Rush Limbaugh Program - March 30, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:35

March 30, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes, America's Anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in.
	Mark Stein in for Rush at the Golden EIB microphone.
	Mark Davis will be here tomorrow and on Thursday Rush returns.
	A great honor to be here.
	I'd like to say a big, big hello to all you racists, homophobes, misogynists and other bigots out there.
	You've come to the right place.
	This is the one-stop shop for all your angry white male needs.
	Also like to say a big hi, as we said earlier, to all those Larry King, Larry King fans.
	Larry King's audience has fallen by 52%.
	52% of Larry King's audience has managed to disappear in the last month.
	You can basically track these networks' audience figures with the Obama approval rating now.
	I mean, they're just like all sliding off the cliff together.
	And they're all sitting around somewhere at CNN head office in Atlanta.
	They're sitting around.
	I can't understand these numbers.
	We've been so supportive on the healthcare bill.
	And they're just sliding off the cliff.
	So if you're a Larry King fan, or maybe if you're a former Larry King fan and you don't watch the show any longer, he doesn't have Tina Louise or Anne Margaret on as often as you like and he's talking about healthcare reform too much, call us up and let us know.
	Don't forget, by the way, this couldn't help into a nicer guy.
	It was Anderson Cooper who made the stupid teabagger remark, the sort of snide little insider teabagger remark.
	As Rush was saying, it's some little sexual preference.
	We can't really talk about it in great detail.
	But Anderson Cooper introduced it into the political discourse.
	Big time senators, big time Democrats started using it too.
	And amazingly, that's done wonders for Anderson Cooper's ratings because his numbers are down by 42%.
	But we'll talk about that and get into some of the costs of healthcare in the hours ahead.
	What I find fascinating, by the way, about government healthcare systems is that if you have any illness that predates the existence of government healthcare, like the illnesses people used to have, where you need your appendix taken out or you need to have your leg operated on, that kind of thing, you need some heart treatment or whatever.
	You have to wait ages for those.
	But treatments that you would never have thought of in a million years until government healthcare came along will be done no problem.
	Like it's quicker to get, it's quicker to get a sex change in Toronto than a hip replacement.
	And so actually, it may be quicker.
	If you happen to find yourself at a Canadian hospital and your hip's in a lot of pain, you might actually be better advised to actually ask for a sex change and then ask if they can slip the hip replacement in while they're taking out all the other bits down there.
	So it's something to bear in mind.
	Moobs, by the way, moobs.
	Have you ever heard of this thing?
	Moobs?
	This is the big, big, big problem now.
	This is the preferred term for what they call man boobs.
	You know, as like men get out, we were talking earlier, talking earlier to the lady who was in her health club and they'd replaced Fox News with CNN.
	And so maybe they've replaced Fox News with CNN at your health club, so you don't go quite as often, so your body starts getting a bit adrift, and you suddenly notice you're beginning to develop the old man boobs or moobs, as they call them elsewhere.
	I was down in Australia.
	I was down in Australia talking to a very senior Australian politician.
	I won't pin it down more than that.
	And Tony Blair had just been on the news on his vacation.
	He was on the beach and he was in his swimming outfit and he had to provide some comment.
	I think there'd been some terrorist thing back in London, and he'd had to give, he'd had his vacation interrupted from the beach and had to give some advice on this.
	I was rather looking forward to talking about Tony Blair with this very senior Australian politician and getting the inside dope on this.
	And the very senior Australian politician says to me, Blimey, did you see Tony Blair today?
	Hasn't he got terrible man boobs?
	And this is the way.
	You see, this is the way the world leaders talk about each other, by the way.
	I bet Sarkozy is doing this kind of shtick about Obama's got pretty good pectorals, I will say.
	I've got no use for him on any other front, but I've got no complaints about his pectorals.
	But this is the way Sarkozy, Obama, Tony Blair, this is the way world leaders talk about each other.
	And that's, yeah, I don't know about Joe Biden on the old man boobs front.
	But anyway, a Chinese farmer has the world's biggest set of man boobs, says doctors.
