Rush Limbaugh Program - March 29, 2010, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 29, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:33

March 29, 2010, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes, America's anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in.
	Great to be with you.
	Rush will be back Thursday, Thursday.
	He has flown 18 hours there.
	He's going to fly 15 hours back.
	He's scouting potential healthcare systems, alternative healthcare systems around the planet.
	We've had people trying to guess which healthcare system.
	I think New Zealand is in the lead.
	New Zealand.
	New Zealand?
	Yeah, I mean, just ask the extras in Lord of the Rings, because they just.
	HR wanted to know whether they had a good healthcare system in a minute.
	But yeah, they filmed all the, suddenly, like the population in New Zealand trebled because they filmed Lord of the Rings down there, and the healthcare managed to cope with them.
	Whereas in Vancouver, when they had the Olympics, they said when the Olympics were there a few weeks ago, they announced beforehand, we're not going to do elective surgery.
	You may have been waiting three years for your hip replacement and you were going to get it and you were going to get it in Vancouver during the Olympics.
	Unfortunately, we didn't know about this Olympics thing, so we now postpone it for another three years because we'll be focusing on luge accidents or whatever.
	So luge trauma.
	You can't handle hip, no health.
	It would be unreasonable to expect any first world health system to be able to cope with both hip replacements and an increase in luge trauma at the same time.
	So you have to be able to prioritize.
	Australia's had some, they're doing that thing.
	HR is, you're not going to go through every country, are you?
	Okay, okay, he's stopping it.
	You know what?
	Because I've got a Bulgarian healthcare story and a couple of others I could feel.
	I had a broken leg in Bulgaria once, and that was fun.
	But the, I forgot what were we talking about.
	Australian healthcare system.
	Yeah, they've got that thing now.
	The government down there, and this is a feature of all these systems, is reduced wait times, reduced wait times.
	So they're now trying to get it down below whatever it is, three years, two years, whatever it is, before you get the surgery.
	Because one thing that happens, by the way, is that the minute you have this kind of system, America was already looking at, it's just got under a million doctors, I think, but a big percentage of them are over the age of 55 and were coming up for retirement.
	And now, since this thing, in the weeks that this thing has been rumbling through, 40% of them have been saying, 40% of primary care practitioners have been saying they want to get out of the business.
	It's not going to be worth it to be in the business under this new system.
	So there's going to be a catastrophic shortage of primary care physicians.
	If you look at the basic numbers here, America has a two-point something or other in terms of doctors per people, in terms of doctors per capita.
	And that's much better than Europe, where it's like 3.15 or something like that.
	Significantly better than Europe.
	And it's much better.
	It's even better than what it is in Quebec, which has the lowest ratio of doctors, worst ratio of doctors to patients in the Western world.
	So there's going to be a lot more of that coming on.
	But we can't, you know, there's no point discussing things like doctors, nurses, hernias, broken legs, because that's not what it's about.
	It's about incoherent rage.
	It's about you haters.
	It's about all you haters out there who just cannot cope with the fact that there's a black man in the White House and there's a woman in the speaker's chair and there's a gay man on the banking committee and there's a wise Latino on the Supreme Court.
	You haters just can't handle it.
	And the hate is getting out of control now.
	The hate is getting out of control.
	A Philadelphia man, a Philadelphia man, has been charged with threatening to kill.
	Guess?
	Any guesses?
	Anybody want to take a wild rack?
	Who?
	Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank.
	Philadelphia man has been charged with threatening to kill Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, the wise Latina.
	No, no, no.
	Representative Eric Cantor.
	Can't quite place him.
	Can't quite place him.
	Republican of Virginia.
	A Philadelphia man has been charged with threatening to kill Representative Eric Cantor, Republican Virginia and his family.
	33-year-old Norman Laboon made the threats in a YouTube video.
	FBI agents included a transcript of the threat in a sworn affidavit.
	My congressman, Eric Cantor, and you and your cupcake evil wife, remember, Eric, our judgment time.
	You are a liar.
	You're a Lucifer.
	You're a pig.
	You're an abomination.
	You receive my bullets in your office.
	Remember, they will be placed in your heads.
	This guy, it's hard to believe he's targeting a Republican.
