All Episodes
Previous Next
March 13, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
March 13, 2009, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, that didn't take long, did it?
I mean, how to kill a rally in just a couple of comments.
Leave it to the president to spike a rally in the stock market.
The Dow down 71 right now, the very day that Barack Obama says, hey, don't worry, the economy isn't as bad as we think.
What have we got a president that's short selling or what?
I'm kind of confused.
Hi, everybody.
Jason Lewis, L. Jacebo in for the big guy, El Rushbo with talent on loan from Rush for the next, well, the next hour.
Big program today.
Very big program today because the last two hours will feature Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech in its entirety.
So stay tuned right here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network for all of that.
In the meantime, we will, of course, get to your phone calls at 1-800-282-2882.
By the way, before we do that, though, I've got to share something with you.
I shared it with Kit yesterday, shared it with Mike, and it's still bothering me.
I don't know what to do about this.
Have you ever seen something visually, a video?
You know, you see them on the internet once in a while that leave an indelible mark in your mind.
They sear your little brain, and you can't get rid of it.
You have nightmares.
It's troubling.
It's disconcerting.
It is the most ridiculous and troubling thing you've ever seen in your life.
You can't believe it.
Well, I saw one of those, and I'm still trying to undo the market left.
You know what I'm talking about, of course, Charles Barkley's golf swing.
Have you seen this Haney project on the golf channel?
I have never, this guy, Barkley, apparently an athlete.
Uh-oh, I'm in trouble already.
He's got this swing that would make Bill Clinton swing look smooth, look rhythmic.
It's almost like a Tourette syndrome for a golfer.
I don't know if you've seen this, and I don't know if you play golf or not, but it is the most bizarre thing.
And if you golf, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
You're playing in a foursome, and one guy's got this rather odd swing, Basil, and you don't want to look.
You do not want to look at this.
This is going to seep in by osmosis.
This thing, I can't look at this guy put.
I can't look at this guy swing.
That's Barkley, except it's on steroids.
Oh, the swing, yes.
It is the most bizarre thing you've ever seen.
I'm telling you.
And if you're a golfer, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Don't watch.
It's bad for the kids.
It's bad for the kids.
Speaking of that, how about Phil Mickelson, Donna Dural yesterday, comes in 17 and 18, chips in the last two holes.
I think he's tied for the lead.
I think he was tied for the lead when he finished.
Golf season up and running across America, across the globe.
That makes me happy.
You know, I love golf.
I love warm weather.
I love golf.
I love low taxes, which is why I live in Minnesota.
By the way, it is Friday as well.
So I guess before we get to the topics, before we get to the calls, this is your chance, is it not?
Even though this is going to be an aborted program, just an hour with me, and then the big two-hour speech from Rush, it's still open line Friday.
It's still your, yeah, yeah it is.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Your chance to call in amateur to amateur and tell me what's on your mind.
Tell the world what's on your mind.
Whether it's golf or whether it's politics or whether it's Barack Obama short selling.
I know it sounds conspiratorial, but every time the guy opens his mouth, the market sinks.
It's just a thought, just a thought.
1-800-282-2882.
How do you like this?
No wonder the markets are confused.
We've talked about paralysis by analysis.
We've talked about a recession of uncertainty, the mixed signals, and now even Obama's supporters are talking about those, i.e. Warren Buffett.
So remember, we had the first stimulus.
Actually, to be fair, we had the first stimulus under Bush and Paulson back in February a year ago, a year and a little 13 months ago, something like that.
And it failed.
And we knew a temporary rebate is not the incentive business needs.
People don't make long-term investment decisions on a one-time rebate.
The government can't increase demand with the rebate because they're borrowing in the capital markets to fund the rebate, and that reduces demand.
That's the flaw in the Keynesian analysis.
So when the second stimulus plan came out, $787 billion loaded with pork, as Rush and everybody's been talking about, we knew that wouldn't work either.
And folks, the market has not exactly reacted, notwithstanding the last couple of days.
It's down once again.
It's way down from the inauguration, way down from November.
The stimulus is not going to work because it's a zero-sum game, as you and I have talked ad infinitum.