	Busty Guo Feng, 53, is desperately seeking a solution to his massive moobs as they get in the way of his manual work.
	And fascinated locals queue up at his dairy farm to point and laugh, forcing him to wear a heavy coat at all times, even in hot weather.
	Mr. Feng said, about 10 years ago, my chest started to get larger, but I didn't think much of it as I was putting on weight all over.
	But in the last few years, it's become unbearable.
	And I've been from one hospital to the other with nobody able to help me.
	My breasts are now bigger than ever.
	The doctors don't want to help me with this because they find me a medical curiosity.
	Dr. Zhang Lilan at the Jinan Chest Hospital in Beijing said he had never seen anything like it in 30 years as a specialist in male breasts.
	He said, the man is in every way male except for his enormous breasts.
	Mr. Deng is so distressed by his condition, he says he will cut off his moobs himself if no one can help.
	So this is, yes, exactly.
	This guy should be on a plane.
	He shouldn't be wasting his time in Beijing.
	He should get on a plane to Vancouver because you do get government breast reduction as part of Canadian healthcare in most provinces.
	I'm not sure if it's in all provinces, but you can get breast reduction free from government healthcare.
	So if he gets his, he could get his man boobs reduced, and he could then apply for the role as a female extra in Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean because they're advertising only for, they don't want any implants, they only want natural breasts.
	So perhaps when he's just like an appealing 34B, he could play one of the nice little extras in Pirates of the Caribbean for Disney.
	But you begin to see how the minute you have government health care, all kinds of strange conditions that people never bothered going to the doctor about, now suddenly the medical system has to develop approaches for.
	And so this, and by the way, we didn't hear about this whole man boob business.
	I don't know, is this something that since they started putting fluoride in the water?
	Is it one of those kind of things?
	I don't know what it is.
	Or is it women?
	The other thing they say is it's women flushing old birth control pills stand.
	But I can't think of you in rural China as a child.
	Well, maybe that's just something from industrial pollutant from the city of 60 million people shoving all that stuff into the Yangtze or whatever.
	But anyway, there's all kinds of issues.
	Of course, if he came to the United States, it would be a pre-existing condition, this poor man's man boobs.
	And there seems to be some dispute on this business of where the healthcare bill stands with regard to pre-existing conditions.
	We were told the president has told us repeatedly since December that the minute this bill passes, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions.
	He said on January the 9th this year, children with pre-existing conditions will no longer be refused coverage, and they can stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26 or 27 years old.
	Now it emerges, according to Karen Lightfoot, a spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, that under the new law, insurance companies will still be able to refuse new coverage to children because of pre-existing medical conditions.
	Kate Syrill, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labour and Pensions Committee, which also helped write this legislation, said that full protection would come in in 2014.
	Kathleen Sebelius has said, I don't care what the law says.
	I mean, let's face it, that's pretty old-fashioned, isn't it?
	Passing a law, knowing what's in the law, following the law as written.
	So Kathleen Sebelius has just said, regardless of what the law calls for, we're just going to issue an executive order anyway and make it happen.
	And that's going to be another reason why this bill is unsustainable, because regardless of what it does or doesn't fund, the big ratchet effect of big government only goes in one direction.
	So even if it isn't in the law, and there's a whole ton of things that aren't in there, but they will be in there one day.
	It's like the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	I don't know where the man boobs are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but if they're not now, they will be in 20 minutes' time.
	Because since the Americans with Disabilities Act has been passed, all kinds of strange new disabilities have been discovered to be covered by the Act.
	I, for example, I, for example, I find myself, I wake up a lot of mornings and I just don't feel like going to work.
	And I initially thought this was because I was a lazy, useless, and untalented idiot with no skills.
	But it occurs to me now that in fact, it actually I might have been suffering from a lifelong medical condition that probably should be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	So all these acts, however narrowly they're drawn at the beginning, they only expand.
	They expand and they grow and they cover more things and they cost more money and they employ more people.
	And this is why the most important thing that the new Congress that's elected in November, which hopefully will be a Republican Congress, the first thing it can do in January is starve the beast.
	Starve the beast.