	That's how stupid these knuckle-dragging white racists are.
	He can't even get the party right of the guy he's been trying to kill.
	But the hate is out there.
	There's too much uncontrollable hate out there.
	We've seen it before with people going on TV with a black president and doing watermelon jokes.
	Oh, no, wait a minute.
	That was Dan Rather.
	Anyway, we're going to be rolling back the hate.
	It's okay when Dan Rather does a watermelon joke, though.
	It somehow just sort of drifts away, doesn't it?
	It's like it never happened.
	It's like the watermelon flies down the memory hole.
	You'd think you'd at least hear the dull thud at the bottom of the shaft.
	I mean, it's a watermelon.
	But no, Dan Rather's watermelon joke just floats off into the ether.
	It's like balloon boy.
	One minute the watermelon's there, and the next it's like four states away and up in cloud cuckoo land.
	So Dan Rather's watermelon joke, it's like it never happened.
	But the racists at the tea parties, that's real.
	They're out there.
	They're homophobes.
	You're a homophobe.
	You're a misogynist.
	It's because Barney Frank is gay that you don't want to spend trillions of dollars.
	You'd be completely cool with it.
	If he would just date a woman, you'd sign on to this Obamacare.
	It's that simple, isn't it?
	Dear me.
	Mark Stein Inforus, 1-800-282-2882.
	We want to talk about the cost of all this, though, because everyone keeps pointing out that the so-called benefits don't kick in till 2014 or whatever.
	Actually, there's tons of arguments about that because it looks like this now.
	Kids with pre-existing conditions.
	By the way, I love the term kids.
	Kids now extends to anybody at 26.
	26.
	If you're a 26-year-old kid, you know, in the old days, a 26-year-old kid would have kids of his own.
	It was what they would have called early middle age.
	But today, today, 26-year-old can still be on his parents' health plan.
	This is the phenomenon they have in Europe, where all these 35-year-old men are all living with their parents because it's too expensive.
	So like if you go into, like, if you're, this is for you gals out there.
	If you say you want to take a bachelorette vacation in Rome, you buy a cheap air ticket to Rome, you go into a singles bar in Rome, and some smooth-talking 37-year-old guy comes up to you as, ah, Bellissima, you know, like Katrina, that's a nice name.
	Sounds beautiful with an Italian accent when we're talking to Katrina.
	Bellissima Katrina.
	And the 37-year-old smooth-talking Italian guy says, hey, why don't you come back to my place and look at my linguine?
	And she says, sure, whatever.
	He's sleeping in the same bedroom he's been sleeping in since he was three years old.
	He's living at his parents' place in the same room with the same teddy bear wallpaper, although maybe he's painted over it by now, that he's lived in all his life.
	37-year-old man.
	This guy would be a laughing stock in any previous culture.
	But yeah, that's right.
	The term, the universal term, loser.
	That's what HR says, loser.
	It was a universal word, loser.
	You say, and everybody, we would get that message.
	If the nice American girl in the singles bus said, You, sir, are a loser, he would get that.
	He would know be the one word he'd understand in English.
	But now it's no problem because they're all doing it.
	In Germany, same thing.
	Massive increase in 30-year-old and 40-year-old men still living with their parents.
	And same thing in Canada, in Toronto.
	There's been a huge increase in men now staying at home, moving out, not moving out till they're 30, 35, 40.
	It's getting later and later.
	This is brutal.
	This is brutal.
	You know, you think about you're like an old person.
	You don't have to be that old, but like let's face it, you generally get sick of your kids around about 15, 16.
	You're ready for them to move out.
	If they said, don't worry, Dad, you've only got another quarter century to go, you'd be pretty depressed about it.
	This is one of the strange byproducts of a socialized, big government, a big entitlement system.
	Nobody ever moves out.
	There was an old Benny Hill joke, Benny Hill joke about public housing years ago.
	Benny Hill was like a biker and he was with his dolly bird and they're both in the biker gear and they're being interviewed by a BBC guy about how difficult it is trying to find affordable housing.
	And the BBC guy says to Benny Hill, well, couldn't you move in with your parents?
	And Benny Hill says, we would do, but they've moved back in with theirs.