So now, because it hasn't worked, naturally what government does when they do something that doesn't work, they double down on it.
They repeat it, they expand it.
So yesterday or the day before, I can't remember if it was Rush or me yesterday, maybe it was me yesterday, they said, well, there's a second stimulus package in the works.
Well, that's great.
Isn't that an admission that the first one didn't work?
Why don't you undo the first one?
Well, a few people caught a ration for that one.
And then you had Nancy Pelosi and a few other Democrats, as well as David Obey, the Uber Democrat from Wisconsin, say, no, no, no, nothing's in the works.
I haven't instructed my staff to draft a second stimulus.
The Democrats in Congress say, no, there's no second stimulus.
That's a feverish fantasy from right-wing talk radio.
Well, now today, the Washington Post, Nancy Pelosi, no second stimulus bill is coming soon.
Excuse me?
The economic stimulus package, a second one, is not in the cards in the short term.
Pelosi helped nudge the idea this week, as I mentioned.
House Appropriations Committee Obey said this week that he will begin preparing options for a second stimulus plan.
Now, wait a minute, Mr. Obey, you're going back and forth.
First, you say you're instructing the staff, then you deny that.
Now you say you're preparing options, according to the Washington Post.
Gee, I wonder why the markets are confused, folks.
Is this an exercise in the three stooges running the country?
Laurel and Hardy meets the three stooges?
Do these people have any clue what they're doing at all?
Pelosi hedged your bets, saying, well, we don't think a stimulus plan is necessary now, but, quote, I don't think you ever close the door to being prepared.
Why start now, Nancy?
This is amazing stuff.
And of course, at the executive office building yesterday, President Obama gathered state government officials to hand out the bribes, or I mean, to talk about the stimulus package.
And he told, this is chutzpah.
I mean, if you can do this with a straight face, it reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line, sincerity.
If you can fake that, you got it made.
He said, and so, as I've said before, if we see money being misspent in the stimulus package, we're going to put a stop to it and we will call it out and we will publicize it.
Close quote.
Kind of like those earmarks there, Mr. President.
Now get this.
Here's a president that is going to outdo Bush's total debt held by the public in eight years, about $2.9 trillion, in 20 months when his debt amounts to $3.2 trillion.
By the way, don't be confused on that.
A lot of people are trying to skew that particular analysis.
They're putting their spin on it.
Why, Bush's national debt went up by $5 or $6 trillion.
What are you talking about, Lewis?
No, no, no, no.
Be careful.
Compare apples to apples here.
The fact is, if you add up all the accumulated deficits during the Bush years, otherwise known as the debt held by the public from the federal government, it's not personal debt, it's not unfunded entitlements or liabilities, it's deficits totaled.
Bush's debt is around $2.9 trillion.
If you take a look at the deficits now by the Democrats in Congress and Mr. Obama, you're looking at $3.2 trillion in about 20 months and 11 days.
So I guess, you know, it's kind of like Viagra for debt.
It's, you know, not only does it perform better, it's much, much larger.
So this stimulus package, the stimulus package here, he says we're not going to misspend, misspend the money.
Well, let's take a look at what was spent in the stimulus package deliberately.
Not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse.
Not talking about municipalities taking money for one thing and spending it on another.
We're talking about directly what President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid put in the stimulus package.
$1.1 billion for health care rationing.
Oh, there I go again.
Well, let's give you the title.
It's actually a study of comparative effectiveness research of medical treatment.
Now, why would the federal government want to spend a billion dollars to study which medical treatments that they consider to be effective if they don't plan down the road to deny those?
Of course they will, because if we have nationalized health care, there will be an unlimited demand for free care.
Anything that's free raises demand.
And the only way the global budget can prevent from being burst, the only way you can't can handle this without blowing the budget, a hole in the budget, is to ration what's available.
So they'll simply say, look, we can't give everybody free health care that everybody wants.
So this will be okay.
This won't be okay.
This will be okay.
The issue in healthcare is pretty simple, folks.
Either we will allow the price mechanism, the hallmark of a free economy, freely floating prices, to ration care, and it does, or we will allow people like Tom Daschell to ration care.
It's the rule of law, the rule of markets versus the rule of men.
