All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
June 12, 2009, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I had a lot of emails today from people who are all excited that the government's finally gotten a hold of the tobacco industry and they're going to reduce the amount of nicotine in every cigarette.
People are very happy about this.
Reduce health care costs, all the usual rigamarole.
Be careful, folks, what you ask for.
Greetings, Rush Limbaugh, end of the week Friday.
It's live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
That's right, ladies and gentlemen.
Open Line Friday, which is the biggest career risk taken today by a member of major media.
This is where I allow veritable rank amateurs, lovable rank amateurs, to take over control of the program when we go to the telephones.
Monday through Thursday, discussion topics limited to what I care about.
On Friday, we throw that out.
Whatever you want to talk about is, for the most part, fair game.
Here's the telephone number if you'd like to join us.
800-282-2882 at the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
I know most people don't like tobacco products, and you're all excited government getting a hold of this, going to reduce nicotine and the amount of cigarettes, so forth and so on, which is only going to increase the number of cigarettes people smoke.
It's an addictive substance.
In fact, you know, nicotine is probably the most addictive substance on earth.
A lot of people think it'd be heroin or cocaine or crystal meth, but it's nicotine.
Nicotine, the most addictive substance on earth.
And the proof in this is that nobody has a pleasant first experience with it.
Have you ever seen somebody take a drag on their first cigarette?
Some of them head into the bathroom thinking they're going to throw up, and within seconds, they're lighting the second cigarette.
Now, most other substances, when you take a hit, you get a high or you get a mellow or whatever.
But with this, it's pure agony the first time you do it.
And yet, it doesn't dissuade people.
It is the most addicting thing.
So they're going to reduce the amount of nicotine per cigarette.
It's going to increase the number of cigarettes people smoke.
Now, secondly, the government finally getting control of the tobacco industry via the FDA.
What does the government do to industries it gets control of?
It runs them into the ground.
It destroys them.
And the danger of running the tobacco industry into the ground is it's one of the greatest sources of tax revenue for the federal government and states.
And if somehow the federal government destroys this business and that tax revenue dries up, if they succeed in getting people to quit smoking, and Obama just did a little hit piece on it out there from the Oval Office or from the White House today, if they succeed in this, which is what they publicly profess their interest is, is in getting as many people to quit as possible, you realize what's going to happen to tax revenue?
It's going to plummet, and they're going to have to make it up somewhere.
And then all of you who don't smoke and all of you who are happy that this somehow is going to improve the health circumstances in America are going to be anteing up to make up the difference.
So be careful what you wish for.
There is an election.
And I say election in quotes in Iran today.
And the turnout we hear is astronomically high.
It is so high that they had to extend voting by a full hour.
President Mahmoud, listen to this from the government-run media Reuters.
A representative of Mahmoud Ahmadinezad said the conservative president was ahead in Friday's presidential vote.
The conservative president, the conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinezad.
Why, yeah, there's no difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinezad and Ronald Reagan.
There's no difference whatsoever.
They're both conservatives.
Anyway, this whole election is a farce.
Anybody with half a brain knows that the mullahs run the show.
No matter who the president is, the mullahs run the show.
The mullahs are the ones that are making decisions on whether to nuke up, go weapons, or what have you.
Make no mistake about it.
But nevertheless, I want you to listen to a drive-by media montage we put together.
The breathlessness and the excitement in these comments from members of the state-run media.
Listen to this.
The election is being watched closely for any signs, among other things, that President Obama's recent Middle Eastern venture made a connection.
Can President Obama's speech to the Muslim world help defeat Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
It's election day in Iran.
The outcome could be an indication of how President Obama's message of change is being received in the Islamic world.
President Obama delivering his historic speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.
Is that having any impact on today's election?
Obama's message to Iran and the Islamic world.
That has appealed to many university students.
Is there an Obama effect here?
A policy toward Iran of this unclenched fist of more engagement.
How do the Iranian people respond?
This is just absurd.
It is literally absurd.
Whoever the mullahs want to be president is going to be president.
I don't care if it's Ahmed Dinizad or if it's Benjamin Netanyahu.
