All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
July 25, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Eviews expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying for a simple reason.
We're right.
Documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
And we have a daily relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
And we find it.
And when we find it, we proclaim it drives liberals nuts.
It's a lot of fun.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
As I mentioned.
Four different stories here on Obamacare and the CBO.
And let me just give you the headlines first.
And in no particular order.
CBO to employers.
Obamacare has four billion dollars more in taxes than expected.
Next headline: "Court's ruling may blunt the reach of the health care law." That's the New York Times.
From the HILL.com, CBO's Supreme Court decision cuts cost of health care reform by $84 billion.
How does that work?
CBO to employers, Obamacare has $4 billion more in taxes than expected.
And yet the Hill, CBO's Supreme Court decision cuts cost of health care reform by $84 billion.
And then this is a repeat.
This is a dupe.
So it's three different stories.
It isn't four.
I've got the New York Times story in here twice.
So let's start here with the Washington examiner first.
Business owners will pay four billion dollars more in taxes under Obama's Affordable Care Act than the CBO had previously expected.
According to the updated estimates, the amount of deficit reduction from penalty payments and other effects on tax revenues under Obamacare will be five billion dollars more than previously estimated.
The change primarily affects a four billion dollar increase in collections from such payments by employers.
In short, the CBO revised the Obamacare tax burden upward by four billion dollars for businesses and one billion to one and a half billion for individual workers.
The CBO couldn't help but bump into Chief Justice John Roberts' controversial decision to uphold the mandate as a tax.
Okay, so we have that will put that over here.
And then the next story we will do is from the Hill.com.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of Obama's health care law made the law less expensive.
But it will result in three million more people without health insurance, the CBO said Tuesday.
The report from the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper was the first estimate of the law's cost since the Supreme Court ruling.
Now, just so you know, the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, CBO, is being headed at present by a woman, Melinda Bukes Bootin, or Bunton, who has been the deputy assistant director of the CBO's health services department since the middle of 2011.
She has donated more than $26,000 to Democrat candidates, $2,300 of that going to Obama in 2008.
Before Obamacare was passed, she was cited as an Obama spokeswoman.
In 2009-2010, she visited the Obama White House eight times.
She is the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper at CBO.
It's an Obama hack.
Now this is a testament to how corrupted our government bureaucracies have become, if you ask me.
The Hill dot com is reporting that the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper at the CBO has made their first estimate of the cost since Supreme Court decision.
And lo and behold, now it's going to cost 84 billion dollars less than what we thought.
Now they they do note that this is largely due to the Supreme Court allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicare, as was required under Obamacare.
The states can opt out.
But what does that mean?
When the states opt out of Medicare, it means that this savings is only due to fewer people getting free health insurance from the government, quote unquote.
But you would never know that from the Hills headline or any of the other headlines in the mainstream media about this.
The only reason there are cost savings is because fewer people are going to get access.
Fewer people are going to get covered.
This takes us, but we know we spent a lot of time shortly after the Supreme Court ruling.
I hope you were here.
I hope you remember it.
We spent a lot of time explaining all of the intricacies of the exchanges.
The states are required by Obamacare to set up their exchanges, but they don't have to.
The states get subsidized by the federal government.
They set up the exchange.
The federal government cannot fund its own exchange.
It was a...
It was a mistake that the writers of the law made.
And the states, people are reading this literally.
The states, with the freedom they have to opt out of Medicare and to not set up exchanges, have the ability to deal Obamacare a serious blow.
Because the law does not permit the federal government to come in and take over and do what the states might refuse to do.
So one of the original purposes of Obamacare was to offload additional costs to the states by having them pick up Medicare increases.
But the Supreme Court ruling said that states can opt out of that if they want to.
And I think 26 or 27 states will or have said they're going to.
So in the middle of all of this, we now have a new score from the CBO, which says the bill's going to cost $84 billion less.
$84 billion, when compared to the total cost of this debacle, is a nickel or a dime anyway.
Its importance is rooted in the fact that the savings, $84 billion, are derived from the fact that the money's not spent insuring the currently uninsured.
Which, if you want to take everybody involved in Obamacare at their word, if you want to extend to them their best intentions, the whole point of the program was simply to cover uninsured people, which was whatever they got, the number $30 million.
Is the number they used.
Now, this is just an exercise in thought because we know that's not the purpose of Obamacare, blah, blah, blah.
Purpose of Obamacare has nothing to do with health care, really.
It is the largest expansion of government ever.
It is the greatest encroachment on individual liberty ever.
