Sean Hannity Show - The Real Healthcare Plan - 3.21

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 22, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:40:08

The Real Healthcare Plan - 3.21

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 down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
	Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
	From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or 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.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Toll-free, our telephone number, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza on this Tuesday, is 800-941-Sean.
	Uh-oh, my pen just busted wide open.
	That means ink is going to be flying out here anyway.
	Our three top stories today, Neil Gorsuch, I mean, he's so good, it's dull.
	That's the best way to put it.
	He's got a sense of humor, his knowledge of the law.
	I mean, they just can't break through that armor of just real, what you see just oozes honor and integrity.
	And it just seems a brilliant jurist.
	And I don't think they're going to lay a glove on him.
	That doesn't mean that they're not going to start lying, that that process has already begun.
	That's one of our stories here today.
	They'll go full bork on him at some point.
	I've been doing a lot of thinking about this.
	A real lot, a deep dive into my brain, if you will, trying to figure out this whole issue.
	Remember Harry Reid?
	He broke precedent, used the nuclear option.
	Didn't use it on a Supreme Court justice, used the nuclear option.
	And I'm just guessing that there are going to be a lot of Democrats.
	May not get cloture so that Neil Gorsuch gets an up or down vote, which would mean the Republicans have to do what Harry Reid has been doing and use the nuclear option in this case on a Supreme Court justice.
	And I'm thinking and I'm thinking and I'm thinking, I said, what's the point?
	Why not?
	Number one, Democrats, you see, Republicans try and play fair.
	Republicans know Elena Kagan is going to be a left-wing radical.
	Sonia Sotomayor is going to be a left-wing radical.
	They know that Ruth Pader Ginsburg is going to be an activist.
	Their background, their history, everything about them shows them that.
	And they allow the up and down vote every time.
	And we end up getting whoever the Democrats want.
	Republicans, on the other hand, they end up fighting, losing Robert Bork.
	They so went after and so viciously, Clarence Thomas called it a high-tech lynching, so viciously went after this good man and just smeared and slandered and besmirched and did everything possible to stop him.
	So what's the point any longer?
	Who cares?
	You know, we're threading a needle here on the health care bill because of, well, it was passed through reconciliation.
	These are what the rules are.
	We can't get cloture because we won't get any Democrats to support us and blah, blah, blah.
	Why not just make it a simple majority in the Senate and then make that Senate vote matter and just get rid of it altogether?
	Just forget it.
	Forget cloture.
	Forget the whole thing because the Democrats, they get some level of balance and fairness from Republicans.
	They get consideration.
	Republicans get none.
	And you'll see it here at Neil Gorsuch.
	There's no reason to oppose this man.
	ABA gives him their highest rating, not exactly a conservative group.
	This guy is a student of law in history, has a deeply well-thought-out judicial philosophy.
	Yeah, he actually believes in separation of powers.
	He believes in co-equal branches of government.
	No one person is above the law, Hillary Clinton.
	No one person is above the law.
	Simple, basic, fundamental concepts of law.
	You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this stuff out.
	And they are going to, at some point, they might finally accept it, but at some point, they're going to have to use the nuclear option anyway.
	I don't care if they use it at all.
	I don't care if they use it on everything.
	Because at the end of the day, Democrats, there's no reciprocity.
	There will never be the consideration Republicans give them.
	And I'll be honest, if we want to save the country, I was being interviewed not that long ago by Ted Koppel.
	I'm not sure if it aired or not.
	I don't get up and watch the Sunday morning shows like I used to.
	I usually end up taping him and not watching him and reading transcripts.
	So, and Ted Copp, are we ever going to get along?
	I mean, you got somebody like you on your side and somebody like the New York Times.
	And I said, Ted, journalism's dead.
	I said, I think what shocked him the most in the interview, I said, I believe liberalism has to be defeated.
	The left will do and say anything.
	The left right now is so fixated, focused, like a laser beam in trying to destroy this current president.
	You don't believe me?
	Well, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, she's been patiently biding her time for 60 whole days, saying that the time to impeach President Trump will arrive eventually, but it isn't here yet.
	Well, she said that before, but today she announced that her weeks of waiting are over because now on the 61st day of the Trump presidency, the California Democrat has declared that impeachment time has arrived.
	And she announced today what she's ready, that she's ready to impeach President Trump as of today.
	Get ready for impeachment, she tweeted.
	Now, it's unknown, of course, what specifically she's referring to, what high crime and misdemeanor she's referring to, but it doesn't matter.
	It just is that is a mindset of people that actually want to destroy this president.
	Anyway, let me start with health care, and then I'm going to move back to the deep state and call me from yesterday, the latest on Comey, latest on healthcare, all this, you know, and I'm going to approach this from a different point of view.
	I'm disappointed.
	There's no other way to say it with the health care bill.
	I promised you I am going to hold them accountable, and that's what I'm about to do right here.
	I don't take any glee in this.
	It is with a deep sense of just utter frustration on my part with the Republican Party.
	I cannot justify their ill-preparedness for this moment.
	You cannot justify they have been running on repeal and replace, repeal and replace, repeal and replace, repeal and replace since Obama got elected and this thing was done through reconciliation in 2009 around Christmas.
	I cannot for the life of me, we gave them the House in 2010.
	Give us the House.
	We can stop this.
	No, you can't.
	You didn't.
	Give us the House and Senate.
	Then we'll really be able to stop even executive amnesty.
	They didn't do that either.
	Give us the House, the Senate, and the White House.
	Okay, you got it.
	And with all the time that they have had to build a bill that's supposed to be predicated, a foundation of free market conservative principles, and they don't have it yet.
	Now, are there good things in the bill?
	Defunds Planned Parenthood.
	It's very pro-life.
	Yeah, there's a lot of good things in there.
	Healthcare savings accounts, part of the solution.
	But there's way too many things when you have every major conservative organization.
	I don't know if any have changed their positions after the changes that were made last night and on and on.
	But the fact that they didn't work since at least November, maybe they didn't know they'd have the presidency.
	Maybe too many of these people, Republicans in Congress, were not supportive of Donald Trump, never thought he had a dream chance of ever winning the White House.
	All right, but on November 9th, you knew you had a president that was up for repeal and replace.
	So you'd think at that point, the hard work of writing a bill based on principles Republicans say that they believe in limited government, free markets, capitalism, competition.
	They knew what the president had said about it, buying across state lines, free market competition.
	You know, even though it's not going to be a part of the bill, I do have some hope that the president is serious about doing what Dr. Umber at Atlas MD has done and negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies and driving down the cost by 95%.
	If Josh Umber can do it, and he's duplicated this model in about a thousand other practices around the country, we can There.
	But the bottom line is, I just, for the life of me, we're now today.
	I just got an update.
	31 people telling me this morning, I did my own whip count, that they're no on this health care bill.
	And now basically what you're hearing, I heard Sean Spicer today that this is it, and we're going to remember those who are with us and those who are not with us.
	They're making it a binary choice rather than what I thought would happen, and that is before Thursday that the amendment process begins.
	And that's where conservatives get their opportunity to make the bill better and create new paradigms for health care, like Dr. Umber in Wichita, where, for example, $50 a month per adult, $50 a month per adult for unlimited care, $10 a month per child unlimited care.
	That includes broken bones, stitches.
	That includes x-rays about $0.48 a piece.
	That includes MRIs, pennies on the dollar, and a 95% discount because he will dispense directly to his patients the drugs and pharmaceuticals that he negotiated for and got these massive discounts with.
	And then you can add to that a very inexpensive health care savings account.
	And, you know, this is a new solution, a new paradigm that we could implement and we could duplicate because he's already done it about a thousand times around the country.
	And they're not doing it.
	I don't have the sense here that the costs are going to be lowered to the extent that they should be, that the competition is going to be real, that the average consumer is going to completely get rid itself of Obama mandates.
	I keep interviewing people on all sides of this, and I keep getting different answers.
	And it's like one side says A and the other side says Z.
	And one side says A and the other side says Z.
	And it keeps changing, so it's not like I can sit here.
	I mean, they added amendments last night in an attempt to shore up enough votes.
	I know that the study group is now with the House leadership on this bill.
	And the Freedom Caucus, at this time, the bill doesn't have the votes to pass, the Freedom Caucus is saying.
	And Speaker Ryan posted changes to the bill late last night after I had had him on Hannity last night, but we had gotten some word about what some of them would be.
	And, you know, I'm asking the guys what they think about it today that the Freedom Caucus suggested multiple alternatives to unite all the Republicans and earn the support of some Democrats, but GOP leaders so far have rejected major changes, just in a mash.
	And the significant amendments to the bill include closing the provision in the bill as it is now that allowed abortion tax credits, cutting back the expansion of healthcare savings accounts and adding restrictions on Medicaid.
	Under the new amendment rules, it would discourage New York State from forcing non-New York City counties to subsidize the Big Apples Medicaid bill.
	So I just, you know, when you have other solutions that are out there that are creating new paradigms that could work so much better, I'm just frustrated that they think in this with the swamp mentality.
	This to me just looks and reeks like everything old Washington.
	Is it going to be better than Obamacare?
	Well, nothing could be worse.
	But the principles of free market, like what they do in Wichita, to me is an answer.
	And it's an answer.
	And I know that at some point probably Donald Trump will negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.
	I know that he'll probably do the heavy lifting.
	I know that he's been told certain things.
	We weren't going to get full fake, we're not going to get full repeal out of this thing because they're using the reconciliation process.
	Republicans are going to end up owning whatever problems exist here.
	And the thing is, there's so many opportunities to make this better.
	And there seems to be this mysterious reluctance and resistance to try and make it better.
