So this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in.
Rush is out in Los Angeles filming, not filming, we got into all this last day, voicing his animated performance on the family guy.
And he'll be back tomorrow to take you through the end of the week.
Don't worry, don't worry.
This isn't just an interim stage before he does the full Tom DeLay and signs up with Dancing with the Stars.
He's not going to be doing that.
Tom DeLay is going head-to-head with Donnie Osmond on Dancing with the Stars.
The hammer takes the dance floor.
Don't know why, don't know why.
There's got to be some reason for it.
Tom DeLay, the hammer has been put away.
So he's now going to be, he's tangling across the floor on Dancing with the Stars.
Don't worry, Rush is just doing a bit of a voice part on the family guy.
He's singing a bit.
No dancing is involved.
He's not doing the chatcho or the merengue.
No, no, HR denies there's none of that.
So he'll be back here tomorrow to take you through the end of the week.
We've been talking about healthcare because this is, I think what people realize is that this is a huge gamble.
And obviously, the question then is, is it worth taking this huge gamble?
And is it worth letting a handful of fellows who've never really run anything, never generated any wealth, never created any wealth, never had to make payroll on even a small business, letting them annex one sixth of the U.S. economy.
And I think it's very hard to say that that is a gamble worth taking.
But what is striking about other countries is that when they go down this road, they always put it in moral terms.
They say, essentially, we are morally obligated to do this.
That was what Roy Romano, who is the big Canadian politician in charge of the last healthcare reform up in Canada, he defended the government control of healthcare on the grounds that, as he put it, quote, Canadians view Medicare as a moral enterprise, not as a business venture, unquote.
You know, because if it was a business venture, they'd say, wow, you've got stomach pains, great, we'll sign you up for surgery, we'll operate now, you'll be out of here, and you'll be cured of it, and we'll send you the bill and we'll make money because this is a business venture.
But instead, they say, no, it's a moral enterprise, not a business venture.
So in order that there's an equality of awfulness, you all have to sit around waiting.
That's the theory.
That is the theory.
In fact, and it was exactly on the same basis that they introduced national healthcare in Britain.
Nye Bevan, the British health minister, in 1948, when he inaugurated the National Health Service, he said, quote, Britain now has the moral leadership of the world because what they objected to was that there were different health outcomes according to your status in society.
If you were a big, wealthy guy, you could afford to buy the best healthcare treatment in the world and you would live till 80.
Whereas if you were just a working stiff, you wouldn't be able to buy the best healthcare treatment in the world, and so you'd keel over and die 15 years younger.
And they were concerned about that.
And they wanted to equalize healthcare outcomes.
Yeah, and you would think, as HR pointed out, the fair thing would be that we all die at 65.
Nobody lives till 80.
It's the equality of awfulness.
But instead, what's actually happened is that since 1948, the healthcare disparity in Britain has widened.
You've got now neighborhoods in Glasgow, neighbourhoods in Glasgow, which is the biggest city in Scotland, where male life expectancy is 53.
53.
That's below Russia.
It's not just below Russia, it's heading down to West African standards.
That is worse.
The healthcare disparities have worsened since 1948.
So much for the big moral venture of government healthcare.
There's almost, and incidentally, by the way, just on a philosophical point, I don't see what's so moral about saying to freeborn citizens, no, you no longer have control of your own health care.
I think it's actually immoral to say to adult citizens, no, you're a child, and the big government nanny has to make these decisions for you.
But anyway, that was the thing.
You know, we may be feeling sicker, longer, hanging around in dirtier waiting rooms, but our disease-ridden bodies will be warmed by the glow of knowing we did the right thing for everybody.
That was the thesis in Canada, that was the thesis in Britain.
That's the basis on which government healthcare is introduced everywhere around the world.
And it is not true.
What happens is that either the statistics diverge in alarming ways, as in Britain, or more covertly, as in Canada, where people come south of the border to get treated, where cabinet ministers and big-time hockey players can access, quietly access higher levels of government health care, just like they used to do in the Soviet Union.
But the moral basis for healthcare is always the pitch that's made.
Now, you think about it.
People keep going on about this life expectancy figure, because there are a few months more that you get in the European Union.
If you take the European Union average, you get about six more months of life expectancy at birth than you do in the United States.
Now, there are reasons for that.
The people who are pushing Obamacare want us to believe that the reason is that whatever it is, 45, 50 million Americans have no health insurance in the United States.
Now, you look at that.
That's one sixth of the population.
