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 of the Longshoremen's 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 meeting here already at Wednesday, and we're already in the last hour of the program today.
Looking forward to talking to you.
800-282-2882 is a phone number.
And the email address, 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, 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 say, you ought to be asking, 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 Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was heckled.
You may have seen that he was heckled during 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 skull full of mush from Boston named Aaron that was just the punk.
And Scalia does not suffer fools.
They just asked him to get rid of this guy who's 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 stuff.
I'm not answering that question.
I'm here to talk about foreign law.
If you've 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 message.
So we have, what do we have here?
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.
No, no, no, no.
I was talking to him.
Stop.
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.
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 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, ever 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 increasing the scope of the judge's discretion.
But 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.
It sounds like there's nothing it can do 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 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.
No, exactly right.
Dead on, exactly right.
And he made that point, by the way, in abortion.
He says, you guys are going to be consistent.
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 in favor of abortion want, which is his point.
One more bite here.
I don't do the world.
I do the United States.
I am a...
Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it.
You know what?
I forgot there is a question here.
And from the audience member, I forgot to read the question.
I'll re-cue that.
Audience member says, you're just talking about our people.
You just said then.
What does that 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 federal judge operating under a constitution that begins, we the people of the United States.
Those are the people I was talking about.
So little nattering nabobs, these imbeciles, these mental midgets, stupid, over-sensitized, spoiled brats that end up getting into these speeches to heckle and ask these questions end up making absolute fools of themselves.
By the way, I saw this.
I don't know what triggered this in me because it has nothing to do with Scalia.
But are you people aware of the University of Washington Student Senate voting down a memorial to Pappy Boyington?
Have you heard about this?
Pappy Boyington, World War II Marine Pilot Ace, great hero.
There was even a TV show in the 70s starring Baba Black Sheep starring Robert Conrad that featured the main character was Pappy Boyington.
He's a great American hero.
And he went to the University of Washington.
And so some student proposed a statue or a memorial to Pappy Boyington.
And the state senate voted it down.
We're not going to honor war heroes because they're just murderers.
We're not going to do that.
And it caused a huge furor last week 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 bias on these campuses because of what professors have been inculcating these young skulls full of mush with 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 found out that there was a compromise offered.
We will accept a memorial to a bunch of World War II heroes, but no name.
And it was said then that what's 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've got to honor a class.
So you couldn't have, you couldn't have, 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 presidents.
You'd have to put just the presidential seal up there.
So it's the, I forget the exact word, but there's 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, meaning that we're all, no individuals.
We're all just part of some group.
And of course, certain groups are freely frowned upon, like people that wear the military uniform and that sort of thing.
I don't even think this Boyington memorial was going to cost the campus.
And if somebody donated, the Marine Corps, some associated group of Marines wanted to put this up, and they got a student to propose it.
And it didn't fly.
Thank God Pappy Boyington did.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
A helicopter has crashed between two homes in Arizona.
I'm looking at the 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.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm tempted to say that we are on Summer's Eve.
We are at Summer's Eve.
I know Summers Eve 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 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 Hervord 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.
A 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 change the name Harvard to Hervard.
They changed the word history to hurstory at one point, remember, in the militant feminist movement.
In fact, maybe we could have two schools, Hisford and Hervord, and just sequester the students.
Hervard, uber sexuals need not apply.
Metrosexuals would be welcome, but the few slots are very competitive.
Transsexuals, your scholarship's in the mail before you even apply.
Larry Summers, he could stand up to the Republicans.
He could, oh yeah, he could stand up to powerful international interests.
I mean, 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 Hervord.
No contest.
He didn't stand a prayer.
Lawrence Summers has announced he will resign as president of Hervord University at the end of the 2005-2006 academic year.
The screw will announce this on its website.
Summers became the 27th president of Hervord 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 this show, don't you?
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, I know they're a little bit upset him for trying to stop grade inflation, but that's not the real thing.
I mean, they just threw that in there.
But he was, they are inflating grades because if you're Hervard, your graduates must be the upper crust.
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.
And so Bammy's, well, it's an institution.
They've got a reputation to protect.
So there was a 218 to 185 no confidence vote from Hervord's Faculty of Arts and Sciences last month, or last March, I'm sorry, faculty vulture symbolic because the seven-member Hervord Corporation has sole authority to fire the university's president.
Have you heard about the controversy up at the Detroit Zoo?
All right, this is pretty good.
Big controversy at the Detroit Zoo.
Apparently, the zoo is in trouble, and the state and the city, the state, and somebody said, we're going to 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 going to take the zoo operation away from us.
She said, the symbolism is that Detroit's a black city and we're unable to govern ourselves.
So we need an overseer, the state legislature, what have you, to step in and tell us 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 has got some problems up there.
Yeah, I was wondering.
This is Martha Reeves of Martha Reeves and Evangelist.
Okay, that's why I was wondering about that.
Mike in Washington, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Yeah, Rush.
It was once said that a tiger is a tiger is a tiger.
And the only thing I can get past the economic points of letting the UAE share in our capitalist ventures and all that stuff.
But since we're considered the big Satan, what makes us think that it's not going to turn around and sometimes bite us in the butt?
Well, I've tried to answer that.
What can I tell you that I haven't already said?
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?
Why would they want to spend $8 billion to hit a target they can already hit?
Well, they can always get more money.
That's the thing.
And I mean, if it's so docile and so harmless, maybe we can convince Israel to let the UAE run their ports.
