we better get answers to this.
	And we need to know whether or not every American is being surveilled.
	And we need to know if they were in fact surveilling an opposition candidate in the middle of a presidential campaign.
	And there better be a pretty damn good reason for that type of surveillance.
	And we also already know that felonies were committed as it relates to General Flynn.
	General Flynn was doing his job.
	He was going to be the new NSA director.
	General Flynn was talking to his counterpart in Russia.
	At the time, the government, NSA, other agencies were surveilling the Russian ambassador.
	No problem with that.
	That is their job.
	But we do have privacy protections in this country that are supposed to prevent our government from surveilling American citizens.
	And even the Espionage Act itself deals with the specifics of if they are in the process of surveilling some foreign government or government official, that if an American voice is heard, that they are directed to minimize what it is they hear, certainly not record the entire conversation.
	And then when they finally do a summary or a write-up on whatever intel they might have gotten or not gotten from that call, they're not supposed to identify the American, which they did in the case of General Flynn.
	And yet, the last thing we ever expect, which is totally unprecedented, is people within the intelligence community then leaking entirely the conversation, resulting in him having to resign from his position.
	Now, maybe he didn't tell the whole truth to Vice President Pence and Donald Trump.
	Maybe he didn't remember.
	I don't know.
	But the bottom line is it was a felony by releasing the information.
	And if you care about privacy protection and you listen to Mr. Binney, who served, what, 32 years in intelligence in this country and resigned because he didn't like or believe he thought the fourth, first amendments to the Constitution, fifth, and sixth, were all being violated against all of us.
	What about, you know, should the government get a wiretap approval, a subpoena for such surveillance before they do it?
	Do they not need show cause anymore?
	Or the fact that the FISA courts almost usually rubber stamp every surveillance request that is asked?
	And in this case, it was first denied for Trump.
	Then they narrowed the scope, but did they narrow the actual surveillance?
	Who knows?
	These things better be answered and better be answered quick.
	Now, let me move on to where we are with the health care bill.
	And I tried to warn people, I'm going to be as diplomatic as I can.
	I highlighted on this program, and my responsibility on this program is to you, my audience.
	Repealing and replacing Obamacare is one of the biggest, most important things that needs to be done in the country.
	As soon as you repeal it and replace it, you own it.
	You better get it right.
	And by getting it right is the American people need to be in the forefront of the thinking of government servants, because they're supposed to be public servants, in getting this right and serving you.
	Now, in the Obama years, we were promised, keep your doctor, keep your plan.
	On average, the average family is going to save $2,400 per family per year.
	Well, according to the CEO of Vetna, Obamacare is in a death spiral.
	There are hundreds and hundreds of counties in this country where you have no choice.
	You take one plan available and that's it.
	Most of the big health care providers were all out by 2018 because it didn't work.
	You know, the latest, I guess, is UMANA.
	They bailed out.
	United's bailed out.
	Aetna's bailing out.
	They're all the Blue Cross Blue Shield.
	They're all done because it didn't work, was never going to work.
	This was always a top-down government-run plan where the young and healthy were compelled or penalized to buy plans they didn't want or need, and they were to subsidize the sick and the elderly and the uninsured.
	That's how it worked.
	At the end of the day, that's what it was.
	It was a big redistribution scheme.
	Now, in this particular case, you know, Rand Paul's been out there with his plan.
	The Freedom Caucus has had this plan.
	We've had Rand Paul on this program.
	We've had Louis Gormert on this program.
	We've had Marsha Blackburn on our programs.
	We've had Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Dave Bratt, all have been on the program.
	And they all said, why can't we see the bill that's being scored by the CBO?
	Because we suspect that there are a lot of things in the bill, not the least of which is a new entitlement.
	When did the Republican Party become a party of entitlements?
	Now, there is a realistic answer that they will need how they take care of the uninsured, the sick and the uninsured.
	It's just reality because the Democratic talking points, which are already out today, are that Republicans want old people to die.
	They say this all the time.
	Anytime any medical issue, entitlement issue comes up, that's what they say.
	First thing they say.
	You want children dead in the streets.
	You want to poison the air and water.
	You're a racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic.
	You know, this is their talking points.
	That's all they know.
	So it has to be addressed.
	The problem is what I don't understand in all of the time I've interviewed all of the Freedom Caucus guys and talked to house study guy groups and talked to, and I went to Washington and interviewed Speaker Ryan, and I've talked to majority leader McCarthy, and I've talked to Bratt and Meadows and Jordan and Louie and Blackburn and all of these guys, which I now know really well.
	And then you've got Rand Paul who's been so outspoken in his criticism.
	Ted Cruz the same.
	Mike Lee the same.
	It's kind of hard for me to comprehend that every single criticism they had before yesterday's release was not addressed.
	In other words, they've created an environment now where Republicans, rather than having, they've had eight long years to get this right.
	And now they risk a public civil war, an intramural civil war over this bill because they never got a consensus plan.
	Now, I can't help that they made that mistake.
	That's their problem.
	Now, at the end of the day, you know, and I know that poor Sean Spicer's out there trying to answer questions about this, and I wouldn't, that's the worst job in Washington.
	Who wants to be poor Sean Spicer?
	Kellyanne Conway will be on here today.
	But, you know, all of these conservative groups are pretty smart people.
	One of the things that made Reagan so successful was his partnership with groups like the Heritage Foundation.
	You know, the Club for Growth has panned this as, quote, Ryan care.
	They're threatening now to record the names of any Republicans who vote for this bill unless it gets to significant changes.
	Now, by the way, the bill that was released yesterday, there are going to be massive changes to it.
	It's not going to be the bill.
	It's 123 pages, not 2,000 pages.
	There are good things in the bill, and I'll go over them in fairness.
	I know what they're trying to do, but I also know what is not going to work.
	And I think the answer is an antidote to what they're getting wrong here.
	You've got Heritage Action, Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, and then you've got Rand, Lee, and probably Marco Cruz.
	And then you've got the Freedom Caucus.
	The most conservative members of Congress are all saying no, it's not going to happen.
	Now, there's going to be a meeting some point today with the Freedom Caucus, or at least their representatives and the vice president.
	And I hope this all begins the process of changing this bill.
	But, you know, it's at the end of the day, all of the things that they're promising and the talking points that they put out, which I've read, are not really what actually falls into the bill.
	You know, the legislation trades one government subsidy for another.
	I mean, you know, and by the way, there is a way to give money to the uninsured and those that need help, but you don't do it from Washington.
	You might want to block grant that to the states.
	There are solutions.
	You know, why have we had Dr. Umber on this program so often?
	He'll be on TV tonight and he'll be on this radio program tomorrow.
	You need to listen to this guy.
	You know, if you live in Wichita, Kansas, you can join Atlas Medical and their medical program, $10 a month for your kids, unlimited care, unlimited house visits.
	You can go to the doctor anytime you want and get as much care as you want.
	Unlimited.
	$50 for an adult.
	It takes care of pretty much everything.
	You need pharmaceuticals, you need meds.
	He is directly negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies and reduced the price that you pay at a drugstore by like 90%, gives them to his patients directly.
	The most common forms of medicine, blood pressure medicine, cholesterol medicine, whatever other medicine people take.
	I don't even know.
	And then you get a catastrophic plan along with it.
	The higher the deductible, the cheaper it'll be.
	And God forbid you get in a car accident, have a heart attack or get cancer.
	Well, then that catastrophic plan then kicks in.
	But everything else on a day-to-day basis, in other words, what we usually need from a doctor, a ZPAC, you'll get from Atlas Medical.
	It's simple and basic and easy.
	And by the way, he's been able to duplicate it around the country.
	Let me get into this.
	I have a suggestion for the Republicans.
	If they want to listen, they can tune in now.
	You can tell your representatives.
	Because there is a way out of what is going to become a civil war if they're not careful.
	Ready to repeal and replace Obama's executive orders?
	And you've come to the right place.
	The Sean Hannity Show.
	So it's been a really busy reading day for me here.
	I'm trying to sum all of this up for you and get it all out in a way that is understandable, not the least of which is this Vault 7 CIA hacking tools revelation by WikiLeaks.
	There's so much here that is disturbing.
	I don't even know where to begin, but I'm going to make this prediction before I even get into the specifics of it.
	The intelligence community, it appears that with the leaks against the vice leaks against the Trump campaign, which has been nonstop, and the revelations, for example,
	there seems to be actual evidence that exists that the government wanted to get rid of your own personal privacy protections as it relates to both software and whether or not you use an Android or an iPhone, which is beyond disturbing.
	It is deep, and you couple that with what Benny said on the program yesterday, 32-year veteran in the Intelligence Committee, and his interpretation of Executive Order 12333, which basically he is saying every phone call you make, every text you send, every email you send is being accumulated by the government and stored in their massive meta-storage capacities that they currently have available.
	Now, what does that mean?
	That means that basically every American is being spied on at every minute of the day.
	And what this release from WikiLeaks appears to prove, and again, I haven't done my deep dive yet because it's just very complicated and I want to make sure I get it right, but it certainly is apparent that efforts to stop both companies and individuals from protecting their data from hacking was facilitated by our intelligence community.
	Now, if you couple all of that with the leaks against the Trump administration, whether or not a sitting administration, the Obama administration, was surveilling an opposition candidate in the middle of a presidential campaign, do you understand you have a potential scandal, the magnitude of which you have never seen in your life well beyond anything Watergate related?
	Remember, Watergate was about a break-in.
	What was the break-in about?
	Getting political information from an opponent.