They're going to have whoever the president of Iran is.
It's going to be whoever the mullahs pick.
Who do you think is counting these votes?
But look at what we're being set up here to believe: that Barack Obama's speech in Cairo may have so moved the people of Iran that they're going to get rid of the leadership that is provoking the world with nuclear weapons.
It's just not only silly and stupid, it is dangerously naive.
And I don't even know how naive it is.
I think it's actually agenda-oriented.
If the Iranian mullahs replace one puppet with another in their so-called election, it'll have nothing to do with Obama.
Zilch Zeronada, it will have nothing.
Do you think the Iranians want the news worldwide that Obama's speech affected internal politics in Iran?
If they do want that, it'll be to soften everybody up and to dissuade people from looking carefully at what Iran is doing.
So desperate, so desperate are these people that Barack Obama, with one speech with a bunch of empty, meaningless words, can shake and change the direction of politics in the Middle East, particularly Iran.
I don't know how these people do.
They must have to check their brains at the door when they walk into an NBC office or a CNN office.
Because I don't know how anybody with a half-functioning brain could, with a straight face, issue breathless news reports of such meaningless hope.
I'll guarantee you this, if somebody besides Ahmadine Zad is chosen by the mullahs, get ready.
Because that's going to be the theme.
Obama changed the direction of the Middle East.
Obama, with one speech in Cairo, has shown that change and hope can extend beyond the borders of the United States, and he's going to be feted as president of the world, God of the world.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is tanking.
Barack Obama is destroying health care.
He is destroying the American private sector.
He is destroying the solvency of the United States government.
And none of this is remarked upon.
All that we hear about is the stupid, meaningless stuff going on in Iran.
Now, Obama, a friend of mine, made a good point to me the other day.
Obama's all of a sudden not interested in PAYGO, right?
We got to pay for it as we go.
We can't do any more deficit spending.
We can't do that.
Fine.
If that's the case, why not stop the rest of the stimulus spending?
So far, only 3% of the stimulus, 3% to 5%, has been spent.
So if Obama would say, you know what, we're not going to spend anymore.
We can save $700 billion or so.
Can you imagine what a great shot in the arm that would be for the economy and for economic psychology and so forth?
It'll never happen.
This is my point.
This is my point.
He's not concerned about deficit spending.
He doesn't care what he's spending.
He doesn't give a rat's rear end what he's doesn't care what is happening to the country at large.
All he wants is more control.
Now, there's another issue out there that relates to this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if you've been keeping up with this, but it's about the prison abuse photos at Abu Ghraib and the Club Gitmo and so forth.
And there is a very, very, it's taking a meandering path here.
Obama originally says he's going to release the photos.
Then there's an outcry.
He says he's not going to release the photos because he's talked to the generals.
And the generals say it would put troops at risk.
It would serve no purpose.
Then the Democrats, the leftist Democrats in the House, many of them who are committee chairmen, and Nancy Pelosi say to hell with that, we're going to release the pictures.
We're going to release the pictures because this is part of a Freedom of Information Act request and we're not going to just throw the law out here.
So that moved Lindsey Gramnesty and Joe Lieberman to put together an amendment in another piece of legislation that would prohibit the release of these photos.
When it goes to the conference committee, the conference committee, members of the House of Representatives, are being told by Pelosi, screw that Senate amendment.
Screw it.
So it's been going back and forth now.
And you have to ask yourself this question.
Regardless of how this ends up, and by the way, I know that the conventional wisdom is that Obama does not want those pictures released.
But I don't believe that because when it was first brought up, when he first mentioned it, he did want them released.
And that's what you have to remember.
Now, he's changed his mind on this, and he's being urged to use an executive order to prevent their release now, to countermand the Democrats in the Senate.
And nobody really knows how this is going to fall out yet.
There are conflicting reports.
Some say the Democrats in the House are caving as a response to Obama's request.
Others say, no, they're not.
That the situation is still fluid.
Here's what you have to ask yourself.
Why would anyone want those pictures released?
What is the result of these pictures released?
