All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:12
November 30, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, this next story I just found is gonna make your day.
Ha ha ha ha.
Some of you people in moments are going to be fit to be tied.
In fact, why wait moments?
Why not just tell you now?
This is from the Hill.
And the headline says it all, although I will read details of the story.
Cantor.
Republicans will keep some provisions of Obamacare law intact.
House Majority Leader Designate Eric Cantor, Republican Virginia, said today, actually yesterday, that Republicans will not be seeking to completely scrap the health care reform law.
Cantor said that there are certain elements of current law that will be included in the Republican plan, which he said will move simultaneously with a repeal measure through the House.
Provisions that Republicans will seek to retain include the barring of insurance companies from refusing coverage to patients with a pre-existing condition, which means they're going to totally play politics with this, and allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.
Now you know what this means, right?
You can figure this out yourself.
You don't need me.
I feel like going home.
Well, I do when I read this.
Um provisions that Republicans will seek to retain, again, include the barring of insurance companies from refusing coverage to patients with a pre-existing condition.
So what the Candor is saying here is that we're going to maintain the notion of welfare in the health care reform law, because this isn't insurance.
When you demand an insurance company cover patients with pre-existing conditions, that's not insurance.
That's welfare.
That's you can you can say you like it, and you can say that you think we're going to do this because we have um uh we've read the tea leaves and we polled it, which is undoubtedly what's happened here, and they've seen that people like that.
They like this notion of pre-existence.
Okay, so how do we as Republicans support this?
Well, okay, we'll just go along and say we we like that, and we'll keep that in whatever our reform is.
But it isn't insurance, it's welfare.
Now one of my problems with this is that I think the problem they had in 1994 after they won was they stopped teaching.
Meaning they stopped explaining themselves as they went along in ideological ways.
They stopped telling people what conservatism is.
They stopped explaining this being done because we're conservatives.
And they can't do that on this one because conservative ideology does not support forcing insurance companies to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.
It's that would properly be if we were to proper education mode, it'd be called welfare.
We'd be telling people that's a welfare provision.
But I know what's happened here.
What's happened here is that Republicans have become convinced that this is something the people like.
And if they are going to repeal a significant portion of this, they're gonna have to also keep things that people like, whether they make sense or not, uh, whether they are health insurance or not, whether they're welfare or not.
That's obviously what's happened to.
They don't want to make a stand on look, this pre-existing condition for you, we know you like it, but it's not this shouldn't come under the heading of insurance because it isn't, it's welfare.
And of course, Republicans are calculating that people who like this do not want to be called welfare recipients, right?
So the path of least resistance is to say, yeah, we kinda we but we hear you, we know you like this, so we're gonna keep it in there.
The second uh is allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.
The polling data obviously shows people like that.
Republicans don't want to be seen as taking anything away.
Look, I know what's going on here.
One of the things that pointed out to you early on was that they better get this done.
If they're gonna repeal it, they better start doing it quick because Obama's theory is that once some of these goodies kick in, and in a Republicans start talking about repeal, then Obama will be able to say Republicans want to take away your health care.
Just like Republicans want to take away your social security and your Medicare.
So the Republicans guarding against that, I'm sure, have polled this, and they found out you like the idea of your kids being forced to be kept on your insurance policy until they're 26.
You like it.
So, Republicans, okay, we like it too.
That's there's no doubt that's what's going on here.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, are you trying to tell me in the rest of the country that you oppose this compassionate provision of having children stay on their parents' policy until they're 26th?
Yeah, because you're not a kid when you're 26.
You might be, but I wasn't.
If I had kids, if I had kids at age 26, if they're not on the way to protecting themselves, I am ticked off.
Damn straight I am.
At 26, you ought to be on the road here.
You better not be living living with me, and you had better be on the road to making your own way in the world because that's how you would have been raised.
Now, this is what living in literal ville means.
Some people prefer real.
Whatever works for you.
But I live in realville, and a 26-year-old is not a kid.
A 26-year-old is not a child, other than, well, yeah, it's my son, but at some point this notion of child ends, certainly before age 26.
But the Republicans have polled it, and they found out that many people like the idea because of the economic times we live in and the high cost of health insurance, and they want their kids to have health care, that it makes total sense to keep their kids on their policy until they're 20 cents.
Why not 30?
Why not be able to keep your kids on your policy until you die or they die?
What's the magic age here?
26.
Do you realize that most people 26 are not even going to need health insurance in the real world?
Catastrophic, yeah, but every day to day, no.