	This is on a scope and a scale that is so much bigger, so deeper, so much more profound, so much more invasive than anything any of us ever dreamed of.
	And that's a big headline.
	And that's only one of our top stories today.
	We'll get to all of it in the next hour.
	Straight ahead. I'm accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	Well, that's what groups are there to do, and I understand the desire to repeal.
	I share that desire.
	If there's an opportunity to repeal and replace it at the exact same time, at least most of it, then we should explore it simply because it's less disruptive and more efficient.
	And that's the direction that the president wants to go.
	Remember, we had that debate a few months ago.
	Publicly.
	All right, that was Ram Paul.
	Let me go.
	Jim Jordan of the Freedom Caucus.
	He was the founder.
	He's now speaking before the microphones with Freedom Caucus Republicans.
	Let's hear what he says about the replacement bill.
	And now the first thing Republicans are bringing forward is a piece of legislation that we're going to put on a Republican president's desk that says we repeal it, but keeps Medicaid expansion and actually expands it, that keeps some of the tax increases.
	That is not what we promised the American people we were going to do.
	So our plan, repeal it, clean repeal, just like we all voted on before, separate legislation to replace what we currently have with a model that we think will bring down the cost of premiums for the hardworking people of this country who sent us here to do just that.
	With that, I want to turn it over to the sponsor of our replacement plan in the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul.
	Thanks.
	Today I will introduce a companion bill also to Congressman Jordan's plan to have complete repeal, a clean repeal.
	We'll be doing this in the Senate today as well.
	There's one thing that has united Republicans in 2010 when we won the House, in 2014 when we won the Senate, and in 2016 when we won the White House.
	This doesn't divide Republicans.
	This brings us together, and that is complete repeal, clean repeal.
	As Congressman Jordan said, we voted on this last year, and every Republican voted for it.
	That's what we should do again.
	But we are divided.
	We have to admit we are divided on replacement.
	We are united on repeal, but we are divided on replacement.
	What's the best way to get past this impasse?
	Let's vote on what we voted on before, a clean repeal.
	Let's separate out the replacement plans.
	Conservatives have a replacement plan.
	House leadership has a replacement plan.
	I'm sure Democrats would like to go back and vote on the HCA again.
	Vote on all the replacement plans and let's see what happens.
	All right?
	But let's vote on clean repeal.
	The only way I think this gets done is to separate the issues, separate out clean repeal from replacement.
	Let's get it done.
	Repeal unites us, and I think we can get that done.
	With that, I'd like to introduce my colleague and friend, Senator Mike Lee from Utah.
	What's been introduced in the House in the last 24 hours is not the Obamacare replacement plan, not the Obamacare repeal plan we've been hoping for.
	This is instead a step in the wrong direction.
	And as much as anything, it's a missed opportunity.
	Look, we've seen what happens when Congress decides to put forward a plan negotiated behind closed doors where members are told you've got to pass this bill in order to find out what's in it.
	It's usually not a good product.
	And on this topic, I'm not speaking about anything that is necessarily inherently Democratic or Republican or liberal or conservative.
	This is just a common sense value.
	What we ought to have in Congress is an iterative process, one in which we can start with basic grounding principles.
	Now, the two parties are in widespread disagreement when it comes to Obamacare itself.
	But there is one plan and only one plan that has so far passed a Republican Congress.
	And it's this plan that's being reintroduced today.
	That plan passed with the support of every Republican in the House of Representatives and every Republican in the Senate.
	And it did so just in the last 14 months.
	All right, there you hear the Republicans.
	You got the Freedom Caucus.
	You heard Rand Paul.
	I see Louis Gomer, Mark Meadows.
	Our friend Dave Brad is going to join us at the top of the arm.
	I'm going to make sure that he's going to be there.
	If he's at this press conference, we're way more important than whatever he's doing now.
	But here's the bottom line.
	And this is what frustrates me.
	I knew and I informed all of you because, look, my dedication is to this audience and holding Washington accountable.
	I saw this coming and I went down to D.C. and I spoke with the Speaker of the House.
	I said, do you have a consensus bill?
	Yes, we have a consensus bill because my criticism was they didn't have a consensus bill.
	And he said it's being scored down.
	And I said, well, the Freedom Caucus met, yeah, the Freedom Caucus members will support it.
	Well, they don't support it.
	And I've been putting Rand Paul, all the Freedom Caucus guys, one after another, Louis Gomert, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Dave Bratt, Martha, Marsha Blackburn, all these people on.
	And then, of course, Rand was on, and Cruz has been critical, and Rubio has been critical, and Lee's been critical.
	And I guess what's so frustrating to me is that, as I reported to you earlier here, this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
	You know, when all of these people are coming out and they're saying again and again and again that they're blasting the plan and that, you know, when you have the Club for Growth and you have the Heritage Action Group from the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, and every single criticism you're hearing from these guys today is every single criticism I have been making public for the last two weeks.
	And what I don't understand is why they didn't get in a room and work these things out before now creating what is a public fight.
	As Rand said, everybody agrees on repeal, but they didn't agree on replacement.
	So before they had the replacement bill unveiled, why wouldn't they have all gotten together and worked all this out privately?
	Because now what they're going to have is it, unless they follow my advice and get in a room and take away everybody's phones, now you're going to have a public fight.
	And it didn't have to happen this way.
	It could have been handled much differently.
	And the person that is going to be blamed for it that's not responsible is the president.
	That's unfortunate for him.
	Anyway, the White House is very clear in saying that they are open to the amendment process with this bill that they said.
	And Sean Spicer said it's going to go through the committee process.
	All the parties involved, representatives in the House, will be able to have input into it.
	Why didn't they work this out ahead of time?
	I mean, seriously, you guys need to get your act together.
	You really do.
	First of all, the fact that you didn't have a plan written and agreed on in the last eight years is kind of almost breathtaking to me.
	The fact that since the election you didn't write the bill that everybody agreed on is breathtaking.
	What's unfolding today, here's our buddy Louis Gomer.
	Put him up for a minute.
	I've been home by this group of friends.
	All right, I'm glad we finally got a bill out.
	It's not 2,500 pages.
	It's a starting point.
	And some people had asked what I told President Trump when he came down the aisle for the State of the Union.
	And one of the things I said was, you're being told we can't do some of the things we did two years ago with Obamacare.
	And it was true.
	It's still true.
	So as long as we're able to get amendments to the floor that will fix some huge problems with the bill that's now been filed, then we'll be okay.
	But there better not be a rule that prevents amendments that are badly needed to fix this flawed bill.
	That would be a major problem.
	If they do that, then it's not going to pass.
	Louie's right.
	He's right 100% of the time on this.
	And we've had Louie on.
	We've had all these people.
	Every criticism they had before the release last night was expressed.
	Why they didn't deal with it prior to its release is almost incomprehensible to me because the press is going to talk, all they're going to talk about is infighting in the Republican Party, establishment versus the Freedom Caucus and what it means.
	These guys are not going to sign on to a bad bill.
	I would not want my name on a bad bill at the end of the day.
	But whatever.
	Now the White House is saying they're open to amendments.
	Dr. Price, the Health and Human Services Secretary, said it's a work in progress.
	He responded to the conservative groups that I mentioned who called it Obamacare Light.
	He says, I think that this is the beginning of the process.
	The problem is that most of this could have been handled behind closed doors, and they could have had a consensus bill, and they could have released it, and they could have released it United.
	And now they have created headaches for themselves.
	And for the life of me, it's almost bordering on, you know, unbelievably unforgivable.
	Because they've now created for themselves a massive headache.
	But why is Dave Bratt up there when Dave Bratt's coming on this program in 17 minutes?
	Put it up for a second.
	How are you guys going to fix it in two weeks?
	Right?
	And the answer would always be: we should have done free market economics and free market health care in the meantime over the past 20, 30 years.
	And so last time, what did we focus on?
	We focused on $18 million coverage.
	We did not focus on prices or the cause of health care.
	And so now you have health care costs going up at $20 million.
	Wait till you see this guy, Dr. Umber, and hear him tomorrow in this program.
	He's going to be on Hannity tonight.
	There are so many good answers.
	I honestly think deep down in my heart that this is going to be fixed because it has to be.
	It just is going to have to give.
	It just should have been handled differently.
	And it's kind of mind-numbing after eight years, a consensus bill that everyone agreed to wasn't sitting there on January 1st or 3rd when they got back from vacation ready to roll.
	That is pretty amazing.
	And we've had these alternatives available for these guys.
	It's not like I've given them the names and numbers.
	It's so frustrating.
	Why did James Comey, the FBI director, cancel his plans to headline a panel discussion on national security next week and what many see as a bid to avoid discussing Donald Trump's wiretapping allegations?
	Here are some of the highlights from WikiLeaks.
	The CIA had an espionage division that was more powerful than the NSA with no checks and no balances.
	The CIA's secret hacking division produced a huge amount of weaponized malware to infest iPhones, Android phones, and lost control of it.
	The CIA negligence sees it's losing control of cyber weapon arsenal.
	Serious proliferation now concerns.
	Obama's CIA built the most powerful cyber attack arsenal, costing you, the taxpayers, $100 plus billion and lost it all to the enemy who got it for free.
	This is what WikiLeaks is revealing.
	The CIA illicitly hoarded zero-day attacks.
	Now, let me just backtrack here because I think this is an important backtrack.
	Not that I like to digress, because there's so much information out here that you need to know about today that's going on.
	Now, they're calling this Vault 7, the CIA hacking tools that have been revealed.
	Wikileaks has not been wrong in 11 years.
	Why deep in my heart do I know and believe that this is directly related to the release of all of this intelligence against the president?