	And that's the frustrating part.
	And now when they go out there and they say, well, remember who you are, I'm like, you know, twisting somebody's arm is not going to get them on your side.
	You know, the push is really about being yes on this vote, but they don't have the votes according to the people that I'm talking to.
	So I think what's going to happen here is I think Republicans, conservatives, are going to be forced to vote no and go against them unless they can get at that point, then hopefully they'll be dealt with and the betterment of the bill will exist because of it.
	You know, I could sit here and random rave all day about how bad it is, but I'd rather make it better.
	I'd rather institute the conservative free market principles that I keep telling you that work.
	We'll talk to Dr. Umber in our final hour of the program today just to give you that example.
	Prices are for base buildings only.
	Do not include windows, doors, or accessories.
	Warning.
	Don't let your business get left behind in what is likely to be the biggest economic boom in recent history.
	If you need to build to grow your business, call General Steele today.
	Steel prices are expected to rise, but you can still lock in your price on a General Steel building if you call now.
	For example, a 40 by 60 foot building is still less than 25,000.
	Even an 80 by 150 foot building is under 99,000.
	Imagine 12,000 square feet for under $99,000.
	This building is designed for your needs, no wasted space.
	And you get the general's quality and 50-year structural warranty at a price you can afford.
	You can still save as much as half the cost and time of conventional construction by calling General Steele today, as much as half.
	So don't let rising steel prices put your project out of reach and stop you from making your company great.
	Call now, 877-81-STEAL.
	It's not too late.
	Call.
	877-81-STEAL.
	That's 877-817-8335.
	They don't want an up and down vote.
	Use the nuclear option.
	Let's just move on.
	This should not be a difficult decision for anybody.
	You know, I was thinking a lot about James Comey yesterday in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.
	And then I'm watching the liberal left, alt-left propaganda destroy Trump media because that's all they're out to do now.
	Ignore the facts.
	This is now, as I said on TV last night, this is a political witch hunt.
	And, you know, we've had nothing but eight months of nonstop Russian Trump conspiracy theories.
	And here is a simple truth that they just refuse to tell you.
	There is not one shred, one ounce of evidence showing collusion between Trump and the Russians.
	None.
	Zero zip.
	Nada.
	There's none.
	Now, instead, what do they focus on since yesterday?
	They're focused on the FBI director saying, well, he hasn't seen evidence to support Trump's tweets.
	Well, okay, the same hypocritical media like the New York Times on January 20th having a headline saying, wiretap data used in inquiry of Trump AIDS.
	Now, all of this I am telling you, and we've been telling you for two weeks.
	By the way, Jamie Dupree just sent me a list of, okay, the NBC, a good list of Republicans who are either definite no or going that way.
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
	I had it at 30.
	So they got 26 against.
	How many can they lose, Linda?
	What, 22?
	So that would mean so far, unless they pull any of these people over.
	And by the way, you could always call the switch line 202-224.
	What is it, 3121?
	202-224-3121.
	202-224-3121.
	Now, I'm looking at the list.
	Who's on the list?
	Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Justin Amash, Dave Brett, Raul Labrador, Mo Brooks.
	These are all good people.
	Louie Gomer, Jim Bridenstine, Eliana Ross Layton.
	In other words, Mark Sanford.
	All the people that basically the only few that will come on the program on a regular basis.
	The other ones only come on when I bash them.
	Then they'll come on because they don't want me to bash them anymore.
	All right, quick break, right back.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	I can't sit here and rant today out of anger that this was not handled properly.
	There's a whole rollout, the treatment of the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives, but that doesn't solve the problem.
	And, you know, I'm hoping that if they would just talk and listen a little more and stay in tune with their principles, it's that simple.
	You know, every single one of you could have concierge care.
	You know who has concierge care?
	The very wealthy in America, because they have their doctors, they pay them privately, and that doctor is there for them 24-7.
	Well, that's the same in Wichita, Kansas, and all the other hundreds of cooperatives that have been built around the country by Dr. Umber with his advice and et cetera.
	Nobody talks about a real solution.
	Healthcare savings accounts are awesome, especially for young people, because you build up money all those years and you end up only using it if, God forbid, something happens when you're young or more likely in your older years.
	And you've built up your own account.
	You spend it the way you want.
	You go to the doctor and hospital that's best at whatever ails you.
	And anyway, so Jamie Dupree, our man on the ground in D.C., just told me Mike Lee and Tom Cotton saying they are against the House bill.
	I count 26 now, maybe more, mostly Freedom Caucus members against the House bill.
	And it is now being turned into a binary choice.
	Either take it or you're going to be held accountable.
	You're going to lose your vote.
	The headline on Drudge now is close the deal, vote or lose your seat.
	Anyway, Dave Brad is with us, Congressman from Virginia, Freedom Caucus member.
	What's your count?
	And do you see any of your fellow Freedom Caucus members voting for this bill?
	There'll be a few, but we have a buffer.
	We've got the votes, and then there's other folks who will join us who are not the Freedom Caucus.
	And so it's still, we are trying to get to yes, and the yes is everything we've just been talking about, right?
	The prices are going up by 25%.
	And under this plan, under our own plan with Trump, right, our consummate business guy, prices are going to continue to go up 15 to 20% over the next three years.
	And Trump, we cannot have him own that, right?
	He'll get caught in a death spiral.
	And then the next move, the Democrats will come in and say, hey, let's do one.
	Let me get very specific because specifics matter here.
	Now, there are health savings in accounts.
	There are good things in the bill, especially Planned Parenthood, defunded, et cetera, et cetera.
	All right.
	What else do you like about the bill?
	Let's start there.
	Well, it gets rid of the individual mandate.
	It gets rid of the employer mandate.
	You should got more than 50 people on board.
	Okay.
	I got it.
	Let's go through the checklist.
	Doesn't defunds Planned Parenthood.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	What else do you like about it?
	The individual mandate goes away.
	The employer mandate goes away.
	It starts moving towards federalism and block grants.
	That was one of your first requirements.
	That was on your original list.
	So I was glad to see that.
	All right.
	Block grants.
	Keep going.
	And then after that, it does get rid of one of the, it gets rid of actuarial costs.
	It gets rid of one reg that results in a lot of cost savings.
	And that's where we need to keep moving.
	And so there's been this roadblock.
	They say we can't do that because of the Byrd rule in the Senate.
	And that's nonsense.
	Cruz came in and went in great detail for a half hour.
	All we need is for Pence to get in the chair over in the Senate, and we can get all the regs through, and then Trump owns a great product.
	Okay.
	All right, this is important.
	So what are the additions you need?
	Because, look, the average person, and I'll be honest, I've been interviewing all you guys, and I'm reading everything, and the bill changed again last night five different ways.
	What are the things that you have to have, you and your fellow Freedom Caucus guys, to get this bill done?
	Yep, we want what Paul Ryan promised up front.
	We've got to bend the cost curve down.
	Okay, how do you do that?
	Right, and that's it.
	So what's the major cost driver that is jacking up everyone's premiums?
	It's the regulations and the mandates coming out of the federal government, right?
	No young person can go buy a cheap plan, for example.
	Well, it's illegal under Obamacare to buy a catastrophic plan.
	Right, exactly.
	So you cannot go.
	You have to go buy these essential health benefits.
	That's the buzzword.
	That should seem to me to be an easy give, especially.
	And I'm going to do a deeper dive into these health cooperatives like the one I keep telling you about in Wichita, Kansas.
	All right, so that seems like an easy give.
	Why are they resisting that?
	Well, no one has the answer to that.
	The insurance companies are in a death spiral right now.
	So maybe part of it is that if you get rid of all of the federal mandates and people are able to go out and buy cheap insurance policies again, right, like they bought 10 years ago, go look at the price you paid 10 years ago, cheap.
	Then maybe the insurance companies are in real trouble.
	But I don't know that, right?
	That's the mystery because it is a no-brainer.
	It makes Trump a huge success, and that's all we need.
	If we put the insurance regulations, it's called bucket two up here, into the bill and pass it, and the Senate passes it, it's all done, and we can do it all Thursday.
	And the president is being ill-advised.
	He's being told that you can put that off till later, right?
	And that Secretary Price can do that.
	Well, wait a minute.
	In fairness, because this I've done a deep dive into also.
	Within the current Obamacare law, and again, if we're going to use the three-phase model, this being phase one, if I'm not mistaken, and there is great discretion upon the Health and Human Services Secretary, you would prefer to have it legislatively done.
	Is it that you don't trust Secretary Price to do it?
	No, they emphasize that point, the immense power he has.
	It's huge.
	Who else will have that immense power?
	The next Democrat Secretary.
	I got it.
	And then they'll reverse it, and then we're playing bumper cars with one sixth American economy.
	So what you're saying at that point is this is too important not to give them that opening.
	I got it.
	I understand that.
	Once in a century, I'm not exaggerating when I say this, right?
	This is a once-in-a-century opportunity for Republicans.
	Okay, so then let me ask this.
	If those are the only changes you need.
	That's it.
	And then you're convinced that that will be a bill that does everything that you're trying to promise the American people.
	Now, by the way, everybody needs to manage their expectations here because this is not going to change overnight.
	Right.
	Right.
	And it doesn't get me everything I want, right?
	The right-wing and left-wing think tanks up here both agree that the fundamental structure of Obamacare remains in our bill.
	So believe me, it's not what I want.
	And people that say the Highest Freedom Caucus doesn't negotiate or compromise, it's just baloney, right?
	We're accepting a fundamental structure we don't like that is run from the federal government in D.C. when we're trying to drain the swamp.
	So I don't like it.