They're the healthiest among us.
Well, if we're going to means test Social Security, why not means test health care and so forth?
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, you're showing the world just how truly cold you are.
No, I'm not showing the world how cold I am.
I'm illustrating what a bunch of softies the rest of the world's become.
And I know, I know, look at I'm in a minority here, but I'm not trying to get votes.
They are.
That's that's the difference, folks.
They're trying to get votes, and they've polled you.
Now I just know when you see this headline, Cantor, Republicans will keep provisions of health care law intact.
Some of you are going to be fit to be tired.
What in the world?
They won the what what?
That's why I'm explaining this to you.
They've they've they've researched it.
They found a majority of Americans, again, just to repeat myself, like the notion of these evil insurance companies being forced to take patients with pre-existing conditions, and calling it insurance.
They like the idea that somebody with uh a year to live gets insurance to have it all paid for it, coverage paid for it.
They like it.
They think somebody else is going to pay for it anyway.
That's the Democrats and Obama have made that clear to people, you're not going to be paying your own.
It's like I guarantee you, if if you went out and polled the country, ask them this question.
Do you think that the fire insurance company should be required to sell you a policy while your house is burning down?
And if a majority of the American people said yes, the Republicans would support it.
Well, so would the Democrats too.
So you think that you ought to be able to go out and buy fire insurance for your home and you don't have it when your house is burning after the fire has started.
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, that's the only thing that would be fair.
Because most people can't afford the fire insurance before the fire starts.
Okay.
Well, if that happens, you're not going to be able to buy fire insurance because there's going to be nobody around to sell it.
They won't be there.
And it's the same thing with this pre-existing condition stuff.
You're not we're not talking insurance here.
Well, we're talking about because there's no difference.
Okay, you go to the doctor, you're diagnosed with a um well, that's that's a fatal disease.
And the law says, Well, you can go to the insurance company and they can insure you.
In case you get the disease.
Well, you've already got it.
Well, that's okay.
Pre-existing condition, they can't deny you.
Speaking to more than 100 students at a town hall event at American University of Washington, Cantor responded to a question from a young woman who suffered from a chronic health condition by telling her we want to keep the pre-existing condition clause.
Yeah.
She's chronically ill.
Um that's what she wants to hear.
He had the answer.
Con uh Cantor also told the woman under the Republican plan, she should be able to stay either on a parent's health insurance uh or be offered another equally affordable solution.
We've taken the positions that preserve what's good about our system without bankrupting the country.
So, there you have it.
Doobie doobie doobie.
Okay.
Uh anything else you want to hear today, folks, before I uh let's go to the audio sound vice.
This is uh this is somewhat interesting.
Democrat uh Speaker Pro Tim will not let Stephen Boyer, Republican of Indiana, speak.
This was yesterday on the House floor, and this is a um really interesting exchange.
Listen to this.
For what purposes the gentleman seek recognition?
I asked you now's consent to address the house for five minutes.
Hearing no objection.
Five minutes special orders are not being recognized in this.
I ask you're consent to dress the house for one minute.
Hearing no objection, I don't being entertained at this time.
Oh, so as a sitting member of the house, the speaker chooses not to recognize another sitting member.
Is that correct?
Recognition is within the discretion of the speaker.
So the discretion of the speaker here is not to recognize a ranking Republican member on a bill that is about to be heard that was never gone through the process of the committee.
I asked to be recognized.
The House is proceeding with motions to suspend the rules.
And if the chairman is not here to present the bill, shouldn't we go to the next bill?
And it would therefore withdraw this bill?
The gentleman has not been recognized.
I asked to be recognized.
I asked unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
I don't even see anyone here on the floor to object, madam speaker.
It's within your discretion.
There is no one here to object.
This is why the American people have thrown you out of power.
Stephen Boyer, Republican Indiana.
The woman there was uh Laura Richardson, uh Congresswoman Laura Richardson acting as uh Speaker Pro Tim.
She's a Democrat from California, and we will be right back.
Back to the phones we go, Steven in Sterling, Illinois.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello, sir.
Rush, chilly November and hand sanitizer dos to you, sir.
Thank you very much, sir.
Um just wanted to call make a real quick comment, if I could.
And nobody would expect you to be like Bob Barker and sign off asking people to have their pets spayed and neutered.
But the comment that you did make, it could be misconstrued when you said that you don't care what people do with their animals, that it's none of your business.
People could uh be of the mind, and I know I'm not.
I know that you're a good steward of animals.
