All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
September 15, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, lots of late breaking news happening here right before the program starts.
Brian, go ahead and turn on the ditto cam.
Let's televise all three hours today.
Greetings.
Welcome, folks.
Great to have you, Rush Schlimble.
Ready to go.
America's anchor man.
Cita just got out of the makeup chair.
And I'm here at 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIB net dot com.
Well, according to the Drudge Report, uh a bunch of mice infected with the plague are missing from a New Jersey laboratory.
Plague-infected mice are missing from a New Jersey laboratory.
This is this could be worse than the runaway pigs on the Calumet Expressway of uh three or four years ago.
We got Gwynneth Paltrose says she can't stand living in America anymore, doesn't want to.
We got Bert Baccarak, who says Bush is an idiot, uh and a horrible guy for his uh his uh Katrina response.
And we've got this, we've got Iran, the president of Iran.
Battle lines are being drawn here, folks.
The president of Iran says he's willing to provide other Islamic nations with nuclear technology.
Said this today, President Mahmood uh Manijad.
Uh Mahmood uh Ahmadinejad made the comments after meeting uh meeting Turkey's prime minister on the sidelines of a gathering of world thugs at the United Nations.
This is all according to the uh state-run Islamic Republic news agency.
The Iranian president repeated promises that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons.
Then he said we're ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.
We're not going to pursue nuke weapons or we're going to transfer nuclear know-how to Islamic countries if they need it.
Iran has said that it is determined to pursue its nuclear program to process uranium and produce energy.
Despite European attempts to limit it, the U.S. accuses Tehran of secretly seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge that Tehran denies.
So uh things are things are popping out there.
Uh yeah, can you have a Palestinian light water reactor built uh run by uh Hamas?
Uh yeah, that things are things are looking up out there.
And uh Reuters, have you seen Reuters uh has published a picture announcing that President Bush urinates?
Uh of course raises the question, does Hillary P?
Uh you know, my my my friends, uh I say that with with as much shock value as I as I care to muster.
Have you have you seen the picture?
I mean, it's some some cameraman for Reuters snuck in over the president's left shoulder.
He's writing a note to Condoleezza Rice, says, hey, think I may need a bathroom break.
We have to understand where he is.
He's at the United Nations.
It's totally understandable you get sick in there or uh look for any excuse to want out.
But seriously.
Uh how look at how far the left is willing to go.
It's not the bottom of the barrel, even though you might hope that it is.
Uh but can I ask a question?
We we see the left descending here in a in a in a cesspool.
I mean, it's it there they're you've got this Supreme Court nominee who is running rings around the best and the brightest the left has to offer.
We're gonna start the program today uh uh with some review of some of the uh uh brilliant answers that Judge Roberts has given these people.
This is the best the left has to offer, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Turbin, and Patrick Leakey Leahy, and of course the swimmer, uh Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein.
This is the creme de la creme.
And Judge Roberts has literally run rings about around them.
I mean, who is the liberal hope uh to unite that movement should they ever get another shot?
Who is there in that movement that's gonna lead them?
I mean, they they've taught us all a new standard of behavior, uh a new level, if you will.
Uh, and it's it's you have to look down to see it to uh to spot it.
You know, I I have been maintaining that the Democratic Party's in the process of destroying itself and is under the illusion it's not happening because their buddies in the mainstream press still prop them up, as in the aftermath of the hurricane.
I know we're a two-party system, we're always gonna have a second party, but I'm wondering uh what is that second party gonna be?
Is somebody gonna form a third party which will then destroy the current Democrat Party?
Uh and it'll become some new entity.
Uh I I don't know, but I do know this.
A party that stands for nothing cannot survive no matter how much bathroom humor they use.
And if that's the depths they have to plunder in order to uh continue their assault on President Bush, then by all means let them continue.
Make no mistake, folks, this stuff is not lost on uh uh a lot of people.
And another thing about these poll numbers is the pre- you can't, you cannot turn on television.
You cannot read a newspaper without the gloating and the happiness with which the mainstream press is reporting the president's approval numbers.
They're at 40, they're under 40, they're lower than they've ever been, and the president's never had to deal with this before.
What you know, we've had presidents, there's a president that comes to mind, in fact, in the uh in the uh mid to late 90s, who who defied logic and perplexed all of us, uh, had approval ratings in the 60s, even in the midst of being impeached.
And yet we have a president today whose numbers are in the 40s.
And what's the difference?
Well, what is a difference?