Really show everybody how good it can be.
Well, what ports in Israel?
Whatever.
Whatever port they would have.
Or let the UAE shut out their infrastructure.
Have you seen the Jordan River?
You could jump over it.
Look, folks, I think it's good that we have these calls.
I think it's good that we have these calls.
Find out why people oppose it, 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 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 was illegally targeted by the eavesdropping program.
Hell's bells, this is absolutely patently absurd.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, the judge gave prosecutors 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 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 get affected by the cultural scene in D.C. They're affected by the social scene.
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 they are growing on the bench 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 Sam Alito'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.
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 partial birth abortion case, all this is going to do is send it back to the States 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 health care costs being so expensive it might well be cheaper for your boss to 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 $10,880 per year, which is approximately $906 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% down in a 30-year mortgage at 6.25%, 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 10 years from now.
The monthly health insurance premium is likely to more than double to $2,400. in 10 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 all the sense of the world.
A better method, this is Charles Farrell, by the way, this is commentary in the Wall Street Journal.
A better method 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.
It's about cutting edge of societal evolution.
Let me translate this for you.
You negotiate a total pay package.
You people who, I'm just going to pick a round number.
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 hangnail days, the sick cat days, medical insurance, daughter breaks her arm days.
What else we got?
Oh, and we've got the matching social security, which you think the employer is paying, but he's not.
You are.
So essentially, if it costs you, if it costs your employer $90,000 to hire you, then he's going to 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'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 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 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, 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 does 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 get employees back during a competitive period of time.
Let's go to Raleigh and Jim.
You're next on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush.
You know, you're making the comment about.
Raleigh and Jim, you're next on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Turn the radio down out there, Jim.
Oh, sorry about that, Raleigh.
Yeah, that's all right.
That's right.
I know that most people want to listen to themselves on the radio, but it takes a highly trained professional to be able to speak and hear yourself seven seconds later.
It's very difficult to do.
Last year, I was in another room on my phone.
I was listening to you in the living room.
Now, you were making a comment a couple of minutes ago about the average employer paying about 20% additional in benefits.
About four or five years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did a study about that, and they determined that the actual cost that the employer pays between 40 and in some cases 50% additional cost and benefits.
So if I'm going to go out and get, you know, my job is, say, you know, $50,000, whatever they're going to pay me, $100,000, the company is going to almost pay half of that again in what they pay me in benefits.
Yeah.
I'm not surprised.
I thought I was shooting low when I said 75 would be 90 or 95.
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 the term that's pantered around a lot in, I'm in the financial services industry, and a term that gets pantered around a lot is consumer-driven health care, which I think is kind of silly because it should always be that way.
But that being said, you know, the healthcare savings accounts and some of those other things that I agree with you are great ideas, but are not getting a lot of traction and are not being popular.
Yeah.
Well, the other thing, too, is the industry is not pushing them.
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 $1,000 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 would go for it?
No, absolutely not.
I agree.
And again, I think that the idea of the healthcare 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 going to have to be 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 interpreted that as market forces being at work, and that's a proper interpretation.
But I can also attach a negative interpretation to it.
Consumer-driven means, geez, I've got a pimple.
I've got to 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.
And the perception that it's free or the perception that somebody else is paying for it is, I think, partly what's driving it.
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 they have the insurance for the catastrophic injuries and emergencies that pop up.
But not for this everyday stuff.
Look at some point this is going to have to happen.
This system is going to bust.
There's a companion story here about the runaway.
Yeah, health spending is likely to outpace the growth of the economy by 2015.
Health spending will probably be 20% of GDP by 2015, 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 breaks 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.
If they have an emergency, 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.
We got a handle on this.
You know, well, how do we keep them from getting sick?
No sick days.
Get sick, it's going to cost you.
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 halls of the EIB network.
You ever hear about anybody getting sick here besides me?
That's no big deal.
I'm not subject to it because I don't participate in a health plan.
See, if you don't participate in a health plan, you get sick all you want.
Back in just a sec.
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 its 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, its 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 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.
I was calling about the comments you just made about health savings accounts, and I think that they are definitely an answer.
They can even serve 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 real health care crisis that we're facing.
By long-term care, do you mean things like nursing homes and stuff?
Actually, yeah, I work for a major long-term care insurer, nursing home care, assisted care facilities, also.
Yeah, I just think it's going to be funny to walk into a nursing home in 10 years and have a couple of gummers out there calling each other biff and muffy.
But it's really important.
It is going to be the baby boomers, but you're right.
It is going away to a large degree.
It's going away from nursing homes.
Last year, we paid out 84% of our benefits for home health care.
Home health care?
A lot of people don't realize that.
Is it their own homes or is it the homes of their children that they've been?
Either one.
Either one.
Yeah, well, some baby boomers are still living at home.
I don't know if you know this.
Some of them still haven't gotten the guts to go out and get their own house.
So they'll probably just stay there.
Some baby boomers will go back home when they get sick, 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.
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 got to take a brief time out here.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and wrap it all up after this.
I've been saving this last item, ladies and gentlemen, for close to 12 noontime on the left coast, and people are just now heading to lunch.
A Bavarian village has been flooded by runaway liquid pig manure after a tank containing it burst.
Sewage rose to about 20 inches in the courtyards and streets of Elsa after gushing from the tank, which had some 52,000 gallons of liquid pig manure.
Somehow burst the tank.
Raynor 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