	That is my greatest suspicion.
	This confirms everything we did on the program yesterday with this former intelligence officer of 32 years, Bill Binney with the NSA, 32 years, whistleblower withdrew.
	Anyway, Obama built the most powerful cyber attack arsenal, cost you $100 plus billion dollars.
	The enemy got it for free.
	The CIA hoarded zero-day attacks, putting at risk industry and government.
	Obama used their advanced cyber attack arsenal against private citizens without warrants, in other words.
	Wikileaks implies that Trump was spied on in this.
	I can't wait for the media to suck it up and eat their words.
	CIA hackers celebrated the financial largesse, if you will, of Obama.
	Obama gave unlimited power to the CIA to gain favors and not end up like JFK.
	Apparently, Donald Trump needs to make friends over at the CIA.
	The CIA inserted CIA coders in major U.S. tech companies to implement back doors to the companies directly.
	CIA turns TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles, and many gadgets into open mics.
	The CIA can spy on you through your smart TV.
	What did he say yesterday, Benny?
	He quit because every American's text, every email, every phone call is being reported by the government.
	Executive Order 1233, that's the one that was amended by Obama two weeks out, and the information can be shared with 16 additional agencies.
	You don't think Obama's up to his eyeballs on this?
	Ooh, he is.
	CIA turned all internet cable, enabled all consumer electronics in the world into listening devices.
	CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware, can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows updates.
	Skype voice conversations are converted into text and stored in a CIA spy cloud.
	CIA equals Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, and Google.
	CIA has tools to remote control chips in cars, trucks, planes, medical devices, and hospital tech with assassination potential.
	CIA hacker malware, get this, was a threat to journalists.
	It infects iPhones, Android, and bypasses even iPhone encryption.
	See how big this is?
	The U.S. consulate in Frankfurt is a covert CIA hacker base.
	The CIA deliberately mimics the hacking protocols is the most interesting part of Russia to obfuscate their own hacks.
	So could the CIA have used the exact protocols of Russia to make this whole Russia story an internal CIA shadow government deep state attack against the incoming president?
	The answer is yes.
	The answer is yes.
	I'm only beginning to touch on this.
	You've got to stay with us.
	We have great experts coming up all throughout the week.
	Saying, Hannity, you know, you could be wrong.
	Sean Hannity.
	Hey, if you are somebody who no needs a job, expresspros.com, they've got the answer.
	And guess what?
	They never charge a job seeker a fee.
	Expresspros.com.
	One of the things I'm taking out of this Wikileaks is this dump by WikiLeaks reveals the CIA developed specialized technology that could disguise a hacker's identity, misattributing the hack to another source, make it appear like it's coming from Russia.
	Do you understand how deeply this impacts everything we've been discussing?
	This begs the question whether last year's hacks by the DNC were disguised by CIA cyber experts to make it appear that Russia was behind the attack.
	Do you understand what could be in play here?
	Wonder what the media is going to say then.
	Wow, we are digging deep.
	I promise four top stories today.
	the new repeal-replace bill, and did they surveil a president, and much, much more.
	This is the first and most important step to giving relief to Americans from this terrible law and to begin the replacement principles of restoring state control and restoring the free market that conservatives, moderates, all Republicans have built consensus around.
	Dr. Price's own legislation last year, which we embrace in our Republican plan, had 84 co-sponsors, including members and leaders of the Freedom Caucus, the RSC, and the Republican Conference.
	We're following that consensus.
	And here is, I guess, my main point.
	As Republicans, we have a choice.
	We can act now or we can keep fiddling around and squander this opportunity to repeal Obamacare and begin a new chapter of freedom for the American people.
	House Republicans are choosing to act now.
	So far, some Republicans have said, we just heard the quote from Jim Jordan.
	Not too crazy about it at this point.
	How do you get everybody on board on your side?
	You know, and I used to be in the Freedom Caucus with Jim Jordan.
	He's a dear, close friend of mine.
	I disagree with his analysis.
	Let's take a look at what the bill does.
	The mandates in Obamacare are gone.
	The taxes in Obamacare are gone.
	The penalties in Obamacare are gone.
	We've taken the government out of the equation.
	The government used to be between patients and their doctors, and that's gone.
	Sure, we kept the treatment of pre-existing conditions.
	We kept the ideas for the 26-year-olds.
	But those were ideas that states were working on long before Obamacare got involved.
	So I don't agree with the analysis.
	So at the same time, premiums are up 20%.
	What we did not focus on was price and price discovery and free markets.
	And Trump is a business guy.
	So he's number one going to be looking at the product.
	What's the price?
	How do we, instead of increasing costs 20%, reduce costs down to the negative 1% range?
	And Paul Ryan, same thing.
	He said the overarching logic here is we want to bend the cost curve down.
	So the cost curve is currently going up 25%.
	We don't want to just reduce the rate of increase to 10%.
	We want to bend the cost curve down to negative 1%.
	And there's no evidence whatsoever in this plan that we're going to reduce costs.
	You know, Congressman, there are 40 members in your House Freedom Caucus, I think.
	How many of them, as things stand right now, would vote against this in the House?
	Oh, a vast majority, plus the House Study Committee has 170 members.
	That would be defeated in the House, let alone worrying about the two or three Republicans who might peel off in the Senate, right?
	So this is some independent-minded folks, and we promised repeal.
	And so some folks in leadership are saying this is a full repeal.
	It's not.
	The insurance regs, at a minimum, right, they're the main cost driver.
	The insurance regs stay in.
	Now, that could be because of the Byrd rule in the Senate.
	That's all complex.
	We don't need to get into that.
	But it's not true that we're getting rid of Obamacare.
	It's staying around.
	All right.
	You heard from three people there.
	This is one of our top stories today.
	Four top stories, the WikiLeaks download on the CIA.
	We'll get back into that later in the program today.
	The latest on did a sitting administration surveil an opposition candidate in the middle of a presidential race.
	We've got the extreme vetting issue we'll get to at the top of the next hour.
	And of course, this being the repeal and replace outline that was released by the Republicans, 123 pages.
	And there you heard from the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Congressman Brady.
	Then you heard from Mulvaney from the Office of Management and Budget.
	And then Freedom Caucus member Dave Bratt, Congressman from Virginia, who joins us now, as well as Daniel Horowitz is back with us with Conservative Review.
	And he had a pretty scathing column on all of this today.
	And guys, welcome to the program.
	I know that the Freedom Caucus is against a lot of aspects of this.
	I guess the major sticking point is creating a new entitlement, Congressman Brad.
	Explain how that happens through the subsidies that are going to be afforded to people that can't afford insurance.
	Yeah, well, the major logic is we're making the same mistake when the insurance guys walked to the White House eight years ago.
	We're paying attention only to coverage of, at that point, 18 million new folks, and we're not paying attention to price.
	And so when you're talking about the refundable tax credit piece, you're talking about how do you pay for extended coverage.
	And we're open to that, right?
	We're open to that if you push the logic down to the state level.
	We're all in favor.
	The Rand Paul plan has a two-year transition.
	It takes care of pre-existing conditions.
	We know you need a safety net.
	We have compassion for those in the tough health situations.
	But we don't want a federal program.
	The federal program we have that was designed eight years ago for coverage by the insurance industry is now in a death spiral.
	And so that's the major argument, right?
	If you want to block cramp this down to the states, like Mick Mulvaney, he said he disagrees with the logic, but I don't think he can disagree.
	Ask him, are you getting rid of the insurance regs?
	Well, let me slow down for one second.
	Before we get into every bit of what you like and what you don't like about the bill, I think it is important for people to know that what we're hearing about today or the outline of this bill or the 123 pages is not going to be the end bill.
	That we have an amendment process.
	Have you discussed with either the Speaker or Congressman McCarthy or anybody in leadership or maybe even the Health and Human Services Secretary Price about these concerns and measures you would take and make to make the bill something that the Freedom Caucus would support?
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, we're talking about, we're talking about not tweaks around the edges, right?
	We're talking about a fundamental philosophical difference here between do you go to free markets or do you keep the federal government in charge of health care?
	And so that's the debate.
	We're meeting with the vice president today, and so we'll have that discussion.
	When you say we, do you mean the entire Freedom Caucus?
	It'll be five of us, and they're meeting with tons of people.
	I mean, they're trying to win folks over.
	Because I know a lot of people are now in a little bit of a panic.
	Look, there's a couple of things, challenges here.
	If you don't get it right, you own it.
	And so it's got to be done right.
	I mean, I have my own views on what right is.
	And you have to take into account the politics of this because we know that the left, we know what their arguments are.
	I mean, Chuck Schumer was out there making them earlier today.
	What about the poor people?
	What about those without coverage?
	And so there's certainly got to be some way to address, and I think what you're suggesting here is block granting states and let the states handle the problem at their level for those people that are either uninsured or uninsurable and maybe can't even afford a catastrophic plan.
	Am I reading that right?
	So in other words, these things are going to have to be dealt with, and you know what the arguments are by the left.
	Right.
	And so Milton Friedman, right, the University of Chicago Nobel Prize, the economist of our century.
	He says when you do public policy, aim at a target and hit it.
	So when you're talking about health care and insurance, let's design a system that's good for health care that bids the price down.
	And right now they're going up like 25%.
	We don't have a system that is free market like back when you buy a CD player or whatever.
	They started at $500, they end up at $30.
	So we need to get free markets and sales across state lines.
	Trump has said that.
	That's not really going to happen much in the plan.
	There's no evidence that prices are going to go down.
	Then you get what you just said.