And if it was true that one sixth of the population is basically vulnerable and dying in the streets, there would be a much greater disparity in life expectancy than a mere six months between the United States and the European Union average.
The reality is that treatment is actually very easy to secure in America.
You know, if you walk into an emergency room bleeding, they have to treat you.
That's nothing to do with government systems or insurance or anything.
That's the Hippocratic oath.
If you're sick, if you're bleeding, and you stagger into the hospital, you have to be treated.
Health care, health care is a slightly different business.
And it's true that that normally involves getting a doctor who will want to know certain things about your ability to pay or your insurer or whatever.
But at the same time, that's not impossible either.
The idea that there are 50 million people who are unhealthy because they can't get treated for their medical problems is false.
And by the way, if you want to know the difference between health care and health treatment, I had an elderly British visitor this month.
And she goes to see the doctor every month at her surgery over in the United Kingdom because it's easy to do.
You make the appointment, you go and see them, and he sits with her.
She's got a recurring problem with her left hand.
And he can't use her left hand, so he's given up driving and all the rest of it.
Can hardly dress herself all the rest of it.
So she goes to see the doctor every month, and he says, Well, you've got to get used to diminished mobility at your age, so why don't you take a couple of paracetamol and rest up?
Paracetamol is like the British version of Tylenol, and it's a kind of strong aspiring.
So she goes to see him every month with this arm for the best part of 10 years now.
She comes to stay with us in New Hampshire.
Her arm swells up alarmingly, and I'm thinking, wow, I wonder if she's about to have a stroke or something, because her whole left arm is getting stiff.
So we take her to this broken down, no account, no frills, no nothing, undistinguished hospital in rural northern New Hampshire.
And in a couple of hours, they give her a CAT scan, they give her x-rays, they do blood work, the whole lot.
They give her all the stuff that the socialized healthcare system in Britain that she's paid into her entire adult life won't give her.
And they find out that she's got gout, they diagnose her with the gout, and they give her a prescription to deal with the gout, which is a long-term illness, a long-term illness that this doctor she goes to see every month in her own country somehow unaccountably missed because he can't sign her up for the tests because the tests are regulated by what Sarah Palin would call a death panel.
The tests are expensive, they have to be rationed, and so the Sarah Palin death panel says, no, you'd have to wait for this one, you can't have that one, you need so many references for this one, you've got to do this for that, and you never get it.
What you get is to chat with the doctor who listens sympathetically and then tells you to take a couple of Tylenol.
In a couple of hours, in a nothing tiny, minimal, rural, northern New Hampshire hospital, she was diagnosed with what had been ailing her for years and given something to deal with it.
And that's the difference between care and treatment.
Care, health care, is fine if you just want to go and chit-chat with somebody in a white coat in a clinical looking office to no purpose, month in, month out for years.
Health treatment, when it comes to health treatment, the United States is the best country in the world, which is why all the innovative health procedures in the world start here, which is why all the drugs are developed here.
You take out, you take out the free market portion, the life-saving drugs, the new procedures, you governmentalize all that, and you will have the same situation as you have in the United Kingdom where the up-to-date procedures, the up-to-date procedures, the latest technologies are not available to the ordinary citizen.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein Inforush, talking healthcare on the EIB network.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein Inforush.
Let's go to Gail in Chandler, Arizona.
Gail, thank you for waiting.
Thanks for joining us on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hey, Mark, how fun it is to be able to talk with you today.
First of all, I have to say I love your accent.
Oh, it's very hard keeping it up for three hours, believe me.
I would have picked a much easier one to do if I'd known the show was this long.
And your sense of humor and your laugh.
I also like what you say too.
That comes a distant third.
Oh, well, that's okay.
I'll take that.
What I want to talk about today is this whole Washington mentality that we have to do something, that the status quo isn't quite good enough.
And what people don't even dream of is that what the government does might actually make things worse than they are now.
Now, my 91-year-old mother told me yesterday that all the congresspeople are in hiding.
So if they're all in hiding, what I propose is a permanent paid vacation.
Now, think about it, Mark.
Think about it.
Don't you think I'd be a lot cheaper to do that than to implement health care reform?
No, absolutely.
The best thing you could do to solve the problem of the debt and the deficits and everything else is to say to Congress, look, we sent these four Uyghurs from Gitmo to Bermuda.
We're going to do the same for you for two years.
We're going to pay you for two years to sit on the beach at Bermuda.
You don't have to do any legislating.
Just enjoy the sun, the sea, the beautiful women.
Just sit there on the beach.
