RUSH: So I won't be able to be here and chronicle this prediction for you, but it's almost a guarantee that the number of uninsured Americans is going to dramatically drop, because they are massaging this Census Bureau data. It doesn't matter what the real number is. It doesn't matter if the number of insured stays flat or even increases, the number is going to go down because the Regime is massaging the data. They are changing the questions that they ask people here to rig the results, and if you don't like it, you are a racist.
I think one of the things the Regime is gonna try to do with the Census data that they massage and release, they're gonna try to show that the number of uninsured has dropped dramatically as a means of showing how successful Obamacare is and how beautiful and how wonderful a thing it is and how the exact purpose for doing Obamacare is actually occurring right before our very eyes. Why, the uninsured are all of a sudden getting insured. So keep a sharp eye on that. I mean, it's not a hundred percent 'cause anything can happen, but I wouldn't doubt it.
In fact, one of the reasons I'm thinking the way I am here, Robert Pear, New York Times: "Census Survey Revisions Mask Health Law Effects -- The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said. The changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of households around the country. But the new questions are so different that the findings will not be comparable," to anything in the past. They're redoing it in such a way that we're not gonna be able to compare what they tell us the Census data this year is compared to past years.
"An internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire included a 'total revision to health insurance questions' and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured." A-ha. You see? In a test run. They ran a test of the questionnaire last year. You know what? Why, it produced lower numbers of the uninsured. "Thus, officials said, it will be difficult to say how much of any change is attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a new survey instrument."
Well, this is ripe. If you can't attribute it to anything, then Obama can say whatever he wants to say and the media will then parrot it out there. And then late-night comedians will parrot it further and then the Drive-Bys will get into the entertainment culture and it'll be all over the place that Obamacare has, dadelut dadelut dadelut, dramatically reduced the number of uninsured, when nobody's gonna know if that's actually true. This is my prediction to you. And it's just more of the onslaught that we face every day. More of the absolute "just make it up as we go" to advance the Democrat Party agenda. Just fake it because they know that they're gonna have total accomplices and allies in the media to spread it however they want it spread.
I mean, in my mind, if this happens, it's gonna be deliberate fraud. Nothing's real, is what this all adds up to. Nothing is real anymore. You don't know what's real. I mean, the Regime will not release insurance data that it has and is making changes to the collection of future information, i.e., via the Census, guaranteeing that the Obamacare rollout remains shrouded in mystery orchestrated by Obama. And I guarantee you whatever they're gonna tell you, they're already on a roll, "Oh, yeah, we got seven million. Oh, yeah, it's working out just great, oh, yeah."
They make it up as they go, whatever they need. James Carville says the Republican Party is dead if they lose the White House in 2016. Remember that? Well, the country's dead if the Democrats win, if this kind of stuff keeps up. I mean, once people have no faith in what has always been an accepted authority -- there's always been doubters -- I just think this is serious stuff.
RUSH: Noah Rothman writing at Mediaite, headline: "Yet Another Crazy Conservative Conspiracy Theory Proven Correct -- In 2009, in the earliest weeks of President Barack Obama's [Regime], the White House made the controversial decision to take the unprecedented step of moving the Census Bureau from control of the commerce secretary over to the White House ahead of the ... 2010 census. Conservatives sounded alarm bells.
"'It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political,' said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) of then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. ... The White House dismissed the concerns of conservatives which were, indeed, unfounded insofar as they related to the 2010 census. But the fears of some that the Census Bureau could be corrupted by the imperatives of the political operatives in the White House was today proven accurate."
That's 'cause of the health care data.
RUSH: Now, this piece from Noah Rothman at Mediaite, the headline: "Yet Another Crazy Conservative Conspiracy Theory Proven Correct." Don't forget that, in addition to Obama claiming control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department shortly after his immaculation, they also changed the way the gross domestic product, the economic growth is measured, just in time to get better numbers in the month before the 2012 elections. So the Regime has been engaged in a massive power grab since it was immaculated.