I know how much you love pumpkin and your and your other animals, but people could misunderstrew uh misunderstand that to think that maybe you don't care about things like uh pit bull dog fighting or if somebody were to drown their cats in a gunnysack or animal cruelty, that kind of thing.
I just thought you might want to expound on that a little bit, uh if if that is uh how you might feel.
Are you uh before I expound on that a question?
Is it you would know better than I, is it a common perception out there that I am for animal cruelty?
No.
No.
I I wouldn't think that there's I'm sure there's lots of people that think that you're a mean guy.
But uh when you you told the one guy that you know you don't care what they do with their animals and it's none of your business with without a law of the caveat on the end of that, it could sound like, well, then he doesn't care about the subject matter was spayed and neutered, and that's what I was saying is none of my business what people do with their animals.
I certainly am not you know, I don't think Mike Vick's a great guy, and I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not here I'm not saying a cruelty to your animal or drowning them is fine with me as long as you want to do it.
I'm not saying that at all.
I understand.
I don't know how anybody can get there.
They have to be wanting to assume that.
Uh to to get to that point.
They have to be wanting because nothing I have ever said in the course of my uh life has ever given any indication I'm for cruelty to animals.
I I understand and I agree fully.
I just thought that people that don't know how much you love your animals might hear you say that and might not understand.
I I appreciate it.
I I do know that during the animal rights debate, a lot of people uh misunderstood it.
I live in Literalville, and you know, I said animals don't have rights, not in the way human beings do.
They simply don't.
And people did not understand that.
Because people don't live in literal.
I said, Well, what do you mean, Mr. Limbaugh don't have rights?
Well, have you you watched the latest animal show on TV?
What is it?
It's how one animal eats another.
What about the rights of the animal that got eight eaten?
Look, I know in our culture today, I occupy a very small space.
Realville did not have a whole lot of people living there.
We don't need a big fire department.
We don't need a whole lot of cops.
Sewage system is easily manageable.
We don't have any zoning problems in Littoreville.
There aren't too many people here.
And uh taxes in Littleville, sky freaking high.
Like they are everywhere else.
As another reason for the existence of uh of Literalville.
Uh look, folks, if animals have rights, we are slave masters.
I mean, that's the if i i b if be it i i it's the only way you could you could look at animals and say they have rights.
If they do, boy, are they getting the short end of the stick.
Well, they are.
We're there, they're indentured slaves.
That's all they exist for.
The way I mean we do it in the guise of love, but look, I don't expect this to be understood because right now I've crossed the emotional barrier and people are freaking out now.
I know they the only um you know, you somewhat spayed or neutered.
Um I sometimes worry whether the Republican Party's been spayed or neutered, uh uh but that's about the extent of it.
Um I am worried about that.
That seems to be a little bit more relevant now.
Uh who is uh who's next here?
Jim in Lodi, California.
Nice to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Hey, uh, you know, the uh like yesterday you had mentioned a question you asked um uh and put people on the spot just with the question.
And I think a question uh that the Democrats ought to be asked by the Republicans is if they think that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, DC can better utilize wealth than the people who earned it.
Well, the Democrats think yes.
Clinton has said so.
Bill Clinton said so in Buffalo.
No, the Democrats do think that, and they would have no problem saying so.
Well, you know, in in uh Thomas Sowell's book uh Basic Economics.
Yep.
He mentioned that politicians, when they have other people's money, they make political decisions with it.
Right.
People with their own money make economic decisions.
So it stands to reason that you're gonna better utilize wealth far better by letting uh individuals use it.
And I kind of look at it this way if like when they had the stimulus uh package, eight hundred billion dollars, and how many auditors did they have on that?
10,000, 20,000 auditors?
If you just had a tax cut, I mean uh uh moratorium on uh income taxes for six months or however long it would take to make eight hundred billion dollars.
You'd have a hundred and twenty million people with uh, you know, you say an average of five thousand dollars more for that period of time.
Yeah, but that's a hundred and twenty million auditors on that money.
And there's four things you can do with money spend it, save it, invest it, or give it away.
And I I say that you know, people can do that so far superior.
Make make the Democrats say, yeah, we know how to handle this money better than you do.
They do them say they they will.
They the president of the United States said it, Bill Clinton.
Obama has said it.
They they would have no qualm.
You're not gonna be putting them on the spot with that question.
They would love the question.
They'd love to be able to answer it, and they'll give you examples.
And let's look at the roads we built.
You think you would have built your own highway system?