	Look, we're a generous, compassionate society.
	That's a different target.
	When it comes to the safety net, we have $37,000 now in federal welfare entitlements for every person, $48,000 if you talk about Title VIII housing.
	That's pretty generous.
	And now we're talking about adding another entitlement on, and we're $100 trillion light right now, right, in unfunded liabilities.
	We cannot pay $100 trillion that we promised to the next generation.
	And we're going to add another piece.
	So that's why I'm saying the answer can't be federal.
	Our politicians have not shown a backbone when it comes to saying no to printing money and putting debt on the next generation of our kids.
	Do you agree with Rand Paul, Congressman?
	I'm not trying to interrupt you.
	I forgive me.
	Do you agree that in its current form this won't pass?
	Yeah, in its current form, I don't think it can pass.
	Are you confident that you can work with, say, well, look, there are certain difficulties and provisions within the Senate that do complicate things.
	Remember.
	Remember, Scott Brown was supposed to be the 50th vote to stop or the 51st vote to stop Obamacare from ever becoming law.
	And the way they got around it, not needing 60 votes in the Senate, is they used the reconciliation process.
	Similarly, I doubt you're going to get eight Democrats in the Senate to support any bill that the President's supporting or Republicans are supporting.
	So then that bar gets lowered.
	So you, again, go back to reconciliation as a means of passing this.
	And they use it through two different committees.
	Am I right about that?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And then so you recognize a real difficulty.
	There is a legislative challenge without getting too complicated for the audience because you need to pass it in a way that you only need 51 votes and not 60.
	Yeah, that's right.
	But the Senate, right, with the parliamentarian and all this, we're kind of going along with this logic as if it's some law out of heaven.
	It's not.
	This birdable stuff is subject to debate.
	And the Senate, one thing we do know is the Senate voted overwhelmingly, I think only one exception, for a full repeal.
	Now, and the House voted for a full repeal.
	We cannot get that same vote, right?
	So there's the test of intellectual honesty and consistency.
	All right, let me bring that as part.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Daniel Horowitz, you refer to this as Obamacare 2.0 and a gift to illegals.
	And you called the GOP out and you said they've lied.
	Yeah, I'm not going to be as diplomatic as the congressman, but he articulated it very well.
	This has been a big lie since 2012 when the official position of the Chamber of Commerce, which by the way funds the campaigns of most of these establishment members, said they are only fixing Obamacare and not repealing it.
	So to be clear, this doesn't repeal one iota of Obamacare.
	First, we have to define what is Obamacare.
	Obamacare is actuarily insolvent regulations.
	The CRS lists a series of 24 regs, by my count, that are in Obamacare.
	The basis of it is guaranteed issue and community rating.
	Not only do you have to cover everyone, but you have to cover everyone at the same price as the community.
	In addition, you have what's called mandated essential benefits, which is basically why everyone has to have a plan covering sex change operations or men having maternity coverage.
	That is what makes the price unsustainable.
	Then the government comes in with subsidies to shield the pain that not only bankrupts the budget, but further distorts the market and forces insurers to work with government rather than the consumer.
	That is Obamacare, but none of that, none of that is repealed.
	Notice Chairman Brady spoke about the mandates and the taxes.
	I don't agree with them, but those are the funding mechanisms of Obamacare.
	So in fact, if you repeal the individual and employer mandate, but leave the regs and the subsidies, prices don't come down.
	But on the other hand, people like myself, I'll just flee the market.
	Healthy people will flee.
	Employers will dump people from employer plans.
	And you're going to have an even bigger death spiral, except this time Republicans will own it.
	All right.
	Both of you can stay with us because this is too important.
	I want to vet this out a lot further.
	We're going to hold you into the next half hour and our second segment of this half hour.
	Stay right there.
	Because we've got to get it right.
	If you're going to get it wrong and it's going to be a government program that's destined to fail, it's got to be done right, period, end of sentence.
	But again, unfortunately, that's, imagine scrambling a bunch of eggs.
	The legislative process is beyond the frustrating.
	But in my opinion, the mistake was made not vetting all of this out ahead of time with the varying groups that were very vocal.
	That's what I don't understand.
	Bringing jobs back to America and getting America back to work.
	is to repeal and replace this law.
	Like we said, we ran on a plan to repeal and replace it.
	Tom Price helped write that plan.
	He is now Donald Trump's Secretary of the Security Committee.
	So there is a consensus plan that's now being scored by the CBO.
	Correct.
	He said there's a plan currently being scored by the CBO that was a consensus plan.
	That's what he told me.
	Well, I understand that, and it is not a consensus plan.
	I haven't seen it.
	Maybe Dave Bratt's seen it, but I haven't seen any plan at this point that has been rolled out.
	Dave Brad, I was asking him specifically, where's the consensus plan?
	Well, in healthcare, I don't think there is one because we haven't seen it, right?
	We have been running on repealing and replacing Obamacare since 2010.
	In 2016, the House, in a bottom-up way, set a working group together, the Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Education Workforce Committee, and then any other member of Congress who cares about this issue participated in a working group to come up with a plan for what we would replace Obamacare with.
	Much of it was modeled off the Tom Price legislation, which we as conservatives have always seen as sort of the gold standard for replacing Obamacare.
	He's now the secretary of HHS.
	That is the bill, the plan that we ran on in 2016.
	We told America, here's our vision for how we replace Obamacare after we repeal Obamacare.
	That's the bill we're working on right now.
	That's the bill we're working on with the Trump administration.
	We're all working off the same piece of paper, the same plan.
	So we are in sync, the House, the Senate, and the Trump administration, because this law is collapsing.
	And you can't just repeal it.
	You have to repeal it and replace it with a system that actually works.
	And that is exactly what we're doing.
	And I am perfectly confident that when it's all said and done, we're going to unify because we all, every Republican, ran on repealing and replacing, and we're going to keep our promises.
	Is there a consensus bill?
	Because when I interviewed the speaker, he said there was and it was being scored.
	Well, there is a consensus of ideas and a consensus bill, but it's not the leadership bill.
	The leadership bill is Obamacare Light, and they're embarrassed about it, so they keep it in secret because they don't want any of us to point out the Obamacare light features.
	Hopefully, they will not put forward Obamacare Light, but the bill they're keeping under lock and key that they won't let us see, they would not let me have a copy of this morning, that bill is Obamacare Light, and that's why they don't want conservatives across the country to see it.
	All right, so that is a lot of the opposition that you just heard about health care.
	I mean, and it gets worse than that.
	You got the club for growth dubbing it Ryancare and threatening to record the names of Republicans who vote for the bill unless it includes a significant change, Heritage Action, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, and all of these have pretty much issued scathing statements critical of what they're calling or dubbing American Health Care Act that was released.
	The answer to this is what I said in the last hour.
	That is, all of these people, and I'm not sure why it didn't happen beforehand, but now it has to happen.
	They need to get in a room.
	They need to get off television.
	They need to hammer this out.
	They need free market solutions.
	They need cooperatives inserted in this.
	Like I have been describing in great, great detail what they're doing in Wichita, Kansas with our good friend Dr. Umber, who's done a great job.
	And he'll be on TV tonight.
	He'll be here on this radio program tomorrow.
	And don't let the media turn this into a Republican Party civil war, because if you do, then it just becomes fodder for the left.
	And ah, see, they don't even have a replacement.
	When the ideas, the fundamentals, the skeletal answers are all there.
	It's just a matter of them putting it together in legislative form and getting it passed.
	All right, when we come back, more with Congressman Dave Bratt and more with Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review, then Kellyanne Conway coming up, and much more.
	Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Sean gets the answers.
	No one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	This is the Obamacare replacement plan that everyone has been asking for, the plan that the president ran on, and the plan that will ultimately save the system.
	It's also a culmination of years of dedicated work and careful thought by Republicans to find a replacement that will best undo the damage that's been caused by Obamacare while ensuring that all Americans have peace of mind during this stable transition period.
	These are the principles for which conservatives have been fighting for for years.
	President Trump looks forward to continuing the dialogue between the administration and the Hill on saving the health care system.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	That was Sean Spicer at the White House earlier today.
	A lot of conservative criticism about the bill that has been released, or at least the outline, 123 pages.
	The White House is also saying that the bill is going to change, as I've been telling you.
	And if you look at Rand Paul's comments, he says it will not pass in its current form.
	And he's calling it Obamacare Light, as are many members of the Freedom Caucus.
	And he's saying conservatives are not going to take this bill.
	And in particular, you know, you've got a lot of different groups here.
	The Club for Growth dubbed the proposal Ryan Care, threatened to record the names of Republicans who vote for the bill unless it includes a significant amount of change.
	Heritage Action, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, also issuing scathing statements critical of the legislation, dubbed the American Health Care Act, which they all released here today.
	From the Freedom Caucus, we continue with Congressman Dave Bratt and also from Conservative Review.
	Daniel Horowitz is back with us.
	All right, so let's look at where the criticisms are.
	And more importantly, because now we begin, I guess, the amendment process, I doubt they're going to go back to the drawing board.
	What do you need, Congressman Bratt, to make this bill work for you?
	What is the Freedom Caucus, what are the major changes you see it needs to make this the bill that you think that works for the American people?
	Yeah, well, it's got to focus on price and price discovery instead of on coverage, right?
	The millions we're going to cover.
	Dan Horowitz just hit it out of the park.
	He just covered a ton of ground.
	The thing you've got to get rid of is the insurance regs.
	If you don't get rid of that, you can say you're shopping across lines, you're putting money into an HSA, but then you're shopping for a socialist product, right?