	Lock this creature, lock the health care bill in the basement.
	It's passed, it's law, lock it in the basement and starve it of funds.
	And you won't be able to get rid of it for a while.
	It's here to stay at least for a few years.
	But just keep it in the basement, throttle it of funds, prevent it from doing anything, prevent it from employing people, prevent it from setting up these unsustainable programs, because otherwise it will just grow like man boobs on a Chinese farmer.
	That they may initially start out like a pert 34B, but within six months it's going to be a pendulous 48 FFFF.
	That is why, that is why you've got to starve this thing of the funds.
	Starve it.
	Starve it.
	Keep it in the basement, lock the door, starve it of funds.
	And we are entitled to that when you ask your Republican candidates where they stand on this thing, that is the minimum they ought to be committed to in this November's election.
	Mark Stein, InforRush, 1-800-282-2882.
	Mark Stein, InforRush on the EIB Network.
	Rush returns Thursday.
	Let's go to Jim in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
	Jim, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Great to have you with us.
	Thanks for taking my call, Mark.
	You know, I wanted to comment and respond to your earlier observation about the seeming incongruity between abortion policy and this health care policy.
	And from the leftist progressive perspective, there's actually a coherent rationale for supporting both of those.
	Okay.
	Yeah, just before you explain that, just to recap for people who, because this is about an hour ago, I'd said, on the one hand, people, the left tells us, well, our bodies mature earlier, so we should be entitled to have an abortion, no questions asked when we're 11 years old.
	But at the same time, our minds mature later and later, so whether we're incapable of making any other adult decisions now until our 27th birthday, which is when President Obama tells us it's finally time to move out of our parents' health insurance policy and stand on our own two feet.
	And that there's a conflict between this, where we're old enough to have sex, have abortions, have a gay marriage, whatever you want to do, earlier and earlier and earlier, but to take responsibility, stand on your own two feet, and all the rest of it, anything non-sexual, that's now 27.
	And you think, in fact, they're part of a coherent strategy.
	Well, it's actually part of a coherent argument.
	And the premise for both of those is redistributive social justice.
	People seem to look, tend to look at abortion policy and pro-choice policy under the rubric of constitutional right to privacy and due process.
	And that was the constitutional argument in Roe v. Wade.
	But it wasn't the motive for Roe v. Wade.
	The motive was redistributive social justice.
	So, for example, a woman who has to have a child is saddled with taking care of that child.
	The man can move on and pursue his economic dreams and a lucrative career, whereas a woman can't.
	Well, if you take every leftist argument and you look at it under the rationale of redistributive social justice, you understand or you can see how they can reconcile these seemingly contradictory or incongruent positions.
	Capital punishment is another one that you can look at under that rationale, and they become more coherent in that sense.
	And this is why, you know, the idea of a pro-life Democrat is really oxymoronic, because what drives these progressive Democrats isn't formal justice in the sense that Thomas Sowell describes it, but cosmic justice, redistributive justice.
	So when people stop and realize that, then they can make sense of where lusters are really coming from and why, on the face of it, their arguments seem to contradict each other, but what really drives their agenda beneath it.
	But there's an also, there's something that goes beyond that, Jim.
	And I think there's a lot of truth in that.
	For example, sex education now isn't really about preventing pregnancy.
	I mean, we know a lot about preventing pregnancy.
	It should be relatively easy to do after almost 40 years of Roe v. Wade and contraception teaching in schools and all the rest of it.
	It's beyond that.
	There's also an idea that somehow, which I think is true, that we have accepted the idea that people should be able to have sexual pleasure earlier and earlier and earlier.
	But at the same time, the adult responsibilities come later and later and later.
	And I think that is, I think the thinking behind that is, is almost like sex as a distraction for the left.
	The left says you can get in on with anything that moves and quite a lot of stuff that doesn't, and that's cool.
	And all the time you're doing that, you won't be noticing in an age of ever, ever more baroque sexual liberty, you won't be noticing all the other kinds of liberties where we're taken away from you.
	In other words, that I think the left uses sexual liberty as a kind of feint for all the other kinds of liberties that it's actually rolling back on you.