And that's why it has to be repealed.
And that's what this election is all about.
But if it if it because if all we wanted to do was insure the uninsured, we could have done it for far less money with far less government, far less bureaucracy.
The real number of uninsured that want insurance and don't have it is around 10 million.
The 30, 40, 50 million number of changes that they throw around includes people who don't want it because they don't want to spend the money on it because they're young and vibrant and they're not thinking about dying.
They're not thinking about catastrophic diseases.
So these are the people that now have a new name, the free writers.
Prior to Obamacare, these people, oh, they were the poor assaulted victims of an unfair and an unjust country.
The richest country in the world.
And all of these gazillions of people didn't have health insurance.
Now they're a bunch of free writers.
And we're gonna fine them, or we're gonna raise their taxes, or we're gonna make them pay through the nose if they don't have health insurance.
Because now it's mandatory.
Thank you, John Roberts.
So over here, Obamacare $4 billion more in taxes, $4 billion more than expected.
And if it's $4 billion, they're admitting you know it's going to be higher.
Over here, $84 billion less at less in overall costs, but only because fewer people will be covered.
Right now in Congress, and this is uh the the Obamacare Exchange problem.
Right now in Congress, the GOP is trying to fix a typo in a bill that they are offering, but Stenny Hoyer will not let them fix the typo.
Now, even though the Democrats admit that there's a clear typo.
This could come back and bite the Democrats when they try to fix their typo about the exchanges.
In their last report back in April, the CBO reported Obamacare could cause as many as 20 million people to lose their employer covered health care coverage.
So when you add this six million from Medicaid to the 20 million losing employer provided insurance, you have 26 million people without health insurance.
Now, what was Obamacare supposed to do again?
This this is an utter joke.
I don't know what the typo is off top of my head.
I'll find that uh quickly.
But neither the Hill nor any other mainstream news outlet has picked up the news a Daily Caller reported yesterday.
And that is the news of this scorekeeper, Melinda Bukes Bunton, who is the Obama hack, is now supposedly the nonpartisan scorekeeper.
I've given you her details.
So bottom line here, folks, is that we we still don't know what's going on with all of this.
It's still a nightmare.
It's and I start a shudder to think it's just the foundation.
It's just the thing that is gonna be what is built upon as we go.
Because, as is the case with every federal program, every piece of legislation of any significant size, once it's implemented, it's discovered and it doesn't work.
It doesn't work as advertised, it doesn't work as intended, and so a new law is required to fix a mistake in the original bill, and it gets out of hand, and it becomes a vicious cycle where the government screws up, creates a problem, everybody demands that the same people who made the original mistake go in and fix it, and it just repeats itself.
And you end up with out-of-control entitlement programs that nobody can understand that the only way to fix every year is increased funding.
Pure and simple.
The typo, House Democratic whip Stenny Hoyer says his party will not agree to fix a typo in a GOP regulations bill.
That significantly alters the meaning of the measure.
The bill calls for a moratorium on significant regulations, uh, defined as costing the economy more than 100 million dollars until the unemployment rate hits 6% instead of unemployment.
The GOP printed the word employment.
And they meant to type unemployment, and Stenny Hoyer won't let them go in and fix it.
So the bill calls for a significant, a moratorium on significant regulations, and again, significant defined as costing the economy more than 100 million dollars until the unemployment rate hits 6%.
But the word is now employment until the employment rate hits 6%.
Well, that'll never happen.
The employment rate will never be 6%.
So there will never be a moratorium on significant regulations.
Which is exactly what the Democrats want.
They don't want a moratorium.
It's a simple typo.
They meant to type unemployment.
Instead, the word employment is in there.
Now, the New York Times story, court's ruling may blunt the reach of the law, the CBO said yesterday, Supreme Court decision, would probably lead to an increase in the number of uninsured and a modest reduction in cost when compared with estimates before the court ruling.
It's just the Times version of this whole mess.
...
But the headline court ruling may blunt the reach of the law.
That's simply the New York Times with some tears and oh no, there's going to be fewer people governed.
The bill is actually not going to cover as many of the uninsured as we thought.
So that's a debacle.
It's an absolute embarrassment, and it's so typical of big bureaucracies, have no idea what they're doing.
Everything gets messed up and screwed up, and we're right in the middle of it.
And the things that will not be screwed up, the things that will not be misunderstood, the things that will not be overlooked are those that expand the power and reach of the government.
Every one of those will be found, and every one of those will be utilized.
Let me take a brief time out here, my friends, as broadcast excellence unfolds before your very eyes and ears yet again.