You know, I interviewed Trey Gowdy for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter. I interviewed him Monday after the program. He broke down and cried a couple of times, by the way. He was so overcome with emotion about some of the answers that he was giving.
I talked to him about the fact that I have never seen in my lifetime the legislative and judicial branches just lay down in the face of an onslaught of the executive branch trying to claim so much power from both branches. He wasn't crying about that. I don't mean to imply that. But it is amazing. They claim control of the Commerce Department, and there were a lot of conservatives back then who warned everybody, "This is not gonna have a good outcome."
The Census is another one of these things, like the CBO, supposed to be totally apolitical, nonpartisan, not bipartisan, but nonpartisan. The Census Bureau is simply a head count, who lives where, how many of us are there, period. You have some of the other demographic data. But now the Regime's gotten control of it, and even at Mediaite, here's a pull quote from the story. "The changes in the Census," and that is the questions they're asking. Remember, this is for political scientists and social scientists and demographers, this is a massive change.
Brand-new questions, the answers to which cannot be added to or compared to previous years, because they're all different. So it's like starting all over with massive data, and the pull quote from this story: "The changes will, however, likely have the effect of showing a reduction in the number of uninsured." So my prediction is actually in a story at Mediaite, and I promise you I did not see this Mediaite thing until after I made my prediction. But it wasn't a hard prediction. If you know these people and what they're doing, Obamacare is the number one thing, it's in trouble, it's the reason they're having trouble in the midterms coming up in November.
Anything they can do to change people's minds about how bad it is they'll do. And if they can come out and show with the Census -- 'cause I guarantee you most low-information people are not gonna know it's been politicized. The Census Bureau, the numbers, they're gonna believe it. Why not believe it? It's the government after all. These people believe everything else the government says. These are the people that believe the government ought to fix every problem that exists even though the government creates most of 'em.
So they're gonna hear that, "Wow, Obamacare is really, really working after all. Why, the majority of people signing up are the uninsured. Boy, are we good people. We're transforming the health insurance industry in this country to help the uninsured, and it's working." And that's what the Census numbers produced, and these new questions, people have seen them, that's exactly the effect it's gonna have: show a reduction in the number of uninsured. They even make the point here that it's not gonna be the result of the law. It's going to be because of the Census Bureau's questions. It's gonna be due to the questions and how they were asked. You wait, when this data comes out later in the year, it is going to be the case.
RUSH: To the phones, as I promised. In Baltimore, we start with Mike, and I'm glad you called, sir. Great to have you with us. Hi.
CALLER: Rush, I'm hundred percent honored and thrilled to talk to you after many years of listening and calling and trying to get through. I'm delighted to be on your show.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.
CALLER: With regard to the Census Bureau, I remember reading the story -- I actually read it yesterday, so I don't recall exactly what site I read it on -- with regard to them changing the questions. Part of their justification was because the respondents were confused as to whether they had insurance and what type of insurance that they actually had. So they wanted to rephrase these questions because the numbers of uninsured that they were getting they believe are over-inflated. In other words, too many people were reporting that they were uninsured when, in fact, they had insurance.
RUSH: Wait. They're guessing at that? They're assuming that, or they're claiming to know it?
CALLER: Apparently they don't know whether they had insurance or not. I don't know how that happens. But my point is --
RUSH: Wait a minute. Do you know whether you have health insurance or not?
CALLER: I know whether I have health insurance. I do have health insurance.
RUSH: Do you think that if you walked down the street and knocked on doors, that most of the people in your neighborhood wouldn't know whether they've got health insurance or not?
CALLER: You know, Rush, it's confusing to me, and I don't know how that can happen, but apparently that's what they say.
RUSH: They're making an assumption that most people don't know, and so they've gotta come up with a new questionnaire to simplify it.
CALLER: That's right. But my point is that if they're saying the questions were so confusing that people were not sure if they had insurance, therefore more people were reporting that they did not have insurance when in fact they did -- meaning that those numbers were inflated -- we didn't need Obamacare to begin with.