That would do more to solve America's problems than getting them to actually legislate these 1,200-page unread bills that they pass every week.
You're absolutely right there.
That's an inspired notion.
You'd probably have to do it as a constitutional amendment.
I'm not sure it would get past Justice Sotobayor, so you might have problems with that.
But you're right.
The basic, the line, don't just do something, stand there.
There's a lot of truth in that.
A lot of the problems that the United States has come from legislating in a hurry.
And if you look at the Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, the response to the Enron collapse, when suddenly they said, oh, these companies are unregulated.
We've got to do this, we've got to do that.
If you notice now, we don't have these IPOs we used to have.
In the 90s, they used to have these public offerings that would come up for companies as they went public.
And it used to be a big thing.
People would talk about the initial share price and all the rest of it.
It would be in the papers.
It was like a fashion at the time.
And they passed Sarbanes-Oxley, and that went away because they made the costs of going public too high.
And they made it easier to go public on the London Stock Exchange or the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
And they raised the bar so high that actually getting listed on Wall Street was no longer worth it.
That's a classic example of how a hasty legislative congressional solution to a problem that would have gone away naturally became chiseled in granite in perpetuity by careless legislation.
And that's exactly the same as will happen with healthcare and cap and trade and all the rest.
If you keep distorting the natural processes, the ebb and flow of the market, you're only going to make things worse.
So, Gail, you're right, and we should pass the hat around.
I mean, if we can't start with all congressmen, I think we should at least pick up a top 10 that could join the Uyghurs on the beach in Bermuda.
You know, maybe with Barney Frank and Congressman Waxman and Nancy Pelosi and a couple of others.
And let's get our inspector in there as well.
So if we ever have a top 10 list, they could be the ones to join the Uyghurs on the beach.
Are you confident you can sell this to your neighbors at least, Gail?
Yes, I can sell it to my neighbors.
You know, it reminds me of the old saying: first the government cripples you and then they sell you crutches.
Yes, that's very true.
That's very true.
And under Obamacare, there's going to be a waiting time for crutches as well.
It'll only be three years.
You'll get used to hopping.
You'll get used to hopping.
You'd be surprised how easy that is.
And you'll be able to hop down to the mall, and most of the shops will have closed anyway.
So you'll hop around, the dust wind blown, the tumbleweeds blowing through the mall.
You'll hop around for a bit, get you out of the house, get a bit of circulation into your remaining functioning leg, and eventually the crutches will come through.
Thanks very much for your call, Gail, in Chad Ladder, Rizzo.
Let's quickly go to Richard in Conroy, Texas.
Richard, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Well, thank you very much, Mark, and it's a pleasure to get through you.
My comment is basically on the health care.
And it's something that you don't hear Democrats or Republicans either one.
You know, you hear the Republicans talk about tort reform, and you won't hear the Democrats, but you don't hear either one of them talking about the problems that we're having down here.
And the problem is, basically, is that illegals come in and they go to the emergency rooms here in the hospitals in the big cities.
And that's the biggest cost that we face down here in our medical system in Texas.
And so they will not shut that border down.
You know, where's the fence they were supposed to build?
No, and it's a significant feature.
Essentially, the southwestern United States emergency rooms have become the Mexican medical system.
Exactly.
And in California, it's crippling the system.
And the governor, the governor, stands up and gives a speech every few months, pledging to end disease.
He gave a speech a couple of years ago pledging to end disease.
Not just this disease or that disease, but all disease.
This is a guy whose entire health system is on the verge of collapse because it's been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants getting first world health treatment through the emergency rooms of California hospitals.
And they're doing the same thing here in Texas.
And I don't hear the Republicans talking about doing anything about that either.
As a matter of fact, when George Bush was in there, you know, he was for amnesty for these people.
Oh, no.
The president's great line was family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, which is true, but America stops at the Rio Grande.
You would think that would enter into his calculations of these things.
You know, this is an absolutely vital point, Richard, because when people talk about these 50 million uninsured Americans, 45 million uninsured Americans, 20% of them are not American.
20% of them are foreigners.
A lot of that 20% are people who shouldn't be in the country in the first place.
Others are people who are here on temporary visas.
Others are permanent residents or whatever.
But the idea that America has an obligation to provide health services to people who are in the country illegally, I think is very doubtful.
And what's interesting is that under the whole death panel scenario, you know, you'll be an 87-year-old who's paid his taxes all his life, but they're not going to give you the procedure because they think it's more in the country's interest to give it to a 38-year-old illegal immigrant who shouldn't even be here in the first place.
