All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 22, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
February 22, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Working and performing today under increased, enhanced, and beefed up security here at the EIB Southern Command broadcast complex because of earlier threats received during a phone call from a member to Longshoremans Union in Long Beach.
I am Rush Limbaugh, fearlessly proceeding down the trail of broadcast excellence here from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you with us on the program today, folks, as always.
It's the fastest three hours in media here already at Wednesday, and we're already in the last hour of the program today.
Looking forward to uh to talking uh to you.
800 282-2882 is a phone number, and the email address if you um if you want to go that way is rush at EIBNet.com.
Now there are plenty of other things happening out there beside this port snort.
I just have one more thing I want to add to it right here, and that is from Senator McCain.
He has issued a statement on the debate over the Bush administration decision to allow Dubai ports world of the United Arab Emirates to manage certain U.S. seaports.
Said Senator McCain, we all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts.
The President's leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they wouldn't sell our security short.
Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully.
Now many of you people have written me today, said Rush, first Jimmy Carter, and now McCain.
Doesn't it trouble you that they're on the same side as you are?
No, it would trouble me if I were on the same side they're on.
I said it first.
It's their problem if they see you ought to be asking him, Senator McCain, aren't you worried?
This sounds exactly like what Rush Limbaugh is saying.
That's where the question ought to be asked.
And of course, if I were you, I wouldn't even waste my time with Jimmy Carter.
Now you may have seen in the news that uh uh Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia was heckled.
You may have seen that he was heckled during a uh a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.
That's not the story.
The story is what he said.
When's the last time they did a story on some liberal justice or anybody else being heckled something?
Don't do it.
That story is not that he was heckled.
He dealt with the heckler fine.
The heckler was a 23-year-old young skullful of mush from Boston named Aaron that was just the punk.
And and Scalia does not suffer fools.
They just asked him to get rid of this guy who was holding up the affair.
So I thought that I'd let you hear what Scalia said rather than let you just think that he was heckled.
At a speech, it was yesterday in Washington, the AEI on foreign law.
And by the way, he also did something else.
Some little nattering nabobs of inconsequentiality during the QA period started asking about a bunch of.
I'm not answering that question.
I'm here to talk about foreign law.
If you got a question on foreign law, I'll be glad to answer it.
Shut up.
He didn't say shut up, but that was the that was the message.
So we have what do we have?
One, two.
We have three bites.
Here's the first of three.
I fear that the court's use of foreign law in the interpretation of the Constitution will continue at an accelerating pace.
Stop it.
Sir.
No, no, no, no.
I was talking to him.
Stop the Yeah.
Because the living constitution paradigm for the task of constitutional interpretation prevails on the court.
And indeed in the legal community generally.
The second reason foreign law is likely to be used increasingly in our living constitution decisions is Sir Edmund Hillary's reason.
Because it's there.
The third reason foreign law will be increasingly used is an intensely pragmatic one.
Adding foreign law to the box of available legal tools is enormously attractive to judges because it vastly increases the scope of their discretion.
In that regard, it is much like legislative history, which ordinarily contains something for everybody, and can be used or not used, used in one part or in another, deemed controlling or pronounced inconclusive, depending upon the result the court wishes to reach.
This is somewhat troubling to me.
He's basically saying we can't stop it.
He says we've got too many renegades that are going to do it.
Now let me interpret something here.
Adding foreign law to the box of available legal tools is enormously attractive to judges because it vastly increases the scope of their discretion.
I mean, let me tell you what that means.
What that means is that an activist judge who wants to rule in favor of perverted idea A, can't find any evidence that it should be ruled on in favor of in the U.S. Constitution.
But he can consult the perverted society of country B and say, ha, see, we're not as far advanced, but it we we we've got to keep step with the world and therefore import what he has found to say there is legal precedent or what other reason, every other reason he wants to come up with.
And that's what is meant by this available tool, available box of tools to aid in the uh increasing the scope of the uh the judge's discretion.