A difference is that the previous president, Bill Clinton, didn't do anything.
It's easy to get high approval numbers when you don't do anything, when you don't take on any hard issues, and they didn't in the Clinton administration.
Why do you think the Clinton team still seeks a legacy?
Because nothing that they did during their eight years speaks for itself.
Nothing that they did in their eight years creates a legacy.
So now Clinton's putting together the what is what is the name of this organization that he that he's putting together?
He's got this plan, Clinton plan for always recruiting all these people.
What's the name?
I can't think of the name of it, but it doesn't matter what it is.
The point is it's all being done to create the legacy because there is no legacy.
So and and then the whole and by the way, Hillary is going to be part of this organization at some worldwide organization conference on.
Yeah, Clinton's global initiative.
And it's it's it's uh, and of course, you know, the Bushes have included Clinton in things like tsunami relief and hurricane relief.
Has Clinton gone back and asked Jimmy Carter to be part of anything?
No.
He's a he's a he's a media hog.
He's an attention hog, and he's uh doesn't want to share anything.
But the point is he has no legacy because he didn't do anything.
Bush is tackling some tough things, and he is uh uh as a result paying a price.
Not you're not always gonna get the approval of the American people.
This is not an excuse, by the way.
I'm not I'm not saying, hey, uh uh the media is making all this up.
I'm just trying to tell you there are a whole bunch of ways of getting good numbers.
And one of the ways is to not do anything, so people don't think there's anything wrong.
And of course, when people think there's nothing wrong and things are hunky-dory and happy-go lucky, um, then you go ahead and and uh you give your president high marks.
People have forgotten.
We mentioned this two days ago on this program, but people have forgotten.
Remember the 792 deaths during the heat wave in Chicago?
There was not one media story that I recall, not now you we're a nation of pictures.
There wasn't a series of uh special reports on the media.
We didn't see the bodies being dragged out of the buildings where they had died.
We didn't see criticism of Clinton at all.
Clinton's outplaying golf, guzzling water on the golf course when this heat wave in Chicago's taking all these lives.
Chicago, a Democrat-run city.
We didn't have uh news networks suing the federal government or the city of Chicago, demanding to see the pictures of the corpses.
Uh we didn't have any special interest groups demanding that these people were somehow left to die because they were old or infirm or invaluable to anybody.
We have a death toll in Chicago that rivals what we have in Katrina, but no news about it.
There wasn't any, there wasn't any criticism of Clinton.
So it's it's understandable.
I mean, the media can still whoever thinks that the media is dead is overestimating the loss of power that they have had.
They can sure gin up, and you know they've been trying to accomplish what they think they've accomplished here in the Katrina aftermath since 2000.
Uh uh In the old days, the media would have only taken one attempt, but only required one attempt to destroy a president.
In this case, it's taken them five years to get as close as they think they are.
But you can go back and you can compare presidents with high approval numbers and ask yourself, did they do anything?
And you look at Bush, obviously he's doing things and uh things are happening that are out of his control.
Oh, speaking of things happening out of his control, did you see the hurricane uh Ophelia of Vanden Hoovel?
It um uh thing has taken a it looks to me like almost a due east turn here at the last minute, sparing uh the uh right turn, uh, which is instructive.
It takes a do right turn, and it looks like the northern half of the coast of uh North Carolina will be spared the worst.
Uh I wonder if Bush had anything to do with this.
Because he values the North Carolina coast more than he does the Gulf Coast.
Because that hurricane, you ought to look at it.
I mean, it's pounded people, don't misunderstand it's still 85 mile an hour winds, but it's taken a little turn off the forecast track, supposed to go northeast, is moving east, northeast, or east, uh, sparing a lot of uh acreage and coastline on the northern half of the eastern coast uh of North Carolina.
All right, quick break.
When we come back, um we're going to oh one more folks, I have to tell you this.
This judge in California does, hey, I have no, I have okay, I have to follow the precedent of the Ninth Circus.
This judge Lawrence Carleton, a Carter appointee, uh from 1979.
He ruled in Sacramento.
He said that he would sign this restraining order preventing the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the Elk Grove United School District, the Elverta joint elementary school districts, and in Rio Linda.
The Rio Linda Public School Stopen, uh to me, I didn't know, still open, uh, is included in the judge's ruling where the students will not have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Uh thought I would throw that in.
We'll have more on that as the program unfolds.
Sit tight, coming back with all the rest of it in just a moment.