So that is an interesting point, Richard, and thank you for making it.
That's Richard from Conroy, Texas.
And it's true, the southwest of the United States has really had its health services overwhelmed by trying to cater for people that it shouldn't really have to cater for.
Yeah, all these people don't have health care.
Actually, which is great now.
I mean, again, Mexico, where are Mexicans going to go once the United States has this government health care?
Eventually, there's going to be huge traffic accidents from Canadians fleeing Canadian health care south and Mexicans fleeing Mexican health care north.
They'll all collide around St. Louis and the entire Missouri health care system is going to be overwhelmed.
This is why we need to act now.
This is why we should have passed this bill in August and we could solve all these problems before the recess.
More straight ahead.
Great to be with you.
America's anchorman is away, but he returns tomorrow.
And this is your undocumented anchor man, no supporting paperwork whatsoever, filling in and happy to be here.
An honor to be here.
I survived government health care and I struggled across the border and I got to the EIB studio and it's always a privilege to be with you.
Let us go to Barb in Toledo.
Barb, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Mark, my hero.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mark, you know, this statistic I've heard that our life expectancy is lower than that of European countries.
And supposedly the reason is because they have national health care.
That's always bugged me.
So being kind of the nerd that I am, I went and looked up about a dozen different countries in Europe, and I noticed their population distribution and what their life expectancy was.
And in the majority of countries in Europe, they're, I'd say, 92% plus white Caucasian.
Right.
When you compare that to the United States, which is about 70% Caucasian, if you compare the Caucasian life expectancy of the U.S. with, say, Denmark and Sweden, our life expectancies are identical.
Right.
And it's within a year or two of most countries in Europe.
What causes our life expectancy to be lower is because we have a larger minority population who, sadly, have life expectancies on average 5 to 10 years less.
And when you put that all into the big pot of statistics, that lowers.
I hope I'm not getting too technical here.
No, no, you're making what is a very sound point, really, that the systems that and the countries that have high life expectancy tend to have small homogeneous populations.
And in a sense, what that reflects is that life expectancy is as much to do with genetic and cultural variables as anything else.
The Japanese happen to be genetically a very healthy people.
But when you have a huge continental-sized nation like the United States that is full of all kinds of different kinds of people from everywhere on the planet, you're going to have a much wider range of variables than you would in Sweden or Norway.
Well, so it's really a false comparison.
And then those who make the argument, I mean, that the reason is healthcare, they're making a common logical error that if, you know, what they call post-hoc ergo proctor hoc, after this because of this, that means that the reason that life expectancy is higher in Europe is because of national health care.
Well, the old thing that you've probably heard, you know, the old thing, well, you know, that would be like saying people, there's probably a large percentage of people who have traffic accidents who had orange juice for breakfast.
That doesn't mean orange juice causes traffic accidents.
No, but I don't want to make a definitive pronouncement on that until we've set up a massive government inquiry and maybe spend a few billion dollars investigating it.
Let's not rush to conclusions.
But in terms of logic and comparative statistics, I mean, the arguments on the side of the proponents, they're just flawed.
And unfortunately, they don't.
And let's unpack this whole life expectancy thing a bit more carefully anyway.
Life expectancy at birth is the figure by which Americans do badly compared to Europeans.
Now, there are certain kinds of reasons for that.
America has a slightly higher childhood infant mortality rate than other Western nations.
And we can go into that.
That's a whole separate thing in some ways.
But when you get to life expectancy at 40, America has caught up with Britain.
Life expectancy at 60, America has caught up with Germany.
Life expectancy at 80, America has overtaken Sweden.
In other words, the longer you live in America, the better your chances of living longer are.
And why is that?
It's because Americans in early middle age and late middle age are free to make their own health care decisions and avail themselves of state-of-the-art treatments, state-of-the-art procedures, and make decisions about their own health care.
So I would say if the life expectancy at birth is a reflection on socialized health care, the life expectancy at 40 statistics have got to be some kind of reflection on the benefits of American health care.
Well, you know, Mark, I've said from the beginning that we have just not taken enough time to define the problem correctly, and I think we're fixing the wrong problem.
And I actually, now, see, I disagree with you on one thing.
I don't want to sound like your wife.
Right.
But I disagree with you about the implementation of this.
I think that this whole thing would collapse in implementation for a whole number of reasons, which were, you know, we would take the time to.
Well, you're saying that because no one has ever tried to design a government health system on this scale before for 300 million people.