Look at this that we built.
You think you would have built that for yourself?
No, you would have squandered it on a big screen TV.
No, they'd be waiting for that question.
They'd love it.
That's how they answer this stuff.
They're demagogues.
As to the stimulus, the premise, I understand the point that you're making.
Well, the real point, the stimulus was not to reduce poverty.
It was not to create jobs, it was not to reduce debt.
It was never it was a slush fund.
There was no economic purpose to the stimulus money.
It was pure politics.
As you have read Dr. Sowell say in his uh in his book.
There was not one purpose for the stimulus money.
Now, they didn't, of course, say that.
They won't admit that they won't.
Oh, Mr. Limbaugh is dead wrong about this.
Of course, we were trying to create and save jobs, and they're gonna hear the numbers we did say.
We saved and created three million jobs.
If we hadn't done this, it'd be even worse than it is.
But liberals are liberals, Democrats are Democrats, and they lie.
And that's really all you have to once you learn that, once you can accept that, once you can on every occasion listen to a Democrat politician speak and say that's a lie, then you are way over the hump in terms of understanding what's going on and then how to deal with it.
All right, don't go away.
We got lots more.
Right around the corner.
We are back at the cutting edge of societal evolution from CNN.
President Obama is considering at least a short delay to the start of his holiday vacation in Hawaii, so he can try to work out a deal with congressional Republicans on the uh extension of the Bush tax cuts.
A short delay, must be serious, snurdly.
A short delay on Obama's getaway to Hawaii.
Oh, Michelle and the kids are gonna go ahead, of course.
They'll look they'll be there.
Now, here, look, let's let's let's put this in perspective.
The people that make 250,000 a year, 500,000 a year, the millionaires of billionaires who are already paying more than 40% of all federal income taxes, are understandably upset about being singled out as not paying enough and not deserving of any tax relief.
That's what that's a Democrat position.
The 40% who are paying for they're probably paying more than 60% when you include the 250 grand.
I mean, the upper 5% is paying almost all of it.
And they're they're they're being singled out as not paying enough and not deserving of any tax relief.
And who are the Democrats playing to in Obama?
They're playing to the 40 to 50 percent of Americans who pay nothing in income tax, federal income tax.
This is a pure class envy thing.
The Democrats know that there are more people not in the top 5% of wage earners than there are people in the top 5%.
Obviously, the mathematical certainty.
So they're playing to the masses.
And of course, the people, the millionaires and billionaires, they're afraid to speak up because they're gonna sound greedy.
I remember watching Andy Grove.
He was on This Week with David Brinkley once during the Clinton years, and Clinton was talking about uh limiting the deduction, the business deduction for corporate salaries to one million dollars.
Anything over that you couldn't deduct as a business expense.
They asked Andy Grove about it.
I don't know.
I uh David, I'm not gonna make uh comment here in a silly uh social uh aspect.
They want to go there.
The so-called rich are not gonna start whining and moaning.
But that's how they feel.
What do you mean?
We're not we're paying the lion's share, but now you're telling us we're not paying enough.
Yeah, we don't.
Uh and and so now the Democrats are continue to blame those people because the Democrats know those people will not speak up.
Obama ended his remarks here just a moment ago in his tax cut business.
He said he very much looks forward to continuing this dialogue in the months ahead.
Months ahead.
Months ahead, folks.
The top 1% pays about 32% of all income taxes.
Type top 5% pays more than half.
The top 10% pays close to 65%, if not more.
And those people are being blamed for not paying enough.
I mean, that's really uh what it gets down to.
Okay, let's let's get to Anne Althouse and her post on me and Julian Assange.
Here's her post.
Julian Assange, and she quotes me, he's a sissy, is a waif purely and simply an internet creation.
That is how Rush Limbaugh talked about Julian Assange on his show yesterday.
What I'm interested in here is not Assange per se or what Limbaugh thinks of him.
I'm interested in the gratuitous disparagement of men whose looks and person style fail to track the masculine stereotype.
And then she quotes me.
Let's look at Julian Assange.
In a contest between Janet Napolitano and Julian Assange, who do you think it'd win?
Big sis, there's no question about it.
Now, if Janet Napolitano Big Sis can put her hands down our underwear at any airport in America she chooses, why can't she get her hands on the State Department leaker?
Why can't she get her hands around the scrawny little neck of Julian Assange?
And all the other people at WikiLeaks.
This little guy, this little wafer little Peter Pan Julian Assange, does anybody really believe that's his real name?