What else did they throw in?
Oh, yeah, $1.3 billion for that amazing business success story, Amtrak, that has failed to turn to profit in about 35 years.
That's good.
How about this?
$176 million for the agricultural research service buildings.
$295 million for administrative expenses associated with the food stamp program.
$400 million for the National Science Foundation equipment and facilities, don't you know?
$3.7 billion to conduct green renovations on military bases.
Now, that's what I call supporting the troops.
You know, these liberals, they love supporting the military just as long as the troops don't fight.
We're going to have these military out.
Their guys are going to be working hard.
They're going to be winning battles against climate change.
And yet the president says, I don't want any of this money misspent.
The whole thing is misspent.
This is so out of control, it boggles the mind.
It really does.
And maybe that's why.
Maybe that's why polls are starting to catch up with the Democrats.
Right now, Wall Street Journal NBC poll of 1,007 adults showed that more than 60% of respondents say the legislation passed so far to help the economy will not help it.
They've still got high marks for Obama.
There is a paradox there.
However, editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning by a couple of pollsters suggesting that his poll numbers are now coming down to the point where they are at Bush's level or slightly below this time in 2001.
You know, the honeymoon is going to be over, and it's going to be over because people at some point look at results.
And at some point, rationality takes over as opposed to this cult of personality that was the Obama candidacy.
I'm Jason Lewis in for El Rushbo on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Let's go to the phones.
We'll get to them right away because of our abbreviated, well, our abbreviated Open Line Friday, but don't go anywhere because the last two hours, Russia's big speech at CPAC, don't go away.
Back right after this.
All right, no more dilatory tactics, I should say.
We're not going to pontificate any longer because we've got an abbreviated open hour.
So let's get right to the phones.
1-800-282-2882 down in Alabama.
Philip Gadson, or Gadsden, I should say.
You are first up on the Rush Limbaugh program for this Friday.
Hi.
Good morning.
I just want to say, you know, I'm from Gadsden.
We're not very far from the home of Charles Barkley.
And I've actually seen his pathetic golf swing in person.
And I don't know if you made the illusion on purpose, but you drew a perfect illustration of Obama and his financial plans for our government.
It is a metaphor.
It's just as herky jerky as Charles Barkley's golf swing.
Are you a golfer?
I play at it.
I don't play.
But I have seen his golf swing in person at a Bruno's event.
I mean, the guy's pitiful.
The thing is, you never know when he's starting or stopping, and I don't think he does either.
And it's exactly what's happening with our budget, with our stimulus plans, with everything else in the government right now in Washington.
They don't know whether they're starting or stopping, and they can't.
It's like a golf swing with prostate problems.
It starts, stops, evacuation complete.
No, nope, go on.
I'm telling you, if you're a golfer, you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say, I don't want to look at this.
I'm afraid.
I do not want to look at this.
But as a metaphor for the financial plan, for TARP, for the stimulus package, I hadn't thought about that.
That's pretty good.
I like that.
Philip, be well, my friend.
Let's go to Pennsylvania.
And Jason, you are next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hello there.
I'm a huge admirer of your economic theories and whatnot.
You tell us straight to the point.
And quite frankly, I need to inject a little bit of that theory into some of my more liberal friends because they don't seem to understand.
I like to stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la.
So I figured I need some stronger arguments, and I'd like some good starting points, some good books you could recommend or some good sources for information on economic theory.
Well, you can recommend the classics.
You can go to, you know, Hayek or Von Mises and tell somebody to read human action, but they won't.
So I like to start them slow in a great little book by, I think, one of the most, you know, he was actually a lay person, turned economist, but one of the most, oh, I don't know, proficient or profound economists that I've read was Henry Hazlitt's book, Economics in One Lesson.
It's an easy read.
It hits on all the hot button issues, explains the Keynesian nonsense, how taxes discourage production, the make work phenomenon that doesn't make real jobs, the blessings of the broken window update, so to speak.
So I would recommend Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
It's a great book.
Milton Friedman, Free to Choose, fantastic book, obviously.
I think Charles Murray, it really isn't so much economics as it is a libertarian philosophy that I think engulfs our framers.