And you're right to wonder whether anyone is actually capable of doing it.
I mean, they obviously have some kind of government system in Russia and China and whatnot, but nobody's ever done it for 300 million people in an advanced society.
They've done it for 4 million Norwegians.
They've done it on that kind of scale.
And whether it's actually possible.
But you look at the National Health Service in England, which is the third biggest employer on the planet after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railways.
Now, the Chinese Army, that's a country with a billion people.
The India Railways, that's a country with a billion people.
You'd expect them to employ a lot of people.
With England's National Health Service, we're talking about 50 million people, and it's the third largest employer on the planet.
You can imagine the size of bureaucracy that would be set in motion if you tried to do it for 300 million people in the United States.
It doesn't bear thinking about.
Well, you know, Mark, didn't they recently try to impose some kind of unified computer system in Britain on the National Health Service where they were going to try and unify all computer records or something?
And as I understand it, that effort collapsed.
And you were already predisposed to national health care over there.
And when you implement something like that, it collapses.
I'll tell you why it's going to collapse in this country.
Because you're trying to impose a solution on a group of people who don't want it.
And resistance is always the thing that undermines any kind of change effort.
I will bet you money on that one.
Well, I hope you're right on that, Bob.
And I'd like to be an optimist.
I'm a happy warrior, but I worry about creeping soft despotism.
The velvet glove.
We don't have to, well, all this Hitler talk, you know, jack boots down the interstate.
It would be easy if it was that.
But when it's the velvet glove of the nanny state beguiling you into a government comfort blanket, no matter how incompetent it is, eventually if you do it incrementally enough, people get sucked into it and it becomes very difficult.
But I hope you're right, Bob.
And thank you for your call.
I mean, just to expand on what Barb was saying there about the difference between trying to compare the U.S. and Swedish health services, you're talking about a small geographical area, small population, homogeneous population.
When people go on about this life expectancy thing, the number one life expectancy in the world is Macau, which is a former Portuguese colony that is now part of China.
In other words, it's a town.
Macau is a town.
That's number one.
Number two is Andorra.
Andorra, again, is this nothing little country in between France and Spain.
And the king of Spain and the President of France are the honorary co-princes of Andorra, which is this little thing, little pinprick on the map.
So we got Macau, basically one town.
Andorra, that's number two.
Number four is Singapore.
That's a city-state.
Number five is San Marino, which is this little mountain enclave in the middle of Italy.
Number six is Hong Kong, another city-state.
Number seven is Gibraltar, a British rock in the middle of the Mediterranean.
And you'll find Sweden, which Barb was talking about at number 10.
But what is striking about that list is that the highest life expectancy are in tiny jurisdictions, a very homogeneous population.
And the reason for that is Barb's point, that the minute you've got a population of 300 million spread out against the continent, descended from people on every corner of the earth, you're going to have far more variables in health outcome.
Because just, you know, despite the amazing powers of big government, the cultural and genetic factors in life expectancy are more than what procedure is licensed by what particular government bureaucrat.
And the lesson to learn from all that is that insofar as big government works and the welfare state works, it works in small, homogenized countries where essentially the variables are all minimal and people behave in reasonably compatible ways with each other.
And big government can work in that.
But when you have a huge country like the United States, as Barb says, it's doubtful whether you can even design a health system that would try to design a health bureaucracy that would account for one sixth of the U.S. economy.
And do you think, as brilliant as they are, that Barack Obama and Rah Emmanuel and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, people who've never run anything, never made anything, never created any wealth, whether these people could actually do it?
Mark Stein, in for rush on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Lots more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
By the way, I mentioned Singapore there.
I actually quite like the Singapore health system because it's basically personal health accounts.
That's the sort of thing that could be introduced here very easily.
Basically be something similar to you put your money in an IRA, it would be tax-free.
If you spend it on insurance, spend it on treatment, spend it on prescription drugs, you wouldn't be taxed when you use that money.
But if you drew it out and decided to blow it all on coke and hookers, then you'd have to pay tax on it as if it was income.
It would be very easy to introduce a system like that that would be market-based and would actually correct the drift away from the market, which is causing many of the problems in American healthcare.
But they don't want to do that because that doesn't enlarge government and government's role in your life.
And that's what's at stake here.
It's the express route to a permanent left-of-center political culture.
You want to get there in a hurry.
You pass the government mentalization of healthcare.
That gets you to a permanent left-of-center political culture.
Let's talk to John in Los Angeles, where Rush is today recording his family guy bit.