	But at a minimum, you've got to lower the price of the product for the American people.
	So that's the one thing we have left.
	Then update me with this.
	Where are you?
	Because I know the president's been up to Capitol Hill.
	I know that you guys have been talking.
	I know that he talks to you and Meadows and Jordan fairly regularly throughout the process.
	You guys have not had as much communication with the House leadership, correct?
	Right.
	All right.
	So where are you with them and where are you with the president on these two things that you need to get it done?
	And the House leadership, over the last couple of days talking to our chairman Mark Meadows, has said the negotiations are about done.
	It's over.
	Trump, on the other hand, wants to get this thing through.
	And so we're trying to tell him we're doing this for the sake of his presidency, right?
	We're opposing the bill because it will hurt him in two years.
	Can you imagine?
	In two years, if prices keep going up 15 to 20 percent, I mean, I'm not making this up.
	That's the CBO score, right?
	And that's without without any, this is all just, you know, without paying attention to the unintended consequences.
	When's the last time you've spoken with the president, and what did he say?
	Well, this morning.
	I mean, he was in this morning, and he was doing a hard sell.
	He wants to just, he wants to pass a bill, but he thinks he can get the second and third buckets done with 60 votes in the Senate.
	We're having a hard enough time passing anywhere near a free market outcome with 51 votes using reconciliation.
	So the idea that we're going to get 60.
	Would guys like Lee and Cruz and Rand and the Senate support this bill if it had the changes you are that you want in it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Ted Cruz was over yesterday.
	He's a Harvard lawyer, right?
	So he went over the bird rules, so there's no issue there.
	And the major piece he mentioned is what I've been saying for a month with you on your show with your doctor friends, is we've got to reduce price.
	I mean, it's just common sense, right?
	So Trump is the constant.
	So the only way you're going to get these changes is if they don't have the votes by Thursday.
	That's it.
	But you also have Jamie Dupree, he's our guy in Washington, and he's writing me furiously here.
	And he said there's more moderate GO peers on the list that are against it.
	What is your count of Freedom Caucus members against the bill?
	Because he only has, he does not have most of your members, all of your members on this by any stretch.
	No, that's what I mean.
	On the conservative side, I'd say there's 30 or 35 folks, but then there's a lot of moderates who are, you know, they're hiding a little bit.
	But yes, there's 20 or 30 who are very uncomfortable because they have tough seats.
	They have to defend.
	And so there's, I think, like Ross Layton and Lance and Catko and Barletta, right?
	People like that.
	They're out in the press, right?
	So, all right, so I guess the bottom line is: do you know when you will talk to the president next?
	Well, we may try to arrange a meeting with a whole House Freedom Caucus and just run through it.
	Maybe if Cruz can come in, because there's nobody better to explain the law, right?
	I mean, he's Harvard-trained top in those classes.
	Listen, I mean, he's a constitutional scholar, and I agree.
	When he lays it out and says you put Pence in the chair, the parliamentarian advises, and then we have a vote, and you need 60 votes to overturn Pence.
	That can't happen because we've got Republican control.
	And then you've got an attractive product with the channel, how can people like me that want to hold government accountable and get these changes in?
	Can they call the switchboard?
	Does that help?
	Do people respond to that there or no?
	Yeah, oh, yeah.
	Call into our office and say, hey, can you guarantee me that my price is going down next year with your plan?
	That's it, right?
	Is the price going to go up or down?
	That's what people care about in the end.
	I hear there's a lot of bullying and arm twisting going on.
	How bad is it?
	It's not pleasant, but whatever.
	If we all signed up for the job.
	Yeah, with all due respect, I mean, I get called every name in the book.
	I don't feel sorry for one of you.
	You guys get half the year off.
	You guys get half the year off.
	It's pathetic.
	I've never seen anything like this.
	I should be a member of Congress.
	I'd be spending half my days on a beach somewhere.
	Right.
	No, you're doing the Lord's work, too, man.
	I mean, you believe in what you're doing, right?
	You could coast and take it.
	No, I want to get it right.
	But, you know, one of the things that Trump said that really leaves it hopeful for me, because he said with the passage of this bill, and this is going to be more down the line, he's going to go negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.
	And he said, you know, down the line, you know, like when these cooperatives like Dr. Umber emerge and can be duplicated, you know, all the bill needs to do is allow for the freedom of the free market to work.
	And then these things are going to happen organically, and they're going to pop, these new paradigms are going to be duplicated all over the country.
	And the same with health savings accounts.
	Once you give younger people in particular, I mean, you know, for old people like you, I don't think it works, but I am so awful.
	Why do you even come on this show?
	I am an awful human being.
	But hey, just to remind the audience that's listening, you'll need 60 votes in the Senate for pharmaceutical change unless we deal with this bird rule, right?
	That's why you get Cruz on your show to run the people through that.
	And then when we do tax reform, guess what?
	And I was in budget committee this morning and I asked staff when it comes to budget reform, tax reform, which he wants to do next, which is huge, and we'll get this economy just roaring again.
	Guess what?
	Part of that has to go to the business.
	Well, here's the bottom line.
	If 30 or 35 of you hold strong, you're going to get the two changes you want because it's just going to have to happen because otherwise they're not going to pass the bill.
	I hope so.
	I mean, we're not doing this for kicks, right?
	None of us get big money from that.
	No, I'm sure they're beating the crap out of you, and I'm sure it's unpleasant.
	But you know what?
	I get the crap beat out of me every day, but you've got to stand for what you believe in.
	Yep, that's it.
	Well, I taught economics for 20 years.
	People back home know what I believe in.
	So there's no way.
	I'm holding up for the principles and waiting until I get it.
	You see, once you open the free markets, then everything gets better.
	That's the key to any way of driving down costs.
	You've got to stand on free market capitalism.
	It's that simple.
	Yep, it is that simple.
	That's what we're waiting for.
	Well, we'll update everybody throughout the show and tomorrow.
	And if you get any updates, or, you know, if you have a chance maybe tonight to talk to the president, come back on with Meadows tomorrow and see if you can update us.
	All right, we'll get Cruz on in the next day or two if he's available.
	He's right now talking to Neil Gorsuch.
	All right.
	800-941 Sean.
	He's in the Gorsuch hearing, so he's not available, or else we'd put him on if we could.
	All right, we'll get to this.
	These are our three top stories today.
	Obviously, we're watching the health care bill.
	We're going to have, rather than hearing me rant again about how poorly this was managed, why don't I just look at what the answers will be if we get to free market?
	We'll ask Ann Coulter about that coming up next.
	Also, we'll check in with Dr. Umber, and we'll get back to the deep state issues in the course of the program today as well.
	So we've got a lot on our plate today.
	800-941-Sean, 202-224-3121 is the White House, the Capitol switchboard.
	Be nice, I suggest.
	Up to you what you want to do, but I advise you to just get hung up on if you're mean.
	202-224-3121.
	It's up on Hannity.com if you forget.
	All right, hour to Sean Hannity show.
	Toll-free telephone numbers, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Still hoping we can get this worked out in the conservative amendments put to this health care bill.
	We'll find out if, in fact, that can happen.
	That's one of the stories we're following today.
	Also, a follow-up to James Comey on Capitol Hill yesterday.
	Now, here's Comey talking to Trey Gowdy, not saying, not willing to say, if the FBI is investigating the one felony in this whole thing that we know was committed, and that is the leaking.
	In this particular case, the leaking against General Flynn.
	We're a month and a half and two months into something that you and I agree is incredibly important and also happens to be a felon.
	So I'm just simply asking you to assure the American people, you've already assured them you take it really seriously.
	Can you assure them that it is going to be investigated?
	I can't.
	Comey can't have it both ways.
	He's drawing a line.
	He said, we don't talk about ongoing or potentially ongoing investigations, but yet he admitted at the hearings yesterday that, in fact, there's an investigation into potential Russian influence into the election.
	Why one, not the other?
	You can't have that selective standard.
	Now, we got a montage of them not answering any questions yesterday.
	This is both Admiral Rogers and the FBI Director Comey.
	Listen to this.
	Sir, I'm not going to discuss even hypotheticals about individuals.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't think I should comment.
	I'm aware of public accounts, but I don't want to talk more than that.
	I don't know whether that's accurate or not.
	It's not something I can comment on.
	Again, I can't answer in the context of this particular matter.
	I don't know the answer to that.
	I'm not going to get into either that particular case, that matter, so I can't answer that.
	I don't think that's something I should be answering.
	It's not something I can answer.
	I have to give you the same answer.
	I'm not going to comment.
	He's not in a position to comment on the knowledge of something else from another person, ma'am.
	I don't know in general.
	And as to the specific, I'm just not going to comment.
	All right, last cut here.
	So they'll comment that one investigation's ongoing.
	As it relates to the leaks, their answer is, well, we don't comment on ongoing or potential investigations, even though we know a felony is committed there.
	But what the media misses, as I have been saying, is that both Clapper and Rogers, just like the director of national intelligence, well, Clapper said it first, Rogers and Comey, Admiral Rogers and James Comey said it yesterday, that Russia did not change any vote tallies in the election.
	That's the headline from yesterday.
	First, we cannot say they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.
	Do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of Michigan?
	No, I do not.
	How about the state of Pennsylvania?
	No, sir.
	The state of Wisconsin?
	No, sir.
	State of Florida?
	No, sir.
	The state of North Carolina?
	No, sir.
	The state of Ohio?
	No, sir.
	So you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence suggests any votes were changed?
	I have nothing generated by the National Security Agency, sir.
	Director Comey, do you have any evidence at the FBI that any votes were changed in the states that I mentioned to Admiral Rogers?