And his great little treatise a couple of years ago called What It Means to Be a Libertarian, fabulous read too.
So I'd start with those.
All right, much appreciated, sir.
Keep up the good work, and thank you.
Same to you.
Anybody with the name of Jason can't be all bad, bud.
Have a good time in PA.
Let's go to Naples, Florida.
Jerry, you are on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network with me, Jason Lewis, in for Rush.
Hi, I'm always a listener.
First time I've called in, I just want to say that I think it's absolutely bizarre the about face that Obama just pulled on the economy, where he was telling everybody how urgent it was, his stimulus package must get passed.
Now all of a sudden, it's not such a bad thing.
What did you expect?
He was trying to get elected.
No, but even after that, for the last stimulus package, he's still been playing up the part, and he makes us look stupid to the entire world as far as I'm concerned.
And I've noticed a lot of people that I know voted for him are sort of regretting their unintelligent decision.
They were just angry at Bush.
Well, that's true.
And I think this was also a cultural phenomenon.
It is what almost a manifestation of what Shelby Steele calls white guilt.
People were patting themselves on the back for voting for a black president.
That was fashionable.
It was the end thing to do.
And look how tolerant I am.
Look how hip I am.
And so it became this sort of political edition of American Idol instead of the seriousness of a political campaign.
Now, I do think that it is catching up with him.
When you've got the European Union for crying out loud, Europe lecturing America on our spending habits, something is afoot.
So I think you bring up a fair point.
But politicians always do this.
I mean, Bill Clinton was absolutely way off the deep end in 1992 when he was talking about the worst economy in 50 years.
It was an absolute joke.
And part of the problem is we don't have a mainstream media that holds these people accountable to some of this hyperbole.
When Clinton was talking about this mild recession in 1992, Clinton and Gore were running around the country saying the worst economy in 50 years.
An absolute canard.
It's a total prevarication.
And yet, where was Charlie Gibson?
Where was Matt Lauer if they were there in 92?
Where were the mainstream media?
Where was Tom Brokaw?
Well, actually, the economy is not the worst in 50 years, not even close.
Nope, they ran with it.
And so when they want to get something done, whether it's winning an election or establishing a debt level that would make your head spin, as this administration has done, they feel as though they can prevaricate with impunity because they know the press is on their side.
Du Bois, Pennsylvania, Lillian, thanks for waiting.
We've only got 30 seconds, so be brief, my dear.
Hi, Jason.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'm not an Obama fan, but I am wondering, why should the taxpayers pay for health care that is not effective, especially when I can cite examples of doctors patting their billing to Medicare and medical assistance?
So what is wrong with that?
I'll tell you what, I want to address that when we come back.
We're up against the clock.
But to be perfectly diplomatic about this, Lillian, basically what you said was the exact opposite of what's occurring with government-run, price-controlled health care.
More on that when we come back.
Once again, having more fun than a human being should be allowed.
It is the Rush Limbaugh program with me, Jason Lewis, an abbreviated, dare we say aborted Open Line Friday going through the first hour, then Russia's CPAC speech, the remainder of the program today.
You don't want to miss that.
1-800-282-2882.
The contact line remains the same.
Now, Lillian has fallen for a classic Democratic or liberal ploy.
And that is this, Lillian.
You intervene, you have government intervention, and you can look at housing.
You can look at energy.
You can certainly look at health care.
You intervene in the market just enough to screw it up.
Then you blame the free market.
You got that?
I mean, take a look at housing.
What has happened in housing?
We had Barney Frank's affordable housing slush fund funneled through Freddie and Fannie.
Freddie and Fannie screwed up the market.
You got to give a little of that credit to the Federal Reserve by expanding credit for housing too much, a negative federal funds rate and all of that.
The Greenspan denied that in the journal the other day and said, no, it was foreign savings coming from or coming into the United States that made all the housing or created the housing bubble.
But I digress.
The point is, Freddie and Fannie nationalized housing.
Freddie and Fannie created an asset bubble by effectively, thanks to Barney Frank, telling mortgage brokers and lenders to make bad loans.
And they called it affordable housing.
And there were requirements.
When you had Andrew Cuomo at HUD, he raised the number of affordable housing goals, if you will, that Freddie and Fannie had to finance or cover time and time again.