	I mean, what price sexual liberty when your property rights, when your freedom of expression rights, when your economic rights are being rolled back on every sphere.
	And I think, in a sense, that's the kind of great Democrat con game, that as long as they say to you, well, you know, you can do what you want with all your bodily parts and stick them anywhere you want to stick them, but on everything else, and that way you won't notice all the other rights we're rolling back on everything else.
	In the same sense, they want you to be able to do that, but they don't want you to suffer the economic consequences of those choices.
	So they allow you to go and have abortion on demand so that you're not suffering the economic consequences and therefore you have access to the redistributive justice that they want to provide for you.
	So they give you freedom in the social aspect, but take away your freedom and economic aspect, but in a sense that it's distributed free.
	Economic liberty is distributed equally, but that's a social justice approach to economics.
	That's not an American approach to economics.
	No, that's certainly true.
	I always love to hear that phrase, social justice.
	I take it you're using it in a parodic sense, Cliff, because I always, whenever I hear leftists talk about social justice, I always find myself rolling around on the floor laughing.
	But you're in Austin, Texas, and no, Jim, Jim, sorry, I jumped ahead of myself.
	Jim's in Pittsburgh.
	But there are certainly places where you will hear the word social justice uttered by people with a straight face.
	Thank you for your call, Jim.
	Let's quickly go to Cliff, as I mentioned, in Austin, Texas.
	Cliff, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Hello, Mark.
	First of all, I wanted to, for the people out there that don't know, Barack Obama has admitted publicly on video that somebody in Congress slipped something into the law now that could cause you to lose your doctor.
	Okay, I just wanted to make that comment, and then I wanted to ask you a question to see if you may have some knowledge of this.
	I absolutely think this law is a disaster, and I definitely believe that it's going to drive the private insurance companies out of business.
	And that begs the question for me, are there some insurance companies out there, the ones that actually insure Congress members that are exempted from all these mandates?
	Right, because otherwise, where is Congress going to go?
	That's a very good point, Cliff.
	I talked yesterday about how the object here is to put the private insurers out of business.
	And at that point, where will the congressmen go to get their health care treatment?
	We will talk about that momentarily.
	Stay tuned, Cliff, and we will deal with your question coming up, because this is one that other socialized and governmentalized healthcare systems have had to cope with in the last 50 years or so.
	I'll answer it in just a moment.
	Love that train.
	Love that train whistle.
	Wow.
	It's just like Amtrak, just like Amtrak, and now we've got an Amtrak health service.
	That is bound to work out just great.
	I just hope that when we're just hope that when we're sitting in the waiting rooms, we can hear that lonesome train whistle of the doctor approaching in the distance.
	Now, we took a call just before the break from someone who made the very good point that if the object of what has been passed just over a week ago is to actually put private insurance out of the healthcare business, because after all, there's no other way of looking at this.
	It's not insurance anymore.
	You're not insuring.
	If a guy can come in and say, well, I've got this disease, that disease, and everything else going, but you still got to insure me because that's what the government says, then that's not insurance.
	What they will do then is they will try to shift those costs onto other people.
	As we've said at the beginning of the show, it's projected that young people will see a 17% rise in the cost of their health care insurance.
	These are young, healthy people.
	So they basically do not have any diseases and have a much lower risk of getting them, but they will have to pay 17% higher health care costs because all these people who don't really qualify for health insurance are now getting in on health insurance.
	Well, what that's going to do is that's going to drive a lot of those young people to figure out some way of getting into a government scheme, to go on the scheme that Obama has announced, whereby until your 27th birthday, you can be on your parents' health care scheme.
	Again, that's going to put the costs of those up and it's going to drive those people into the government scheme.
	So eventually, health insurers are going to decide that they don't.
	And very quickly, this will all happen very quickly, that it's no longer worth being in the healthcare business.
	This happens to all kinds of other areas of insurance.
	I recently had to make changes in my workman's comp arrangements because I made the mistake of hiring somebody from New York State.
	And New York State imposes far more onerous workman's comp arrangements on employers than my own state of New Hampshire.