RUSH: Yeah, you know, that is an excellent point. We certainly didn't need to do it the way we're doing it if the sole reason or the primary reason was to insure the uninsured. We could have done that for $350 billion instead of the $2 trillion that it's gonna cost. But, see, you're illustrating once again that that wasn't the reason for Obamacare. Insuring the uninsured wasn't the real purpose.
That's not why we're taking over one-sixth of the economy. The real reason is obvious. It's to gain control of one-sixth of the economy and the health care sector. Look, folks, I know this kind of thing, some people pooh-pooh it. But this is how every totalitarian leader, authoritarian, whatever, tries to get control of a population is to put the government in charge of health care. Because when you do, it puts you in charge of virtually every aspect of the way people live.
RUSH: Here's another one, folks. This is a story from Bloomberg. It's a column by Megan McArdle. "Is Obama Cooking the Census Books for Obamacare?" I swear I made my prediction before I saw any of this stuff. This stuff just cleared the printer. It looks like everybody's on to this now. So we'll follow it up.
RUSH: Here, the Megan McArdle piece, I referenced this right as the previous hour was coming to a screeching halt, "Is Obama Cooking the Census Books for Obamacare?" This is on Bloomberg and couple of pull quotes: "But why, dear God, oh, why, would you change it in the one year in the entire history of the republic that it is most important for policy makers, researchers and voters to be able to compare the number of uninsured to those in prior years? The answers would seem to range from 'total incompetence on the part of every level of this administration' to something worse.
"Yes, that’s right, I said 'every level.' Because guess who was involved in this decision, besides the wonks at Census? The White House is always looking for evidence to show the benefits of the health law, which is an issue in many of this year’s midterm elections. ... If the administration is really serious about transparency and data-driven policy, as I’ve been told for a year now, then it will immediately rectify this appalling mistake and put the old questions back into circulation double-quick. But we’re more likely going to hear the most transparent and data-driven administration in history citing these data -- without an asterisk -- to tout the amazing impact of its policies."
But our last caller really nailed it. Why, if there are far fewer uninsured than we thought, why did we need Obamacare, period? That was the primary selling point to the low-information crowd. It appealed to people's compassion. We're a compassionate country. We want people with preexisting conditions to get treated. We want sick people to get well. We don't want people left out. We're good people. We have a very compassionate nation.
So the Regime sold this as transforming the health care system because we need to insure the uninsured. Nothing we've done has worked so that, "Yeah, yeah, man, I'm for that. I want everybody to have health care, man. I want everybody to have affordable insurance for all Americans, man," and they'd have signed up, right on, agreed to it. And even with all of that it still has never had majority approval on the part of the American people.
So now it's obvious to everybody. My prediction isn't any big deal 'cause everybody's making it now, that Obama's cooking the books. But what they're gonna do, in response to our first caller, they're now gonna claim that we've always had a misunderstanding of the number of uninsured. They're gonna say, "That uninsured number was big. It's Obamacare that has brought about this reduction in the uninsured," in an election year.
What is another word for "transparent"? You know, I'm a big linguist. Words mean things. When you hear, for example, Megan McArdle writes here in quoting the Regime: "If the administration is really serious about transparency and data-driven policy," what does that mean? When you have a government, a politician, a president: "We're gonna have the most transparent administration in history," what are they telling you? Come on, it's simple. Make a wild guess. Somebody on the other side, tell me, when you hear it, what do you think they're trying to tell you? They're gonna be honest. That's what transparency means, right?
We're so honest, you'll be able to see. We're so honest, we're not gonna have to hide anything from you. We're so honest, we're not afraid of what you're gonna find out. We're so honest, that we don't have to disguise it or mask it or camouflage it. That's what transparency means. If you look at it in that regard it's an absolute joke with this administration, and, sadly, with a large number of politicians. If you have to go out and tell people you're honest, maybe there's some debate about it. If you have to tell people that you're gonna have the most transparent Regime, then there might be some question of whether or not you are transparent or not.
Anyway, it's apparently obvious now, ladies and gentlemen, that they're monkeying with this for the express purpose of, again, affecting the outcome of an election.