Now, when you essentially tell the market that they can't engage in their very own discipline, i.e., what's your credit score or this or that, and tell them they have to make bad loans and then turn around and tell them, but when you do, don't worry, we'll take those loans in the secondary market, as Freddie and Fannie did, you're setting yourself up for A, an asset bubble, B, a collapse, and C, a bailout of Freddie and Fannie.
Now, of course, the apologists of this denied it.
Barney Frank in 2003 on Freddie and Fannie.
The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see.
I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and will withstand some of the disastrous scenarios.
And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out.
The more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.
Close quote.
Mr. Frank's baby turned out to be a $300 billion bailout.
Barney lied, but he got in the market enough to screw it up.
And then that allowed Barney and Chris Dodd, who also was an apologist for Freddie and Fannie because his buddies at Countrywide were shoving off their bad mortgages to Freddie and Fannie.
And then Dodd got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide.
All of that allowed the market to create a malinvestment in housing that it otherwise, left to its own devices, never would have.
And now these are the same guys that are saying, it's the free market.
That's what happens when you rely on free market capitalism.
Well, tell me, tell me, Barney, what about the affordable housing goals at HUD is free market?
What about Freddie and Fannie, government-sponsored enterprises, is free market?
What about the credit expansion by the monetary authorities is free market?
All of those are government entities, sir.
So get it straight and quit lying.
But that's not going to stop the mainstream media from keeping the mantra going.
It's the market.
It's the market.
Well, I'll tell you something, Lillian.
The same is true for healthcare.
We haven't had a free market in healthcare since wage and price controls of 1945.
We don't even have a tax code that's level for health care.
When we were told during World War II, you couldn't give somebody a raise, price controls on salaries, which ironically, Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo now want to institute for the financial sector, price controls, salary caps.
When we were told that in the World War II era, well, businesses said, well, if I can't give people a raise and I can't get the good talent I want, I guess I'll give them health care.
And they did.
And that's how employer-provided health care came about.
Then we changed the tax code so only business could deduct the premiums and you and I couldn't as single payers.
Well, all of a sudden we don't have portability.
We've got to either government health care or employer health care, and the prices go through the roof because nobody's really paying the full tab.
All you want to do if you want to free up health care, Lillian, is change the tax code, tell the state legislators to quit adding on all these silly mandates that health insurers have to cover acupuncture and substance abuse and mental disease and anything that moves that jacks up the price for young people that don't need it.
Again, government regulations, government mandates, a government tax code, a government price control is what screwed up health care.
Now, if you think that doctors and providers are patting the bills on Medicare and Medicaid, I got to set you straight on that, my dear.
Government programs like those two, Medicare and Medicaid, now account for 46% of all health care spending in the United States.
Almost half of everything we spend on health care is paid for by the government.
You think the government can afford that?
No.
The cost shifting takes place because the government reimbursement rates, Lillian, far from above the market, are deliberately set below the market, roughly anywhere from 20 to 40 percent lower than private providers, according to a Sally Pipes, the author of the Top 10 Myths of American Healthcare.
Of course it's that way.
They couldn't overpay.
The budget would go bonkers.
Why do you think they want to renegotiate Medicare Part D drug prices?
That's a euphemism for price controls.
Let me warn you people about this.
If you think it's bad going into the doctor and having to pay this bill or that bill, at least you've got health care access.
Here's what's going to happen when the government takes over health care.
They will simply say, well, we need health care for this person and this person and this person, but we can't afford another MRI.
We can't afford another old person to have another operation.
They've had a good life.
We'll just deny a few of these.
And that way, we'll save our global budget and we can provide other health care to others.
They will ration as sure as the day is long.
It's already in the works.
It has to happen because when something is free, there is unlimited demand.
And the only way to get a hold of that demand is to deny coverage.
Make you feel better?
Mystic Connecticut, Greg, you are on the Rush Limbaugh program with Jason Lewis.
Hi.
It's a pleasure to speak with you, Jason, and I certainly respect your views on capitalism and freedom, which is one of the books that I've read by Milton Friedman.