Did you hear what Bush asked Kofi Annan yesterday at the UN?
You know, if you think Bush is stressing out over anything, think again.
Bush walks up to Kofi Anna and say, How's Bolton doing?
Is the place blown up yet?
I got a note from uh from a friend here.
Hey, Rush.
It's true the Democrats in the media have made the remarkable newsworthy discovery, thanks to Reuters photographers, that the president does indeed urinate.
Uh presumably he's in favor of urination.
Real question, though, is where Hillary stands on the subject.
Uh are we really to think that she would deal with such an important topic sitting down?
Hey, hey, hey, they started it, folks.
They started it.
What do we do here?
We defend.
So let's keep that in mind.
Uh one more thing about these poll numbers before we go to the uh audio soundbites with Judge Roberts.
The media gloating.
Let's admit it.
Media, everybody on the left gloating uh at how wounded George W. Bush is.
Yeah, okay.
We'll admit that he may be wounded, but his nominee to be Chief Justice is running circles around this circus called the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And he has made literal mincemeat and fools of the best and brightest the left has to offer.
And there's another nomination to go in a month or so.
And so the entire judiciary, one-third of the three branches of government being reshaped by President Bush.
And this is the branch that's the most valuable to the left, most valuable to the media.
So let them gloat, folks.
Let them sit there and gloat over the president's failing approval numbers and polling numbers, and let them absorb themselves in the uh meaningfulness To them of low approval numbers while the judiciary gets reshaped.
This is how they've taken their eye off the ball here.
They're so focused on destroying Bush that they um uh they can be juked, as it were.
You can fake them out.
Uh, because they have tunnel vision.
They all just they just focused on one thing.
You know, the the media the one one of the problems here with with pundits and and commentators alike is that they all live in the moment.
They live for this moment, not just this day, but this news cycle.
Whether the news cycle is 24 hours or 12 hours or three hours, they live in that cycle.
They live for the moment.
They cannot lift their sights to the deeper current of events.
Uh they the the sh they see the president's poll numbers and it means what they want it to mean.
He's finished, he's through.
He's not finished, he's not through.
And by the way, this is I'm not defending the president.
I don't want to be misunderstood here.
This is media analysis.
They are so convinced that they have destroyed Bush, and yet he is reshaping the judiciary right in front of their eyes.
They're covering it, they see it, but they don't see it.
They see the poll numbers.
They see the president in a circumstance in which they think he is floundering.
These are, and you have to admit this, folks, and sometimes when you're alive during extraordinary events, it's tough to miss just how extraordinary they are.
But we are living in an extraordinary period of big events.
Uh there are events that are helping to bend and shape history.
Uh, and and some would say uh in a more conservative direction than we've had in a while.
And what do the liberals have to offer?
Nothing but rage and hatred and gloating when they think that they have disabled a president.
And again, they let them think it if they want to think they've disabled the president and rendered him dead, in uh politically dead, uh, and you've if you read the right things, you will see the frame uh or the term framed his presidency is destroyed.
Presidency is finished.
Well, you know, it's good got three years to go, and I don't know how you can say his presidency is finished when they're reshaping the one branch of government the left has left to grasp onto, and if they lose this, it doesn't matter about approval numbers.
But this is what is for some reason not being seen because they live in the moment.
There's no vision, there's no context.
There's no, for example, the coverage of Hurricane Katrina gives it is an excellent example.
There was no historical context whatsoever.
How hard would it be for all these now self-proclaimed great reporters to have given us a little context?
No, no, no, can't do that.
We want this to be the absolute worst disaster in the history of the world because it happens on Bush's watch.
So we're not going to tell the audience about how bad the Johnstown flood was.
And we're not going to tell people how bad the Galveston hurricane was.
And we're not going to tell people that the death toll here is actually going to be far lower than what we projected it to be.
Mayor Nagan today, 182,000 people moving back to New Orleans next week.
Anyone think this was going to happen after listening to the mainstream media all last week?
The French quarter is opening Friday.
Just earlier this week, it was opening in 60 to 90 days.
The French quarter is opening Friday.
Already commercial air traffic is going in there.
Russia in denial.
You are denying what you're seeing.
No, I'm not the one in denial.
I'm seeing efforts to rebuild the place, moving along much faster than anybody thought possible.
This is why you never listen to the doom and gloomers.
The doom and gloomers had New Orleans dead and buried, and we weren't going to rebuild there.
It was not possible.
It wouldn't make any sense.
All of these things that because the media pundits and commentators and reporters live in the moment.