	And our company that we'd had doing Workman's Comp didn't want to get mixed up with the state of New York entirely reasonably.
	Nobody in their right minds would want to get mixed up with the state of New York.
	So we had to go off and find another insurer.
	And there's only really two.
	We only found two options for companies that were willing to do workman's comp insurance in the state of New York because the state of New York has chased them out of that business.
	Now what the government of the United States is doing is chasing private insurance out of the health insurance business.
	Very quickly this will happen.
	And in a short time it will become harder and harder to get health insurance.
	More and more people will be going towards government insurance and the Democrats will be able to step in and say this is why we should move to a single payer government health care system because private insurance cannot cope with it.
	The reason it won't be able to cope is because government ruined the private insurance market.
	It turned them into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
	It rigged them.
	When you go into a normal bank in the old days and you wanted to buy a house, the bank was allowed to do an objective evaluation of the likelihood of you being able to manage that loan and pay back that loan.
	So the government set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that said you're not allowed by law to take into normal account normal risk evaluation.
	We know what that did to the property market and now they're going to do it to the health market.
	And we had a call just before the break saying, well, what does that mean for the political class then?
	Where are Congress going to go to be treated?
	Because Congress don't want to be sitting there in the lousy, filthy, dirty waiting rooms waiting longer and longer for worse and worse health care the way it's going to be for everybody else.
	They want to be on the fast track to fabulous health care treatment.
	Well one of the interesting features of government health care systems where they're introduced is the ability of the political class to do what they call in Canada and Britain cue jumping, which means that no matter how long the line is, they can get ahead of it.
	We recently had a situation where the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador had a, required a heart operation.
	Where did he go for his heart or operation?
	Florida.
	Because if he'd wanted to have it done in Canada, he would have had to wait and wait and wait.
	Now, obviously, he's the Premier of Newfoundland, and it doesn't sound like such a big deal if you're in the United States.
	To be honest, it's not really that big a deal in Canada.
	Actually, in fact, it's not really that big a deal in Newfoundland.
	But, I mean, it's still for the allowances, making allowances for the, you know, America's Ricky Martin.
	Canada has the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
	But he's a big shot up there.
	So think of him like that.
	Like, he's the Ricky Martin of Newfoundland and Labrador.
	So he's a big shot.
	He doesn't want to have to sit around waiting for treatment.
	So he flew and he had his heart operation in Florida.
	And when he got back to Newfoundland, he said, well, it's my body, it's my health.
	I'll make my own decisions about what's best for me.
	He's in charge of a healthcare system that specifically denies that right to every citizen.
	In other words, if you're not the Premier and you can't afford to hop on a flight down to Miami and have it treated, have your healthcare needs taken care of in an American hospital, you just have to wait and wait and wait.
	And so that's what people like him do.
	They'll either fly, you know, generally speaking, if you swing by the Mayo Clinic, you can usually find a couple of big shot Canadians being treated there any day of the week.
	But more to the point, even in their own hospitals, because sometimes I remember the Premier of Quebec, he was the secessionist Premier of Quebec, a man called Lucien Bouchard.
	And about 15 years ago, he got some necrotizing fasciitis thing in hospital, which meant his leg had to be amputated.
	His leg, in fact, seceded from the rest of his body, much as the way he wanted to secede from Canada.
	Anyway, the point there is that you get fast-track treatment.
	If you're a member of the political class, you get fast-track treatment under those systems.
	It's a nomenclature exactly the same as it is in Russia.
	Every time I'm on here, the subject of healthcare comes up, I mentioned this marvelous film, Barbarian Invasions, which won the Oscar a few years ago.
	There's a scene in there.
	This guy's father is dying.
	He comes back, finds him in the corridor, wired up with all these tubes snaking down the corridor.
	It's like a third world refugee camp in there.
	No doctor or nurse calls him by the right name.
	So eventually he bribes everybody, bribes everybody to get this guy moved to a private room on an unoccupied floor.
	He's to bribe the union, bribe the administration, bribe the government, bribe everybody.
	And as the nurse is wheeling the patient into this room, she says, oh, normally you have to be a friend of a cabinet minister or a hockey player to get a room like this.