	And that is what is happening for real in Italy, Germany, Canada.
	45-year-old guys living with their parents.
	Now, we've done that here.
	We're just starting it, just starting it.
	So we're not saying if you're a 45-year-old, you can still be on your parents' health insurance.
	But we've said if you're a 26-year-old, if you're 26 years old, that's when Obama is talking about children.
	He got a round of applause for this when he spoke in Ohio.
	He said, if you're 26 years old, you'll still be eligible to be on your parents' health insurance.
	And people applaud it.
	If you're 26 years old and you can't stand on your own two feet, if you're 26 years old and you're still a child, this is exactly what big government does to you.
	It's the infantilization of the citizenry.
	A 26-year-old, by any reasonable definition, is an adult.
	And the idea of this country congratulating itself because it's now ensured that 26-year-olds will still count as children and thus will still be covered as infant minors for the purposes of health insurance should be a mark of shame.
	If you're 26 years old, you are an adult and you should be treated as an adult.
	And that gets to the heart of what this whole lousy process is about.
	It is about the infantilization of the citizenry so that you will be teenagers in perpetuity.
	Mark Stein in Farash 1-800-282-2882.
	Mark Stein in Farush on the EIB network.
	Have you noticed, by the way, all these companies now announcing what the costs of the Obama healthcare will be?
	A few of them, just a few of them, have begun announcing them: ATT, Verizon, Caterpillar, a couple of others.
	By the way, they're obliged by law to announce them.
	You've got to factor in future liabilities and adjust your earnings statement accordingly.
	Or if not, the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office will be dragging you into court and shutting you down and tossing you in jail.
	A friend of mine fell afoul of some SEC reporting requirements and it wasn't a happy experience.
	So you've got to do this.
	There's no, it's the law.
	You've got to, if, for example, your health plan costs rise because of something the government does, you've got to adjust your earnings statement accordingly.
	But Henry Waxman, Representative Henry Waxman, doesn't like that.
	He's the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I believe he is a heterosexual white male.
	So we will have to, so he doesn't afford the same pleasure for us racist homophobes and misogynists as going after Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or Barack Obama.
	He seems, he's one of us.
	He's, I mean, after a fashion, he has a sort of curious mean about him, but he is a heterosexual white male, as far as we know.
	Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has now wrote, written to all these chief executives, ATT, Verizon, Caterpillar, John Deere, and is hauling them before Congress to come and account for themselves for having the temerity simply to state the additional costs that they say will result from the healthcare reform bill.
	This now is not even, this isn't even disguised anymore.
	This is just naked intimidation.
	They're saying, if you, and this isn't even a matter of debate, they're obliged to issue these statements anyway.
	They're obliged to report them in their earnings.
	It's just something you have to do.
	But nevertheless, Henry Waxman is saying, how dare you do that?
	How dare you have the impertinence to issue these numbers that will show that Obamacare is not the bountiful blessing that will bring universal health care to all and actually control costs and reduce the deficit and reduce the debt.
	How dare you speak out against that?
	Now you'll have to come and testify to Congress.
	They wrote to the executives and requested that they appear at a hearing that Henry Waxman and Chairman Bart Stupak, remember him, the pro-life Democrat?
	Chairman Bart Stupak on April the 21st.
	This is a very interesting form of intimidation.
	I don't even like it.
	We saw this with the guy when they hauled the guy in from Toyota.
	Do you remember the guy from Toyota?
	The fellow, he put the put the, he couldn't get his Prius to slow down.
	So they haul in the chief executive Toyota, who's Japanese, and he's listening to these idiotic questions.
	And I would bet, if I'd been in his shoes, I would have had a strong urge listening to these idiotic questions, all generated by some phony baloney story of a guy who couldn't find the brake pedal.
	I would have had a strong urge to say, I can't believe Hirohito and Tojo lost to you guys, because this is idiocy.
	And now they're calling in the chief executives of Verizon, AT ⁇ T, Caterpillar, and John Deere to come and testify to Congress about their les majeste against the great Barak, about the Great Barack and his great health care bill.
	Let's go to Donna in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
	Donna, you're live on the Russlingbo Show.
	Great to have you with us.
	Hello, Mark.
	How are you?
	I'm doing great.