I want to know what you think about the concept of the mechanism of the Federal Reserve and the fact that our money is no longer tied to gold as being the underlying enabler of all this insanity that we're going through right now.
I believe if money were made real again, that a lot of the extremes on both sides, on the liberal side of programs that we can't afford, we'd have to figure out how do we afford to do this.
I also believe on the right that maybe some of the wars that we get into, if they were made real as far as the money is concerned, and not have the Federal Reserve, which is not part of our government, printing the money that's not connected to anything of value being the thing that we really need to fix.
And I really appreciate your take on that.
Usually when you get into monetary policy on a talk radio program, the eyes start to glaze over, but it does have to be addressed because when the government creates money out of thin air, fiat money, it usually goes to the financial community.
That's how we expand credit in this country, through the banking system, through the financial centers.
And so they get the money first.
Then the money filters through, and that's why they profit many times when they get the money first.
And effectively, they have more credit than they had before.
You know, a banker goes to his office, he loans out all the money he has available to loan by noon.
He's done for the day.
But when the Fed keeps pumping money into the system with a negative federal funds rate, with lowering the discount rate, you name it.
They've got these mechanisms to get money into the system to expand credit.
Well, he shows up in the afternoon and he's still got more money to loan out.
So he loans out even more.
And he loans them out at lower interest rates.
And he gives them to people who probably shouldn't get a loan.
The fundamental problem with monetary policy, and a lot of good people I know, certainly Milton Friedman was a monetarist and he wasn't a fan of the gold standard.
But a lot of good people I know are a fan of the gold standard.
I'm not going to take sides.
I will say this.
The fundamental problem, however, is discipline.
The gold standard provides discipline.
Because if the government starts to inflate, people turn in their paper money for gold.
And that naturally reduces the inflation rate because the money's out of circulation.
That's the salient point there.
But you could have the same effect if you had discipline at the Fed.
If, in fact, the Fed doesn't print money to fund the government.
If you had a Federal Reserve that said, no, we're going to allow interest rates to go up as they should have after this housing bubble, we're going to be tough.
Like Reagan did in 1981 and 1982 when the Fed clamped down, wrung inflation out of the economy.
The system worked pretty good.
It can work well.
The problem is there is no political will.
We turn these Federal Reserve Board governors into politicians and they acquiesce.
They don't raise interest rates to kill off a recovery.
And pretty soon, it's just easier to print the money.
I'm way behind.
I got to move.
More coming right up, though.
Don't go away.
1-800-282-2882, the contact line right here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
As most of you know by now, we've got Open Line Friday right through the top of the hour.
Then the Rush CPAC speech in its entirety coming your way today.
Big day right here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Florence, Kentucky.
Wade, thanks for waiting.
You're on the big show with me, Jason Lewis.
Jason, isn't it frightening to think that the people putting together this universal health care program would let a baby die so they can get a vote?
I'm concerned when it comes to time, think about euthanasia and decisions that people with a spirit of that it's okay to murder inconvenient people are going to be deciding fates.
Doesn't that concern you?
Well, I don't think they'll come out and say, let's murder inconvenient people.
I do think they will make it awfully difficult for those, the most vulnerable, whether they're young or elderly, to get repeated health care treatment because they're going to look at this and say, do we want to spend all of this on just one person, especially if they're elderly?
I think that's where you're going to see it first.
Who was I talking to?
A perfect example.
My mom, about three years ago, had a heart condition, and the doctors basically said, well, she's in her 80s and she's had a good life.
Well, I got on the internet and I found a doctor in Cincinnati that would do a robotic surgery.
Three years later, she's going to watch my daughter Cheerlead tonight.
And that's pretty spooky stuff.
I was talking with Betsy McCoy, who is former lieutenant governor, a doctor of New York, by the way.
And she's a doctor.
And she told me about the situation in the UK, which is so much the model for all of this nonsense, Canada, the United Kingdom, what have you.
And they have a health board there.
And the health board decreed in 2006 that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a new drug to save the other eye.
How does that strike you?
Now, apparently, there were so many public protests, the board finally reversed its decision.
But that's what's in store.
And it's not comforting.
No, it's just frightening.