	And that's what happens.
	Whenever you have government-mandated equality, what you have, in effect, is government-connected inequality.
	The people who are plugged in, so don't kid yourself, by the way, if you've got big-time class envy and you think that Obama is going to stick it to the rich, and you say, good for Obama, good for Nancy Pelosi, good for Harry Reid, sticking it to the rich.
	No, they're not going to be affected by this.
	They've got workarounds.
	You look at all this stuff.
	You look at Obama's pals on Wall Street.
	You look at his pals, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
	They know who to pick up the phone and call.
	When they've got a problem, they can call somebody in Washington who will make the problem go away.
	They've got workarounds.
	You haven't got workarounds.
	Whatever system Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama are designing for you is the one that you're going to be living with.
	The idea that he'll be living with it or that Madame Pelosi will be living with it is ridiculous.
	Look at the way Nancy Pelosi.
	Look at the difference between the way you get around the country and the way Nancy Pelosi gets around the country and that ridiculous jet of hers with the absurd entourage that's bigger than a Gulf of Meers.
	This is, she flies around in greater luxury than most heads of state, than most hereditary monarchs.
	Why?
	She's supposed to be a citizen legislator.
	She tells you, she tells you, she designs the laws you have to live under, but it doesn't matter because you'll be down there in the ground sitting in the waiting room and she'll be in her private jet flying back from Washington to San Francisco unaffected by it whatsoever.
	And that's the difference.
	We're now a republic of citizen legislators is now decaying, decaying into an Obama clatura who make rules that they're not bound by, but you are.
	And that's the difference.
	1-800-282-2882.
	Mark Stein, Infra Rush on the EIB network.
	Great to be with you.
	Don't forget, Rush returns Thursday.
	Mark Davis will be here tomorrow.
	Let's go to Harold in San Angelo, San Angelo, I beg your pardon, San Angelo in Texas.
	Harold, you're live on the Rush Limbo show.
	Great to have you with us.
	Yes, San Angelo, the birthplace of France Parker, who used to be on the baby crocket.
	Oh, right.
	Yeah, and the guy who was responsible for selling millions of coonskin hats to a coonskin caps to a generation of not just Americans, but kids all around the world.
	You could go to grimy housing projects in Scotland in the 1950s, and all the little tykes would be running around with their coonskin caps on.
	Great man, Fess Parker.
	That's my town.
	And if this is the right, if that's all the whole place of Kenneth Punter, who has the brain char idea of C-SPAN?
	Oh, right.
	Well, that's not so good.
	On the whole, I prefer the Coonskin cap.
	I'd rather go with Fess Parker and the Coonskin caps than C-SPAN.
	Maybe, I don't know what does the C and C-SPAN stand for?
	Coonskin?
	If it was Coonskin Span, it'd be a whole other thing.
	But otherwise, I think I'll go with Fess Parker there.
	Great to have you with us, Harold.
	What's your point?
	I'm Harold Lopis, and I live here in San Angelo, Texas.
	I have two points to make.
	There is a system in the world that has been around since 1883, initiated by Bismarck in Germany.
	There is a system at work, and it's working very well today.
	In Germany, they only spend 10% of their GDP on health care, whereas the United States is spending 16%.
	As far as long delays for treatment, 68% of public and private patients by the Commonwealth Fund reported waiting for a week.
	I'll read this from 2009.
	It's an article.
	Well, let me just make a couple of points there.
	First, when you discuss these things, people say that the United States spends more on health care.
	Until this bill passed a week ago, the United States, as such, didn't spend anything on health care.
	300 million people reach individual decisions on what arrangements they want to make for their health care, and that adds up to a total sum.
	In, for example, the Dominion of Canada, healthcare is a line item in the budget.
	It's a line item in the budget.
	Every province sets a figure for what it will spend on health care, and nobody, no individual can go $200 over that.
	If you want to spend a couple of hundred dollars getting an MRI, you can't.
	You can't.
	That healthcare spending is a line item in the budget set by the government.
	The United States spends more because it's the decision of 300 million individuals.