Let me strip this all down to the basic element here that you need to know.
All of this confounding data that's being dumped on us from the CBO, New York Times, Hill.com, Reuters doesn't matter.
They are trying to say, they're putting out the story, not trying, they are saying that Obamacare is now because of the Supreme Court ruling going to save us money.
Yes, sir.
Obamacare just got cheaper.
Obamacare is gonna cut health care costs.
Obamacare is gonna really save us money, because they say that the revenues from the new taxes and the penalties and the fees will offset the 1.7 trillion dollar cost.
Before we had Obamacare, we were chugging along in a final budget deficit and a final national debt that was big enough.
This thing comes along and it's easily 1.7 trillion or hell, it's gonna be two trillion.
And so now $84 billion, you know what we're gonna save eighty-four billion dollars?
Whoa!
Shaziam, eighty-four billion dollar savings on one point seven trillion.
It's like it is.
It's like saying you got thirty thousand dollars for a car.
And uh and and you go out, no, you got fifty thousand dollars budgeted for a car.
You go out and you find one for forty.
You tell yourself you save ten grand when you spent forty.
We're talking about a thymbol filled with pennies.
In terms of the say, and then they're trying to tell us that this is savings.
Folks, it's it's it's more journalistic malpractice.
That's all this stuff adds up to.
They're trying to tell you that the Supreme Court decision was excellent, because now this new nonpartisan scorekeeper has just figured out it's gonna cost eighty-four billion dollars less.
So take eighty-four billion from one point seven trillion.
That's not even you couldn't even see it if you line the dollars up.
Brian in Hopewell Junction, New York.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine and dandy, sir.
Thank you.
Uh, just to give my background, I'm a uh business consultant, a management professor, also a motivational expert and author.
And I want to talk about how difficult it is to start a business.
Because every aspect of government discourages and puts obstacles in the way of starting a business.
And there's nothing out there that really makes it easy.
As a matter of fact, four out of five businesses fail in the first three years.
And just to give you some of the things that are involved in starting a business, it's the capital investment, worries about taxes, not only about income taxes, also taxes that have to be paid for employees, regulations and compliance, insurances, employee paperwork and administration, accounting, and on top of that, long hours.
There's no business person.
They can say, Oh, yeah, I put in a long 40-hour week.
Business owners typically put in 60 to 8 hours 80 hour weeks because this is their first devotion is their love.
And if you've had callers going in the past that the business owners get paid last.
So there are so many things that go into starting a business.
Now, Brian, I I assume you're calling here reacting to Obama saying, uh, you did that business, you didn't do that.
Oh, absolutely.
You know, the the whole thing is so inane.
Uh, even when I teach college classes, we have a room full of students, and everyone's at the same school, they pays the same tuition, they have all of the same, you know, physical support and administrative support, yet not everybody gets A's.
Well, if people, a few people get A's, some people get C, some people fail, but yet they all have the same roads in front of them as Obama's claiming that every successful business acts.
You know, about that, I have to tell you, you're by the way, he's he's right on the money here with what he's saying.
But Obama claims he was taking out a tact out of cr out of context.
He said he was talking about the roads in the previous sentence.
If he was talking about the roads, he would have said, you didn't build those.
Instead, he's a you didn't do you didn't build that, you didn't do that.
I don't think he can make a claim at all, but but anyway, Brian, I preach he's exactly right.
By some of the Well, I gotta take a break.
We'll conclude the thought when we come back.
Folks, let's take a look.
Let's go back in time.
Let us review some of the things Obama has said about the private sector over the uh past few years.
Oh, and one other thing.
One other thing in this healthcare business.
We can talk all we want about thirty million uninsured, and how many of them will remain uninsured because the various things happening resulting in the Supreme Court decision?
Oh, that's fine and nandy.
How many of these uninsured who finally get insurance are gonna have doctors?
Does anybody stop to think how many doctors are gonna opt out of all this?
A lot of people just assuming that doctors are gonna hang in there and accept this.
I have news for you.
The doctors, great numbers of them are already talking about how they are looking at finding something else to do.
It's not going to make any sense.
And I guarantee you, I don't know when it's gonna happen, but I guarantee, in fact, I saw it, I saw it, I saw it on a television show recently.
The Democrats are gonna raise the following issue.
Why should somebody get rich treating the sick?
They're going to claim that that's a fundamental characteristic error of capitalism.
Remember now, these are the intellectuals, the wordsmiths.
They think they're smarter than everybody.
They don't like capitalism because they're not the richest.
