All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:56
January 27, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama was out selling his State of the Union class warfare rally, Vegas, a couple other places.
And did you hear what he said about the economy?
I want, it's Obama, I want an economy where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around.
I want an economy where UPS and moving stuff around.
We want to make stuff.
We want to sell stuff.
We're going to move it around.
Obamanomics.
And it's Friday, so let's keep going here.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Great to have you here.
It's so much fun being with you to do this every day.
Telephone number, and we'll get to your calls El Quicko here, 800-282-2882, and the email address, illrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Now, this examiner piece, the Washington Examiner, 1994 report, Santorum supported individual mandate.
It's a very short story, but it says Rick Santorum supported the idea of requiring individuals to buy health insurance when he ran for the Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during the election cycle, 1994.
And then at the end of the short piece in the examiner, it says, the morning call, that's a local newspaper in Pennsylvania.
A morning call does not quote Santorum making comments supportive of an individual mandate, nor does the newspaper quote any other candidates in the piece, which attempts to summarize several candidates' positions on healthcare.
There are no direct quotes, but yet he supported the individual mandate back in 1994.
Next, we'll hear the Rip Reagan.
Santorum hated Reagan.
That's next.
Now, you remember 1994, that was the height of Hillary care and the debate there.
So everybody had that position.
And I do know that Santorum was for individual health care accounts, medical savings accounts, which he still favors.
Now, there's also a piece here, RawStory.com.
It's one of those blogs out there.
And I'm just going to tell you what it says.
I don't know if true, I never, I don't know who Raw Story is.
Billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros told Reuters global editor-at-large, Christia Freeland, that he still supported Obama, but he predicted that voters would not be very enthusiastic about the 2012 elections if Romney was nominated by Republicans.
Soros said, look, either you're going to have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case, I think it'll make a big difference which of the two comes in.
But if it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference except for the crowd that they hang out with.
And it may be better food.
Probably better food on the Romney side.
Soros acknowledged that a major difference between Romney and Obama would be their Supreme Court nominations.
But other than that, there's no difference in these two guys other than the people they hang out with.
George Soros.
Now, why would Soros say that, if he did, why would he say this?
Yeah, yeah, well, what's the psychological game that he's playing?
He's endorsing Romney.
Yeah, he says, yeah, you see, Romney, that's cool.
No difference.
I could go with either way that way.
Now, Soros knows that he's hated by the Republican base.
So if he's playing psychology, he's trying here to stoop Romney, if you will.
Back now to the audio soundbites.
We left off with Santorum saying, going up against Obama, who are you going to claim top-down government-run medicine on the federal level doesn't work, and we should repeal it?
And he's going to say, wait a minute, Governor, Obama's going to say, you just said top-down government-run medicine, Massachusetts works well.
Folks, we can't give this issue away in the election.
It's about fundamental freedom.
Next up, it was Romney's turn to reply, who gives a defense.
See what you think of this.
I didn't say I'm in favor of top-down government-run health care.
92% of the people in my state had insurance before our plan went in place, and nothing changes for them.
They own the same private insurance they had before.
And for the 8% of people who didn't have insurance, we said to them, if you can afford insurance, buy it yourself.
Any one of the plans out there.
You can choose any private plan.
There's no government plan.
And if you don't want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for the cost of the state picking up your bill because under federal law, if someone doesn't have insurance, then we have to care for them in the hospitals, give them free care.
So we said, no more.
No more free riders.
Now, I know I'm going to get a lot of trouble here with certain people, but I think Obama could say the same thing.
Obama has said the same thing, defending Obamacare.
For example, Romney says, 92% of people in my state had insurance for our plan went in place.
Nothing changes for them.
Obama, if you like your plan, you get to keep your plan, except that you don't.
But that's what Obama said.
You like your plan, you get to keep it.
We're not touching it.
You like your doctor, you get to keep it.
We're not changing it.
For the 8% of the people who didn't have insurance, we said to them, if you can afford it, buy it.
And if you don't want to buy insurance, then you got to help pay for the cost.
Obama, you got to buy insurance or pay a fine.
It's the same thing.
This is Santorum's point.
It's the same thing.
Your option is to buy insurance required or you pay a fine.
Now, the way Obamacare is structured, the fine is much cheaper than the insurance for a couple of years by design.
The idea is to get people paying the fine.
