Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – They know that if he were to say that he knew directly and went out and launched that site anyway, HealthCare.gov, and then lied and said he had no knowledge of this, of how bad it was, and that Ms. Sebelius didn’t have any knowledge of how bad it was, or whatever her latest excuse is — he knows that that is a whopper of monumental proportion, and it’s not retrievable. He’s going to slick his way out of there. He’s gonna Bubba Clinton his way out of there. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Back to the McCarthy story:
Unable to deny that millions of Americans have lost the coverage he vowed they could keep, Obama and other Democrats are now peddling what we might call the “5 percent” con job. The president asserts that these victims, whom he feels so terribly about, nevertheless constitute a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater scheme of things (“scheme” is used advisedly). They are limited, he maintains, to consumers in the individual health-insurance market, as opposed to the vastly greater number of Americans who get insurance through their employers. According to Obama, these individual-market consumers whose policies are being canceled make up only 5 percent of all health-insurance consumers.
Even this 5 percent figure is a deception. As Avik Roy points out, the individual market actually accounts for 8 percent of health-insurance consumers. Obama can’t help himself: He even minimizes his minimizations. So, if Obama were telling the truth in rationalizing that his broken promises affect only consumers in the individual-insurance market, we’d still be talking about up to 25 million Americans. While the president shrugs these victims off, 25 million exceeds the number of Americans who do not have health insurance because of poverty or preexisting conditions (as opposed to those who could, but choose not to, purchase insurance). Of course, far from cavalierly shrugging off that smaller number of people, Obama and Democrats used them to justify nationalizing a sixth of the U.S. economy.
But that’s not the half of it. Obama’s claim that unwelcome cancellations are confined to the individual-insurance market is another brazen lie. In the weekend column, I link to the excellent work of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who has demonstrated that, for over three years, the Obama administration’s internal estimates have shown that most Americans who are covered by “employer plans” will also lose their coverage under Obamacare. Mind you, 156 million Americans get health coverage through their jobs.
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
John cites the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116). [Mike: That’s scary right there, isn’t it? The federal register for June 2010 has regulations on it that are so numerous that the one in particular begins on page 34,552. Are we a little bit out of scale, just a teensy-weensy bit?] It includes a chart that outlines the Obama administration’s projections. The chart indicates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. In fact, for small-business employers, the high-end estimate is a staggering 80 percent (and even on the low end, it’s just a shade under half — 49 percent).
That is to say: During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage. For small business, he expected at least one out of every two Americans, or as many as four out of every five, to lose their coverage.
Avik’s eagle eye also catches that, even as Obama was spinning on Thursday about how his broken promise affects only the teeny-weeny individual-insurance market, his administration was telling a much different story to state insurance commissioners. In a letter about Obama’s proposed “fix,” the head of the relevant consumer-information office referred to “all individuals and small businesses that received a cancellation or termination notice with respect to coverage.” This, Avik observes, “contradicts assertions from the administration that only people in the individual market — people who shop for coverage on their own — are affected by the wave of Obamacare-related cancellations.”
It gets worse. My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (on whose advisory board I sit) are representing Priests for Life, a group aggrieved by Obamacare’s denial of religious liberty — specifically, the ACA’s mandate that believers, despite their faith-based objections, provide their employees with coverage for the use of abortifacients and contraceptives. On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:
The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.
HHS and the Justice Department cite the same section of the Federal Register referred to by John Hinderaker, as well as an annual survey on “Employer Health Benefits” compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2012.
So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year. Not just the “5 percent” of individual-market consumers, but close to all consumers — including well over 100 million American workers who get coverage through their jobs — have been expected by the president swiftly to “transition to the requirements under the [Obamacare] regulations.” That is, their health-insurance plans would be eliminated. They would be forced into Obamacare-compliant plans, with all the prohibitive price hikes and coercive mandates that “transition” portends.
Obamacare is a massive fraudulent scheme. A criminal investigation should be opened.
Mike: Of course, that’s not going to happen, as I mentioned earlier. It’s left up to Congress to do something about this. Professor Gutzman talked about this on Friday’s program and was wondering out loud, as was I, whether Congress would have the mettle to actually do something about this and start a prosecution, or at least open an investigation up and try to get to the bottom of this. The stuff is out there. It’s in the Federal Register. It’s part of disclosure, Sunshine laws and rules, Freedom of Information Act requests and what have you that demand that the government not keep these kinds of secrets. All that is needed to bring impeachment charges against anyone that’s involved in this, in other words, is already out there. Whether or not Congress actually has the stones to do this — you might start at the top with Ms. Sebelius because she had to have been in on all these lies — remains to be seen.
This is the way our government and our Constitution is supposed to work. Yet again, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately for us, the framers got this part of it wrong. They did not foresee the deceit and corruption that would occupy and consume the population and thus the federal edifice, which would make it impossible for their remedy, which is the Impeachment Clause, to be effective, because it’s not going to be effective. There is obvious abuse here. Again, if this were done privately, all of us that committed this fraud would be buried underneath jails. That’s what they would do to us. But because the government is the entity that has perpetrated this fraud, they will be almost certainly insulated from and protected from the same prosecution. What part of that is fair and equitable? What part of that is equally apportioned, if you want to use the language of the taxing clause? What can be done? Not much, ladies and gentlemen, not much. That in and of itself is the saddest of all sad states of affairs. You know it’s happening, you can see it, you can probably prove it in a court of law, but it won’t matter because we have a government and people that work in our government that do not live by the law.