	Well, actually, I am an angry white female.
	Right.
	I went to my first tea party, actually, my only tea party on March the 20th, which was that Saturday.
	Basically, my husband and I decided that it was the last opportunity for us to be able to take a stand for something we really believe in.
	And we were actually right there at the point where everything was supposed to have happened with the spitting and the name calling.
	Right, right.
	And if you look on YouTube, you can see there's a large female with gray hair pulled back in a bun in a white blouse.
	Right.
	I was there.
	Nothing happened.
	It was like a nothing thing.
	There was just a little outburst from the black caucus.
	And also Charli Rango followed up in the behind.
	And my husband did say something different besides kill the bill.
	He said, liar cheat.
	Right.
	Charlie Wrangel.
	Oh, yeah, but he's only doing that because Charli Rangel is a black guy.
	And when you say kill the bill, we know, we know that that is just code, code, isn't it?
	That's code for sniper sites and all the rest of it.
	It's clear.
	It's clear that this is, you can try and explain it away, Donna.
	But Frank Rich and the media are on to you.
	They understand this is just like coded talk.
	Now, was there an exchange of saliva, by the way?
	Were bodily fluids exchanged in this incident?
	No, no, not at all.
	Nothing that could be seen, and there was never any person who spit.
	If anything might have touched him, maybe people screaming, kill the Bill when they did the B. Though the B of B it's hard to say.
	Oh, come on.
	Come on, Donna.
	Now you're saying it was just accidental expectoration on the B of Bill.
	Is that right?
	If there was anything at all, I'm not even saying that there was anything because I certainly saw nothing and heard nothing that, you know, it is just crazy.
	It's like they're making up things.
	No, no, no, no.
	Well, because they don't want to deal with it.
	They don't want to accept the idea that you can be opposed to Obamacare and to all this spending and be a perfectly normal person.
	In Frank Rich's head, there's simply not room for that.
	He can only cope with it if he thinks that you are some sick, twisted, racist hater.
	That's his only way of coping for it.
	That's the only mental box he can put you in, Donna.
	Well, don't keep talking.
	You're starting to convince me.
	Embrace you in a racist order.
	You'll feel happier about it.
	You'll feel happy.
	Instead of blaming it on the B and Bill, just spit over everybody.
	Yeah, the CNN will be filming you night and day when you show up at the next tea party.
	Just let loose a torrent of saliva over Anderson Cooper, and you'll be on CNN wall to wall.
	Thank you for your call, Donna.
	Great to have you with us.
	This is what it's come down to now.
	This is what it's come down to now.
	In the end, the people who think race accounts for everything are the odd things.
	Why should, by the way, socialized healthcare, most people who talk about it talk about it the way I do.
	We've seen what it does.
	We've seen what it does in certain countries.
	In the Western world, it dissentivizes everything that matters.
	So it gets in the way of wealth creation and responsibility and all that.
	No racism need be involved.
	Great to be with you.
	Rush back Thursday.
	He is in an undisclosed location.
	Don't forget, you could win your very own free Rush Limbaugh guest host if you can identify the jurisdiction that he is receiving quality health care in right now.
	Rush will be back Thursday, Thursday.
	He's just scouting out the quality of healthcare.
	We had people say New Zealand, Singapore.
	I suggest he might be checking out the jungles of New Guinea where they've got very good head operations that they perform there.
	But he will be back here and ready to go with real premium quality excellence in broadcasting on Thursday.
	We're talking about this hate, this idea that demonizing the haters, the racists, the homophobes, and all the rest out there.
	He took a call.
	Rush took a call from somebody in Canada.
	I think it was on Tuesday, Wednesday last week, about Ann Coulter's speech at the University of Ottawa, which wound up getting cancelled.
	And it was fascinating to me because in the run-up to Anne Coulter's appearance in Canada, this was her first Canadian appearance.
	There'd been all these pieces in the paper, including one from Francois Olus, the provost of the University of Ottawa, saying, Oh, well, you know, we're not like all you right-wing haters down there.
	In Canada, we have a strong tradition, quote, of restraint, respect, and consideration.
	This is the provost of the University of Ottawa.