	No.
	Then why has the media been putting up headlines saying wiretap Russians' influence and the whole conspiracy theory has been advanced?
	Ann Coulter, author of The Bestseller in Trump We Trust, e.ploribus, awesome.
	How are you, Madam Coulter?
	Fantastic.
	How are you, Sean?
	I'm good.
	You know, although I take, I look at these hearings and it's amazing.
	I think you and I are probably the two people in America, maybe a few of us, a few others, that look at these hearings and see a completely different hearing.
	What are your thoughts?
	Yes, I watched a fair bit of it yesterday, but it was quite a bore because as you just indicated, Comey wouldn't answer any question other than the fact that he's investigating the Trump-Russia collusion.
	And, you know, the investigating line, it reminds me of the way non-lawyers talk about circumstantial evidence.
	If it's just, you know, oh, that doesn't count.
	It's just circumstantial.
	Well, no, DNA is circumstantial evidence.
	Any evidence that isn't eyewitness testimony, which, by the way, is not very impressive, is circumstantial evidence.
	Similarly, investigating.
	I would say the most important actual revelation other than that Comey is really, really trying to suck up to the New York Times and Rachel Maddow was that they've been, quote, investigating, means nothing, there's no evidence for any Russia-Trump collusion.
	They've been investigating this for eight months.
	Eight months.
	He said they've been investigating the Trump collusion since July.
	And to this day, there is no evidence for that.
	The big report that came out, just, you know, let's remember, even though they'll keep saying, oh, intelligence agencies have concluded, they've concluded that Putin wanted Trump and they were trying to elect Trump.
	Their big evidence for point one that Putin wanted Trump is a very important point in that ridiculous intelligence estimate they put out, which I've discussed with you before.
	And every serious person to look at it says all you have is allegations here.
	You have continued to give us no evidence of Russia trying to influence the election.
	Their big evidence was Putin never said anything nice about Trump.
	And ha ha, you see, he had to hide the fact that he was for Trump.
	Well, okay, this is non-disprovable evidence.
	So if he says something nice about Trump, that would have been proof that he wanted Trump, as he did about Obama in 2012, by the way.
	But by not saying anything nice about Trump, well, that shows us what he really means.
	This is the sort of argument we're dealing with here.
	Now, of the two issues, one is Trump, Trump campaign, Russia collusion.
	Number two, Trump's claim only two weeks ago that he was being surveilled by the Obama administration.
	There's zero evidence for the collusion claim.
	We at least have some evidence on them surveilling Trump, inasmuch as the results of their surveillance ended up in the Washington Post and the New York Times.
	Now, the surveillance itself may or may not have been illegal, but the leaking it to the press was illegal.
	We know that.
	So we have an eight-month investigation on Russia trying to influence the election with zero evidence to support it.
	We have now two weeks ago Trump making the claim of being surveilled.
	And Comey won't even say whether he's investigating, as you point out correctly.
	Huh, that's weird.
	You're willing to tell us that in one case you're investigating, but in the other case you give this bold statement.
	We have no evidence to support the claim that Trump was being surveilled, or Trump Tower's Trump campaign.
	Well, he has no evidence for Russia either.
	Why doesn't he say that about Russia and say he's investigating the wiretap claim?
	You know, what's so fascinating in all of this is that there's a lot of leaking.
	There's a lot of deep state Obama holdovers.
	And where I think this is headed, I think Solomon and Carter have been the ones that have been really breaking ground here.
	And they've been able to confirm there was a FISA warrant.
	We did this two weeks ago on this program, and what Comey said yesterday was no surprise to anybody that listens to this radio show or watches my TV show.
	Yeah, we know there was a FISA warrant.
	It had nothing to do with Trump, but it had to do with Russian potential attempts to influence.
	There was another warrant.
	At some point in the investigation, there were some pings that they had noticed from Russia, from a Russian bank, that were on the Trump server that they did investigate.
	Also importantly, the first application for the FISA warrant to investigate people around Trump campaign was turned down by the FISA court.
	And according to what I read from people like Andrew McCarthy and others involved in this, there are 36,000 FISA warrants have been approved.
	And, you know, over history, about a dozen have been turned down.
	But this one was turned down.
	So they rewrite it, come back again.
	And I guess there was one.
	But it is, I mean, yes, everything you're putting together and just watching that yesterday, we really have to, I've always been, I mean, our intelligence agencies really need to be cleaned out.
	What have they done?
	What have they done for us?
	What have they ever predicted with all of this deep state technology?
	They didn't see 9-11 coming.
	They ignored Russia warning us about the Tsarnaev brothers.
	They don't even have to do any deep state investigation.
	Russia's calling up and saying this family is a nest of pederafs.
	And our brilliant intelligence agencies say, no, the Zarnayev family, they're fine.
	They're fine.
	Blow up the Boston Marathon.
	What have they done?
	They told us about weapons of mass destruction, which they claimed were stockpiles.
	That was never my reason for supporting the war in Iraq, so I didn't really care.
	That was my reason for taunting the New York Times, since they're the ones who are so in love with the UN and, well, he's violating UN resolutions.
	For liberals, that was a big issue, and they were wrong about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
	That is a fact.
	They sent that loon Joe Wilson over to Niger so we could ask Niger, hey, Nigerian government.
	Yellow cake uranium.
	Yes.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Could you tell me, were you seeking uranium?
	And by the way, I have no way of knowing.
	And if you say yes, you're going to be in big trouble with the United States.
	Now be honest.
	Were you seeking uranium?
	And that's their genius report.
	His wife then is, what, was she, cover a vanity fair?
	I mean, they are just a ridiculous group of people who are working for the elite political order, which is the New York Times.
	And, well, we see them out protesting and breaking Starbucks windows all the time.
	They really just got to clear them out.
	It would be nice to have an intelligence agency that could do something good.
	But our intelligence agencies and agents apparently do nothing good.
	Again, they didn't see 9-11 coming.
	They didn't see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing coming.
	They saw nothing.
	They've stopped nothing.
	What do we have them for other than to listen to their political opponents and then leak it to the Washington?
	I think at the end of the day, this is going to go much higher up the chain than anybody thinks.
	That's my anticipation.
	But we'll see.
	And stay right there.
	Ann Coulter's with us.
	The Forgotten Man is Forgotten No More.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	As we continue, Ann Coulter is with us.
	Her best-selling book in Trump We Trust, E. Ploribus, Awesome.
	All right, so every conservative I've talked to in the Freedom Caucus is not supporting this bill for health care that they're supposed to vote on on Thursday.
	We're going to have well, I agree.
	And what I'm frustrated about is, number one, Republicans, after eight years, never built a consensus bill, didn't bring the conservatives, it seems, into the process.
	And if they don't have the votes on Thursday, why do I suspect finally they will deal with what the conservative concerns are, but they're hoping they can bypass them.
	Yes, well, I'm just concerned with this intractable problem of people not understanding the free market.
	I just don't understand why this is so difficult to explain how the free market works in a world where nearly every service and product we buy, we buy on the free market.
	That's why everything gets better and cheaper.
	And for most Americans, we can deal with people who can't pay for their own health care next.
	But for most Americans who are willing to pay for their own health care and their own health insurance, just let us buy it on the free market.
	I can't do that.
	I'm paying $700 a month, and I can't go to Sloan Kettering.
	I can't go to the hospital of special surgery, basically any place you'd want to go.
	Mammoth deductibles.
	Why?
	Because my health insurance premiums, by law, under Obamacare, have to pay for everyone else's pregnancies, delivery of babies, pediatric dental care, gambling addiction, marital counseling, oh, of course, sex change operations, on and on and on.
	Could someone explain to me why I have to pay for other people to keep their kids on their plans until their age, whatever, 25, 26?
	If you want that, just like when you buy a telephone, you might want 200 minutes per month.
	I may only want 30 minutes per month.
	Why do I have to pay for your 200 minutes per month?
	If we could buy this on the free market, then I could get the plan I want.
	You could get the plan you want.
	And by the way, it would be, as I pointed out before, about $50 a month.
	And we know that because these Christian health care groups, they're Christian ministries.
	They're not allowed by law to call it insurance, but it's basically health insurance.
	$50 a month.
	And at the bottom of this hour, I am bringing Dr. Josh Umber on.
	He does this in Wichita.
	He's duplicated this model nearly a thousand times around the country.
	It's $50 a month in adult unlimited care, negotiates directly with the pharmaceutical companies, gets a 95% discount.
	X-rays are about 48 cents.
	MRIs are pennies on the dollar.
	He dispenses the drugs directly.
	And you couple that with a catastrophic plan, which is really cheap, and you've got everything covered.
	Yes, and these Christian healthcare groups, you have to be a Christian.
	You have to establish that.
	So you are limiting the pool of people, plus, which the number of people who even know about it.
	So it would certainly fall to far less than $50 a month, particularly for people who are healthy, not overweight, young.
	It would probably end up being about $20 a month.
	Congress doesn't need to pass a law requiring everyone to have a cell phone.
	We buy them because they're great and they're cheap.
	That's how the free market works.
	And for some reason, Congress feels like they have to put, they have to tell the insurance what it's going to cover.
	No, you're going to have an app on that iPhone that has maps on it because we've decided that's the good part of iPhone care under Obama.
	No, the free market figures out what people want, offers it to them, but it doesn't force everyone buying a flat screen TV.
	And you must get a premium package.
	No, you won't get it, but you'll be paying for everybody else's premium.
	I got 30 seconds, and I agree with everything you said.
	And we'll talk to Dr. Umber later in the program.
	We're on the same page.