I don't care what the pictures show.
They can be nothing.
They can show extreme techniques being used.
I don't care what they are.
Just the fact that they're going to be released.
Why would anybody want to do that?
There's only one reason, folks, and that is to inflame Muslims in the Middle East.
There's only one reason.
Don't buy all this leftist garbage from the House of Representatives.
It's a Freedom of Information Act, Nicole.
We've got to get these photos.
There are people who want to undermine their own country and they sit in the House of Representatives and they are all Democrats.
They want to undermine their own country.
I imagine there are people at the State Department who want to undermine their own country.
We just learned the other day about this 70-year-old spy for Cuba who it has now been learned in 2006 went to Johns Hopkins University and made an anti-American speech wishing we would sever relations with the United Kingdom.
2006, same guy, Walter Myers, should have been fired on the spot for saying this.
Instead, he was feted.
He was heralded.
He was regaled.
No wonder Colin Powell flipped when he went over there.
State Department is infested with a bunch of globalist anti-American egghead liberal elites.
So now you have the photo release here, which we all thought was taken care of, but the House Democrats just won't let it go.
And they're begging, you know, Graham and others are begging Obama to do an executive order on this.
Now, I understand the argument that the release of the photos could endanger American troops, but we need to ask if there are other reasons, because why do this?
This does not serve any purpose.
It does not make America safer.
It does not restore our image in the world.
It doesn't do any of that that they claim the Democrats claim to be interested in.
What we need to ask is this question.
If Muslims in the Middle East are agitated and riot, if they behead a few folks over these detainee photos, what would it take to calm them down?
I mean, Abu Ghraib has been torn down.
Obama has promised to close Guantanamo Bay.
We just sent four Uyghurs, four terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Bermuda with a White House escort.
What's going to be the new travel slogan for Bermuda, hot babes and jihadists?
What the hell are they thinking in Bermuda?
And then Eric Holder goes out.
Yes, this will definitely make America safer.
Why?
From transferring to Cuba to Bermuda?
This is all goblins.
None of this in the realm of common sense is understandable.
But if you want to inflame the Middle East, if you want riots, if you want to cause hell to become unleashed in the Middle East, then of course what you have at your disposal is these detainee photos.
So what would it take to calm down a new level of unrest?
What would it take?
Well, you just have to ask yourself one question.
Aside from our prisons and so-called interrogation techniques, what is it that upsets Muslims in the Middle East?
Israel, right?
So then what becomes the procedure to calm down the possible chaos and riots, the release of these photos?
Well, we've got to get more concessions from Israel.
Damn it.
Maybe give up Jerusalem or give up half of it.
Let them, the Palestinians finally have it.
I have great reservations about this administration's plans for Israel.
All I know is that Obama loves chaos.
He thrives on it.
He needs it.
It's like a crisis.
And like Rah Emanuel said, opportunities arise from crisis.
If there's a crisis in the Middle East, it's an opportunity for Obama, who is now proud of his deep Muslim roots now.
That's a Cairo speech.
He's proud of it now.
And wouldn't you know it, it just so happens at this precise moment in time, those darn detainee photos are in play, just when Israel has a gun at its head to deliver a two-state solution that puts Hamas and Iran in charge of Israel's fate.
The Arab world wants this now.
It's a little convoluted because not all the Arab world is also very worried about Iran.
They're also deadly worried about Iran.
I mean, king of Saudi Arabia does not want a nuclear Iran.
But you release those photos, you work Muslims into a frenzy at the precise moment we got a gun to Israel's head.
We'll see what Obama does.
We'll see if he comes through with his executive order to keep these photos from being released.
I got to take a break.
Open Line Friday.
We will get to your phone calls earlier than normal in this hour.
Sit tight.
We'll be right back.
We're back.
I am Rush Limboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist serving humanity each and every day simply by being here, just by showing up.
Here is President Obama.
This is this morning in the Rose Garden.
We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran.
And obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.
And ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide.
But just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities.
And whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
The ego of this man is simply incomprehensible to behold.
Didn't President Obama say that we shouldn't impose our values on others?