If capitalism were fair and just the smartest would be the wealthiest.
It ought to work that way.
And they can't figure out why some dumb hick hayseed that owns a bait and tackle shop may make more money than they do.
While they lounge around sipping cocktails at 4 30 in the afternoon in a faculty lounge.
And so they're gonna sit around and they're gonna finally say how unjust it is.
And how it actually is immoral.
Why why should somebody treating the sick?
Why should somebody helping somebody get better?
Get rich.
Shouldn't that be almost like a Mother Teresa donation to society?
Certainly there shouldn't be any profit in it.
These doctors are not going to take that for very long.
The real opt out's gonna be the opt out of Medicaid.
It's hard enough now for some Medicaid patients to find a doctor who'll take new ones.
And Obama's slashing these Medicaid payments.
He's moving them over to the States, and the states now have permission to opt out.
And the doctors are getting paid later and later and less and less.
At some point, it's not going to make sense.
They're not going to be able to earn enough to justify all the costs of their education and all the hard work and all that.
These are people can't make mistakes.
This is one medical education.
That's one you you have to know it.
You don't memorize the test and go out and swear to the Hippocratic oath and then start treating.
You've got to know what you're doing.
And they're gonna w when Obama and the Democrats start talking about how unfair it is that these people make money treating the sick, and that's right around the corner.
I saw what was the TV show.
Let me think here for this.
What was the TV show?
Oh.
It was the most recent episode of the closer.
And it was about a uh cancer doctor who unwittingly was buying chemotherapy drugs which were fakes.
They were just saline solution, all these chemotherapy patients were being injected with saline, and they they were continue to die, but they were suffering no effects of chemo.
And the plot was that the phony salesman, well, the salesman of the phony fake chemotherapy drugs was a was a do gooder crusaders.
These people are gonna die anyway.
They at least they're gonna die looking good, they're gonna die having fun, they're gonna die living their lives instead of shriveling away after being poisoned by chemotherapy drugs.
And in the in the course of the program, there were a couple slams at doctors who make money treating the sick.
So it's coming.
Mark my words.
And just I have predicted, and I'm right about this, it's already starting to happen.
The calls for banning football.
That's gonna be a while before it gets really serious.
But there are people suggesting high school football be banned and some college football be banned because of concussions and the brutality of the game and how unfair it is.
It's just it's it's it's it's not it's not something civilized people ought to do.
That's where we're headed with that.
Civilized people wouldn't do this.
That's something ancient Romans did.
But uh we're not the ancient Romans anymore.
You watch, it's going to happen.
Now in the Atlantic.
Yes, the Atlantic.com.
Let me just read to you the first paragraph of this story by Alice Dreger.
Alice.
Alice Dregor.
No, I've never heard of her.
I just, it's Alice.
It's not Zeke Dregger.
It's not Bruce.
It's not Richard, it's Alice Dreger.
Let me see if it explains who she is.
It doesn't, so she may just be a staff columnist there.
Anyway, to be perfectly honest, I follow football the way I follow television.
I read about it.
Breaking bad sounds like something I would watch someday.
The only reason that I've been reading about football is my morbid fascination with the two major scandals in which the game has lately been sandwiched.
The long-term harm caused by repetitive head injuries and the sand dusky pedophilia story.
I can't stop wondering, could they be related?
I can't stop.
So the latest salvo in the war on football comes from a noted sports expert at the Atlantic who has found a way to marry the concussion story to the Sandusky story.
So where the conclusion is head injuries can cause pedophilia.
We know that professional football players' helmets are not magically saving their brains from all the pounding they take.
The New York Times reports that to date twenty NFL veterans have been shown to have suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
That's swelling of the brain.
A progressive decaying of the brain.
Many more players have been living with the symptoms.
Early onset dementia, erratic behavior, major depression.
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy can only you have to be a highly trained broadcast specialist to say that, by the way, without stumbling across it.
chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
CTE can only conclusively be diagnosed in autopsies So we need more people that die to learn more about it.
Just to say that I'm adding it in.
Boston University Study Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, leaving research institution in the field has been doing most of the postmortems.
In a 2003 study of 685 men published in the archives of sexual behavior, found that the pedophilic patients reported more head injuries before age 13 than did the non-pedophilic patients.
While it's true that the head injuries we are now most concerned with in football occur after age 13, it's also true that most NFL and NCAA players and coaches like Sandusky are likely to have started getting their heads game bashed as children.
Well, you see now in the Atlantic, which is a journal of high intellect.