So I happen to know we played the sound bites of this debate he had with Stephen Breyer.
He's terribly worried about this, but he's really sounding the alarm bell.
Sounds like there's nothing that can do to uh to stop it.
Here's the second bite.
According to the United Nations, the United States is now one of only 53 countries classified as allowing abortion on demand versus 139 countries allowing it only under particular circumstances or not at all.
But the court has generally ignored foreign law in its abortion cases.
I will become a believer in the ingenuousness, though never in the propriety, of the court's newfound respect for the wisdom of foreign minds when it applies that wisdom in the abortion cases.
Love this guy.
I hope I have made it clear that my belief that use of foreign law in our constitutional decisions is the wave of the future uh does not at all suggest that I think it's a good idea.
I do not.
The men who founded our republic did not aspire to emulating Europeans, much less the rest of the world.
Oh, exactly right.
Dead on, exactly right.
And he's he made that point, by the way, um uh in abortion.
He says, You guys are gonna be consistent, uh, we are behind the world when it comes to abortion thinking.
Most of the countries make it difficult to get an abortion.
We make it very easy.
Why don't we import the foreign law of those countries that make it difficult?
Because that's not what the judges who vote uh in favor of abortion uh want, which is his point.
One more bite here.
I don't do the world.
I do the United States.
I am a Hold on.
You know what?
I forgot there is a question here.
Uh and uh from the audience member and I forgot to read the question, re queue that.
Audience member says you're just talking about our people.
You just you just said then.
Um what what does it have to do with the gender welfare of the people among the world?
I don't do the world.
I do the United States.
I am a I am a federal judge operating under a constitution that begins, we the people of the United States.
Those are the people I was talking about.
Uh so little nattering naybobs, these imbeciles, these mental midgets, uh stupid oversensitized, spoiled brats that uh end up getting into these speeches to heckle and ask these questions, end up making absolute fools of themselves.
By the way, I saw something this, I don't know what triggered this to in me, because it's nothing to do with Scalia.
But are you people aware of the uh University of Washington Student Senate voting down a memorial to Pappy Boyington?
Have you heard about this?
Pappy Boeington, World War II Marine Pilot ace, great hero.
There was even a uh a TV show in the 70s starring Baba Blacksheep, starring uh Robert Conrad that was uh the featured was uh uh the main character was uh was Pappy Boyington.
He's a great American hero.
And he went to the University Of Washington.
And so some students, uh, some student proposed uh uh an uh statue or a memorial to Pappy Boeington.
And the state Senate voted it down.
We're not gonna honor war heroes because they're just murderers.
We're not gonna we're not gonna do that, and it caused a huge furor last week and uh and and early parts of this week.
And some people have been looking into it, and they found that what really is the problem is not it is a problem of of bias on these campuses because of what professors have been inculcating these young skulls full of mush with about anti-militarism and so forth, that war is all murder and that we're more guilty because we're more powerful.
But there's something else to it.
They they've they found out that there was a compromise offered.
We will we will accept um uh a a memorial to uh uh a bunch of World War II heroes, but no name.
And it was said then that what really going on here with these young students is failure to recognize the individual.
We're all part of some group.
We're all part of some different class, and you can't just single out one person from the group because it's discriminatory.
So you gotta honor a class.
Like so you you couldn't have uh, you couldn't have uh uh with if these guys were around at the time, you couldn't have Mount Rushmore because it would be unfair to signal out one or four president.
You'd have to put just the presidential seal up there.
So it's the it's the the I forget the exact word, but there's a a new thought process that has overtaken these young skulls full of mush at our institutions of higher learning.
It has to do with classism, um, meaning that we're we're all no individuals, we're all just part of some group.
Uh and of course, certain groups are freely frowned upon, like people that wear the military uniform and uh and that sort of thing.