And wasn't Iran included in that?
And now he's out taking credit for a robust debate because of his speech?
I'm glad he put the qualifier in there.
Well, even if we don't end up with a new leader, at least we've had a robust debate that'll advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
This is the practiced art of deceit.
President Obama knows that whoever the president of Iran is is not relevant.
That the mullahs run that country.
It is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This presidential election and having a president is a buffer.
It is to create an image to the world that there is some sort of freedom of choice in terms of the leadership in Iran when we know there is not, and Obama knows there is not.
And yet here he is already taking credit for the election results in Lebanon and the robust debate in Iran.
This guy has an ego and a narcissistic complex about himself, ladies and gentlemen, that can only be described as unhealthy and dangerous.
Quick time out.
We've got more right after this.
By the way, did you see that Chastity Bono is having an addictomy operation out there?
Big news in the entertainment media.
And the question, of course, is, does she have health coverage for her addadictomy operation?
Regardless, I'm sure her mother has the money if her health coverage does not cover the addedictomy procedure.
You know, this, would you go back, Mike, and play this soundbite number 25, Obama this morning in the Rose Guard.
You know, I'm not in the best of moods anyway.
This, I don't, I can't stomach this.
I just, this, this is just, I have been fired.
I've worked for people like this, and I was unable to sit by and let them think they were getting away with. this kind of stuff on me.
And I called him on it once, and I got canned for this.
I just, this, listen to this again.
We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran.
And obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.
And ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide.
But just has been true in Lebanon.
What can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities.
And whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
What the hell is he talking about?
Let's go back and look.
Something very little noticed.
Mark Thiessen, National Review, pointed this out.
Something little noticed in that speech that Obama gave that now he's out flexing his own muscle.
Look at me, look at me, look at what I did.
Look at what I did.
Look at what I did.
I made the Middle East safe.
They like us now.
My speech may change.
My speech may change.
I did it.
It's just unseemly.
It's unbecoming an adult.
Little noticed in his stupid speech was the fact that Obama announced a major shift in U.S. policy in the Holy Land.
In 2002, President Bush declared in his Rose Garden address that America would only engage Palestinian leaders not compromised by terror in Cairo.
Obama reversed this policy, declaring that Hamas has to, quote, play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations and to unify the Palestinian people, unquote, naive and dangerous.
Yeah, there's been big change.
We have now legitimized a terrorist organization in peace talks, so-called, with Israel.
Big change.
Obama's talk about democracy.
Now, he's taken credit here in this bite for all this wonderful, robust debate taking place in Iran.
Wonderful, robust debate in Lebanon.
And the election results in Lebanon.
Look at how good I am.
Look at the power of my words.
Look at the power of my press.
I did it.
I'm making the world safer.
I feel like he's in a Charlie Brown cartoon.
His talk about democracy was all platitudes, no specifics, as if he had to check a box so that he wouldn't be criticized for ignoring it.
But he made no mention of freedom or democracy in Egypt.
President Bush repeatedly called for the release of Eamon Newer, the opposition presidential candidate who was jailed for four years.
In February, New was released, but is banned from appearing on TV or running for office.
Obama made a call for such restrictions to be lifted.
No call for greater openness in the country where he was speaking.
He made no mention of democracy discussing Afghanistan.
He made no mention of democracy discussing Iraq.
He made no mention of the advance of freedom in the Middle East that has taken place in recent years or any commitment to continue it, and that would be Iraq.
He has made no mention of the advance of freedom.
In his worldview, our Iraq policy set us back and set the Middle East back decades.
Only now, by virtue of his presence and his one speech in Cairo, finally now we've got major change.
Why, we've got a robust debate in Iran.
And he didn't even talk about democracy in the Middle East in that speech.
I know I ought to not let it bother me so much, but it just does.
This personality type is this.
I have trouble dealing with it, and I probably ought to just ignore it, but I can't help but take the occasion to share all of this with you because it's just offensive as it can be.
And to watch people just fall in line with it from the state-run media makes it even sicker.
Now, I don't know if you're following this either.