	Yeah, Trump has got to get off this stuff, and he's got to get off tax cuts and get back to what got him elected.
	He wasn't elected by Goldman Sachs.
	He got 1% of their vote.
	He wasn't elected by the donor class.
	He spent less on television advertising, and that's what the cost is, than even Bernie Sanders did per vote.
	He doesn't owe the donors get back to the wall, get back to deportations, get back to the trade deals.
	This is starting to look like every other Republican administration.
	Massive spending on the military, which wastes $125 billion a year, according to a McKenzie report.
	He's just moving money from one swamp to another.
	We don't want war.
	We want more jobs, a wall, and lots of deportations.
	Not all of this stuff that is indistinguishable from the Jeb Bush administration.
	All right.
	Ann Coulter, holding him accountable.
	That's what we do on this program.
	Ann, thank you for being with us.
	Appreciate it.
	As always, 800-941-Sean, Dr. Umber, at the top of the hour.
	There's such simple, basic, understandable, common sense ways to tackle this healthcare problem.
	You never hear anyone talk about that part.
	All right, when we come back, we get to the latest on the deep state and much more.
	And Comey's testifying before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday.
	We've got an update that's coming up next.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	Don't forget our news roundup information overload.
	We take a deep dive into a healthcare solution.
	I can rant and rave all day.
	What is the answer?
	That probably is not a part of this bill in its current form, although it certainly can be something that evolves over time, which I'm hoping and praying for.
	In other words, actually standing by free market principles.
	We'll get to that.
	All right, so back to this issue of James Comey in his testimony yesterday.
	I want you to listen.
	He testifies to Eliana Ross Layton that the Russians, by the way, and he said they have tried in the past to interfere in elections, that they'll try again in 2018 and they'll try again in 2020.
	Listen.
	Do you expect their interference to be amplified in future U.S. elections?
	Do you see any evidence of that in European elections?
	Or do you think that this public acknowledgement would tamper down their volatility?
	I'll let Mike Rogers.
	Maybe I'll just say as an initial matter, they'll be back.
	I mean, they'll be back in 2020.
	They may be back in 2018.
	And one of the lessons they may draw from this is that they were successful because they introduced chaos and division and discord and sowed doubt about the nature of this amazing country of ours and our democratic process.
	It's possible they're misreading that as it worked, and so we'll come back and hit them again in 2020.
	I don't know, but we think we have to assume they're coming back.
	Oh, they've been here before.
	They've been here this year and they're coming back.
	It's just like what I would say about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
	I'm like, okay, Julian Assange did America a favor.
	One, it exposed just how deeply corrupt government is in this country to a level that I always suspected and now have proof.
	It also exposed collusion between the media and the Democratic Party.
	They were actively helping, assisting, in the name of fairness, Palance reporting Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	But more importantly, what else did it show?
	We don't have real cybersecurity in our own government.
	And the fact that they knew it did nothing to fix it and stop it, that's their fault at this point.
	You know, the fact that, you know, Julian Assange at 16 hacked into NASA and the DOD, and that all these people hacked into the DNC campaign and hacked into John Podesta's emails, well, with all due respect, that's the government not doing their job in protecting us.
	And the latest WikiLeaks dump, only 1% or less than 1% of what they found on CIA ability, is that they kind of don't want Americans to have the encryption, the safety that is technologically available to them.
	And that is a slap in the face to privacy for every American, in my opinion.
	And what you've got is a rogue state unfolding.
	But the big question that matters the most here: okay, well, they've tried in the past.
	They're going to try in the future.
	They tried in 2016.
	Well, what did James Clapper and then Admiral Rogers and James Comey, what did they say about Russia?
	Did it impact any vote tally in any way in the 2016 election?
	The answer is no.
	Don't believe me.
	Listen to their own words.
	First, we cannot say they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.
	Do you have any evidence that Russia's cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of Michigan?
	No, I do not, but I would highlight we're in foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization.
	So it would be fair to say we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer.
	How about the state of Pennsylvania?
	No, sir.
	The state of Wisconsin?
	No, sir.
	State of Florida?
	No, sir.
	The state of North Carolina?
	No, sir.
	The state of Ohio?
	No, sir.
	So you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence suggests any votes were changed?
	I have nothing generated by the National Security Agency, sir.
	Director Comey, do you have any evidence at the FBI that any votes were changed in the states that I mentioned to Admiral Rogers?
	No.
	Nope.
	But if you listen to the alt-left propaganda, destroy Trump media, well, what do they say?
	Russia hacked the election.
	We've heard it before the election.
	We've heard it since the election.
	It never goes away.
	Not one.
	Well, Jeff Sessions once did his job as a senator, met with a Russian ambassador.
	Well, now we've discovered there were a lot of contacts with the Hillary campaign and Russia.
	And I can take that even further if we want to go into the amount of money that was paid to Bill Clinton, who got a $500,000 speaking fee, almost double his normal fee for a speech in Moscow in 2010 while Hillary was Secretary of State.
	The firm that footed the bill called Moscow, I'm sorry, Renaissance Capital.
	It's in Moscow.
	Well, they boasted their deep ties to Russian intelligence and the Clinton Foundation themselves.
	This is all in Peter Schweitzer's book.
	You know, they ended up taking the money from Russian officials and Putin-connected oligarchs.
	They took donations from all these other people associated with Vladimir Putin.
	The Clinton Foundation scored $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company, Uranium One, that happened to be sold to the Russian government in 2010 while Hillary's Secretary of State, that deal needed the approval of federal agencies, including the Hillary Clinton State Department.
	And the deal allowed the Russian state nuclear agency to buy assets that amounted to 20% of American uranium.
	In other words, what is uranium for?
	That's the raw material to make nuclear weapons.
	And now Russia literally was able to buy assets of 20% of our uranium.
	That's pretty dumb.
	But we're investigating a potential collusion with the Russians.
	It's so beyond anything of a double standard in life.
	It's inexplicable to me.
	By the way, joining us, Jack Barski, former KGB spy.
	He wrote a book.
	It's called Deep Undercover.
	It's out today, Amazon.com, bookstores everywhere.
	Scott Wheeler, Army vet, former investigative journalist, GOP Trust Executive Director.
	Welcome all of you to the program.
	Isn't it true, Mr. Barski, and how many years were you a KGB agent spy?
	Yeah, altogether 10 years.
	Okay, and when did you stop doing that work?
	In 1988.
	Okay, 19.
	So you did it at the height of the Cold War.
	That's correct.
	You know, before Gorbachev and his meetings with Reagan and Reykjavik and all these other big moments occurred, and not long after that, the wall came tumbling down, right?
	That is correct, also.
	Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
	All right.
	Isn't it true that the Americans were doing everything they can do to spy on you guys?
	Of course.
	I'm sorry to ask such a fundamental, almost ridiculous question.
	And isn't it true the KGB was trying to do everything they could do to spy, influence, undermine America also?
	Absolutely.
	The United States was always called the main adversary.
	And I don't think that has changed.
	You don't think it's changed?
	You don't think there was any healing at all?
	No, Think about this one incident that I mentioned when people ask me that.
	The Yeltsin government, which was arguably the most friendly government to the United States in history out of Russia, awarded two atomic spies the Order of Hero of the Russian Federation.
	And to me, that's a personal connection because I worked with these two guys.
	They were Morris and Lona Cohen.
	So they honored two top communist spies.
	Enough said.
	Yeah, I mean, exactly.
	And all right, so the bottom line is you think things are just as bad.
	So, in other words, when Comey says that they've tried to influence or impact American elections, that shouldn't surprise anybody.
	No, what else is new?
	Of course.
	I know you're laughing, but I mean, all right, and they're going to try in 2018, and they're going to try in 2020.
	That's not a surprise.
	No, the only thing that seems to be, the only people that seem to be surprised, feigned surprise, is the Democrats.
	Exactly the right word, feigned surprise.
	And Scott Wheeler, I mean, you're an investigative journalist.
	I hope you've been following what John Solomon and Sarah Carter are doing because, you know, it seems that there's a lot of feigning of outrage and a lot of selective moral outrage because we do know for a fact, and it was proven after a congressional investigation, that the Obama administration used taxpayer money.
	And what were they trying to do?
	They were trying to unseat the prime minister of Israel, one of our closest allies.
	Is that not true?
	Well, that is absolutely true, Sean, as you know.
	And let me point out something that very few people are talking about.
	First of all, I think that this is a canard to begin with, that somehow the Russians and Putin wanted Trump elected to begin with.
	As you know, I've written in Forbes magazine that Putin had to have been rooting for Hillary Clinton.
	Obama and Clinton were like silly putty to him, including handing over 10 Russian spies in 2010 who had, according to the Washington Post, connections to both Obama and Clinton.
	Now, why were those spies not deposed?
	And why did Obama rush him out of the country back to a hero's welcome in Moscow in 2010 after the FBI had run a multi-year investigation of this so-called sleeper cell?
	There's another more interesting fact that came out in documents that a former Soviet president released, and that is that Ted Kennedy had worked with top aides to Urien Dropoff at the time, the current, who was at the time the premier of the Soviet Union, to help defeat President Reagan.
	This is unbelievable.
	If they want election interference, here you had a U.S. senator sending messages through his top aides.
	How do you bring this up?
	I have forgotten all about that.
	This is 100% true, the story you're telling.
	It's 100% accurate.
	I'm reading it from a quote from Forbes magazine that says Kennedy's message was simple.
	He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo.
	Kennedy would lend and drop off a hand in dealing with President Reagan.
	In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democrat Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.
	Now, furthermore, if they want foreign interference in an American election, let's look at 1992 and 1996.