	The next day, a howling mob shuts down Anne Coulter's speech because nothing says, you know, restraint, respect, and civility like a thuggish mob threatening to rampage through and destroy everything in sight.
	That's an interesting glimpse in what respect and restraint and civility mean when the left starts using those words.
	And incidentally, when the left uses those words, they are euphemisms for power and for muscle.
	And so it's not just like Dan Rather's throwaway watermelon cracks.
	You know, there's a strategy here.
	The idea is to criminalize, criminalize conservative arguments.
	So if every time you make a conservative argument, they say, oh, no, that's racist.
	Oh, no, that's homophobic.
	Then in effect, you can't talk about anything except on their terms.
	And so every time a leftist says, oh, well, you know, it's about respect and restraint and civility, that's code, that's de facto, the object of that is to criminalize your opinion and make conservative arguments impossible.
	Let's go to Susan in Hartford, Connecticut, hitherto the insurance capital of the United States.
	But I would imagine it's going to be property values will be plummeting and everybody will be moving out once the effects of this bill kick in.
	Susan, great to have you with us.
	Oh, thank you for taking my call.
	I just wanted to tell you about my diversified experience at a large major medical center.
	There were four black women with their elderly mother and two Hispanic girls, one that worked in the insurance company, by the way.
	And then there was another guy that was a white guy and a black guy and me and I'm white.
	And we were all talking because we had a lot of time to kill.
	And I imagine that's going to get to be a lot worse, too.
	Anyway, nobody thinks that this is a good bill at all.
	There's a lot of hidden things there.
	And about the racism, we all completely agreed, but this one beautiful black lady stood up and she actually got a standing O from us because she said there really hasn't been a huge race problem, especially around here for over 40 years.
	She said, I do believe that they are pitting us against each other so that we will not really look at what they're doing to all of us.
	And I completely agreed, and so did everybody else.
	And by the way, the one Hispanic girl, I'm calling her Hispanic, she just flat out said she was Puerto Rican, but she was born in this country.
	She works in the insurance company, and she said she does not appreciate having to talk bilingual, even though she does it fluently to people on the phone or people that come in.
	It's not cost-effective.
	It's not productive.
	She said, if you want to live here, learn English.
	Like my ancestors from Europe had to come here and learn English.
	Well, good for her because nobody knows.
	But about the racism, as far as that goes, this guy had a white mother, so he's 50% white.
	This is not about race.
	You're copping out with that.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	This is the thing.
	It's got to be about.
	But you're saying you were in a representative Connecticut emergency waiting room, a Connecticut waiting room, four black women, two Hispanic women.
	There's you, there's a black guy, there's a white guy, and you all oppose Obamacare.
	So All these four black women, two Hispanic women, they're all racist too.
	Oh, I'm sure.
	And the one that works for the insurance will probably be out of a job, too.
	Yeah, yeah, that'll be coming.
	But, Susan, you make a very good point when you say the object is to divide us.
	Because one of the key states.
	Well, the black lady stood up and said that.
	And she was a beautiful woman.
	And she said, I do believe that they are drumming this up purposefully to pit us against each other so that our eyes will be shut on what they're doing to us.
	And nobody likes it.
	But that is a big government, a left-wing government way of looking at things.
	You divide people into identity groups, and the big centralized planning government then is the only legitimate arbiter between all these different identity groups.
	And that's a very key feature of big government states.
	And that's why the Democrats love identity politics.
	That's because they like to be able to think of people in groups.
	You know, the most important minority is the individual.
	And historically, in the common law tradition, there's been very little deference given to group rights because in the common law tradition, what matters is the individual.
	If you're an individual, you have individual liberty, and we all have the same liberties.
	We are all equal before the law.
	But big government says, no, we would rather think of you as members of different interest groups and identity groups, and we can then arbitrate the relationships between you.
	Let's go to Jude in Lafayette, Louisiana.
	Jude, you are live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	It's a pleasure, Mark.
	I've been listening to you many times, and I'm a longtime Rush listener.
	Well, good to have you with us.
	And Rush is going to be back on Thursday and for many years to come.
	Listen, Mark, my point is, and I, you know, been listening to the negativeness about losing our constitutional rights, you know, growing big government.