You haven't run into traffic caused by Rush's convoy ferrying him to do the family guy thing, have you, John?
No, I haven't.
Sort of like Michael Jackson's funeral.
It's good to know.
Okay, John, where you're calling from your downtown Los Angeles or in the United States?
Well, more in the suburbs, a little southeast of LA.
And you mentioned your struggles at the northern border, so I'd like to suggest try the Southern California border next time you need to come across.
Oh, no.
You won't have any problems there.
No, no, no.
That's a whole different thing.
I love California.
I usually, when I illegally cross the border, the southern border, I usually stop by a couple of California polling stations and vote illegally in the elections, too, because that's a lot easier to do than in New Hampshire.
Everything's easy in California, unless you want to run a small business and make money and do things without a government getting to you electron.
We're keeping our own money.
Yeah, that's getting increasingly difficult.
If you need a ride next time, I'll come pick you up at the border.
Okay, that's great.
That's good.
You've got a nice car.
I don't want to be poked in in one of those, like the trunk of one of those tiny little European-sized cars.
I want the Lincoln Town car when I'm illegally being smuggled across the border.
I'm an evil gas guzzler.
I have a pickup truck.
Oh, great.
Okay.
Well, just put me in the back underneath the dirty nuke and then they never spot it.
And I'll just come whizzing straight in.
Okay, we've got that all sorted out.
My transportation needs a bit answered.
Thank you, John.
What else did you want to talk about?
Well, I called because just over four months ago, I had a firefighter and I was at work and kind of started acting goofy, and they took me to the hospital and they found I had a brain tumor.
Oh, right.
And I have, as a member of the union, I have a PPO-type insurance plan.
And within nine days, I'd had the appropriate tests and had been seen by a neurologist and neurosurgeon, and my surgery was done within nine days.
And when you mentioned in Canada that they're going to do away with all these elective surgeries, my surgery was actually considered elective.
Right.
Even though it was a brain tumor, if under a government system, if they can say, oh, no, that's an elective surgery, I can't imagine the boat I'd be in then.
Yes, because it's a benign.
Well, for a start, you wouldn't have been seen, you wouldn't have been diagnosed, seen by the specialist, operated on within nine days anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.
That wouldn't have happened.
And as you say, if it's a benign tumor, that comes under the category of elective surgery.
And in many jurisdictions, what would happen is that they would just leave you sitting there with the tumor.
No matter what it did to you, they'd check in on you every few months.
And at the point at which it became non-benign, then they would move you into the non-elective category and you'd be put in the wait time to have the thing operated on.
But realistically, you can see where this leads, because you can go to hospitals in the northern tier of the United States and find a lot of them full of Canadian cancer patients who can't get speedy, timely treatment in their own country.
And eventually, because, and we're not talking about people who pay privately, but the government will pay, well, in the end, say, we can't find anywhere to treat this cancer patient, so we'll send you down to die in a foreign country unsurrounded by tiresome loved ones.
They bet the death panel, basically, in the province of Quebec, the death panel allocates your death, outsources your death.
You don't even get to die in your own hometown surrounded by your own family.
They'll say, no, go die in, you're a French-speaking Quebecer, go and die in Maine or New Hampshire.
You don't speak English, but don't worry.
You've got nothing they want to listen to anyway.
You're just dying.
You're just moaning, whining, complaining.
The death panel outsources your death to another country.
John, I'm glad the brain tumour thing all worked.
Well, I don't know.
You free of all side effects and everything.
Yeah, things are going well, and I should be back at work probably before I would have even been seen by a specialist if I were somewhere else.
And hopefully within the next couple of months, I'll be back at work.
Well, you know, I checked with Rah Emmanuel, and they do say that with your condition, one of the terrible side effects is you can find yourself listening to right-wing extremist talk radio.
So you want to be careful.
If that gets out of control, you might want to go and see the government surgeon because they can put something in your head to deal with that, and it'll all work out fine.
Thanks for your call, John, and I'm glad it's working out, and I'm glad you got dealt with and treated with within nine days, because that ain't going to be happening once the government system is in place.
Thanks very much for your call.
Bore Straight Ahead of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Or whether you're a brother, you're staying alive.
Not if the death paddles get their way.
The mother may know the mother will go.
They'll keep the brother alone.
I don't know.
Anyway, I've got to run.
My incontinence operation has just come through at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal.
I've got to get up there.
Rush will be back tomorrow for more excellence in broadcasting, fighting fit and refreshed on the EIB network.