	I mean, I'm exaggerating a little bit to make the point.
	You can't have free markets when you don't have free markets.
	If the federal government is running this thing and regulating this thing and subsidizing this thing, it's not a free market plan.
	I don't know how much clearer you can make that point, right?
	And so I always use an analogy when I taught economics for 20 years.
	When you build a house, if every single part of that house is regulated, I'd ask my students, right?
	And it is.
	You can't think of one piece of a new house that you build.
	There's hundreds of thousands of parts.
	Everything's regulated.
	It's just like our health care system, right?
	There's heart techniques that are 150,000 in this country that are 15,000 in India.
	That's what we've got to get to.
	And so the left has put the car in the ditch, and now they're blaming it on us, right?
	Well, if you would have followed free market logic before, healthcare costs would be way lower.
	You'd have competition.
	You'd have way better products.
	You'd have innovation.
	And you'd have everything that free markets always deliver, right?
	CD players went from 500 bucks down to 30.
	I guess the part legislatively that I'm missing is you've been saying this.
	Everyone in the Freedom Caucus, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, have all made the same criticisms, but yet they came out with the exact bill that everybody knew that they were going to oppose.
	I mean, is it just their way of saying this is our negotiating point?
	Is it that they don't care?
	Does that they think you guys are going to buckle?
	What is the logic behind that?
	Well, it's just always, right?
	We got folks in tough political races.
	The press, we know the press does fake news.
	It doesn't matter what we say.
	They create buzzlines on you.
	And so politicians and people are getting front.
	We know what the press is going to say.
	In my own paper, they said, there's a girl with a serious healthcare case.
	Can you guarantee me she's going to get better coverage?
	My response is, you're in a death spiral right now.
	The left put us there, and you're putting me on the bank.
	So what are the answers?
	Let's be very specific.
	You talked about free market.
	Look, I like two aspects that are part of the Freedom Caucus bill and the Ram Paul bill.
	And they are, you know, we have this guy, Josh Umber.
	He's going to be on tomorrow.
	He'll be on TV tonight.
	This guy, we have come to love this guy on our show.
	He's in Wichita, Kansas.
	He created a medical cooperative.
	It's $10 per child.
	It's $50 per adult.
	He personally has negotiated with all the pharmaceutical companies, got 90% price reductions across the board.
	He has a network of doctors.
	You get to see your doctor anytime you want, as often as you want, for $50 a month as an adult, okay?
	And that means stitches.
	That means broken bones.
	That means a whole variety of diagnostic issues.
	Everything that most people need.
	Now, the addendum to that would be you get a catastrophic plan.
	God forbid you have a heart attack, you get cancer, you get in a bad accident.
	You have, let's say you're willing to have a high deductible $5,000 or $10,000, a lot of money, right?
	But let's say you're willing to do that, but you're only paying $150 a month, and then you'd have full coverage if, God forbid, one of those catastrophic events ever happened to you in your life.
	Well, now you're paying about $200 a month.
	You have access to a doctor 24 hours a day.
	You have the lowest prices on pharmaceuticals you could ever want.
	And I don't see the opening in this bill for that, nor do I see enough definition of healthcare savings accounts that creates the free market competition that we all believe, I think, is needed to make this work.
	Daniel, your thoughts?
	No, absolutely.
	This is the type of bill that will ensure that healthcare and health insurance run like a freaking mini bar in a hotel room instead of Amazon, Uber, Walmart, what we're used to, options, choice, competition, innovation, prices coming down.
	This will not change.
	The regulations have to go.
	The subsidization has to go because the way it's now, basically, providers are working with government on a distorted way.
	Let me ask you the same question I asked Congressman Brett in the last half hour.
	You know what the left's arguments are.
	Chuck Schumer was out there making them today.
	You're going to let poor people die.
	You want the children to die.
	How do you answer that question if you have no subsidies for poor people?
	Well, so first of all, the argument is it's not that we don't have any subsidies.
	We already spend over a trillion dollars in combined federal state health care spending even before the Medicaid expansion, and we have nothing to show for it.
	That I agree with, but I want us specifically to hone in on when they ask Dave Bratt and every congressman at every town hall, and they'll set up this question a thousand times.
	Congressman, you know it's coming, right?
	You want old people to die.
	You want young people to die.
	That is the, quintessentially, if you don't have a subsidy, if you don't have a government entitlement program, that is their talking point.
	And over time, it becomes, you know, with a compliant media and a lapdog media, it becomes a narrative and a narrative that Republicans hate old people and young people and children and want them to die.
	You're going to have to have a specific answer to that.
	Sure.
	So the point is that these guys themselves are responsible for people dying.
	That is not an opinion.
	Humana, you know, Aetna, the CEOs, they all said they're going to leave.
	So no one's going to get insurance.
	What good is a subsidy if there is no insurance, if it's locked up, if the entire system is destroyed?
	The reason we don't have options like a Southwest Airline equivalent, like an Amazon, is because of these very market interventions.
	You have to isolate and minimize pre-existing conditions, not expand and mix it into the market.
	Now, one of the great ideas, Professor John Cochran of the University of Chicago, there's something called health status insurance that if we only got rid of all the regulations and subsidizations, there would be a market need for it, where basically you would purchase for your kids almost like life insurance early on to ensure a status change.
	So if someone develops diabetes or cancer or heart disease, the insurance company would pay a lump sum payout or the difference in the premiums.
	The ideas are endless, but they never germinate precisely because of the system that the GOP perpetuates.
	And by the way, the GOP plan doesn't answer this even according to their logic because their subsidy scheme will basically transfer the subsidies from the younger and poorer to middle school.
	Well, that's what Obamacare does now.
	I mean, the rich, the young, the healthy, they're subsidizing the old, the sick, and the disabled.
	So that's what's happening here.
	So I guess the question is, how do we get to the health care savings accounts?
	How do we eliminate the subsidies?
	You're talking about sending the money, block granting it back to the states, Congressman Bratt.
	Just run down the list of things specifically you need to make this bill work for you in the Freedom Caucus.
	Yeah, well, shift the refundable tax credits to tax deduction, fund HSAs, put the high-risk pools for pre-existing conditions down at the state level.
	Make sure that one thing that's going to be very hard is what Daniel's talking about, getting rid of the regulations.
	That's the major cost driver that's killing us here.
	And then basically what we've lost is we've lost confidence in the free market system.
	And so the left has put the car in the ditch, and they're saying, I dare you, right?
	And so free markets have to take time to generate themselves, but they've just brought 2.5 billion people out of poverty in China and India.
	And it's clear for everybody to see that, right?
	So if you trust free markets to work, they take time and you have to commit.
	And I taught economic development, right?
	South America, a lot of the countries that go free market for a few years and then back to centrally planned economy.
	It's a total disaster.
	And that's what we're doing here with our health system.
	Obamacare's totally top-down command and control run.
	It fails.
	And then the free market people are here to pick up the pieces and fix the thing.
	And so I can't do much more than try to educate the American people that if you want to be the country that we've been, right, the rule of law, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and free markets, you've got to trust that that's made us the richest country on the earth will continue to do that, and it will.
	But that means coming behind free market policies when the chips are down and when everybody's saying, hey, the centralized government works, we need federal government to run everything.
	We have to reject that because it has never worked in the history of nations.
	So again, if we go back and we rewrite it, how do you rewrite it?
	Right.
	I mean, you get rid of all the federal components.
	You get rid of the federal regulations.
	Mark Meadows told me today that the bronze, silver, gold, platinum plans stay in place under Obamacare.
	You get rid of all that architecture.
	You put some money for the safety net in the HSAs.
	You let people buy with their own money.
	And when you start shopping for the knee replacement, instead of paying your $50 copay when you go in and ordering anything you want, all of a sudden people shopping, it's going to make a huge difference.
	And that'll start bringing down the cost.
	What is your feel in Congress?
	What number of people would vote against this bill on the Republican side?
	Oh, right now, I mean, we got House Freedom Caucus guys.
	The House Study Committee has 170, 30, or 40 of them are probably no, and there's some guys in the middle.
	So right now, they're really shy on the vote.
	And on the Senate side, you're losing Cruz, Lee, Rand, and maybe Rubio.
	So they don't even have the Republicans in the Senate.
	All right, hold your thought right there.
	We'll take a break one more segment here with Congressman Dave Bratt and Daniel Horowitz.
	The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
	Deshaun's Conservative Solutions.
	All right, our final thoughts on this new replacement, repeal replacement bill by the Republicans that they outlined and laid out late last night.
	And we continue with Congressman Dave Bratt.
	And by the way, Daniel Horowitz, all right, so, you know, look, I wish it was thought out better.
	I wish these meetings that I'm going to propose took place earlier.
	You mentioned that you're going to be meeting, or members of the Freedom Caucus are meeting with the vice president today.
	And I've got to believe that there's going to be some significant changes.
	What I don't understand is all of these criticisms that you guys had before you saw the bill were in the bill anyway.
	Do you think they just ignored on purpose?
	Yeah, well, I mean, some of it unfortunately degenerates into politics.
	And so, you know, the easy way in the short run is the current bill.
	That's the easy way in the short run to get out of political trouble.
	But it's bad for the country in the long run.
	Adding a new entitlement.
	So it's that simple, right?
	Are you going to take, somebody has to step up and be the adult in the room when the thing's falling apart and the left has destroyed our economy, which has grown at 1.8, and the health care system's bad and the foreign policy is bad.
	And now Trump has taken all the barbs for everything, right?
	So someone's got to step up and say, look, we're going to make some hard decisions.