	But now that the health care plan has passed, I think you need to start harping on the actual individuals increasing cost for health care, taxes, and putting specific numbers by each category.
	Now, I realize that we can't do that yet because maybe no one has understood the plan.
	But I think we need to put it to the individual.
	What is my individual cost going to be for this plan?
	So you think instead of talking about it in terms of constitutional issues or as an individual liberty thing, because I guess the argument is that most people, oh, yeah, well, the total apocalypse, end of America, end of the global economy, I'm again out of here.
	You think we need to bring it down to, because people can't comprehend macroeconomic trends.
	They're not interested in constitutional theories.
	They want to know what is this going to cost me in hard dollars and cents.
	Yes, exactly.
	I think what the constitutional, I guess, loss of privileges is what got us to this point.
	But what's going to go across parties and across race and across prejudice is when you take home less money.
	Right, right.
	And if you can somehow come out with like the person making a certain amount of money, a middle-class person making $100,000, $60,000, I don't know, some fund, and show the people what, as passed through January, what this is going to cost him.
	Because, you know, I understand that he's not, he hasn't rolled over the Bush tax cut.
	No, and a lot of people are going to be seeing tax increases of up to 40% come the new year.
	So the Bush tax cuts are lapsing.
	There's going to be tax increases anyway.
	Some people are going to be paying Already, in some jurisdictions, in some states in this country, pay over 50% in combined federal and state taxes.
	Now, what do you get for that, Jude?
	That's the way people think about it.
	In Germany, for example, I think something like 15%, the cost of the health service, accounts for 15%, an extra 15% on your taxes, in effect.
	And you don't, is it worth that to people?
	If you put it in those terms, if you say you pay this much per year and the government will take care of your health needs, is it worth it to people?
	In the early days, people will feel differently about that.
	But the problem here, the problem is that if you complicate it enough, and the American tax system and the system of tax credits for this and tax credits for that, is sufficiently complicated anyway that many people don't understand in real terms what they're actually giving to the government.
	And this is knock-on effects in all kinds of other ways.
	For example, if you look at what's happened to Fannie and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, basically the government said, no, you have got to lend money to people for houses, for homes in certain circumstances, regardless of whether you are prepared, you would be prepared to issue them that mortgage in normal circumstances.
	You've got to do it.
	You've got to do it.
	The federal government says it doesn't matter what you think of them as a risk or what you think of their chances of repayment or whether they can afford the mortgage, you've got to give them to it.
	Now they've just done that to the healthcare industry.
	Now they've just done that to the insurance industry.
	They've turned the private insurance industry, in effect, into Freddie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
	And we saw how well that worked out for the housing market.
	It actually undermined property as one of the great bedrocks of a free society.
	And they're proposing now, with this healthcare bill, what they've done at a stroke is effectively turned the insurance market, insurance business, health insurance business, into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
	And the object is always to make the costs and benefits, or your 26-year-old child will be able to go on your health insurance policy.
	Okay, that sounds great if you happen to be in favor of raising 26-year-old deadbeats who are still going to be treated like minors when they're 26 years old.
	That's fine, that sounds great.
	But it's very, the government makes it all but impossible to quantify the costs on something like that until it's too late.
	And that's the trick of big government.
	You never see the bill until down the road.
	And in this situation, where essentially, as Robert Samuelson explains in the Washington Post today, we're spending 25% of GDP, but we're only raising 19% in revenue.
	That's a recipe for two things: either total societal collapse or for actually spending your children and grandchildren's future before they're born.
	Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph of London, my old boss, Charles Moore had a great line in his Saturday column.
	We've spent too much of tomorrow today.
	We've spent too much of tomorrow today.
	And that's the trick that the government is very good at doing.
	Mark Stein in for Rush, lots more straight ahead.
	Mark Stein in for Rush.
	You know, I slightly disagree with Jude.
	I understand this point.
	We were discussing earlier that, you know, a lot of people aren't interested in these big philosophical constitutional issues.
	They're not interested in liberty and all the rest of it.
	You've got to explain it to them in dollars and cents.
	And the point is here, though, that the government makes it all but impossible to explain it in terms of dollars and cents.
	You know, it's a 2,000-page bill.
	Nobody knows what's in it.