Then I have to bleep myself when I came up with what I think is his real name.
I did.
I had to bleep myself the first time in broadcast history that I had to bleep myself.
So she then posts our website graphic that we put up yesterday of Julian Assange as Peter Pan.
And Hillary is there as Tinkerbell, by the way.
And then she writes, Limbaugh seems to have a general aversion to effeminate men, not to mention mannish women, as in Big Sis.
And he's not processing this rather low reflex into much of anything but the repetition of the word sissy.
I like Rush Limbaugh.
I've defended him many times in front of people who tend to hate you if you say anything good about him.
So I think my opinion on this subject of Rush Limbaugh has special weight.
And I think this sissy business is beneath him.
There's something in the leaked rant that's worth saying that was worth saying, and if you read the whole thing, you'll see that Limbaugh was criticizing our government for not being able to catch Assange.
In that context, the apparent feebleness of the man is relevant.
If Limbaugh wants to say Assange is a weak little man and he's making us look weak, that's fine.
What I don't like is the implication that in general men who look small, thin, and weak don't count as real men.
Now Limbaugh's own critics frequently gratuitously point out that Limbaugh's fat.
I'm sure that creates a temptation for the big guy to swing back at little men.
I'm not saying he has to resist the temptation every single time, but process it into something better than saying sissy over and over.
Well, I did, and but I had to bleep myself.
The subject, after all, was strength and weakness, and that was weak comic rhetoric.
Calling Julian Assange a sissy.
And I just you know, I didn't say it.
I one of the one of the problems here is that I assume that everybody takes everything I say in context because I assume everybody listens every day, unless everybody knows what I said yesterday, last week, the day before.
Most people do listen all the time every day.
Some don't.
And of course, this would come under the general heading of the chickification of our culture and the chickification of our society and the chickification of our institutions, which of course is not a good thing.
And to have somebody like Julian Assange be a hero to anybody is just something just offends my sensibilities.
But uh I don't know, I just guy's a coward.
He won't show up anywhere.
He hides behind the skirts of women or whoever he's hiding.
Well, she doesn't say sissy is an invalid term, she's saying it is beneath my vocabulary communicative powers and skills.
I should have come up with something better than to just consistently use the word sissy as a means of getting a laugh.
And I wasn't trying to get a laugh with this, by the way.
Well, I mean, sissy is effective.
I don't think there's anybody who doesn't know what a sissy is, and the people that hate it most are sissies.
Sissy, because everybody knows who they are.
Sissy means effeminate and also cowardly.
And isn't what Assange is doing is cowardly.
I mean, he's uh he's been.
Well, here, here's it here's a companion story.
This is from uh a geek tech site.
It's called The Register.
And this story is posted out of San Francisco.
WikiLeaks is hosting its cache of confidential U.S. statement department, or U.S. State Department cables on U.S.-based Amazon servers, just as it did with the classified Iraq war documents it released last month.
According to Netcraft's records, the whistleblowing website is mirroring the diplomatic cables on Amazon's U.S.-based EC2 service and France-based servers operated by French ISP Octopus.
The uh, well, that's how you pronounce it, O C T O P U C E, Octopus.
The main WikiLeaks site is mirrored on Ireland-based Amazon servers.
Now, you you would think that Amazon might do something about this.
But then again, you might not.
WikiLeaks also uses a U.S.-based domain name registrar, DynaDot, and a U.S.-based DNS service, everyday DNS.
Now, in theory, if the U.S. government decides that WikiLeaks has broken the law in publishing federal intelligence data, it could move to have WikiLeaks booted from such U.S.-based servers.
In fact, the DHS, Homeland Security, and ICE could even close down these sites and take over their domain names, as they are wont to do with piracy sites that might impact the U.S. entertainment industry.
That's why I said yesterday, if uh if only Assange would start making uh stolen rap CDs available, we'd make a move on him.
We've shut down 75 domains that were making available pirated music and so forth.
But pirated State Department data, not much we can do about it.
And that begs the question, why not?
Now, Peter King, Congressman Long Island, thinks that Obama identifies with a guy like Assange.
And that that's why he doesn't seem all that upset about it.
Peter King thinks I said so yesterday.
In my in my own inimitable uh way.
Uh which is, okay, this is proving truly embarrassing and disconcerting to the U.S., and isn't that the idea of this administration?
Isn't that the point?
Doesn't Obama think this country's guilty?
Does he really that upset about all this?
And who does this in a in a in a professional legal sense?