The Inspector General of AmeriCorps has been fired.
The Inspector General, there are inspector generals for every federal agency, and they are not political, and they are there to investigate any malfeasance, any fraud, waste, theft, what have you.
And they are not subject to, or theoretically, they are not subject to political pressure.
Firing one is a big deal.
Firing an inspector general is a big deal.
If you'll remember, Alberto Gonzalez, his attorney general, fired a couple of U.S. attorneys.
He took hell for it.
This is bigger.
Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics.
This is about an organization run in Sacramento by Kevin Johnson, who is the mayor.
It's called the St. Hope Academy.
And the Inspector General for AmeriCorps, who has been fired, is Gerald Walpin.
And he was investigating Kevin Johnson's St. Hope Academy.
He found that Johnson, a former All-Star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grant money to pay volunteers to engage in school board political activities to run personal errands for Kevin Johnson, even wash his car.
This is from the Associated Press.
In April, the U.S. Attorney for the region declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin's investigation.
But at the same time, Kevin Johnson and the St. Hope Academy agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.
And Byron York at theWashingtonExaminer.com sums it up very simply and very understandably.
The bottom line, the AmeriCorps Inspector General accuses a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.
The prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of the grant money.
Obama then fires the AmeriCorps Inspector General.
Political cronyism, get rid of, Kevin Johnson obviously is a big supporter of Barack Obama.
I've attended the St. Hope Academy, one of their fundraisers back in the days when Kevin was playing for the Phoenix Suns.
When they were in town to play the Kings, I was out there visiting Coach Westpole, who, by the way, has just been hired by the Kings as their head coach.
So congratulations to my buddy Paul Westpole getting back into the NBA.
I bought a Ronnie Lott New York Jets jersey at the auction at the St. Hope Academy.
Kevin's doing great work with this thing.
He always has.
But this inspector general digs all this up.
The U.S. Attorney says, no, I'm not going to file charges.
They fire the Inspector General.
The Inspector General says there's misuse of $850,000 of AmeriCorps grant money, and Kevin Johnson gives over half of it back.
And they still fire the IG.
This is big.
This is political cronyism, power, and so forth.
This is exactly the way you would expect somebody like Obama to behave.
It's just, I don't know.
It's just more corruption and its sanctioning of it and its protection of donors and so forth and so on.
Let a Republican president, right?
They're going to say Alberto Gonzalez fired a couple U.S. attorneys.
Bill Clinton fired 93.
Nobody said a word about it.
Alberto Gonzalez fired five or eight, and they still want Karl Rove up to testify about it.
The Democrats do trying to make big hay at it.
I'm telling you, firing an IG is a, because they're not political, it is a much bigger deal than replacing United States attorneys.
We'll be right back.
Stay with me.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, I am Rush Limbaugh.
This, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's Open Line Friday.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen from the UK Times, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad is claiming victory in the elections before the polls have even closed.
Officials are estimating at least 70% of the quote-unquote electorate will have voted one of the highest turnouts since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
And supposedly, a heavy turnout favors the opponent of Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, but Mahmoud's claiming victory now in the this is all such, it's all so bogus.
It is just these are puppets.
Okay, Barack Obama fires the Inspector General at AmeriCorps.
He also endorses voter intimidation.
Remember, he dropped charges against a new Black Panther Party in Philadelphia for voter intimidation.
Typical Chicago thug behavior.
He fires private sector CEOs.
He nationalizes industries.
Tell you something.
Hugo Chavez has nothing on this guy.
Hugo Chavez got nothing on Barack Obama.
All right, to the phones.
We always try to go to the phones early on Open Line Friday, try to do it in the first hour.
And we'll start in Champaign, Illinois.
This, John, great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Mr. Limbaugh.
Hi.
I've got a quick question about health insurance.
Yes, sir.
The government already mandates auto insurance, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of profitable auto insurance companies.
Why wouldn't the same thing work for health insurance companies?
Well, now, have you been reading the Wall Street Journal today?
No, I'm not.
Well, then you are amazingly bright, and I'm not surprised that you would be in this audience.