I don't even think this Boyington memorial was gonna cost the campus, and if somebody donated that some the Marine Corps, some associated group of Marines wanted to put this up and they get a student to propose it, and it didn't fly.
Uh, thank God Pappy Boeington did.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
A uh helicopter has crashed between two homes in Arizona.
I'm looking at the uh flash video of it now, and I can't help but wonder if there are any parts in that helicopter that were made in the United Arab Emirates.
Welcome back, Rushland bought 800 282-2882.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, I'm tempted to say that uh we are on Summer's Eve.
We are at Summer's Eve.
Now, Summers Eve uh is also, I think, used to be an expert in these things, a feminine deodorant spray, but it's also it also designates, ladies and gentlemen, that we're in the uh last days of the administration of Larry Summers as president of Harvard.
And by the way this happened, I think we need to change the name from Harvard to Hervard.
Because a bunch of angry feminazis took him out simply because he spoke the truth about diversity on campus and the differences in men and women.
If feminist movement is still alive and well, and it contains the central belief there's really no difference between men and women.
We're all the same.
We're all just conditioned differently, but we can all do what everybody else does.
We're all equal.
There is no inherent difference.
Now you think I'm laughing when I joking when I say suggest uh uh changing name Harvard to Hervard, they changed the word history to Hirstory at one point, remember in the militant feminist movement.
In fact, maybe we could have two schools, Hisford and Hervord, and just and just and just sequester uh uh the uh the the students.
Hervard, uber sexuals need not apply, metrosexuals will be welcome, but the few slots are very competitive, transsexuals, your scholarships in the mail before you even apply.
Larry Summers, he could stand up to the Republicans, he could all, oh yeah, he could stand up to powerful international interests.
I mean, he was a he was a treasury secretary.
Former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration.
He could stand up to all kinds of powerful interests, Republicans as well, but not to the faculty at Hervard.
No contest.
He didn't stand a prayer.
Lawrence Summers has announced he will resign as president of Hervard University at the end of the 2005-2006 academic year.
The screw will announce this on its website.
Summers became the 27th profe uh president of Hervard after Neil Rudenstein announced in May of 2001 his resignation after nearly a decade.
What got him in trouble was that last year he suggested that innate gender differences between the sexes might explain the few women in science and math.
That's all it took.
And I'll tell you what I'm hearing that finally got him out.
Former Clinton administration officials said you can't win this, you should leave.
Just like they went to Andrew Cuomo and Bob Torricelli and said, hey, you know, who really runs the show, don't you?
And it ain't you.
And it ain't your dad.
And it ain't that guy that gave you all those watches and cash, Bobby.
It's me.
And for the good of the party, you both are out.
If you want to live, sign this document, we'll make sure you find other things to do, but you're not going to run for office in this party.
And I'm sure the same thing happened to Larry Summers.
Well, that's...
I know they're a little bit upset him for tr for upset him for stopping trying to stop grade inflation, but that's not the real thing.
I mean, that they just threw that in there.
But he was they are inflating grades because if you're Hervard, your your your your graduates must be the upper cross.
You you can't have a bunch of C and D students get out of school, so they were elevating the grades, and he didn't want to do that.
Uh and and so Bambi's well, it's they've it's institution, they've they've got a they got a reputation to uh protect.
So there was a 218 to 185 no confidence vote from Hervard's faculty of arts and sciences last month.
Uh or last March, I'm sorry.
Faculty votes are symbolic because the seven member Hervard Corporation has sole authority to fire the university's uh president.
And have you heard about the controversy up at the Detroit Zoo?
All right, this this is um this is pretty good.
Big controversy at the uh at the Detroit Zoo.
Apparently the zoo is in trouble, and the state and the city, this the state and and somebody has said we're gonna take it over and run it.
And Barbara Rose Collins, one of the council members, said, Look it.
This is our zoo, and you're telling us we can't run it because we're black.
That's what you're saying.
We were not on the plantation anymore, and you're not gonna take the zoo operation away from us.