	We're the adults in the room, and we're not going to take the easy way out and just say, hey, the federal government will patch everything for the next decade.
	So you're going to be at the meeting with the vice president later today?
	Yeah, yeah, heading there right now.
	All right.
	So maybe tomorrow we can, after you're meeting with the vice president, we can get an update from you.
	Would that work?
	Yeah, anytime.
	All right, we really appreciate it.
	Daniel, what's your advice to the Republicans as they regroup on this rather than having a civil war?
	Republicans need to get up there and speak with the same clarity as Bernie Sanders.
	Yes, we do have a right to health care.
	We have a right to free market health care.
	We have a right to pursue happiness, to engage in contracts, to have affordable health care unencumbered by government.
	We already have so many subsidies.
	We already have so much debt.
	We tried their plan.
	It failed miserably.
	And even the few people who benefited from it are not going to benefit because it's going to collapse.
	What I would advise them is if this is all they have, if they don't want to do what we want to do, get rid of the taxes and subsidies and regulations, but in fact they're going to continue on this plan, it's better to do nothing because what's going to happen is a death spiral of no money coming in, but the same regulatory climate until 2020.
	This cannot work.
	It's not ideological.
	It's actuarily insolvent.
	Well, that can't happen.
	And remember, they're going to replace this.
	They're going to own this.
	And the most important thing, I think, on the agenda for them is to get everybody in a room, take everybody's phone away, and hammer this out in a bill that everybody can support.
	And it's got to also work for the American people because at the end of the day, that is who everybody is serving here.
	And it has to be done right.
	And it can't be top-down government and Obama light, Obamacare light.
	It's not going to work.
	All right, guys, appreciate it.
	800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	On the other side of this, we have our news roundup information overload.
	Okay, the president has redone the executive order.
	We'll get to that extreme vetting measure, and that's next.
	This is how we rule, and at this point, you can't confirm or deny whether that exists.
	I can deny it.
	There is no FISA court order.
	Not to my knowledge.
	Of anything at Trump Tower.
	No.
	We do not make the law, but are sworn to enforce it.
	We have no other option.
	We are going to work closely to implement and enforce it humanely, respectfully, and with professionalism, but we will enforce the law.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome to the revolution.
	We're burning down the machine bullets at the moon, baby.
	This is how we rule the world.
	Sean Hennedty, we'll use the new Sean Hennity Show.
	More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
	Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
	Like every nation, the United States has a right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm.
	This executive order seeks to protect the American people as well as lawful immigrants by putting in place an enhanced screening and vetting process for visitors from six countries.
	Three of these nations are state sponsors of terrorism.
	The other three have served as safe havens for terrorist countries, countries where governments have lost control of their territory to terrorist groups like ISIL or al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
	This increases the risk that people are admitted here from these countries may belong to terrorist groups or may have been radicalized by them.
	We cannot compromise our nation's security by allowing visitors entry when their own governments are unable or unwilling to provide the information we need to vet them responsibly or when those governments actively support terrorism.
	This executive order responsibly provides a needed pause so we can carefully review how we scrutinize people coming here from these countries of concern.
	This Department of Justice will defend and enforce lawful orders of the President consistent with the core principles of our Constitution.
	The executive is empowered under the Constitution and by Congress to make national security judgments and to enforce our immigration policies in order to safeguard the American public.
	Terrorism is clearly a danger for America and our people.
	The President gets briefings on these dangers and emerging threats on a regular basis.
	The federal investigative agencies, the intelligence community, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United States military report to the President.
	Knowing the President would best possess such extensive information, our founders wisely gave the executive branch the authority and the duty to protect the nation.
	This executive order is a proper exercise of that power.
	We cannot risk the prospect of malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives.
	This executive order is prospective in nature.
	Its focus is on preventing the entry of new foreign nationals from the six designated countries.
	Accordingly, it is important to note that nothing in this executive order affects existing lawful permanent residents or persons with current authorization to enter our homeland.
	Unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake.
	The men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, like their brothers and sisters throughout law enforcement, are decent men and women of character and conscience.
	They are no less so than the governors of our states and territories, of our senators and members of Congress, of our city mayors and various advocacy groups.
	These men and women are sworn to enforce the laws as passed by the United States Congress and would be in violation of the law in their sworn oaths if they did not do so.
	We do not make the law, but are sworn to enforce it.
	We have no other option.
	We are going to work closely to implement and enforce it humanely, respectfully, and with professionalism, but we will enforce the law.
	I mean, the fact is, this is a ban that was originally designed to bar people because of their religion.
	And it is still that.
	I mean, it doesn't ban every Muslim in the world, but all the people who are banned are banned because they're Muslim.
	And look, if you look at the countries where people who have committed acts of terrorism in the United States actually come from, those countries are not on the list.
	It's an irrational list.
	It's a mean list.
	And let me just say this.
	In Minneapolis, we're very proud of our Somali American community.
	They're making, starting businesses, running for office.
	Ilhan Omar, first state legislator of Somali descent.
	And Somalia is now going through a massive drought and a famine.
	And these people could be banned from getting relief through coming to the United States because of this ban.
	This is inhumane and it's cool.
	And it's wrong.
	All right.
	That, of course, is a discussion.
	Yesterday, the president signed a new executive order as it relates to extreme vetting, one of our top four stories today.
	We've got WikiLeaks downloading on the CIA.
	We also have more on the repeal and replace.
	I've been predicting this.
	I've been outlining this, the civil war that is taking place.
	And then, of course, the issue of did a sitting president, an administration, did they surveil on an opposition candidate in the lead up to an election and what this all means.
	Anyway, as it relates to the executive order, well, it has now been rewritten in light of the Court of Appeals ruling out at the Ninth Circuit out on the West Coast.
	And for 90 days, foreign nationals from six terrorist hotbed states, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, who are outside the U.S. on the effective date of the order do not currently have a valid visa, on the effective date of the order, did not have a valid visa, are not eligible to enter the U.S. for a 90-day period as the proper review of standards goes forward.
	And it replaced the original executive order, this first effective yesterday.
	And by the way, Iraq is no longer specifically addressed based on negotiations between the government of Iraq and the State Department.
	And in the first 20 days, the Department of Homeland Security will perform a global country-by-country review, get their determinations, and countries will then have 50 days to comply.
	Now, there's more to this, but here to talk about the need for this is Raheem Qassam, editor of Breitbart London, and Qasim Rashid is the national spokesperson for the Ahmadeya Muslim Community.
	Welcome both of you back to the program.
	So Raheem, the original executive order, which was struck down after judge shopping by the left, you know, this has a 90-day moratorium security review, and they have now adjusted it, taken Iraq off the table.
	Every lawyer I have spoken with, including Jay Seculo, who wrote his own language to the bill and suggested it, some of which was adopted, I believe, has said that this will meet constitutional muster.
	Your thoughts?
	Yeah, I think it will, but I also think the last one did, too.
	And I'm disappointed to see Iraq removed off the list because, quite frankly, we have seen people who have come over from Iraq, both into Europe and into the United States, who have either been stopped from committing terrorist attacks or stopped in terms of providing support to terrorists in this country.
	I'm not entirely sure that we should be putting our eggs in the basket of a basket case government like the government of Iraq.
	And I want to know, and I think a lot of people out there will want to know, what really caused this to come off the table.
	We know that the government of Iraq has been paying $40,000 a month to a high-profile DC lobbying firm with very good connections with the Democratic Party.
	And I think we need to explore that because at this point in time, I wouldn't have reduced the list.
	I might have even expanded it.
	Well, maybe to include Saudi Arabia, just a thought of mine.
	But it seems that nobody ever wants to insult the Saudis.
	I mean, the amount of pressure and money they have used to influence this country is unprecedented.
	Do you agree with that?
	I do agree with that.
	And I think it's a terrible thing when we get into the debate over whether or not this plays into Islamic State's hand or into the Islamists' hands because America is protecting itself and protecting its borders.
	When it's people of the Muslim faith who are arrested and charged with acts of terrorism or acts of inciting terrorism or providing material to support terrorism, well, then we always hear the case that, oh, well, this is a poverty problem or this is a diversity problem.
	When it comes to the Saudis and how much money they throw into mosques all across the Western world, how many Salafist preachers there are, how many hate preachers there are, then we don't hear anything.
	Then we hear stone-cold silence from America's Muslim communities.
	Let me get your take, Kasim, because when this first order came down, there were charges that this was either a religious litmus test, number one, or number two, that it was a ban against Muslims, none of which is accurate.
	Well, I mean, the court disagreed with that, and that's one of the reasons why they struck it down.
	Well, but with all due respect to the court, this is the most liberal of judge shopping, and it was filed in a particular location, Seattle, before a liberal judge, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned over 80% of the time.
	So we've got to be realistic about where this was filed and why it was filed.
	But there were changes made.
	Are you saying that you believe there's a religious litmus test here or this is a ban against Muslims?
	Do you believe that?
	Well, Sean, if you give me more than three seconds to speak, I'll present my point of view.
	You gave Raheem, I think, a full ninth.
	No, no, but what you said is not true.
	It's really very important that people understand the prejudice of the Ninth Circuit.
	What I said is absolutely true.
	The court was not convinced that this was not a religious litmus test, and that's why they struck it down.
	And the administration agreed because they have fundamentally discarded that executive order altogether and they've put up a new one.
	And I think my concern with the new one, one, Raheem pointed out, that it makes no sense that you're going to cite two Iraqi refugees as an example of why we need this ban and then remove Iraq from the list.
	So it shows how disjointed this ban is from the actual threat.