And they live, interestingly enough, in the moment as guided and influenced by their desires, by the conclusions they hope to see.
And there's an overriding conclusion that they hope to see, and that is a politically deceased president who's ineffective and can't do anything, and is uh has been rendered helpless by virtue of an onslaught or criticism.
And where do they go to find that conclusion?
Their poll numbers.
Think we can safely say this is a president who really hasn't cared much about poll numbers.
He's cared more about doing what he thinks needs to be done and what he thinks is right.
We can argue whether or not he has the ability on a day-to-day basis to explain and articulate as well as could be done what he's doing.
Uh but the fact that he may not be able to articulate it to the satisfaction of a lot of people doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Doesn't mean that progress isn't taking place.
Now I know the conservatives, this uh full of doom and gloom.
They're fretting over who the next nominee will be.
Is Bush gonna sell us?
Oh no.
Well, we won't know till it happens, but one thing we do know.
Those living in the moment are missing extraordinary events that are reshaping the future, and they ought to be the ones telling us about it.
But they don't see it.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a moment.
Okay, before we get to the uh soundbites of Judge Roberts, and there was really a whole bunch of great ones.
Uh uh one this morning as he was answering a question from Senator Turban uh that I'm gonna share with you.
But this this you know, we you look at New Orleans, and and uh as you know, if you're a regular listener of this program, you understand that the real fact on display there is the failure of the welfare state, is the failure of liberal socialism to establish a utopia.
To have there is a failure of the entitlement mentality.
And of course, the left says, well, uh not really.
Uh we just haven't had it uh tried properly, given enough funding and enough time and all that.
Okay, one of the uh one of the most appreciated and loved and adored uh businesses today is Starbucks, correct?
Starbucks, and it's safe to say that Starbucks is a liberal outfit.
Started in Seattle, it's a pretty it's a liberal place.
I mean, it's it's a you know the Birkinstocks of coffee.
Well, there's an interesting story here out of uh out of Washington, the Starbucks corporation will spend more on health insurance for its employees this year than it will spend on the raw materials necessary to make its product.
That, according to the company chairman yesterday, Howard Schultz, whose Seattle-based company provides health care coverage to employees who work at least 20 hours a week, said that Starbucks has faced double-digit increases in insurance costs each of the last five years, and he said, quote, it is completely non-sustainable.
Oh, there you have it.
It is an admission of the failure of the entire structure of the social welfare safety net operating architecture.
It's just it's a it it here is here is a here is a liberal company that is the forget that it's liberal.
It's a company that's the darling of all kinds of of uh of uh admirers.
And they're spending more on health care than they're spending on their product.
And a guy says, this is this it's unsustainable.
He said that Starbucks expects to spend about 200 million dollars this year for health care for its 80,000 U.S. employees, more than the total amount it spends on coffee from Africa, Indonesia, and other countries.
Now, uh course it's unsustainable, but to the left, no, he has a duty to do this because corporations' primary purpose to many people on the left is to provide health care.
Isn't that what isn't that what you gather by listening to Democrats talk?
We need affordable health care, health care and hell uh health benefits and education.
So the purpose of a U.S. corporation to a big liberal is to provide health care for employees.
But when you spending more on your health care program than you are on your product, it's it can't be sustainable.
Mr. Snerdley, a question from the other side of the glass.
Uh uh that wouldn't be a very liberal thing to do.
Snerdley's question was why don't they just limit it to full-time employees?
And why uh how many do they have?
You know, that may be another, we don't know how many 40-hour a week employees they have.
It may be part of their business model.
I have no clue.
Uh what their business model is on their on their employees.
But of course, a lot of part-timers, but still we don't hear about them being criticized, do we?
No, only Walmart.
Only Walmart.
But Starbucks escapes all this stuff.
It's a good liberal bunch of people.
And it's a good liberal place to go.
A bunch of liberals go there, read the New York Times, have your coffee.
It's become a cultural phenomenon for the American left.
But I just even even at this level of success.
You can't.
I mean, I I've never been to a Starbucks, as I've said.
I've never been into one.
So I see them everywhere.
One of these days I'm going to have the chauffeur stop and say, I'm going to go in there and just look around.
Dawn's in there shaking her head.
I drive myself.
What what was the what Starbucks has a drive-through window?
But you can't you can't get the Starbucks experience driving through.