	The government doesn't even know what's in it.
	We're getting contradictory versions of events.
	What's the Kathleen Sebelius?
	That's the name, the health secretary.
	Now said the New York Times has run a story saying, Oh, this business about how your children with the pre-existing conditions, now they're all covered, isn't happy days are here again.
	There's nothing to worry about.
	From the 1st of September, they're covered.
	The New York Times now says, Whoa, hold on a minute, that's not so.
	They're only covered if health insurers choose to cover them.
	Kathleen Sebelius has indignantly said, No, no, no, that's the case.
	Whatever is in the bill.
	Now, this is the Health and Human Services Secretary, by the way, and she doesn't know what's in the bill.
	And so she said, Well, if it isn't in the bill, we'll just issue an executive order to make it the law.
	So this is absolute monarchy, folks.
	This is why, this is what you didn't like.
	If you remember back to the day before yesterday, this is what you didn't like about King George III back in 1776.
	What's happening here is that you've got a parliament, you've got a legislature that has passed a bill, and Kathleen Sebelius, Commissar Sebelius, Health Commissar Sebelius, is saying, Well, you know, okay, if they didn't put it in the bill, I'll just announce it anyway.
	We'll have it anyway.
	We'll have it anyway.
	This is this, that is why, that is why I disagree with Jude, because it corrupts the heart of the Republic.
	It makes Republican government impossible, it makes citizenship impossible.
	Because if the federal government can require you, you, Joe Schmoe, of 27B Elm Street, to buy a particular product by fiat, by order of Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama, then they can make you do anything.
	They can make you do anything.
	Now they're telling you they've got to buy health insurance.
	If you start dating, will they require you to buy a certain amount of condoms per month, federally manufactured condoms, so they won't even work?
	If the government will be able to, the government will be able to do anything if they are free to declare that you have to buy a particular health insurance product, regardless of whether you want to or not.
	That's why it is a liberty issue.
	And that's why for all the talk about the costs, it is important to talk about it in terms of a liberty issue.
	I was very sorry.
	We had a caller lined up who wanted to talk about the Stamp Act, which was passed 245 years ago.
	And HR, I was all fired up looking forward to here, but HR said, ah, no, we don't want to get into the Stamp Act, he said, because I've always been fascinated by this business, the Stamp Act.
	You know, you compare the length of the Stamp Act to the length of the health care bill.
	At least people knew what was in the Stamp Act.
	At least, you imagine, you imagine if you'd gone back 245 years when they passed the Stamp Act and King George III had gone on Meet Ye Press with David Brinkley.
	He was hosting Meet Ye Press back then.
	Yeah, David, yeah, David, so he's on Meet Ye Press in the 1770s when it was anchored by David Brinkley.
	David Broder was still on it every week back then.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so it's like a lot of the same participants, in fact, were on Meet Ye Press when they remodeled it and they redesigned the set in 1862 for the new look they have now.
	So anyway, George III goes on Meet Ye Press and says, oh, don't worry about the Stamp Act.
	Please just pass it and you don't know what's in it.
	We don't know what's in it.
	But once it's been around for a while, you'll get to like it.
	Don't worry about it.
	And he's sitting there stroking his powdered wig and everyone's saying, well, that sounds reasonable enough to me.
	What was the point of the revolution?
	What was the point if all the people who stood up, the angry white men, by the way, the angry white men who stood up to George III because him wearing that powdered wig made them uncomfortable about their sexuality, as Frank Rich would say.
	Those angry white men who stood up to George III would have would have, what would have happened if they'd said, oh, you know, you're right, we should just take his word for it.
	That seems like the sort of thing that freeborn people, he's the king and he's saying there's nothing to worry about.
	Mark Stein in for rush.
	We got more covered up.
	Stick around.
	84% of Americans, according to a Quinnipiak poll, say the middle class will have to make financial sacrifices to reduce the budget deficit.
	But they also say they don't want them to touch Social Security or Medicare.
	You can't make the two halves of that answer work.
	Got to figure out which one's important to you.
	Mark Stein, in for rush on the Rush Limbo show.
	Lots more still to come in our final hour.
	Don't forget, Rush returns from his undisclosed location.
	New Zealand, Singapore.

▲