	Now, you mentioned Bismarck.
	When Bismarck created essentially the modern welfare state in the late 19th century, this is the difference.
	He, at that time, in the 1880s, German life expectancy was 45, 45 years old.
	And you were entitled to your government pension at 70 under Bismarck.
	Now the average German lives till 78, 79, and you are entitled to your government pension.
	I think they've just put it up to 60 in Germany.
	So in other words, they're now paying on a scale what Bismarck certainly never intended when he set up the welfare state.
	I mean, basically, if you were in the 1880s, if you made it to 70, you were very rare, very unusual, and the German state could afford to pay for you.
	Now, everybody, with life expectancy that has near doubled in that 120 years, we now give pensions earlier and earlier and earlier in the Republic of Germany.
	So that right there, when you say Germany's doing fine, that right there is unsustainable.
	It's quite, it's unaffordable.
	And so you don't look at healthcare in isolation here, Harold.
	What you have to look at is its impact on the broader economic indicators.
	Germany is now a purely honorific member of the G7.
	It's got a declining population base.
	It will never actually earn its seat in the G7 again.
	All its major indicators are going down.
	Its population is aging rapidly, and the immigrants it's having to import to compensate for that have, in effect, figure out that it's a big welfare racket and get on the welfare thing.
	Now, you talk about, again, just take a basic economic indicator.
	40% of college-educated women in Germany are childless.
	So who's going to pay for that system in the future?
	I have a lot of respect for Steve Forbes and Forbes magazine, but if he thinks Germany is an example of a healthy society, he's lost his mind.
	Because Germany is in steep and irreversible decline.
	In Eastern Germany, in Eastern Germany, Harold, the population is emptying out so fast that the sewers aren't getting enough traffic, if you'll pardon my being discreet about it, for them to flow properly.
	So they're having to spend huge amounts of government money to narrow the sewers to cope with the reduced flow in these government towns.
	It's the precise opposite of what all the scare stories of the Liberals, you know, when the Liberals talk about sustainable growth, the problem in Germany they've got is sustainable lack of growth, sustainable lack of growth.
	Germany is not in any sense a healthy society, Harold.
	Well, I suspect the bus where Mr. Limbaugh is today.
	You said he was halfway around the world somewhere?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Am I correct in that?
	You think he's in Germany?
	Let's say he's in Germany.
	Okay, we're going to put Harold down for Germany.
	And don't forget, we're going to have a big draw.
	And the lucky winner who identifies the correct jurisdiction in which Russia's been scouting for still-functioning healthcare systems will win their very own Rush Limbaugh guest host.
	Obviously, the guy will be called Mark.
	Could be me, could be Mark Davis, could be Mark Belling.
	We've got a whole ton of marks.
	And you'll win your very own Rush Limbaugh guest host.
	If it is me, though, I should warn you, I can't keep up the accent for more than three hours.
	So it stood as in the fourth hour.
	If you want me to amuse your friends in your rec room and everything, it all starts going off after three or four hours.
	Anyway, great.
	Thanks for your call.
	Thanks for your call, Harold.
	Lots more straight ahead on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
	Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
	Mark Davis will be here tomorrow.
	And over here, Rush will be back and might even reveal the undisclosed location he's been in on Thursday.
	You know, we were talking about the unfortunate condition of that Chinese farmer with the man boobs, as they call them, that he's being treated for.
	Sumo suits, do you know these things?
	The plastic novelties that can transform a skinny sports fan into a comically unstable figure for the delight of a stadium audience are racist and dehumanizing instruments of oppression, according to the student government of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario.
	They appropriate an aspect of Japanese culture and devalue an ancient and respected Japanese sport rich in history and cultural tradition, and fail to capture the deeply embedded histories of violent and subversive oppression that the group has faced.
	This is all in the two-page apology letter.
	Cancelling a fundraiser that was supposed to feature two people, two students in sumo suits.
	They've now been forced to apologize for marginalizing members of the Queen's University community.
	This is the tragedy of a world of political correctness.
	There will be no jokes in it.
	There will be no humor in it.

▲