You don't have time to read the New York Times.
you know, while, while your coffee is being delivered, you gotta, you gotta go in there and, and, uh, experience the whole thing and sit there and, you know, waste the first 30 minutes of your day, uh, spend the first 30 minutes of your day reading the New York times, drinking coffee and a latte, uh, Whatever it is.
All right, to the confirmation hearings of John Roberts.
And again, folks, it's crucial while you're while you're watching the media reveling in the president's poll numbers and awaiting breathlessly his speech tonight from Jackson Square in New Orleans.
The uh fact is that his nominee to the Supreme Court is running rings around the best and brightest the left has to offer today.
And this is reshaping the judiciary, the Supreme Court.
And this is the branch of government the left is most concerned about.
And it's it I know they're covering the Roberts hearings, but there's nothing they can do about this guy's too smart even for the best and brightest in the media.
Let's give you this example from Senator Dick Turbin today.
Uh I think that you there have been two between uh uh yesterday and today, the uh uh the Democrats, I think, uh uh who are, by the way, meeting in private this afternoon with their special interest groups.
The Democrats have have uh put on a different face from one day to the next.
They started out being confrontational and argumentative, and I didn't get them anywhere, and I think that was to uh appease the special interest groups, do all the donating on the left.
Today it was it was uh more toward, you know, you're not telling us who you are.
You're really holding back on us.
You know, you really haven't been forthcoming at all.
You're getting away with a lot, you're getting away with murder here, Judge.
I mean, you're not telling us a thing.
Uh and it's it's it's that they're trying to set up the uh notion that this guy's too slick.
So Turbin says, I said at the outset that I thought one of the real measures as to whether or not you should be on a court goes back to a point Senator Simon had made.
Would you restrict freedom in America or would you expand it?
Now, you people on the left, well, everybody, I want you to listen to this question.
I want you to listen to his answer, because this is this is the best education on what the role of a judge in the court is that you will ever hear outside of from me.
Because here's Durbin saying, would you restrict freedom in America or would you expand it?
When you are defending gays and lesbians who are being restricted in their rights for the Colorado amendment, you were trying from my point of view to expand freedom.
That to me is a positive thing.
That's my personal philosophy and point of view.
But then when you say if the state would have walked in the door first to restrict freedoms, I would have taken them as a client too.
I wonder where are you?
Beyond loyalty to the process of law, how do you view this law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom?
It is important enough for you to say in some instances uh that I won't use my skills as a lawyer because I don't believe that that's a cause consistent with my values and beliefs.
That's what I'm asking.
So he's asking, will you punt?
Will you punt on your view of the law and stand up for the downtrodden and the minorities in this country who don't have a chance because the way this country's put together?
Will you will you put aside what you think the law says and give those people a break?
And here's the answer.
I had someone ask me in this process.
I don't remember who it was.
Um But somebody asked me, you know, are you going to be on the side of the little guy?
And uh you obviously want to give uh an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, uh if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me.
But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's gonna win.
Because my obligation is to the Constitution.
That's the oath.
The oath that a judge takes is not that um I'll look out for particular interests, I'll be on the side of particular interests.
The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.
Slam dunk, Senator Turbin, take him out in his coffin.
He has just been nailed shut.
In this little 44-second answer, Judge Roberts just destroyed the whole concept of the left's view of justice.
He just in 44 seconds, folks, he just destroyed the left wing's view of justice, which is the law is irrelevant.
Make new law if you have to help the little guy.
Whether the law favors a little guy or not, the little guy deserves it, the big guy deserves to get screwed simply because he is the big guy.
He deserves to get screwed because the way America is structured, it isn't fair.
We have haves and have nots, and there's no chance for the have nots to ever become anything other than have nots.
And of course, this is not the way America is structured at all.
We have the have nots who become multimillionaires all over the place.
People move in and out of different income groups constantly, many times during the course of their lives.
The view of America by the self-loathing left is one of inherent unfairness.
Somehow they have the big guys got it by luck, or they were appointed, or they somehow had advantages that the rest of us don't.
And once we're not in that group, we are forever shut out.
And so the purpose, as far as the left is concerned, is to balance this by screwing the people who are unfairly the big guys.
Because America is basically at its heart, unjust the way it's structured.
This is what they believe.
And so their view of the court has been if the law doesn't favor the little guy, rewrite the law from the bench.
If the law doesn't favor the little guy, then rewrite it from the court.
If the law doesn't favor the little guy and you can't find a way in American law to favor the little guy, go look at foreign law.
Whatever you have to do to build up the little guy because that's the only way to make it fair.
And Judge Roberts just in 44 seconds said, uh-uh.
I take an oath to defend, uphold, and protect the Constitution.
And if the Constitution says the big guy wins, the big guy wins.
I want you to listen to this answer again, folks, because Grab, it's audio soundbite number two, Mike.
In 44 seconds, he has just obliterated the entire world view of justice held by the left.
I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was.
Um, but somebody asked me, you know, are you going to be on the side of the little guy?
And uh you obviously want to give uh an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, uh if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is gonna win in court before me.
But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy is gonna win.
Because my obligation is to the Constitution.
That's the oath.
The oath that a judge takes is not that um I'll look out for particular interests, I'll be on the side of particular interests.
The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
America's anchorman, the harmless lovable little fuzzball Ill Rushbo meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
I got a great question here in the email.
So if government doesn't provide health care, and a corporation doesn't provide health care, how would you like to see the system set up?
You know why this is a great question?
Because this question takes me back.
See, I sometimes assume that all of you who have been listening know the counter theory when I say or explain what the problem at Starbucks is.
Starbucks is now spending more on health care than it costs them to run their business.
Yeah, They're spending more on health care every year than it costs them to provide their product.
And their CEO says this is not sustainable, and it's not.
It clearly isn't.
So I assume when I say that that all of you in this audience are well aware of uh the flaw here in the design.
And it reminds me I need to keep teaching.
So the question, well, if government doesn't provide health care, and a corporation doesn't provide health care, then how would you like to see the system set up?
Well, in the first place, I never said that government doesn't provide it, and I never said that a corporation shouldn't or government shouldn't.
That is assumed, but throw that out.
I don't want to confuse the waters or muddy the waters here.
How would I like the system set up?
The problem in this question is the premise.
The premise in this question is somebody else is obligated to pay for it.
So if government's not going to pay for it in your world rush, and if the corporation isn't going to pay for it in your world rush, well, who's going to pay for it?
Aha.
We have now arrived at the moment of truth.
Because whether the government is paying for it, or whether the corporation is paying for it, you, all of us, are the first source of funding for all of these costs.
For example, if your corporation pays you your health care, provides you health care.
You think, mistakenly so, that it's a benefit.
You think that it's not costing you anything.
Oh no.
Let's say that your salary where you work, I'll be generous to use a round number is a hundred thousand dollars.
The odds are that the cost to your employer of paying you a hundred thousand dollars is at least a hundred and twenty to a hundred and thirty.
But the time the employer pays your health care and pays your other benefits, uh matches your so-called matches your social security, which you're paying all of anyway.
There's no such thing as a government match.
That's just a word game.
You're actually being compensated 130,000 a year.
You don't see the 30 of it because it's being spent for you.
Now imagine, and the same thing, if the government's paying your health, where does the government get its money?
Taxes.
So it is first and foremost a myth that somebody else is paying your health care.
Now, since you're paying for it, would it not make more sense for you to have the money and go shopping for the medical care you want yourself?
And if that were the case, wouldn't then the costs in health care come down because there would be competition introduced into the system, which there isn't now.
Insurance companies can raise rates all they want, HMOs can do whatever they want because some invisible entity is going to pay the bill.
It's such a political necessity today.
Well, if you get the equivalent of your health care package from your business, and you spend, and maybe in the form of a medical savings account, and you then get to keep what you don't spend on health care to apply elsewhere to your budget, you're going to be a little cost conscious.
You may not go to the doctor as often.
You may not take advantage of all these visits that you think your free health care is providing you.
But the bottom line here is this premise that it's up to somebody else to pay for your health care is a is a mistake.
I don't know, that that that's this premise is rooted in socialism, but it's a trick because nobody else is paying for it.
You are.
One way or the other.
The only way you don't pay for it's if you don't have coverage and you go to the emergency room.
Then the taxpayers are joining hands and helping you out.
But when we're talking about employees, you're paying for it, and you're you're paying more than you would ever pay if you paid for it yourself.
But beyond that, the premise here that somebody else should pay for it.
If government doesn't and the employer doesn't, then who will?
Notice it's never really considered.
I maybe pay for this myself.
No, no, you can't do it.
It's health care, it's a right.
No, it's not.
What hotel care now?
Can't afford an airplane ticket.
Needed airplane care?
Stop and think about this, folks.
You're paying for it whether you think you are or not.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Folks, we've got even more news today on Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
And we'll uh get to that as the program unfolds.
▲
Export Selection