	I think the bigger issue here is that we're still at a place where we're ignoring extremism from our domestic front.
	You know, just last week, a Sikh was shot.
	Two Indian Americans have been killed.
	People yelling, get out of my country.
	This is domestic terrorism that we need to address, that the president is refusing to, and he's trying to turn the attention to the country.
	Well, you're attacking the president.
	Wait a minute.
	That's just unfair because we know terrorist training exists in all of the six countries that we're talking about.
	We know that a lot of.
	And we know there's over 60 neo-Nazi training camps in the U.S. as well.
	Okay, but if we want to look at real statistics from our own government and hate crimes that are committed in this country, the overwhelming majority are against synagogues and people of Jewish state.
	It's exactly right.
	Right, but you didn't mention that in your list.
	So my only point is by a figure of six or seven to one, they are the victims of hate crimes.
	Who are Nazis hated against them?
	I mean, it's the Jews.
	And trust me, you know, we're not.
	Listen, anybody that's a Nazi, I want anybody that is fomenting any type of terror, we want them to go.
	But we're talking here specifically about radical Islamic terror because if you look at Chattanooga, Fort Hood, the Boston bombing, Orlando Pulse Nightclub, San Bernardino, and France and Belgium and all throughout Europe, radical Islamic terrorism is the number one evil and problem we are facing.
	Period.
	Wrong, according to the FBI and to law enforcement agencies, just yesterday, a man with the I Love Jesus tattoo in Esquasika, a white supremacist Christian terrorist, so-called, was caught in a hate crime against Jews.
	Do you deny a basic fact that radical Islamic terrorism is a clear and present danger to all innocent men, women, and children?
	Do you deny that truth?
	We've talked about this phrase.
	It does nothing.
	Even the president of nationalism.
	Okay, you don't even want to talk about the phrase.
	You can't say radical Islamic terrorism.
	All of these people that say Allahu Akbar and then go kill innocent men, women, and children.
	That's not radical Islamic terrorism.
	Come on.
	I mean, you know, the problem with even having a discussion with you, Kasim, is you can't even acknowledge the simple, basic, fundamental truth of radical Islamists, you know, being a clear and present danger.
	It becomes radical Christian terrorism.
	Yes or no?
	Okay, this is a silly discussion on your part.
	That is not the world's danger.
	800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	Appreciate you being with us.
	We're going to take a break.
	And we'll get to your calls, by the way, coming up.
	Now that Uncle Joe has left the building, maybe we can get back to bringing jobs home.
	That's jobs, J-O-B-S.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, as we've been continuing, a lot of stories going on today.
	Number one, the WikiLeaks unloading on the CIA and what this all means and the troubles that they had earlier today, the vetting issue, which we were just discussing.
	And yes, radical Islamic terrorism is a clear and present danger.
	And the repeal and replace civil war that is now emerging in the Republican Party on, you know, was it the CIA unauthorized, or was there a Pfizer ruling?
	And did a sitting administration surveil on an opposition candidate?
	I mean, there's just too much going on in the news, but the swamp needs to be drained.
	Mary Beth is in Arkansas.
	Mary Beth, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	I'm great.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Listen, I listen to you, Rush, and what Swanson friends, and that's all I do.
	That's all I listen to because I get sick when I listen to anything else.
	But we, the people, voted President Trump in, and he is our president, and he's got to drain that swamp.
	Republican, Democrat, whatever it is, he's got to get rid of him because we are behind him.
	Listen, if he doesn't get rid of the Obama holdovers, if he doesn't get his own people confirmed, remember there's 500-plus confirmations that need to take place, and only last week did we get HUD Secretary Ben Carson, and did we get Governor Rick Perry?
	There's a lot.
	So you got all these holdovers.
	You got career bureaucrats.
	If all of WikiLeaks is true, I mean, you basically have revelations that say the CIA is rogue.
	Where are all these intelligence leaks coming from?
	Where are they coming from?
	Why has this never happened for?
	General Flynn is a great case in point.
	General Flynn makes a call.
	He's talking to the Russian ambassador.
	The NSA is surveilling the Russian ambassador.
	That's their job.
	They're allowed to do that.
	Once they recognize an American voice, they're supposed to minimize what they hear and what they take down.
	They literally transcribe the whole discussion.
	Then they leak it, something they'd never done before.
	Well, he needs to fire everybody left over.
	Just sit down.
	They need to go.
	They've got to go now.
	Listen, it's not just in intelligence.
	It's also at the State Department.
	The swamp there needs to be drained.
	The swamp in Washington.
	The problem that Donald Trump is now facing is enormous, and he may not win.
	I'm going to be very blunt here.
	This is that enormous because he's going up against the Snowflake establishment, a media establishment, alt-left propaganda, destroy Trump at all-cost media.
	They are out to crush him.
	You know, they're not asking questions about, well, the New York Times said it, and McClatchy said it, and the Daily Mail said it, and the BBC said it, that he was wiretapped.
	Why would they focus on their own mistakes?
	Why would they?
	Why would they acknowledge their own errors?
	Why would they admit to their collusion with Hillary Clinton in her campaign?
	Why would they admit that they never vetted Obama?
	Listen, and then you got the Democratic establishment smearing, slandering, besmirching, obstructing.
	And then Republicans, they're afraid of their own shadow.
	So I don't know.
	I mean, every single swamp part is stacked against the president.
	The only way I see him succeeding is if the people that voted and demanded the change that we're now seeing, that they better get up in arms and they better engage in full combat political combat mode.
	Because this is serious, as serious as I've ever seen it.
	It's the opportunity of a lifetime, but he has now stepped on every single precious little establishment swamp area in government, and they hate it.
	More of your calls next.
	Sean gets the answers.
	No one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	President's been very clear, as we've stated, that I think there's enough there that we want the House and Senate intelligence to use the resources they do to make sure that they look into this matter.
	I mean, that's, there's, there's some, anyway, I do not want to get ahead of where they may go with this or what they may look at, but I'm just, I'm going to leave it to them.
	If we start down the rabbit hole of discussing some of this stuff, I think that we end up in a very difficult place.
	This is the Obamacare replacement plan that everyone has been asking for, the plan that the president ran on, and the plan that will ultimately save the system.
	It's also a culmination of years of dedicated work and careful thought by Republicans to find a replacement that will best undo the damage that's been caused by Obamacare while ensuring that all Americans have peace of mind during this stable transition period.
	These are the principles for which conservatives have been fighting for for years.
	President Trump looks forward to continuing the dialogue between the administration and the Hill on saving the health care system.
	All right, there you have some of our top stories today, actually four of them.
	We've got the WikiLeaks download on the CIA called more significant than the Snowden documents.
	Then, of course, we have what we were talking about in the last half hour, and that was the new extreme vetting measures, the new executive order from the president that came out yesterday.
	We've got the repeal and replace bill, well, at least the, I guess, the skeletal structure of one that has been released.
	It will be changed.
	It will be altered.
	There's been a lot of criticism of it.
	And the latest and most important in my mind that a sitting president, administration, did they actively surveil the opposition candidate, and that would have been candidate Donald Trump.
	Kellyanne Conway is with us, and Kellyanne, of course, we all know, is the— What is your official position?
	Special counsel to the president, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yes, counselor to the president.
	Hi, Sean.
	How are you?
	I know, boy, you guys don't rest over there.
	I almost feel sorry for you.
	You know, I've been telling them.
	You've got to do your part.
	I've been telling Republicans in Congress, you've got to keep up with the speed of Trump.
	And some of them say, that's like impossible.
	We're trying, though.
	Let me start with this.
	The New York Times reported it.
	McClatchy reported it.
	The BBC reported it.
	And all of these other major news organizations, not the vast right-wing conspiracy, that in fact there had been some surveillance, even the word wiretapping used by the New York Times against the president.
	President tweeted it out.
	And yet they only focus on the president, not on the fact that this came from the mainstream media.
	What are your thoughts on where this stands now?
	Where it stands, Sean, is that the president has made very clear he has asked the House and Senate intelligence committees to combine this particular line of investigation with the existing investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign.
	We already know how attenuated and unproven that is.
	Every single day they screen Russia, Russia, Russia.
	I'm convinced people are getting 50 bucks every time they say Russia on TV.
	By the way, you better not turning it into a drinking game, Kellyanne, because you'll be wasted in about 30 seconds.
	I'm not going there, but I will tell you it's a serious point in that the Democrats are so quick to call for special prosecutors and investigations and every single thing they want to use the power of the government to come down on some attenuated circumstance or connection or lack of connection.
	And yet here, they're not even willing to entertain the idea of combining this in an existing investigation.
	Secondly, we do have to call out the double standard here.
	The double standard for anonymous sources, that the media love to use anonymous sources to fuel their speculation and their stories when it's something that could be potentially embarrassing or negative damaging to President Trump.
	But the moment an anonymous or open source material could be positive for the president, they want exact proof at that moment.
	And look, thirdly, I want to say if we took out the word tweet and put in the word leak on most of these mainstream media stories, we'd get to the bottom of a lot more important information to America.
	By the way, anyway, I think what you're saying here, but there's a very big danger here.
	And let me just quote the mainstream media.
	If they wiretapped the opposition party in the middle of a campaign, and the statement with the president was absolutely so absurd in as much as we didn't order it that it was a meaningless statement.
	I want to know if the president knew about Pfizer requests, if they took place, if they happened in June and again in October, and if surveillance on an opposition party candidate was taking place during the election.
	Because from my perspective, that is really scary, especially in light of the WikiLeaks claim to release a lot of the CIA cybersecrets.