She said the symbolism is the Detroit's a black city, and that we're unable to govern ourselves, so we need an overseer, the state legislature or what have you to step in and tell us what what we must do and how to do it.
She said she will not sign off on an operating agreement until it protects Detroit's interests, and the state should not try to force them with a funding deadline.
This is a racist attitude.
I resent it very much.
I'm trying not to let it color my judgments, but we are not a plantation.
Blacks are not owned by white folks anymore.
Martha Reeves, another council member said whoever runs the zoo should have an understanding with the city council, and it was not clear what the actual agreement was.
It was never completed.
So I don't know what apparently the zoo is got some uh got some problems up there.
Yeah, I was wondering.
This is Mar this is Martha Reeves of Martha Reeves and the Vandelas.
Okay, that's why I was why I was wondering about that.
Uh Mike in Washington, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Um yeah, Rush.
Uh uh, it was once said that a tiger is a tiger is a tiger.
And uh the only thing I I can get past the economic uh points of uh letting the UAE um share in our capitalist ventures and all that stuff.
But uh since we're considered the big Satan, what makes us think that it's not gonna turn around and sometimes bite us in the butt?
Uh well uh I've I've tried to answer that.
Uh what can I tell you that I haven't already said uh why would they spend this amount of money to blow us up when they could just put a bomb in a container at a port they already own in some other part of the world and ship it in?
What what why would why would they want to spend eight billion dollars to hit a target they can already hit?
Well, they can always uh get more money.
That's the thing.
And uh I mean, if it's so docile and such so harmless, maybe we can get convinced Israel to let the UAE run their ports.
Really show everybody how good it can be.
Uh well, uh uh what ports in Israel whatever.
Whatever, whatever port they would have.
Uh let or let the UAE shut up uh their infrastructure.
Have you seen the Jordan River?
You could jump over it.
Well, look, folks, I I I uh I I think it's good that we have these calls.
I I think it's good that we have these calls.
You find out uh why people oppose it, uh, what their thinking is to help you form the basis of your own opinion on this.
We'll take a brief time out and be back in a moment.
Okay, we just heard some audio sound bites from Justice Scalia.
I have a story here about a judge that will illustrate why so many people are concerned uh uh about the future of the judiciary.
The government, this is according to federal judge, Bruce Lee.
The government must disclose whether it used any information from the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program in its case against a man convicted of joining Al-Qaeda and plotting to assassinate the president.
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee postponed the man's sentencing at the request of defense lawyers who suspected Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 24 of false church false church was illegally targeted by the eavesdropping program.
Hells Bells, this is absolutely patently absurd.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, the judge gave persecutors prosecutors, sorry, until March 9th to submit a sworn declaration from a government official to say whether any information from the eavesdropping was used in Abu Ali's case.
Prosecutors had opposed any sentencing delay, said they were not aware of any evidence obtained through the surveillance program, but conceded they may not know exactly how investigators obtained all the evidence.
So what if the program was used?
Nobody has suggested that it's illegal.
Well, they've suggested it's illegal, but they're wrong, and nobody suggested that it be stopped.
Just speaking of judges, yesterday I shared with you evidence in the mainstream press.
New York Times and Washington Post both had editorials and stories aimed at the incoming two new justices.
The Chief Justice John Roberts and Sam Alito pointed out how the uh all these conservative justices that have been appointed in the past end up becoming liberals or moderates on the court, and my theory is that they um they get affected by the cultural scene in D.C. They're affected by the social scene.
Uh and of course, that's where they live and work, and they want great editorials.
They want nice puff pieces in the style section.
They want pieces about how uh how they are growing uh on the bench uh and so forth and so on.
I think this pressure has worked in a number of cases, and the two stories that I mentioned yesterday were evidence of the press attempt at bringing the pressure.
Today, the New York Times does it again.
Apparently they think they've struck out on Roberts, so they target Alito separately today.
Talk about starting off with a splash.