	I produced an entire documentary on this called Trading with the Enemy back in 2000, where the communist Chinese poured millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars into Bill Clinton's reelection campaign.
	Sean, you covered this very well at the time also, where they poured millions of dollars through communist Chinese agents at the same time Bill Clinton was decontrolling strategic weapons technology to the communist Chinese at the very same time.
	And the Democrats not only weren't interested in that, they ran shotgun for the Clinton administration's disinformation campaign, trying to prevent the investigations from.
	Charlie Tree, John Wong, I remember all the work I did on this.
	You're absolutely right.
	All right, guys, stay right there.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll finish this on the other side.
	Our news roundup information overload hour is coming up at the top of the hour.
	Still so much to get to in the course of today's program.
	I don't know how we get it all in, but we're going to make it happen.
	We'll look at healthcare solutions, free market that are not even being discussed by anybody, which frustrates me to no end here.
	The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
	Hang on for Sean's Conservative Solutions.
	All right, as we continue, Jack Barski, former KGB spy, he wrote the book Deep Undercover.
	Scott Wheeler, Army vet, former investigative journalist.
	And, of course, we're talking about James Comey and the fact that everyone's so shocked that he announced that, yes, the Russians did try to influence the 2016 elections, which they've done in the past, which they're going to do in 2018, which they're going to do in 2020, which is what goes on in the world of espionage.
	You know, Jack, what's kind of amazing to me is the level of, I guess, ignorance that I get from people.
	It seems that they're almost totally unaware that this level of spying and surveillance and espionage goes on between big countries all the time.
	It just never stops.
	Why is this surprising?
	Has anybody not watched Homeland for Crane Out Loud?
	Well, you shouldn't have to watch TV, but the bottom line is espionage has been around as long as there have been feuding countries on the planet.
	And this is a weapon that you have in your arsenal and you use it.
	And we would be foolish not to use that weapon to the extent we can.
	And this holier-than-thou attitude is just off the wall wrong.
	It's like, you know, I compare this to the United States was the first country that had an atomic weapon for a good reason.
	We are on the right side of history.
	And so, as I said, the holier-than-thou attitude by far left-wing folks is atrocious and leads to nothing but erosion of what we call probably the last bastion of freedom in the world.
	You know, Scott, I'd hate to think of a world without covert operations, without intelligence, without plausible deniability, because I wouldn't want to be guessing what the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, and I even think Putin is a bad character in some ways and in many ways in his own state.
	Look at Ukraine, look at Crimea.
	You know, look at some of these other issues that he's been involved in that are very questionable.
	Intelligence, you know, lets us have knowledge to make good decisions about national security.
	It's a smart thing to do.
	Absolutely, it is.
	And we rely heavily on clandestine operations to provide us with information about the bad actors in the world.
	It is absolutely necessary.
	But, you know, in this case, I have still yet to see evidence that Russia was trying to help Trump get elected, as the New York Times has alleged when today they say President Trump's campaign and Russia's efforts to sabotage Hillary Clinton.
	I don't get it either.
	And Comey was so direct about it yesterday, as was Admiral Rogers.
	I'm like, can we see that evidence, please?
	All right, Scott, thank you.
	Jack, thank you.
	I've got to run 800-941.
	Sean.
	All right.
	So, what is the real conservative solution to health care?
	We're going to give you answers you're not hearing anybody in Congress or Washington discuss at all.
	We'll hold them accountable next.
	Does the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to the press violate a section of the Espionage Act that criminalizes improperly accessing, handling, or transmitting national defense information?
	Yes.
	Republicans hold a big press conference and pat ourselves on the back that we've repealed Obamacare and everyone's premiums keep going up.
	People will be ready to tar and feather us in the streets and quite rightly.
	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 marsh and bullets at the moon, baby.
	This is how we move the world.
	Sean Hannity, the new Sean Hannity 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.
	All right, news roundup, information overload here on a Tuesday.
	What a busy news week between James Comey and then, of course, the health care bill expected to be voted on in the full House on Thursday.
	And all the other news, of course, deep state, unbelievable, unbelievable developments day by day as it relates to that.
	Neil Gorsuch, his confirmation hearings.
	Let me go back to last night, Hannity on the Fox News channel, Paul Ryan, telling me that the Freedom Caucus members who voted in support in committee, now many of them said they were voting in support in committee to advance the bill, anticipating that there were going to be amendments, but he says that there are a couple that might have changed their opinion on the full bill.
	My call with some of those members this morning does not corroborate the Freedom Caucuses with this bill in its current form, which would mean that there are that many votes short.
	Let's play Paul Ryan from last night.
	Is the Freedom Caucus on board?
	Well, have you talked to them?
	Because Dave Bratt earlier today said 40 members were not going to vote for the bill, and Rand Paul said the same.
	Yeah, well, I've spoken with many of them.
	I haven't spoken to every one of them.
	I talked to a lot of members.
	We've got 230-some members here.
	But the Freedom Caucus members that have had this vote in committee have already voted for it.
	One of the ones that didn't vote for it in the budget committee has now come out in favor of it since then.
	So we've had Freedom Caucus members already voting for it in committee.
	And one of them who didn't is now in favor of it because of the work requirements, because of the additional layers of federalism.
	So I've spoken with a lot of Freedom Caucus members who are voting for it.
	We also have the largest conservative caucus here, the Republican Study Committee.
	That's the biggest conservative caucus we have in Congress.
	Their leader and their key members came out in favor of it with President Trump in the Oval Office on Friday.
	And so we're making tremendous progress.
	We feel very good.
	And it's because we've been negotiating, listening to one another, improving this bill, making refinements to it, so that we get to the sweet spot of a consensus bill that can pass.
	The key, it doesn't make any difference if you can't repeal and replace it if you can't pass it.
	So we're getting a bill that can pass that repeals and replaces Obamacare.
	And this is just one piece of the three things we're going to do.
	All right.
	So the president has now been out rallying the country and had been in Louisville, Kentucky last night.
	He was in Tennessee last week, and he is pushing hard.
	He's working the phones, I guess, harder than anybody.
	That meeting did take place with the study group on Friday, and apparently everybody, based on some changes they were willing to make to the bill, were willing to jump on board.
	The original changes that were made were to the study committee leaders agreed to give states the option to impose work requirements.
	Why does that have to be optional?
	I don't know.
	Anyway, on Medicare recipients and, of course, block grant Medicaid.
	And then some conservatives felt it was a step backwards when addition to the Medicaid agreement, the Republican study committee, the White House, House leaders also eyeing increasing tax credits in the bill, something that could bring some more liberal or centrist people on board.
	We had some of the changes last night, including, for example, and this is pretty interesting, a manager's amendment, which presumably the House Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee to prep the bill for the House floor vote on Thursday, and then also expected some tax policy changes.
	But there's more confusion than anything else.
	I don't even know what the exact status of the bill is at this time, and I've been reading most of the day to try and get to the bottom of it.
	Anyway, let's get to our phones here.
	And we have joining us Professor Christy Ford Chapman and Dr. Josh Umber.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	Dr. Umber, you know, I keep talking about what you're doing in Wichita, Kansas.
	I hope you don't mind me mentioning you so much.
	I'm just so impressed with what you've done down there.
	Sean, you're the most powerful voice talking about this solution right now.
	So we love it.
	You're spreading the word farther and faster than anyone.
	But I think you're really going to be fascinated by what Dr. Chapman has, or Professor Chapman, has written about the health care model and how we're kind of bringing back a very old model that worked really well.
	Yeah.
	Well, I'm getting a little concerned that there's a lot of arm twisting going on.
	I'm not sure if I believe the New York Washington Post headline, Trump to GOP critics of health care bill, I'm going to come after you.
	Maybe that's happening, maybe that's not happening.
	But the reality is, if Republicans and the president don't get this right, they will own it.
	Anyway, let me go to Christy Ford Chapman.
	Professor, tell us about your position on this.
	Hi, this is Professor Chapin here.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Did I say it wrong?
	So I was trying to sneak it in.
	Like Harry Chapin.
	I'm sorry.
	That's right.
	So I've written about the history of health care at length.
	And one of the points looking at the experiment going on in Kansas is this is what physicians tried to originally do if you look at the first three or four decades of the 20th century.
	They were called prepaid physician groups.
	They were very popular with patients and customers.
	They were very popular with progressives.
	They held down costs and they offered excellent care.
	Okay, give me more specifics.
	Okay, so what happened is the way physicians would set them up is actually different from what we have today, they were multi-specialty.
	So patients were able to have one-stop medical shopping where they could go and have their general practitioner, cardiologist, surgeon, pediatrician, everybody in one place.
	This allowed the physicians to work together if they had a difficult to diagnose case or somebody who was chronically ill and they needed to talk about how to manage their holistic medical treatment.
	Also, what happened with these prepaid physician groups, which was so great about them as far as holding down costs, is that the physicians acted as the insurers themselves.
	So rather than paying a set monthly fee to an insurance company, individuals and families paid this set fee to the physician.
	And those are the people we want to incentivize properly in the system.
	We don't want insurance companies looking over the physician's shoulder, supervising them, or government officials making sure they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.
	We want the physician, he or she is the one with the appropriate expertise to know when something is oversupply of care, which is a big problem we have today with today's insurance company model.
	And they also need to be incentivized to get a lot of people.
	You're basically saying dump the insurance model in most ways.
	In other words, you're sort of in agreement with me that, you know, what I like about what Dr. Umber is doing, because he's basically doing what I have worked out in my own way in my own life, in part because I have deep friendships with friends of mine who are doctors.
	In other words, if I call my friend, he's coming as a friend.