Young Evan just rolled that clip into the computer so that we can play it back for you. Evan, I know you were listening to that as you were rolling it in, as was I, and I caught something I had not caught before. I heard him say something that I had — I did hear him say it, but it didn’t click with me until I read McCarthy’s takedown of Obama. When he told Major Garrett — will we have time to play this clip? I think you can roll it.
[start audio clip]
President Obama: Major Garrett.
Major Garrett: Thank you, Mr. President. You said while the law was being debated, if you like your plan, you can keep it. You said after the law was implemented or signed, if you like your plan, you can keep it. Americans believed you, sir, when you said that to them over and over. Do you not believe, sir, the American people deserve a deeper, more transparent accountability from you as to why you said that over and over when your own statistics published in the Federal Register alerted your policy staff — and I presume you — to the fact that millions of Americans would, in fact, probably fall into the very gap you’re trying to administratively fix now?
That’s one question. The second question, you were informed, or several people in this building were informed, two weeks before the launch of the website that it was failing the most basic tests internally, and yet a decision was made to launch the website on October 1st. Did you, sir, make that test, and if so, did you regret that?
President Obama: On the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it’s supposed to.
[end audio clip]
Mike: Stop the digital media file! Right there, he said, “I was not informed directly.” Did you notice the hedge? That’s a hedge. In other words, he was notified second person. Somebody told someone else who went in and said, “Mr. President.” They used to call Bill Clinton slick Willy. This guy is becoming as slick as Bill Clinton. That was a slickster move there. Evan, I don’t what capability you have with that computer, but if you can just back it up 20 seconds and play it again please.
[start audio clip]
[end audio clip]
Mike: Okay, stop it, “I was not informed directly.” He was informed indirectly and he knew it. Young Ethan, cue that clip up from Major Garrett one more time for me. You need to hear this. As Ethan and I both discussed during the timeout, he didn’t catch it the first time around or the first three times we heard it. I didn’t catch it until just now. I did not catch the president in a whopper. I haven’t seen anyone — well, maybe I just haven’t looked hard enough — I haven’t seen anyone making this point. He lied right there on national television. He told Major Garrett that he did not know. What he actually said — did he actually mistakenly blab the truth out?
You’re going to hear the president say that he knew but he knew indirectly, meaning — they know, folks. They know that if he were to say that he knew directly and went out and launched that site anyway, HealthCare.gov, and then lied and said he had no knowledge of this, of how bad it was, and that Ms. Sebelius didn’t have any knowledge of how bad it was, or whatever her latest excuse is — he knows that that is a whopper of monumental proportion, and it’s not retrievable. He’s going to slick his way out of there. He’s gonna Bubba Clinton his way out of there. [mocking Clinton] “I think I could have done it better, actually.” He’s going to tell you that he did know but he only knew indirectly, but it sounds like he’s saying he didn’t know. Roll the clip one more time.
[start audio clip]
President Obama: . . . I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, “Boy, this is going to be great.” I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, “This is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity” a week before the website opens if I thought it wasn’t going to work.
[end audio clip]
Mike: Folks, that is a clarification without a distinction. He just said: I knew it, but I didn’t know it directly. Then he went back and contradicted himself, [mocking] “I didn’t know. Do you think I’m stupid? If I knew that, would I go out and promote it and act like it was going to be Amazon.com?” I did not catch that on Friday. I didn’t catch that on Thursday when I listened to it live. I didn’t catch it Friday when we played it. I didn’t catch it the first time we played it until we just replayed it again. Wow! They’re in big trouble here, folks. They’re in big trouble. They know they’re in trouble. There are elections coming up here and Democrats are already starting to get nervous about this.
If my analysis is correct, if what I just said is correct, it’s not going to be long before someone else figures this out and makes a big stink out of it, what ought to be a big stink. If what I heard was correct, and if the way I analyzed it was correct, then they knew and they went ahead with it anyway. You can say: What were they supposed to do, delay it? I imagine you could say we’re beta testing it now. Companies beta test things all the time. We’re beta testing it now and it’s not going to work the way it’s supposed to because it’s in beta, but we’re fully confident that somewhere in December the beta tests will be concluded and all will be right. That’s not what they said and that’s not what they advertised. They said it would be fully — he said it would be fully functional.
What is Congress to do about this? What is the House of Representin’ — if you’re an Obamabot zombie out there roaming across the countryside “Brains! Brains!” what do you say about this? That’s not some little white lie, that is a whopper. There are millions of people that are going to be affected by this. I’ve got news for you. Most of us are all, scratch that, we’re all going to be affected by this. The constitutional crisis that I warned of back in 2010 on the 23rd of April, the day this monstrosity was passed by the House of Representin’, is coming to pass. I think it’s a crisis in the form of when people start laboring under this, there still are just enough productive people out there to be adversely affected by this. There will be demands that something be done. If the Senate remains as it currently is and is in defiance of this and refuses, then it will be left up to the people and to the states.
Unfortunately for us, we have 150-some odd years of propaganda. As you just heard that clip from that young man, poor education. It’s not just poor education, the methodology of teaching is flawed and corrupt. It is now a government corporatist endeavor. As Gracy Olmstead reports at American Conservative Magazine, at amconmag.com, there are people now running around saying, [mocking] “You can’t possibly teach anything unless you have — every kid’s gotta have Wi-Fi, wall-to-wall Wi-Fi.” Really? “That’s right. This is 2013. You need to get with the program. You Luddites out there need to get with the program.” Gee, I wonder who provides all the routers and stuff for the Wi-Fi setup in the schools. I wonder who provides all that. You think there may be an incentive? Of course there is, of course there is.
End Mike Church Show Transcript