Yesterday the Supreme Court took the occasion of Justice Samolito's first day on the nine-member bench to announce that it would step in during the next term to resolve the constitutionality of the 2003 federal ban on so-called partial birth abortion.
Justice Alito is likely to be more sympathetic to legislative efforts to restrict abortion.
But for the Supreme Court to reverse so quickly a significant ruling in this contentious area in response to some obvious political machinations would undermine not just abortion rights, but the court's own authority.
It's a dangerous game, and a wise court would not play it.
So I say that this is a warning shot to Justice Alito.
Don't play this dangerous game set.
What's dangerous about this?
What's dangerous is what the Times plans to do to Alito if he doesn't do what they want him to do.
This this partial birth abortion case, all this is gonna do is send it back to the states if it if it if if if it works Out where it ought to be in the first place.
I mentioned earlier that the Wall Street Journal had a story today about uh health care costs being so expensive it might well be cheaper for your boss just buy you a house.
Imagine walking into a job interview and your potential employer tells you that the best thing about working there is that the company will buy you a house.
While it sounds preposterous, it just might be cheaper than providing you with health insurance.
The 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the average premium for family medical coverage is ten thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars per year, which is approximately nine hundred and six dollars a month.
According to the National Association of Realtors, the median price of existing family homes in December was $211,000.
So if you put 20 20% down in a 30-year mortgage at six and a quarter percent, the cost of buying the house is $1,040 per month.
Given the choice between paying an employer's fixed rate mortgage at $1,040 a month or paying for health care, the employer would be better served paying the mortgage.
At least the mortgage payment will remain $1,040 a month ten years from now.
The monthly health insurance premium is likely to more than double to $2400 in ten years.
Just considering these numbers, looks like we need some big changes in the way employees get health coverage.
It leaves us with pocketbook economics.
As unpleasant as it sounds, the direct cost of health care must be borne primarily by the consumer as opposed to the employer.
Employers should get out of the business of guaranteeing health care benefits just as most employers have gotten out of the business of guaranteeing retirement benefits or guaranteeing housing for that matter.
By guaranteeing benefits, there's no expectation that no matter how high the price, the employer must provide the benefit.
There is an expectation, I'm sorry.
This is not the best method for establishing a market rate for...
Of course not.
We've been saying this for I don't know how many years.
That's why the health savings accounts make uh all the sense in the world.
A better method, uh, this is Charles Farrell, by the way.
This is commentary in the Wall Street Journal.
A better method, excuse me, is for employers and employees to negotiate total pay in dollars, not in benefits or lifestyles.
Employees can then use a portion of their total pay to purchase health insurance, fund their retirement, pay their mortgage, buy a car, whatever else they think is important.
Now we've addressed that on this program.
Let me translate this for you.
You negotiate a total pay package.
You people who uh I'm just gonna pick a round number.
Uh those of you making $75,000 a year, the odds are that the cost to the company of hiring you at your $75,000 approaches $90,000 to $95,000, maybe more,
because the benefits package, the vacation days, the sick days, the family medical leave act days, the uh hangnail days, the sick cat days, medical insurance, uh daughter breaks her arm days, uh uh what else we got?
Oh, and we've got the the matching social security, which you think the employer's paying, but he's not.
You are so essentially if it costs you if it costs your employer ninety thousand dollars to hire you, then he's gonna pay you $90,000.
Then you go buy your health insurance, then you go buy your house.
Now I know the reason I'm not doing that.
I am I'm entitled to health care benefit.
And besides, you'll say quite correctly, wait a minute, I'm only taxed on the $75,000.
Those benefits are untaxed.
Not for long, folks.
Mark my words.
The day is going to come.
It's already started on the fringes.
The day is going to come where those benefits are going to be taxed.
You're going to be you're going to be charged income on those.
It'll happen.
It'll happen.
And it's going to be a tough thing to do here because the expectation is that health benefits are part of the gig.
And a company ought to buy them.