	And then you got the deeper part killing in, which is this, what I call shadow government of Obama, all his holdovers, coupled with the bureaucratic swamp lifetimers that clearly have been leaking against you and this administration like a sieve.
	It has to stop, doesn't it?
	That's the entire point of this president, that these leaks are damaging to our national security and our intelligence operations.
	These are not random leaks meant to embarrass someone or have a palace intrigue story.
	These are national security and intelligence leaks.
	And Sean, let's remember that hours after the president delivered, which by nearly all accounts was an unbelievably well-received, well-executed, and content-in-ton joint session addressed last week, the New York Times came out with an article that said the Obama administration rushed to preserve and spread around the government intelligence information.
	They did that because they did not anticipate Donald Trump being the president.
	They anticipated Hillary Clinton being the president.
	They rushed around doing that.
	Now, why would they do that?
	And I would also say, you know, what is everybody afraid of?
	Just add it as part of the investigation and let's see what we learn.
	You know, and by the way, I'm not going to let any of this undercut this obsession by the media on this undercut the fact that, as you pointed out, it's a very busy week already.
	It's just Tuesday afternoon.
	It's such a busy week already for executive action and legislation.
	I just spent a couple of hours on Capitol Hill with members and staffers and talking to them about the Affordable Care Act repeal and replacement.
	There's so much that's wrong with Obamacare.
	It's an Affordable Care Act that is incredibly unaffordable.
	You know, there are five states that have no choices in insurers.
	There's nearly one-third of all counties in this country have only one insurer participating.
	There are no choices.
	There is no access.
	And in just the past year, the coverage choices have dropped by about 28 percent as insurers have just fled the market.
	And others have said we're in a death spiral with Obamacare.
	So what this president is trying to do, and he's been working on this for a very long time with his vice president, with the leadership, with the House and Senate committees and members.
	And what they've done is they've laid out five core principles.
	Everybody can listen.
	Preexisting conditions are covered.
	We're going to get rid of these ridiculous penalties and taxes.
	What the President said last week in his joint session is absolutely correct, Sean.
	He said mandating Americans to buy government-run health insurance was never a good idea in the first place.
	He's chucking that entire premise and replacing it with a more equitable tax treatment.
	People who either don't get their health care coverage through their employer or through Medicaid have access to tax credits to use that to purchase a plan.
	People will have health savings accounts.
	What does that do?
	I mean, it allows you to control your health care spending.
	Well, let me ask this.
	Obviously, this is just a skeletal sketch of where the bill is ultimately going to go.
	I mean, there has been a lot of criticism today, and the Freedom Caucus is against it.
	And I know that Senators Paul and Lee and Cruz are against it.
	The Heritage Action has come out against it.
	The Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity.
	I think their biggest criticism is it doesn't have it's more of a top-down new entitlement subsidy program for those that don't have it.
	And speaking with Dave Bratt, the congressman from Virginia, what he would like to see is more block grants going to the states, more in terms of really allowing a full repeal.
	And again, I know there's challenges because of reconciliation as it was passed and needing 60 votes in the Senate.
	So let me put that off to the side.
	But having more options as it relates to health savings accounts, health care cooperatives like this guy I'm going to have on TV tonight, Josh Umber, and what he's been able to do in Wichita, Kansas.
	So tell me where you think with that opposition, where does it go from here?
	I guess there's going to be a lot of meetings about it and amendments drawn up for it.
	There are many meetings about it.
	We are having open dialogue with members, conversations.
	I do know the fastest way to get on TV is through friendly fire, is to criticize one of your own.
	But at the same time, I want people to remember what it is we're replacing here.
	It is a complete and abject disaster.
	And may I say, Obamacare is something that all of these members in the House and Senate successfully ran against and promised they would repeal and replace it.
	So we certainly hope they'll take a look at this and, of course, bring their considerations and their concerns forward.
	We're aware of other options that were on the table, but we're also aware that we've been dealing with Obamacare for seven years, Sean.
	The final version passed in, what, March of 2010.
	So this has very deep roots, very strong tentacles.
	And uprooting it and replacing it, frankly, is something we've just never done as a country.
	Usually you don't roll back things like this.
	You learn to live with them and manage them better.
	The idea that in the next, I think before the April recess, you could have Republican House Senate and its president get health care passed or close to being passed and you get Neil Gorsuch confirmed in the United States Supreme Court.
	Those are two very big pieces of progress.
	And look, some other things will come later in phases two and three because they're subject to a 60 vote threshold, not a 50 vote threshold and not the pen of the HHS Secretary.
	I don't want to get too into the weeds, but it's important that we all understand the procedural obstacles in place here.
	So interstate portability, having insurance being sold across state lines, something that President Trump and Candidate Trump are very emphatic about, and also drug pricing, those have to come in phase three.
	It's just a matter of the threshold to which they are subject in the House and the Senate.
	So, excuse me, in the Senate.
	So there are many things, but I would say to people, look at what's good about this.
	I mean, you get rid of Obamacare.
	You literally repeal it, and you put in its place something that still allows pre-existing conditions to be covered, has that coverage for those up to the age of 26 on their parents' plan, but allows for that stable transition for people who are already involved in health exchanges and like what they have.
	But at the same time, you've got to stop penalizing people who, Sean, they've opted to pay the penalty or the tax, as have some of their employers, in lieu of buying anything because it's just so prohibitive.
	There are no low-premium, high-deductible plans that are affordable to most Americans.
	And there has been a disastrous result for many Americans who don't have another opportunity to buy health insurance out of their own pockets.
	They don't have that kind of spending money, disposable income.
	So you've got some of these, say, single moms who now have two jobs, 26, 27 hours each, so that the employer doesn't have to provide them health care as a full-time employee.
	And instead, they have two jobs, they're away from their kids that much more, and they still don't have the benefits.
	That has to change.
	I think the most important thing for people is that we've got to understand that the government can't run this.
	We've got to understand that it can't be top-down.
	We've got to understand that free market competition.
	You know, I've got this guy on TV tonight.
	And if you get a chance, I know you're working until 11 o'clock every night, so you probably don't watch my show like you used to.
	And I know you miss it every night, and you probably TiVo it, I hope.
	But I have this guy, Dr. Umber, and what he's been able to do is fairly remarkable.
	And more importantly, he's duplicated it in other cities and other towns.
	He's in Wichita, Kansas.
	He'll be on tonight, and he'll be on this radio program tomorrow.
	And what he did is he set up a cooperative.
	It costs $10 per child a month, $50 per adult a month.
	It includes as much care as you need for the entire month.
	If you need stitches, if you have a broken bone, if you need x-rays, if you need diagnosis, even pharmaceuticals, he went directly to the companies and was able to negotiate prices, 90% discount.
	And the good thing about it is then you get a catastrophic plan on top of it, which means if you have a bad car accident, if God forbid you have a heart attack or get cancer, then after you're deductible, all of that would be covered.
	And at the hospital of your choice based on the plan you selected and at a low rate.
	We all know that catastrophic care is the cheapest.
	It just is that it seems that there's a lot of free market ways to do this that are successful.
	And I know that this is included partly in the bill, but I'd like to see more of that and explain more to the American people.
	Does that make sense?
	It makes perfect sense.
	And Sean, I personally hear from many health care professionals and consumers and providers pretty much daily with excellent ideas, particularly the physicians.
	They have excellent ideas.
	And they have ideas along the lines of drug pricing, of certainly what you could do with health savings accounts.
	And once you have people in a system that is not government-run and top-down, but bottom-up and free-market and patient-centric, then you can add to that once people understand the kind of system we're in.
	We hear those all the time.
	And that, of course, is important because remember, everything you describe is how we get to, is how we improve upon the free market system that's about to replace the government system that's been foisted on us for seven years.
	I have to say, other Republican presidents probably would have, you know, could have lost a little bit of the courage saying we thought we could do something, but instead we're going to do nothing.
	We'll let Obamacare fail on itself.
	We'll blame Obama.
	You can't do that when people need health coverage.
	This is an urgent concern for many men and women.
	By the way, many of the forgotten men and forgotten women have complained about this.
	It was a very important aspect of what he ran on.
	I mean, we were promised Obamacare would bring down health care costs.
	They went up.
	We were promised people can keep their health care plans.
	They can keep their doctors.
	That was a big lie.
	It was not true.
	We were promised that Obamacare would increase competition between insurance providers.
	Well, that's not true.
	We're down to no insurance providers.
	Oh, it's unbelievable.
	Well, even the CEO of Aetna said it's a death spiral.
	Yes, it's a death spiral.
	I got to let you go, bro.
	They want an alternative to Obamacare.
	Well said.
	All right, we're going to watch this evolve because it's going to be altered and shifted and changed and hopefully for the better.
	Kellyanne, always a pleasure.
	I know you're working so hard.
	I've known you for years, and you've always been a hard worker, but I know how hard you're working and how little rest you're getting.
	We do appreciate all you're doing.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, darling.
	Keep us all in your prayers.
	Thanks, Sean.
	You bet.
	Uncovering evil and defending the truth.
	All right, that's going to end things for today.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	We've got Holding Washington Accountable Tonight, and that relates to the Repeal Replace bill.
	You'll also hear the alternative.
	What are options that are available that can be inserted into this bill?
	Dr. Josh Humber, Tom Price will join us tonight.
	Laura Ingram checks in with us tonight.
	Monica Crowley is back on tonight.
	And Larry Elder, Ari Fleischer on the latest WikiLeaks, and much, much more.
	10 Eastern.
	Set your DVR.
	Don't want to miss tonight's opening monologue on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
	Normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