I have to keep going back to the abortion thing because I don't think it's just a bad decision.
I think that's a spirit, and people with that kind of spirit making decisions and putting this together.
Obama could put together the greatest plans in the world, but when he first came out being pro-abortion, it's like, you know, that's my, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play moment?
Ruins it for me.
Well, I understand your concerns there, and then they are certainly legitimate.
But again, I would just say politically, I think you're going to see it first at the other end of the spectrum.
Wade, excuse me, thanks so much.
Everybody talks about the cost of health care.
We can make health care affordable for young, healthy people.
We can make it affordable overnight.
Overnight.
The way to do that is not complicated.
It is just politically difficult.
If you go back to the model of insurance instead of prepaid medicine, we don't have health insurance in America.
We have prepaid medicine.
People go to the doctor and they expect their first dollar to be covered.
They demand no copays.
They demand no deductible.
Well, how many other insurance products offer you that?
Your house?
Your car?
Your automobile insurance doesn't pay for oil changes.
Your health insurance shouldn't pay for your kids' physical before the basketball season.
What you need to do, quite simply, is go back to a real catastrophic insurance model where the big diseases, heart disease or cancer or car accident, don't bankrupt you.
But other than that, you're paying for health care like you're buying groceries through the year.
And maybe the deductible is $5,000, $6,000, what have you.
Then what happens is people shop around for that physical for the basketball program or what have you.
And you put the consumer back into health care.
Then you redo the tax code so that I can deduct the premium I pay as a single purchaser in the individual market and not have to rely on my employer.
Now, Bush and McCain, to their credit, had similar proposals.
And unfortunately, they didn't get any traction.
That is a clear way to level the playing field.
You take community rating out.
You tell people, if you're going to use health care a lot, you're going to pay a higher premium, just like the guy that drives recklessly.
You do that.
And you tell young people, if you don't use it a lot, your health care premiums are going to be cheap.
They're not going to cover everything, but you don't need coverage.
You don't need coverage for acupuncture.
You don't need coverage for substance abuse, the vast majority of people.
So why is it that the state of Minnesota, for instance, has 63 or 64 mandates that says if you want to write a traditional indemnity insurance policy in the People's Republic of Minnesota, you've got to cover everything under the sun.
And then some preening left-wing Marxist from the Iron Range comes to the state capitol and says, look at me, aren't I compassionate?
I got all this covered for you and jacked up insurance premiums for everybody else.
Did I say it was government screwing it up again?
Yes, I did.
I'm Jason Lewis.
We'll come back, try to squeeze in one or two more calls, and then to rush in the big speech coming right up on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
All right, let's see if we can't squeeze in a call or two before we go to the top and then stay tuned for Rush's big speech.
Columbus, Ohio.
Vince, you are on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Vince is gone.
Well, that was a short.
I told you they'd be short calls, folks.
Bonita Springs, Florida.
Claire, you are up next.
Hi.
Hi, Jason.
How you doing?
I'm doing very well.
Thanks.
Okay, please bear with me because I'm a little impassioned about this.
Okay.
My thing is, is that I believe Americans have had our lifestyle for so long, we don't believe that what's happening to us is really happening to us.
And this whole thing with the health care issues, I think the Obama people are very smart.
They're not addressing the whole social security issue because I believe if they address the health care issue, they won't have to address the social security issue.
Exactly what you're saying about denying health care to people will happen, and they won't have to worry about social security issues.
Because when they deny it, deny people coverage, basically, I know this sounds awful or like it can't really happen, but basically they will be like killing people off, like the gentleman said, like his mother, or even younger people with issues.
You think that's a pretty damning indictment.
I don't know if I would go that far on the conspiratorial side.
They want to kill people off so they don't have the social security unfunded liability.
I just think it is part and parcel of the socialist liberal agenda, and that is they believe in an equal distribution of poverty, whether it's health care or anything else, being better than an unequal distribution of wealth, even though everybody's better off in the latter.
They just have this bizarre preoccupation with equality, even equality that's, frankly, no good.
That's what's so bizarre about this.
Russia's speech is coming up next.
You don't want to miss that.
My thanks to everybody back in New York and here in the Twin Cities.
▲
Export Selection