	He's not coming as, but it's really like a concierge service.
	And I joke about it with him.
	I mean, if he sees me for more than five minutes, he's taking my blood pressure.
	It's just the way our friendship works.
	It may sound strange, but I mean, he's somebody that knows that I'm not paying a lot of attention to those things in my life.
	And, you know, he's taking it upon himself because this is what he loves to do to take care of me.
	But the idea that somebody can pay a monthly payment and it's pretty much unlimited care, like in Dr. Umber's Atlas MD case, they're paying, but they're also getting a service.
	They're getting unlimited service.
	And I'm sure, Dr. Umber, the hope of most of your patients is, with all due respect, if you were my doctor, I would never want to see you.
	Well, best case scenario, yeah, we keep you healthy and you don't need it, but we know things come up.
	But now, I think you're right.
	This is something that people in your position have been able to naturally gravitate to because they have to.
	Yeah, but instead of paying him, I bought him a golf simulator.
	Instead of paying him, I gave him a bottle of scotch.
	I mean, he's done me a couple of really big favors, and he's not going to take my money.
	So I just say, all right, well, hell with you.
	I'll just find a way to pay you anyway.
	Right.
	But now the Sean Hannity that used to be a contract laborer can still afford it.
	And that's what we want to do is make this model accessible to the masses that we drive down the cost of care than we can drive down the cost of health insurance.
	And that's the conversation that's really – Well, I had a conversation with Senator Cotton, and he was aware that I had been talking about you.
	He said he wanted to reach out to you, did he?
	He did Friday.
	We had an excellent conversation.
	When you talk, people listen.
	And then the mayor of, or I'm sorry, the governor of Mississippi called last week as well.
	And we look forward to speaking with other legislators about how this model can really be a solution.
	Do you see, because look, I'm a conservative.
	I believe in free market, competitive markets, capitalism.
	And at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, we're not going to let people die in the streets if they're having a heart attack.
	They're not going to be asked when they're pulled into an ambulance and taken to a hospital, where's your insurance card?
	We can't do a thing while you're having that heart attack until you give that insurance card.
	That's just not the way any system is going to work.
	Right.
	Go ahead.
	We're a pretty generous country.
	And we're already stretching those dollars pretty far to cover a lot of people.
	Now, if the test that used to be $50 is $2, we can afford to take care of even more people.
	This is the stuff that Trump has been talking about.
	Trump on his own, and I had not discussed it with him, said the exact same thing about pharmaceuticals.
	What do you get?
	A 90, 95 percent discount on all the major drugs, even chemotherapy drugs?
	It's amazing.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And why did the pharmaceutical companies give you that discount and don't give anybody else?
	We buy those wholesale just like the pharmacies do.
	But we're not in a model of marking it up and trying to bill a third-party insurance.
	We're in the business of providing value to our customer, our patient.
	So we wanted to rethink the whole model because, yes, it was working well for big box retailers to upmark the meds because the pharmacist or the insurance had to pay for something.
	There was a competitive angle there.
	But we wanted to fix that.
	And do you dispense directly to the patients or do you work with a local pharmacy?
	Well, in 44 states, physicians can dispense their own medications to their own patients, which is how we do flu shots and all kinds of things.
	We just said, how else can I bring value to my patients?
	I blame the doctors first and foremost, not the insurance or not the government.
	The doctors are the providers of care.
	And just like the professor is talking with these prepaid programs, when we're incentivized to find out how to bring value to our patients, we can.
	And it's free market and it's individualized for individual communities.
	And it's basically, it sounds like, and tell me if I'm wrong, Professor, duplicating Dr. Umber's model, which is successful.
	Exactly.
	It's a myth that the health care system pre-ACA was free market.
	So I think the Republicans attempting to somehow shore it up and slap another band-aid on it is counterproductive, especially if they're worried about the spending on Medicaid and Medicare.
	They have to have some kind of fundamental reform that's going to actually bend down the cost curve rather than just cutting benefits, and that's it.
	I got more questions on this on the other side.
	Both of you stay with us, and that's Professor Christy Ford Chapin, sorry, and also Dr. Josh Umber.
	Still waiting to fly out all those libs who promised to leave if Trump were elected.
	The jet is ready.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	So we expect the health care vote to take place on Thursday.
	We continue looking for alternative, free market, conservative solutions that in this interim period might be added to this bill.
	Dr. Josh Umber is with Atlas MD out of Wichita, Kansas.
	Also with us, Professor Christy Ford Chapin is here with us.
	You know, you made a very good point in your paper where you said the health care system was built on free markets.
	That's not true.
	And you also said the insurance model was put together by the AMA in 1938.
	My question to you is doctors who spend four years in college, three years in medical school doing internships and residencies and then having to open up shop, I mean, they're broke by the time they're 30.
	And it takes a long time to recoup this money.
	Is it possible using this all-inclusive model of Dr. Umber for them to make more money in their business by not having insurance companies dictate what they charge?
	Oh, absolutely.
	What you saw in the history is a lot of these prepaid groups would be started by senior physicians.
	So they would hire the junior physicians in as they came out of medical school.
	Again, I want to stress the point that these were multi-specialty.
	I want your listeners to imagine being able to go have their, you know, everything from the chiropractor to the general practitioner and the orthopedist all in one spot.
	Particularly important for the chronically ill and the elderly.
	So absolutely.
	The main thing that needs to be done is that Congress would have to pass legislation in order to help these groups get around a lot of state regulation that prevent them from doing, having the freedom to do more things than they can now.
	In other words, maybe doing certain procedures in the office versus in a hospital.
	Right.
	Right now there's a lot of state regulation that is based around the insurance company model, and it makes sense.
	States have been trying to control costs.
	Everybody's been trying to control costs.
	That's why insurance companies regulate physicians and hospitals so much.
	But for example, a lot of states have legislation that prevent physicians and physician groups from owning their own equipment, whether an MRI machine or laboratory facilities.
	It makes sense under the insurance company model because you're trying to prevent providers from running up a bill that they're then just shipping.
	The only area I see, if you live in a very rural area with a very low population, I could see that might be a tough position, but probably getting to a hospital is a nightmare already, right?
	Well, no different than from what you would have today.
	I mean, you would see different types of groups in different areas, but you could still have, you might not have a physician group that had as many specialists on it.
	It might be more GP-centric just because of the population wouldn't support anything else.
	But we'd also be able to leverage technology.
	Speaking with the governor of Mississippi, he talked about how they're leading the front edge of using telemedicine to get to their rural community.
	So there would be a lot of ways to solve that riddle.
	All right, last part, last question.
	Does this also include the catastrophic care, which is the cheapest insurance?
	The God forbid if I have the heart attack, get cancer, or have the accident.
	Is that in there, Professor?
	Yes.
	Well, back then it was not because we're talking in our 1930s and 40s, but absolutely.
	And insurance companies would still be in healthcare.
	They would just either be a form of reinsurance or catastrophic insurance.
	Yeah, which makes sense.
	And the higher the deductible, the less you're going to pay.
	But if that God forbid moment comes, you're protected.
	All right.
	Thank you both.
	Appreciate it.
	Dr. Umber, you're becoming a national star now.
	Hopefully, we will learn from a successful model.
	All right, we'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back on the other side, wide open telephones, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to join us.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
	You know, I was really struck by Sean Spicer's comments today.
	We'll remember those who stood by us.
	Pressure now beginning to build on conservative opposition to the health care bill.
	You know, sometimes you just have to understand that the bureaucracy is just so screwed up.
	It's like nobody thinks differently here.
	And I know the president does because he's an outsider and he's trying to get this thing done.
	And I doubt he understands the intricacies and everything about health care and he's being fed information that's going to do this and it's going to do that.
	This is the problem.
	The answer to health care is what we just discussed in the last half hour.
	If you want to solve a problem, I mean, I can sit here and rant and rave all day and why I'm frustrated that this is the typical bureaucratic bill.
	Yeah, there's good things there.
	They defund Planned Parenthood.
	Yeah, it has healthcare savings accounts.
	And I'm not minimizing that.
	These are big changes.
	Yeah, it does create the environment for these co-ops to develop, but it's still Washington run in more ways than anybody should like if you consider yourself a conservative and consider yourself a small government, limited government, free market capitalist that believes that the marketplace should dictate services and prices.
	For example, anytime there's a new TV set that comes out and it's bigger and it's better.
	How many times have you raced out like I have and paid the $6,000 for the TV because it's big and it's better and it's got HD and it's a smart TV and it's got this and that?
	We've all done this.
	And you go back to the store four months later and you could have gotten the same thing for two-thirds off because that's what the free market dictates.
	Free market drives down those prices.
	And companies purposefully put their products out there knowing that there's going to be X number of people that just have no patience to wait for the better deal.
	And they're going to go out there and they're going to make that purchase because that's what they want.
	And if they can get it sooner than later, they'll pay the premium.
	But eventually, if they want to sell that product to the masses, it's going to have to get more in line with what the market will bear.
	And it becomes just an economic necessity for them.
	And by the way, usually part of their economic plan.
	Healthcare does not have to be this difficult.
	It just doesn't.
	And you're saying, Hannity, how do you know?
	Because I talk to the doctors that do the health care.
	And, you know, as we were going back, I mean, listening to both the professor and listening to Dr. Umber, I mean, if you really pay close attention, there's a lot to absorb and learn from these guys that do this every day.
	And I just think that this is not the bill that I would want for myself.
	This is not the bill that I think is the best bill at this time.
	Can it evolve, I guess, over time?