Who really is uh is harmed here?
This it is all coming out of the State Department.
This is Hillary.
And now we got a story today that Hillary, he don't the cables said that Hillary was ordering State Department employees to spy on UN diplomats.
That's totally believable.
I mean, this is the bunch that had 500 FBI files when they were in the White House.
900 FBI files.
So it makes total sense that Hillary would be ordering her people to spy on these diplomats of the United Nations.
She went down to uh, was it Argentina?
And she did an in-depth study of the drug use and other personality quirks of this Christina babe, this president down there.
So Hillary has assigned uh herself the task of spying on people at the UN and determining the fitness of this Christina babe.
Hillary is treating the United Nations like Bill's bimbos.
You know, creating dossiers on them.
I know it could be the reaction to reverse Operation Chaos.
I I don't think you can take that out of this equation.
My reverse operation chaos, the behavior of the Clintons here.
And you have his little sissy, Julian Assange, right thrown in the middle of it.
Assange is a community organizer on the world stage.
And who's his enemy?
The United States of America.
This little gutless wonder hates this country.
And he's doing his best to uh harm, damage, embarrass, and impune the country.
And frankly, I just have to say that the protestations of outrage coming from our government just don't seem to have a whole lot of energy behind them from Holder and his threatened lawsuits and Hillary and whatever she did.
That doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of outrage over this.
And again, New York Congressman Peter King says, well, uh Obama can identify with a guy like uh Julian Assange, who is effeminate and cowardly.
But look, uh to those of you who are uh uh uh uh offended by my description of Assange as a sissy, would you want him in the foxhole with you?
I mean, that's a common way of asking someone, would you want this guy to have your back?
Is this somebody that you could uh depend on?
But there's no look at the the the chicken of our culture and society is is rampant.
We've become defensive, we've become politically correct.
We've been overly concerned with everybody's feelings about things and thinking that we're in charge of them and we can manipulate them and uh and all of this.
And just I mean, I never said Ellsberg was a sissy.
Never said that Gordon Liddy was a sissy.
Never said that E. Howard Hunt was a sissy.
But I did say that Julian Assange is.
They are attempting to destroy our organization.
He does this.
He gets on Skype or something from his little hole that he lives in and goes on television in Arab countries to explain what he's doing.
Big whoop.
Uh, why don't you go on Fox, Mr. Assange, or go on CNN of it or go on, you know, you know, get it.
MSNBC, they love you.
And we'll be back.
All right, back to the phones we go.
This is uh Joe in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Nice to have you, sir, and the EIB network.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You have a great show.
Thank you very much, sir.
This is uh on health care.
If Eric Canner gets his way with the adult provision for children age 26, being on their parents' policy and particularly the pre-existing conditions quad.
Will not that be the death of private health care?
How so?
Explain yourself to the audience, sir.
Well, you know, it it's a matter of like you said earlier in the show about the fire, you know, the house on fire thing.
You know, if the house is on fire, and then you run out and get coverage, it's gonna kill them.
They can't afford it Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
The end of the yeah, they put them out of business because they can't stay in business, you know, no, no, no uh home insurance outfit could stay in business insuring the house after the fire starts.
Right, exactly.
Well, that is the that is the objective of the uh of the regime.
You think it's the intention?
Of the regime?
Yeah, of the Obama but oh, yeah, to put private insurance out of business to to destroy the private insurance industry, yeah.
No question that's their objective.
He said so.
He's been saying so since 2002 or 2003.
We've got the tapes.
We have aired the Tapes.
He told his union buddies back in Chicago.
He wants to get the single payer, but he knows it's gonna take 10 to 15 years.
You gotta do stuff like this.
You can't just do it overnight.
The American people won't accept it overnight, but when they have no choice to accept, kind of like the you know the old story, you throw a stupid frog, sissy frog into boiling water, and it'll jump right out of there.
But you throw a sissy frog in a pot of cold water and turn the heat on, it heats up really slowly before the sissy frog realizes it's too late, he's dead.
And that's the uh that's the Obama store.
Okay, Namby pambi.
If you don't like sissy, Nambi pam wuss.
I I I could have changed it up a little.
I mean, I admit this.
Yeah, I'm just sitting here looking at some sound bites uh we have here after the Republican leadership meeting with Obama.
And even though uh you're not gonna like it, we will air the audio sound bites when we come back.
The Republicans came out of the meeting easier uh eager to prease, sorry, eager to praise the president, and Obama praised their civility.
▲
Export Selection