They are the free riders.
Romney's right.
They pay the fine, but they show up in the emergency room.
By law, they have to be treated.
They're the free riders.
So Santorum says, see, it's the same thing.
Obama's doing the same thing.
Romney doesn't call his plan a fine.
You don't buy insurance, then you have to help pay for the cost.
It's the same thing.
This is why people say there's not much difference in two plans.
And Romney says, because under federal law, if somebody doesn't have insurance, then we have to care for them in the hospitals, give them free care.
So we said, no more free riders.
So you're paying the fine or you're buying health insurance, which is what Obamacare is.
And the fine is cheaper at first.
The whole point of Obamacare, remember, is to get people out of their current insurance plans.
And if somebody's 25 or 30 thinking they're immortal, they're not going to get sick, why go out and spend 15 grand on an insurance policy?
Well, all I got to do if I have an emergency is go to the emergency room.
So I'll pay what the fine is $800.
I think I'm grabbing a figure out of the air.
But it's compared to whatever the insurance policy will cost you.
The fine's nothing.
Be structured that way.
Obama wants people paying the fine.
He wants young people to pay.
He wants them not having insurance because while they're doing that, Obamacare is going to push private sector health insurance out of business.
And by the time it's all said and done, five years or more, the only place you're going to be able to go to get health insurance is the government and one of their numerous exchanges.
It's the plan.
The plan is to wipe out private sector insurance.
And once it's gone, somebody tell me how it comes back.
This is why this is so crucial.
So Santorum then replied and gets Romney to admit that his plan's a mandate.
Does everybody in Massachusetts have a requirement to buy health care?
Everyone has a requirement to either buy health care or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care.
Because the idea of people getting something for free when they could afford to care for themselves is something that we decided in our state was not a good idea.
So in Massachusetts, just understand that.
In Massachusetts, everybody is mandated as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts to be able to buy health insurance.
And if you don't, and if you don't, you have to pay a fine.
What's happened in Massachusetts is people are now paying the fine because health insurance is so expensive and you have a pre-existing condition clause in yours just like Barack Obama.
All right.
So the similarities, this was the best attack, I guess, on RomneyCare that's happened yet in these debates.
So Romney, this is where he gets frustrated and says, look, it's not really worth getting angry about here.
First of all, it's not worth getting angry about.
Secondly, 98% of the people have insurance.
And so the idea that more people are free-riding the system is simply impossible.
I know you don't like the plan that we had.
I don't like the Obama plan.
If I'm president of the United States, I will stop it.
And in debating Barack Obama, I will be able to show that I have passionate concern for the people in this country that need health care, like this young woman who asked the question.
But I will be able to point out that what he did was wrong.
It was bad medicine.
It's bad for the economy.
And I will repeal it.
Wolf, what Governor Romney said is just factually incorrect.
Your mandate is no different than Barack Obama's mandate.
It is the same mandate.
He takes over, you take over 100%, just like he takes over 100%, requires the mandate.
The same fines that you put in place in Massachusetts are fines that he puts in place in the federal level.
Congressman Paul was right, Brad.
Same program.
And Paul said, they don't either of them know what they're talking about.
And the place erupted.
So that was the assault.
That was the titan, the back and forth on RomneyCare being Obamacare.
And Santorum's saying, we can't give this issue away.
And he's right.
And finally, Romney said, look, it's not worth getting angry about.
And it is.
Maybe anger doesn't sell on television.
This is where, I don't know, I actually think people mad on TV can be made to work.
I used to do it in Sacramento.
I debated the mayor at Davis three times a week.
He couldn't help but get mad.
He's a nice guy, but he was a commie.
And just, in fact, that's where I debuted.
He was all upset about feminism one day and my position on it.
Oh, you remember?
He was all exercised and doing a typical academic liberal approach.
Well, I think Mr. Limbo would quite agree with me.
I said, look, let me just cut to this.
I love the feminist movement, especially when walking behind it.
And Even the cameramen started laughing, which never happens.
So that was the back of me.
It is worth being mad about.
And Romney's saying, hey, come on here.
Not worth getting angry about.
Now, I've been told that was Romney's attempt to call attention to the fact that Santorum looks dour and he's got a propensity to getting mad and so forth, that it might not have been Romney not understanding the passion about it.
Either way, it was an attempt to stanch the flow of blood that was taking place.
Okay, so I got to take a timeout here, folks.
We will do that, and we'll come back and get to your phone calls.
Gallup is out with more polling data.
And this is not a surprise.
2011 was the most polarized third year of a presidency by a wide margin ever.
You know, Mama was going to bring us together.
We're going to become one.
We're going to get rid of all the old divisions.
We're going to love each other.
World was going to love us.
We're going to come together.
We're going to put aside the old politics.
The historically high gap between partisans' job approval rating of Barack Obama continued during his third year in office, an average of 80% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans approve of the job he's doing.
That is what we call polarization.
And it's the most polarized third year of a presidency in many, many moons, according to Gallup.
We are back.
Great to have you here on the EIB Network.
Here are the numbers.
Where are the numbers?
Here we go.
Obamacare fine by 2016, four years from now, for those of you in Rio Linda, the fine for not having health insurance, $695, or 2.5% of your household income.
I don't know if it says whichever is the least, but 2.5% of somebody's household income could be pretty high.
But if you've got the option to pay $695, I mean, who wouldn't pay that?
That's the whole point.
You make that fine so cheap.
I mean, you could move out of mom and dad's house or you could get off of mom and dad's policy for $695 a year.
And then when you get sick, go to the emergency room.
That's what they're counting on.
And by the way, that's 2016.
The fine's cheaper than that before you get to 2016.
I do believe.
Oh, it's the higher of the two that you are required to pay, the higher of the two.
For a lot of people, $695 is going to be the higher of the two.
$695 is the minimum.
Now, in Massachusetts, the people of Massachusetts favor Romney care 3 to 1, according to polling data.
According to every poll, the people in the U.S. oppose Obamacare 3 to 1.
Romney, there's some things he could say to defend himself.
They could do a better job on this.
If it were me, I could do a better job defending it than he's doing.
What I was going to say scrolled out of view here in my notepad because I keep jotting stuff down here.
But anyway, I promise to go to the phones.
We'll do it.
Here's Jim in Concord Township, Ohio.
You're up first on Open Line Friday.
Great to have you here, sir.
It's a great honor, Rush.
Hey, I'm a diehard conservative.
The thing that bothers me during these debates, especially with Romney and Gingrich, is the gotcha questions that they keep coming up with.
And for instance, the healthcare last night.
I mean, Romney has said over 50 times he'll repeal Obamacare.
And every one of the candidates has said the same thing.
And I'm a little frustrated about is nobody's saying what they would do going forward because healthcare is in a little bit of a mess right now.
And nobody has a plan that's out there.
And I'd like to, Romney being the best fiscal conservative out of the three and promising as he has that he won't follow Obamacare, I'd like to see what he has, and I think he'll have a great plan going forward.
That's an interesting point.
Because you're right.
Every Republican saying he would repeal it, but they don't offer an alternative.
Maybe they have, and it's out there in their white papers in their 59-point plan.
It's hard to do that on a debate where you only get like 30 seconds.
Well, you know, you've got, some of them say we want to replace parts of it.
Some of them say that we can't get rid of the whole thing.
Some say, as I said in the first hour, hey, there are parts of this that the American people want.
Preexisting condition.
Keep your worthless kids on the policy updates 26, all that kind of stuff.
We've got to be very careful, Rush.
We can't just broom the whole thing.
Some of them are saying that.
Santorum, I fought last night, got closer than anybody else has in talking about what needs to be done to fix this, and that is orienting healthcare costs to people's ability to pay, i.e., market forces.
Imagine if hotels were not priced according to people's ability to pay.
And nothing about a hospital stay that is priced according to the market, according to what people can afford.
But in the hotel business, you've got every option from ramping by the hour right by the George Washington Bridge to the St. Regis.
Whatever you can pay for however little or long you want to stay, the option, hotel-wise, is there.
I've never been there, but you can't miss it.
It's right there when you're going through.
It's actually the Lincoln Tunnel.
I'm sorry, it's a Lincoln tunnel, not the George Washington Bridge.
It's a Lincoln tunnel.
You're heading into the city.
It's right there, right before you go down the hill and make the turn into the tunnel.
By the hour.
I drive by there.
I wonder who's in there right now.
Some mob guy in there with some mole, but it's there.
Then you go to Indianapolis.
Indianapolis has a Super Bowl next weekend.
You can't get a room now.
In Dallas, you could, but there's 6,000 hotel rooms in Indianapolis.
6,000 hotel rooms.
That's not very many for a Super Bowl.
One of the best hotels in town there is the Conrad.
It's a Hilton.
It's been booked for three years.
The NFL took it.
They can charge whatever they want for it this week.
Any hotel can charge whatever they want.
And that's the market, the market working.
You know, of course, there's gouging.
Oh, everybody complains about the gouging, but they pay it.
We're a nation of whiners.
If you want, if you want to buy a suite, lease one at Lucas Oil Stadium for the Super Bowl.
I check.
There's one for a million dollars that has something 24 seats in it.
Now, what's that for?
A million dollars for a suite.
Somebody leased it early on, either can't go or is trying to flip it for the market.
That doesn't happen in healthcare is my whole point.
And Santorum was saying, go to medical savings accounts, make it so that people buy their medical care, and they can only pay what they can afford, and watch what will happen at prices.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
George Soros did say it.
This is Wednesday on Reuters' website, Reuters.com, the Freeland file, digital editor Christian Freeland interviewing George Soros.
This was in Davos.
Switch between Obama and Romney.
There isn't all that much difference, except for the crowd that they bring with them.
Romney would have to take Gingrich or Santorum as a vice president and probably have some pretty extreme candidates for the Supreme Court.
So that's the downside.
On the other side, the Obama administration is a bit exhausted, so it's not all that strong.
So it won't be that great a difference, and I think there won't be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground.
It will be more civilized than the previous elections have been.
That's George Soros, who thinks if it's Romney, there's going to be a boring election.
Nobody's going to be enthused on either side.
The Obama side's exhausted, tired, worn out.
His supporters down in the dumps.
Nothing's happening like it was supposed to.
Romney doesn't excite the Republicans.
Be pretty civilized.
Won't be a great deal of enthusiasm.
Does this guy sound like a bond villain or what?
But he said it here.
If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference, except for the crowd that they bring with them.
George Soros, who, by the way, got a big stake in this stuff, as we all know.
Jacob in Atlanta, if we go back to the phones and open line Friday, hello.
Yes, sir.
I'm actually an independent voter, and I'm an Army veteran.
And I have a two-part question for you about Congressman Paul.
Okay.
One being, he's currently polling 5.8 points behind Obama in the general election, while Newt Gingrich is polling 11.7 points behind him in the general election.
And that's a real clear politics average.
And the second part, do you feel that he's failing to energize the Republican base due to his radical policy changes, such as ending income tax, ending Obamacare, and abolishing the IRS?
I also want to say hello to my dad in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Chill.
No, I think the problem with Ron Paul that most people have on the Republican side is his foreign policy.
There's no reason for us to do it.
In fact, we're responsible for all the terrorism.
We are responsible for all the bad guys shooting at us because we're shooting at them.
We're going to war all over it.
We're making a war.
What would you do?
If we did, if they did what we did.
So a lot of people have a big problem with thinking that the United States are responsible for the incident on 9-11.
That's probably the number one problem people have with Ron Paul.
Okay.
Were you aware of that?
Well, I am, but a lot of my friends who are also independent voters were just, you can obviously see in the polling for Ron Paul that it's just definitely helped him a lot.
Let me ask you this question.
Can I ask you a question as an independent voter?
Yes, sir.
When Republican candidates are highly critical of Obama, what is your reaction to that as an independent voter?
There's certain things that I disagree with President Obama on as far as his funding for veterans and veterans affairs and everything of that nature.
I strongly support that.
However, I do feel that we do need to get back to a balanced budget.
Right.
But when a Republican candidate goes after Obama is incompetent or says he's a socialist or the guy is ruining the economy, what is your reaction as an independent?
At times, earlier in his earliest presidential years, it was a lot different.
I wanted to essentially give him a shot at the presidency.
However, now, with the lack of everything that's been done in Washington over the last three or four years.
What is the challenge in answering this question?
The challenge?
I'm not asking you about policy.
I'm asking you, what is your reaction to a Republican when they criticize Obama?
It's neutral.
I don't get offended anymore.
Really?
Okay, cool.
Cool.
All right.
Do you, what is Ron Paul like he wants to legalize most drugs?
So the government's got no business denying people that kind of freedom.
Do you agree with that?
Not necessarily to a certain extent.
I know that there's a lot of, as far as marijuana legalization, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars for such a petty crime, in my opinion.
What?
Trying to shut it down?
I'm sorry, sir.
What's the waste of taxpayer dollars?
The battle on marijuana.
Oh, the battle in marijuana.
I saw a story.
By the way, there's some Swiss, Swedish, French, some other, some outfit has made a marijuana spray for multiple sclerosis.
It's been approved in some European countries.
They're going to ask the FDA to approve it here.
They hope to get it approved by 2013 or 2014.
And it's got THC and cannaboid cannibalists, whatever the ingredient is, but it doesn't give you the high.
You spray it in your mouth like a breath spray, and it's supposed to have all the wonderful medical benefits of marijuana without the high.
And it's primarily being used to treat multiple sclerosis in the European countries where it's been approved.
I wonder, we'll see.
And by the way, it also does not, from what I understand, what I read, it does not enhance the appetite, which marijuana does.
So it'd be interesting to see if the medical marijuana gang in this country would support an oral spray of marijuana doesn't give you a high, does not increase your appetite, but effectively deals with a medical problem.
That would be fascinating.
Jacob, thanks for the call.
Tony in Denver, you're next.
It's great to have you here, sir.
Megadittos, O Grey, Maha.
Thank you for taking my call.
The name of the drug is Satovex, S-A-T-I-V-E-X.
Satovex.
Sate of X.
I don't know how you pronounce it.
There are side effects, sleepiness, nausea, dizziness.
They usually go away in a period of weeks, is what I'm told.
I'm sorry about Tony.
Yeah, hi.
Hey, it's very clear to me from last night's debate that Romney supports an individual mandate as a condition of breathing that we must buy health insurance.
Rush, what is going to happen this summer when the Supreme Court decides if an individual mandate is constitutional?
If Romney is a nominee, there's no way the court will rule against Obamacare.
Our nominee has to be opposed to an individual mandate.
Do you really believe that Romney would pressure the Supreme Court to rule against something he supports?
No, the president's not ⁇ there's no president's going to pressure a Supreme Court.
I mean, would Romney support pressure the Supreme Court to rule against something he supports, the individual mandate.
And one more thing.
Wait, wait, hold it.
I'm losing you on this.
Maybe it's the language you're using I'm not following.
Romney pressures the Supreme Court to rule against something that he supports, the individual mandate.
Yeah, he's not going to pressure the court to rule against an individual mandate because he supports an individual mandate, just like Santorum brought out of him last night.
What's going to happen?
The Supreme Court is going to have...
Well, if the Supreme Court rules that the mandate's constitutional, it doesn't matter.
That's...
That's your fear is that Romney will cave if that happens?
No, he's going to be on Obama's side when it comes to ruling on the individual mandate.
That's my fear.
He supports it.
And Rush, can I please ask you another question?
In a few days, you have to vote.
Sarah Palin was brave and told us who she would vote for.
Are you going to show courage and tell us who you're voting for?
See, my way out of that is to say that's not how I define courage.
Now, I'm still trying to figure out the other thing you said.
I want to understand this.
The Supreme Court could rule.
I don't think it's automatic.
Now, my friend, I have a lot of friends in the legal community who think that it is automatic.
I have a lot of friends in a legal community who think the Supreme Court wouldn't dare declare it unconstitutional.
Separation of powers and all that, that they wouldn't dare, that they sometimes read the election results.
They don't want the hassle a problem.
It's something that the elected representatives, the people, passed, and it's just going to happen.
A lot of people, legal side, do not see the court rendering a decision that says Obamacare is unconstitutional.
I'm more of an optimist.
If the court renders it unconstitutional, then Obamacares, that's the fundamental element of it, and it breaks apart, falls apart, breaks down.
Now, I don't understand your question about Romney, but he didn't say embarrassed to me.
Tony, try this one more time.
I'm not sure what you're asking me about Romney and the Supreme Court.
Well, if Romney is our nominee, I need to go very slow.
If Romney is our nominee, okay, that'll be in September, August.
Okay.
If he's our nominee and he does not pressure the Supreme Court to rule against an individual mandate and Obama does not pressure the court to the Roman Committee.
The court's decision is going to come in June.
Long before we have a name.
Well, we might know who the nominee is, but he won't be coronated until the convention.
Yeah, our nominee is going to be chosen by you down in Florida this coming Tuesday.
Okay.
Okay, here's what I'm getting.
I think we are two ships passing in the night is your term, Romney, if Romney does not pressure the court.
Presidents don't pressure the Supreme Court, and I think you know that.
And the court, so you might be asking, is the court going to be influenced by the Republican nominee?
Are you asking me if the Republicans nominate Romney, then the Republicans are saying, hey, they like an individual mandate.
That's right.
Exactly right.
Okay, so the court will then have the freedom to rule in favor of it since the Republican nominee is for a mandate, Obama's for a mandate.
The court can say the people have spoken.
You've got it, Rush.
What's going to happen then?
We're going to lose for sure because Romney's our guy and he supports what Obama supports.
Okay, and then in your scenario, once the court declares it constitutional because both party nominees are for it, then Romney can say, well, look, there's nothing I can do now, and he will drop the issue altogether.
Is that what you're afraid of?
Yes.
Yeah.
And that's why this next week in the foreigner primary and my endorsement is so important.
That's what it's all about.
Now, as to our last caller who says that once the Supreme Court sees that our nominee is Romney and goes and finds Obamacare constitutional, then it's over.
So we don't want to have Romney nominate.
Romney, just to be factually correct out there, Romney says he opposes a federal mandate.
He says he's all in favor of the states, like he did when he was governor, mandating stuff.
But the federal government, no way.
So if he tried to opt out based on that, people could zero back and say, wait a minute, governor, you said you oppose a federal mandate.
If you noticed how many people are angry with me for not endorsing a candidate in these primaries, and two things about that: people angry at me for not endorsing yet.
Meanwhile, a lot of the same people are furious at the media and the Republican elites for telling them who to vote for.
This is apparently required of me to endorse, but when the Republican elites tell you who to vote for, as in Romney, they get mad about it.
The second thing is, look at just what has happened this week.
I wonder how many of the people yesterday, before so the truth was known, who had endorsed Newt, wonder how they felt, like Fred Thompson last week endorsed Newt.
And it was full-throated, and it was great.
It made a lot of sense.
How Fred Thompson felt when that stuff happened yesterday.
These guys, by that I mean candidates, they've got so much hidden stuff that can come out and embarrass endorsers and cause questions to bounce back to the endorsers.
Anyway, Linda in Nashville, it's great to have you on the EIB network and open line Friday.
Hello.
Yes, sir, Rush.
It's an honor.
Thank you very much.
I'm calling regarding all of the rhetoric that's going on with the Obama administration regarding tax increase and the wealthy paying more.
Rush, my husband is a physician.
We have five children in college.
We don't take handouts.
Meanwhile, thanks to Obama, fewer and fewer charges can be collected.
I mean, in returns of receivables or procedures, what you can collect.
So the income gets chopped away practically daily, like doctors are evil and they have to be punished.
But yet nobody addresses health care welfare reform, people who just repeatedly take advantage of the situation.
And indeed, some of them have issues that prevent them from working or prevent them from educating themselves, and I understand.
But some of them just bleed the system dry.
Also, unemployment reform.
What about that?
I mean, it used to be if you collected unemployment, you were expected to take, you know, a paper around to the different.
You were supposed to look for work.
The Chikam still do that, by the way.
You're unemployed in China.
You have to prove you're looking for a job.
You have to do it.
A lot of other countries, particularly emerging countries, and we used to too.
We used to do that.
But see, the answer to your question is simple.
Your husband and you are in the 1%.
And as such, you've been exploiting all of his patients.
You've been overcharging them for years, and that's led you to have the money to put your kids in college without a loan or without a handout, as you say.
And you probably have a fairly nice house.
And you've done that by exploiting these poor people.
You've charged them much more than they could pay for simple medical care, which ought to be free in a fair and just society.
So these people who aren't paying their fair share of taxes, the poor, the middle class, paying no taxes, the doctor having his payments, his reimbursements cut back.
That's only fair.
That's how we're transforming America.
That's how we're equalizing.
We're making the 1% finally pay for all the exploitation of the poor and the sexual, whatever all of these poor people and stuff.
It's about time you found out what it's like.
Okay, folks, Open Line Friday rolling on as the fastest three hours in media.
I am your bulwark, the unmovable force, never losing focus.
One hour of Open Line Friday remains.
▲
Export Selection