We now have a marriage, if you will, connection here between brain injury and pedophilia.
I'm not kidding you.
I didn't predict this specific thing, but this certainly falls within the guidelines of what I did predict.
So she is dead serious.
Alice Dregger is her name.
She might pronounce it Dreger.
Now here's the closing paragraph.
Whether or not additional research bears out the theory that head injuries can contribute to pedophilia.
The two ongoing scandals in football, repetitive head injuries and the possible cover-up of Sandusky's pedophilic activities at Penn State, do have one clear link.
In both cases, those in charge have taken big risks in playing the idea of putting the game first and the well-being of youngsters second.
I'm telling you, folks.
How long does it take before we get to the conclusion that paterno was a pedophile in waiting or a pedophile by extension?
So here you have it in a journal of high intellect.
Pedophilia is connected to uh concussions.
It may be why Sandusky did what he did.
And how can we allow things like this in a cultured, sophisticated, civilized society?
Now Snerdley's in there shake it, he can't believe it.
These are liberals.
I'm telling you, this is who they are.
The boxing community.
Well, is the boxing community filled with pedophiles?
It only takes one, and then we've got a link.
So is is there a former boxer that's a pedophile?
A current boxer that's a pedophile?
I don't know.
But if they find one, guess what?
It's The second example.
You it doesn't take much for these people to convince themselves that they're on to something and that they gotta take the risk out of life and they've got to take the risk of serious and major injury out of life in a cultured civilized society.
Why would we permit people to engage in active?
Why would we pay to watch such activity that people are going to end up brain dead?
Why would we pay them to do it?
Why would we pay to watch it?
Why would we uh generate so much money around it when it's nothing but barbaric?
This is where it's headed.
And you wait, it's not going to be long before they figure out that most of the participants in the NFL are African American, and you're gonna lump that in with the fact that you have people being used, abused, objectified, taken advantage of I can see it all happening.
So can you too if you want to admit it?
So, brief time out.
Be right back with much more after this, folks.
Sit tight.
I should have done this before I reported the story from Alice Dregger or Dreger.
But I actually it came in during during the program itself time to do research.
She didn't really break, I wouldn't have found out who she is, the author of the Atlantic piece that compares concussions to pedophilia.
Now first question I had have any of these uh pedophilic types at Penn State going after young girls?
Did did Sandusky go after young girls?
Or was it just boys that Sanduska?
Well, this is m this is important given the scope of her article.
If no girls were approached by Sandusky or any of these other uh uh head injury types had concussions and then turned to pedophilia, then why didn't she mention homosexuality as an aspect of this?
Sandusky was a coach Do coaches get head injuries?
I guess we're assuming that Sandusky played and got head injuries when he played and the head injuries manifested themselves when he became a coach.
The pedophiles in this case all were coaches.
Now who is she?
Alice Dregor is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University's Feinberg Scrugal of Medicine.
Now what are clinical medical humanities and bioethics, anyway?
See, this is why the Journal of the Atlantic Journal of High Intellect Medical Humanities She's figured out there's a link between concussions and pedophilia, medical humanities.
Why should we play this game?
It's so barbaric.
Look what happens to some people who play it.
She's not an MD, she's a PhD.
Would you like to hear what she wrote for her PhD?
Here's the title of her doctoral thesis Doubtful Sex, Colonel Cases and Concepts of Hermaphroditism in France and Britain, nineteen sixty-eight, nineteen fifteen.
Who would even people ask me why I didn't go to college?
Who would even conceive of such a subject to do a doctoral thesis on?
Some people obviously I just don't relate.
Doubtful sex, cases and concepts of hermaphroditism in France and Britain 1915, 1968.
Why that date range?
Why not examine the concepts of hermaphroditism in France and Britain from 1915 to the present?
And why only France and Britain?
Why not Penn State?
Why not Scotland?
Hermaphrodites of the World Unite.
One of her articles, Alex Dregger, A History of Intersexuality From the Age of Gonads to the Age of Consent, Journal of Clinical Ethics.
Another Alex Dregger or Alice Dregger Hermaphrodites in Love The Truth of the Gonads.
That's what's it this is this I'm just telling you this is her curriculum vichy.
Or Vita Vita This is what she has this football and the sexual side effects of head trauma is her latest submission in the Atlantic.
This woman's fascinated by hermaphrodites and gonads and um France and Britain and Penn State.
Here's another one Alice Dregor The Controversy Surrounding the Man Who Would Be Queen A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity and Sex in the Internet Age.
That's another thing.
This is another title of her written works.
▲
Export Selection