Let me share with you.
I was going to mention this during our healthcare discussion today.
It's a piece in the Wall Street Journal written by Stephen Byrd, B-U-R-D.
He is the CEO of Safeway and the founder of the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.
Now, the picture painted by the American left is that American corporations are evil, that they exist to rape and take advantage of their own employees, that they can't be trusted, that they have to have their payment, their salaries controlled by Obama's thugs.
So when you know that that's the template that this administration has painted and the American left for years has painted of CEOs, reading this op-ed by Stephen Byrd in the Wall Street Journal is amazing.
It's entitled, How Safeway is Cutting Healthcare Costs.
Market-Based Solutions Can Reduce the National Health Care Bill by 40%.
Here's how he starts the piece.
Effective health care reform must meet two objectives.
It must secure coverage for all Americans, and two, it must dramatically lower the cost of health care.
Healthcare spending has outpaced the rise in all other consumer spending by nearly a factor of three since 1980, increasing to 18% of gross domestic product in 2009 from 9,000 of GDP.
The disturbing trend will not change regardless who pays these costs, government or the private sector, unless we can find a way to improve the health of our citizens.
Failure to do so will make American companies less competitive in the global marketplace, increase taxes, and undermine our economy.
Now, at Safeway, we believe that well-designed health care reform utilizing market-based solutions can ultimately reduce our nation's health care bill by 40%.
They've done it at Safeway.
The key to achieving these savings is healthcare plans that reward healthy behavior.
And this gets to John's question.
As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements every year.
The results have been remarkable during this four-year period.
We have kept our per capita health care costs flat.
That includes both the employee and the employer portion, while most American companies' costs have gone up 38% over the same four years.
Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005.
First is, 70% of all health care costs are a direct result of behavior.
The second insight is, which is well understood by the providers of healthcare, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity.
Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.
As much as we would like to take credit for being an innovator in healthcare, we have done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model.
For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and is therefore translated into premium differences among drivers.
Stated somewhat differently, the auto insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility.
As a result, bad behaviors like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, frequency of accidents are considered when establishing insurance premiums.
Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by good driver premiums.
Good driver premiums are low.
So all they've done at Safeway essentially is said, okay, here's how they're doing with auto insurance.
Why, and that's how they're doing it at Safeway.
And they're simply demanding responsibility from their employees, and that keeps the cost down.
It's exactly what I was talking about yesterday when Snerdley was so afraid that I had insulted the nation.
Well, Snerdley, I reminded people of the story in a small Texas town where nine people had made 2,600 visits to an emergency room in six years.
Basically, we have gotten to the point in our society where healthcare, because it's been drum-beated into us that it's a right, is that healthcare is something as free as breathing, that you're entitled to it as much as you are water coming out of the faucet, and that if you get a sniffle or a sneeze, off to the doctor you go, or off to the emergency room you go if you don't have insurance.
And it's gotten to the point here where there's no personal responsibility.
Now, when you talk about behavioral things in terms of preventing obesity or diabetes, type 2 diabetes is related to obesity.
And, of course, obesity can be controlled.
It's hard.
It's hard, but it can be done.
Cancer is another thing.
60% of that, I'm sure that's a reference to smoking and this sort of thing.
But his point is nevertheless well made.
You can go out and get an auto insurance policy that's pretty affordable.
It makes sense.
You have to have it.
The state mandates it that you have to have it.
So you get it.
It's pretty low if you have a good driving record.
That's why people don't want points.
They don't want to get pulled over.
And so what if the same attitudes could be applied to people in the way they live in their health?
And that's all they've done at Safeway.
And they've kept costs static for four years.
They have not risen.
Now, imagine this, a private sector CEO, supposedly the bane of our existence, evil people.
They want to rape and exploit their employees.
Showing the way here.
Now, you know what's going to happen to this guy next week in the media?
It's going to be destroyed.
The Obamaites will see to it.
I forgot to mention that President Obama just flagrantly broke the law in firing the AmeriCorps Inspector General.
There's a 30-day review that has to take place.
▲
Export Selection