Company's got all the money in the world.
Why should I have to buy my own health care?
If this, if this doesn't stop, ladies and gentlemen, this doesn't stop.
Pretty soon I made a joke about it yesterday, but we're going to move on to what's called income insurance.
We're going to have income insurance.
Well, well, we why doesn't the company buy your car insurance?
Why didn't the company buy your automobile your home owner's insurance or whatever?
Why didn't the company buy that?
Why's the company buy the only reason is because you've thought it's always been done that way, started back at World War II.
It was an enticement to uh to get employees back during competitive period of time.
Let's go to uh Raleigh and Jim.
You're next on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush.
Um you know you're making the comment about Jim.
You're next on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Turn the radio down out there, Jim.
Oh, sorry about that, right?
Yeah, it's all right.
That's right.
I know that most people want to listen themselves on the radio, but uh takes a highly trained professional uh to be able to speak and hear yourself uh seven seconds later.
It's very difficult to do.
Well, actually, I was in another room on the on my phone.
I was listening to you in the living room.
Now you're making a comment a couple of minutes ago about the average employer paying about 20 percent additional in benefits.
About four or five years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did a study about that, and they determine that the actual cost the employer pays between 40 and in some cases 50 percent additional cost and benefits.
So if I'm gonna go out and get, you know, my job is say, you know, fifty thousand dollars, whatever they're gonna pay me a hundred thousand dollars, the company is gonna almost pay half of that again in what they pay me in benefits.
Yeah.
I'm I'm not surprised.
I thought I was shooting low when I said seventy-five would be ninety or ninety-five.
I know it's pretty high.
You know, and it is.
And you know, it's a funny thing when you talk about, you know, like um the the term that's pandered around a lot in uh I'm in the financial services industry, and the term that gets panted around a lot is consumer-driven health care, which I think is kind of silly because it it should always be that way.
But that being said, you know, the uh the the health care savings accounts and some of those other things that I agree with you are great ideas, but are not getting um a lot of traction and are not being um uh politics is popular.
Yeah.
Well, the other thing too is the industry is not pushing them.
The the health industry, the insurance industry, they're just not pushing them.
Well, no, they don't want prices to come down.
No.
If you're in a hotel business and your average room rate's a thousand dollars and somebody thinks that's too much and it could come up with a plan to cut it in half, you think the hotel industry go for it?
No, absolutely not, I agree.
But you know and and again, I think that the idea of the health care savings accounts and other things like that are a great idea, but again, and again, the tools are there to bring the cost more into line.
Well, but there's gonna have to the the the uh the consumer would have to participate in this.
You know, you used a phrase a moment ago called consumer-driven health care.
I happened, I mean, you you interpreted that as a as a as a as market forces being at work, and and that's a proper interpretation.
But I can also attach a negative interpretation to it.
Consumer driven means, geez, I've I've I've I've got a pimple.
I gotta go to the doctor.
And consumer-driven health care, the fact that they don't think they're paying anything for it causes people to go to the doctor all kinds of times when that's really not necessary.
Um the the perception that it's free or the perception that somebody else is paying for it, is uh uh I think partly what's driving that.
That's why genuine consumer-driven health care, meaning the consumer is going to pay for it like the consumer goes to the grocery store and pays for it, then the consumer will get the health care he needs, and you have the insurance for the catastrophic injuries and and emergencies that that but pop up.
Uh but not for this everyday stuff.
It look at uh at some point this is gonna have to happen.
This system's gonna bust.
Um there's a companion story here uh about the runaway.
Yeah, health spending is likely to outpace the growth of the economy by 2015.
Health spending will probably be twenty percent of GDP by twenty fifteen, and the federal government will end up paying half of it in Medicare and Medicaid.
I mean that's just that's absurd.
But that's where it's headed if there are no brakes put on it.
We here at the EIB network have a revolutionary way of dealing with health care.