	You know, I will tell you that if you pay a guy like Josh Umber, let's say within your community, assuming you don't live in such a rural area that there's not another house for five or 10 miles away and there's no hospital that's not less than two hours away, you know, that's a choice you're making to get a little bit off the grid for the benefits of living a peaceful life and living in the wilderness.
	And some people make that choice.
	But for the average person, most of us, we live in communities.
	And if you live in a community and you have a doctor, let's say you have a number of doctors and they have individual practices and they start competing for your business and the doctor that say duplicates the Josh Umber model of, okay, negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies, giving you their cost for the price of an x-ray, which is pennies on the dollar, not sending it through, 50 bucks a month for unlimited care.
	That means, let's say you need stitches that month, you break a leg that month.
	Let's say that you need antibiotics that month.
	Let's say that you have an anxiety panic attack that month and everything is handled.
	And if you, at 50 bucks a month, almost anybody can pay for that.
	And at 50 bucks a month, you're not racing to the hospital when you stub your toe.
	You change some of the laws in some of these states.
	You know, a lot of these things they send you to the hospital for can be done in a doctor's office.
	You know, I once had a prostate biopsy a number of years back.
	You know, so I understand that they want to get this has to get done.
	But I think the conservatives are trying to make this better, trying to make this more rooted in conservative principles.
	And it's going to be very interesting to see if these arm-twisting tactics are going to work.
	Let's listen.
	Sean, is the president going to hold Republicans who vote against health care accountable?
	Are they going to pay a price?
	I think they vote against this bill.
	I think they'll probably pay a price at home.
	Meaning, I think that you can't go promise over and over again since 2010 in the case of the member's been there that long, but at least for those who have been there that long, at least, and even the new ones, this was a major component of the last election.
	And I think there was probably not a single Republican member in itself who went out and talked about this.
	And I think when you realize the component to this bill and that the president worked with the House and the Senate to put something together that achieved a promise that was made to voters, yeah, I think there's going to be a price to be paid, but it's going to be with their own voters.
	And they're going to have to go back and explain to them why they made a commitment to them and then didn't follow through.
	And one of the things that's interesting that people who agree or don't agree with the president in terms of his legislative agenda, at least give them high marks, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to his agenda for keeping his word and his promises.
	And I think that's one of the things that he's made very clear this morning.
	We pledged to the American people at the congressional level, at the Senate level, at the presidential level to go do something.
	And this bill, while it probably not everybody got everything they wanted, does exactly what we said.
	It's repealing it and replacing it with all of the principles and the aspects that we discussed throughout not only last cycle, but in a lot of these cases back through 2010.
	I just see here it shouldn't be a binary choice.
	It should be the room to add these free market incentives and change some of the other aspects that we've discussed in great detail and certainly make it more free market oriented.
	And again, if you're thinking out of the box, you're looking at a guy like Josh Humber saying that's concierge care for the average Joe individual.
	That is an amazing paradigm to create.
	I mean, that's concierge care 24-7.
	Having your drugs dispensed at a 95% discount, paying 48 cents for an x-ray, pennies on the dollar for an MRI.
	And then you add a catastrophic plan.
	Let's say it's $5,000, $10,000 deductible.
	Okay, you have the car accident.
	You have the heart attack.
	You have cancer.
	Okay, yeah, it's going to be expensive.
	Maybe you make it $5,000, whatever.
	You'll pay more per month based on what your deductible is.
	But at least you know that's what insurance is really supposed to be about.
	We've got this sort of preconditioned mindset.
	What is insurance?
	Insurance means I don't want to pay a copay, a $10 copay.
	It becomes ridiculous to me in my mind that somehow people think healthcare ought to be free.
	But there is a way by sheer volume that guys like Josh Humber work on the assumption that most people just want their checkup every year and they're going to have maybe a need for stitches and maybe antibiotics that year.
	And short of that, he's not going to see these people unless something horrible happens and then they get more attention then.
	Anyway, let's get to our phones here.
	800-941-Sean.
	Mary is in Melrose in Minnesota.
	Mary, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hi, Sean.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	This isn't on the health care, but I do agree with what you're saying about the health care.
	It makes complete sense.
	And that's really how it was done years ago.
	I'm actually calling about Comey and watching what went on yesterday with Comey and how he was saying, oh, yes, these leaks are very serious, and this is espionage.
	And, you know, we just can't have this kind of stuff.
	But yet he won't promise to do an investigation.
	But by the same token, not an hour later, I'm looking and I'm seeing the FBI is involved in finding a lost Super Bowl jersey.
	And it just doesn't make sense.
	Or the fact that he says we don't talk about ongoing or potential investigations, but then he confirmed the investigation into Russia, which we had confirmed weeks ago here and been telling you every day that that had happened.
	And he doesn't give enough details.
	He answers a specific question.
	No, I don't know any evidence of wiretapping.
	Okay, but was the Trump server surveilled?
	You know, it's frustrating when you're watching these things and you know more than the people that are asking the questions that are absolutely clueless.
	It's so frustrating.
	I agree, Sean.
	But anyway, I appreciate it.
	Yeah, they spend more time with poor Tom Brady.
	Well, at least Tom Brady got his jersey back.
	He certainly deserved it.
	I mean, we've spent all this time looking for it.
	When was the Super Bowl?
	What was that?
	January or early February?
	All right, let's get to our phones.
	Jacksonville, Florida, W-O-K-V.
	What's up, Patrick?
	How are you, sir?
	I'm doing well today, Sean.
	Love your show.
	The comments that I want to make, even though I agree with you on health care, I know he's going to be after that doing taxes.
	And mine is about the corporate taxes.
	I think a better way for him to do corporate taxes would be to give tax cuts to corporations based off of the number of full-time American employees that they have working for them.
	You would see less working poor in this country, especially in, say, the fast food industry, who has upwards of, what, 8, even 9?
	You can't, you've got to remember.
	You see also a domino effect of more jobs coming back to this country.
	Why not just make it low for everybody, going from 39%, one of the highest in the industrialized world, to one of the lowest of 15% or 16% or 17%?
	Why don't we do that?
	And then this way, all these companies, especially coupled with the reduction and elimination of all these burdensome regulations, they'll have a very great business environment.
	Why don't we just lower for everybody?
	Why make a distinction?
	Well, the whole reason why I say that, and this is what my biggest fear is with a flat 15% tax, is there's going to be companies out there which are going to take that, and they're still going to perpetrate this bad behavior of outsourcing our jobs.
	Well, then, but the whole purpose of it is to incentivize them to keep the jobs in America.
	And, you know, why is outsourcing attractive to a lot of these companies?
	Okay, cheap labor is definitely a part of it, but there's even cheap labor in America.
	I mean, there is 95 million Americans out of the workforce.
	What most companies, most CEOs will tell you is that the main reason they look outside the U.S. is burdensome regulation, confiscatory taxes, and the government breathing down their neck, and an inability to get even a local board to approve a building site.
	It becomes an act of God to cut down.
	In my community, if I want to cut down my tree on my property, do you understand it's an act of God?
	It really is.
	Just to cut down a tree in my own backyard.
	It's ridiculous.
	Oh, I agree with you 100% on that.
	But I think there's a difference between corporate regulations and corporate taxes.
	Now, if you had more full-time workers, you would have less people worrying about health care.
	You'd have less people on Section 8 housing, getting food stamps, which would free up a lot more money that are being allocated to those sort of things, which could be redistributed.
	I'll tell you one thing that you might like.
	Let's say the trillions of repatriated money that what the president proposed at 10%, because we have trillions of dollars overseas, you give them the incentive of bringing it back, which means they can invest in factories, manufacturing centers in America, because right now they're going to lose 40, 50 cents on the dollar.
	If they lose 10 cents, they'll deal with that.
	And maybe reduce the 10% rate to 7% if they agree to spend X number of millions building manufacturing centers, factories here in America.
	If they immediately invest, commit to invest that money and get that done and jumpstart the economy, that would be a good idea.
	I can see that.
	But with what I had suggested, too, is it also gives them the incentive to work for, say, a 13% tax or even an 8% tax.
	I hear what you're saying, but remember, you can't burden small business any further than they are because it's much harder for them.
	These big businesses, they consolidate all their accounting.
	They consolidate all their tax work.
	They consolidate even their production in some cases.
	But anyway, I appreciate your kind words.
	Thank you.
	And I hear you thinking through it, which I like.
	Sharon in Greensboro, North Carolina, about 45 seconds.
	Sharon, how are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	I'm doing well.
	Hope you are.
	I am.
	Thank you.
	Look, I'm calling regarding the hearings yesterday and the lack of confidence of the American people that Comey is going to prosecute these leakers.
	He told Gowdy yesterday, even though he knew it was a felony, that he didn't know if he was going to prosecute the leakers.
	And this sounded all too reminiscent of Hillary Clinton to me, where he admitted she did all these things, but he was not going to prosecute her.
	So the Americans are just concerned: is he going to do what is right for our country and prosecute these leakers?
	I want an answer.
	I mean, the fact that felonies, the one thing we know are felonies were committed in this case.
	And those are the felonies that he wouldn't even acknowledge he was going to investigate.
	And why he won't, I don't know.
	What he has found after eight months of an investigation, I don't know either.
	And I'll be honest, I think there are high-level intelligence officials, deep state, that are absolutely involved in the leaking.
	And I believe that there are those at very high levels within our government that, frankly, are involved in it, involved in having been politicized.
	And that ought to scare everybody.
	All right, I got to run.
	I appreciate your call, Sharon.
	And I don't know what happens from this point.
	At some point, we've got to get an answer.
	Say my name, Sean Hannity.
	You're damn right.
	is the Sean Hannity Show.
	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 down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
	Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
	From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

▲