We only hire healthy people, and they're not allowed to get sick, and if they get sick, they stay home and they come back when they get well.
And if they have an emergency, then they then they go to the doctor, but it has to be a pre approved emergency.
And so forth.
And they have to submit forms and this all we got, we got a handle on this.
Um well, how do we keep them from getting sick?
No sick days.
Get sick, it's gonna cost you.
This is this is not hard to do here, folks.
We could be a model here if people would listen to us.
And of course, I'm just a simpleton.
We're not nearly nuanced enough.
So it'll never fly outside the uh halls of the EIB network.
You ever hear about anybody getting sick here besides me?
That's no big deal.
I don't I'm not subject to it, because I don't participate in a health plan.
See, if you don't participate in health plan, you get sick all you want.
Back in just a second.
It's another bad day for the American left out there today.
Walmart stores incorporated posted a 13% rise in quarterly profit because of aggressive holiday promotions and an overhaul of his U.S. operations, but the company said rising interest costs would constrain results this year.
The world's biggest retailer and the nation's biggest enemy of the American left has been beset by soaring energy prices and uneven economic recovery that hasn't benefited the majority of lower income workers, a main Walmart constituency.
But unlike in recent quarters, the Bentonville, Arkansas company yesterday didn't cite external factors for performance issues this time.
Instead, it's execs focused on how Walmart was adapting to a tougher operating environment, and we know what that is.
They're being targeted by the Democratic Party.
Those very low income workers the Democratic Party claims to represent is trying to put out of business the store that services their needs.
It's just unbelievable to watch these people.
Here is uh Mike in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Welcome to the program.
Good to have you with us.
Rush, how are you?
Fine, sir.
Thanks very much.
Uh I was calling about the comments you just made about health savings accounts, and I think that they are definitely an answer.
They serve they can even serve as a as a medical IRA.
But more than that, the next crisis health care wise that we're looking at is the fact that there is a baby boomer turning 60 years old every seven and a half seconds, which means that there are about 11,570 of them turning 60 every day, and long-term care is going to be the next um the next real health care crisis that we're facing.
By long-term care, do you mean things like nursing homes and stuff?
Actually, yeah, I I work for uh a major long-term care insurer.
Nursing home care, um assisted care facilities, also.
Yeah, I just think it's gonna be funny to walk into a nursing home in ten years and have a couple of gummers out there calling each other biff, you know, and muffy.
Uh but it's a very good thing.
It is gonna be the baby boomers, but you're you're right.
It is going away to a large degree.
It's going away from from nursing home.
It's last year we paid out 84% of our benefits for home health care.
Home health care.
A lot of people don't realize that.
Yeah.
Is it their own homes or is it the homes of uh of of like their children that they move together?
Either one.
Either one.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, uh some baby boomers have still living at home.
I don't know if you know this.
Uh some of them still haven't gotten the guts to go out and and uh get their own house.
So they'll probably just stay there.
Um some some baby boomers will go back home uh when they get sick, uh expecting, since the world has always been about them, expecting to be cared for, and they will be stunned to learn that their parents are dead.
Uh it'll been a while since they've seen them, and so they won't know what to do.
And you're right, your company will be called on.
All right, folks, I gotta take a brief time out here.
Sit tight, we'll be back and wrap it all up after this.
They've been saving this last item, uh, ladies and gentlemen, for close to twelve noon time on the left coast when people are just now heading to lunch.
Uh a Bavarian village has been flooded by runaway liquid pig manure after a tank containing it burst.
Sewage rose to uh about twenty inches in the courtyards and streets of Elsa after gushing from the tank, which had some uh fifty two thousand gallons of liquid pig manure.
Somehow burst the tank.
Uh, Rayner Prediger, a police spokesman in the nearby town of Coburg, said, I tell you, it was horrible.
The village out there was swamped with this green-brown liquid.
It was runaway pig manure.
It was the mother of all muck.
Could have also been talking about the Democratic Party.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection