All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:33
March 4, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Eviews expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else happens to be saying.
And I know it sounds threatening to say that, but when it's true, shouldn't I tell people as much lying and distortion as there is about this program?
What's wrong with me getting the truth out there about it?
And I do so happily and with verb vigor and confidence.
Great to have you, folks.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program.
So a reporter asked Jay Carney at the White House today, are you going to have examples?
I'm paraphrasing because this is what the question really meant.
Are you going to have examples of people who are affected by the sequester?
Will there be chances for us to talk to those people?
And Carney said, well, yeah, Americans will come forth and be heard affected by the sequester.
That was automatic, gimme.
That's in the cards.
That'll happen by Wednesday.
If it's not already happening on your favorite cable news network, I imagine what they're doing today is actually sending their reporters out to do man on the street interviews.
They're trying to find people affected by the sequester, whether they are or not, and to have them tell their tales of woe.
I mean, it's a given.
You know that's going to happen.
For example, breaking news from AP right now.
Pentagon to furlough military teachers, cut commissary hours.
That's the headline from the article.
The Pentagon says it'll be forced to furlough about 15,000 military school teachers and staff around the world because of the automatic budget cuts that took effect last Friday.
But the department will manage the process so that the screws do not lose their accreditation.
Oh, thank God.
Oh, that's what we were really worried about.
Now, the left ought to be cheering because they're not going to be able to teach war.
That's what military teachers do.
And you know what the purpose of war is?
It's to kill people and break things.
That's what an army is entrusted with, that responsibility.
Well, Mithrilimba, that is a very, very, very victif way to describe the purpose of the Army.
Well, I'm sorry, Mr. New Castrati, but that's what it is.
The Army has one purpose, to kill people and break things.
But sadly to the left, no, it's meals on wheels, disaster relief, you know, social things.
But that's what the purpose of the military is, kill people and break things.
So they're not going to be able to teach that because of the sequester.
So the left ought to be cheering.
No more teaching about how to kill people and break things.
However, if you read further, which people aren't going to do, all they're going to see is that headline, Pentagon to furlough military teachers, cut commissary hours.
They'll read the headlines, oh my God, oh my God.
But if you read further, you find out what it really means.
Teachers will likely have to take a day off each week since the school day can't legally be shortened.
So the number of hours taught isn't even going to decline or decrease.
They're just going to close down a day, but they'll expand the education day and the four days a week that they are working.
So there'll be no cut in education time.
Just one day a week, they're not paid.
They're not closing the war colleges.
They're not teaching.
They're not shutting down the teaching war process or any of that.
And the same thing with the commissary.
So they're getting paid long weekends.
And by the way, all these people are going to get their back pay.
They always do.
In any government shutdown or furlough circumstance, they always get their back pay as a matter of law.
So all of this is moot.
That doesn't matter.
All that matters is you're going to see starting soon an endless parade of pain and suffering.
And the Republicans will be blamed for it.
Reagan, Republicans will all be blamed for it.
We were talking about health care earlier today and the eight governors who have caved on the Medicaid expansion, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court said that the federal government cannot mandate the states pick up the costs of Medicaid in Obamacare.
And a bunch of governors, Republican governors, joined the lawsuit, 26 of them, opposing Obamacare, and went on the record originally of saying they would not accept this responsibility.
Now, eight of them have caved, and it's probably going to increase.
And they're caving over $300 billion that the federal government is dangling, and they're doing it because they need the money.
They don't have any money.
They don't have a way of executing this mandate.
And it's going to be like the 100,000 cops was back during the Clinton years.
New federal program to ensure the safety of our citizens.
100,000 new cops, paid for by the federal government.
Little asterisk there for a year and a half or two years.
And then after that, the cities and the states have to pick up the cost or fire the cops.
It's going to be the same thing here.
After a short period of time, there won't be any Obama bucks for Medicare at state level.
They'll cut it back, but the money will be committed.
The citizens will be expecting it.
The hospitals will be expecting it.
And so the states will have to raise taxes to pay for it.
And the vicious cycle will continue.
And the vicious cycle ultimately is about the citizens of this country having less and less money every year.
The citizens of this country's taxes are going to go up and up.
They will have less and less disposable income.
That's the objective.
It's all going to be transferred to the government one way or the other.
So let's add to this today.
Saw a little story over the weekend, just a paragraph.
I waited around for the full Boar story, and here it is.
The Internal Revenue Service late Friday posted a draft of proposed health insurance provider fee regulations.
In other words, the IRS today has proposed a brand new tax previously non-existent to help pay for Obamacare.
The IRS is going to write the regulations.
They have proposed this new, it's an excise tax, if you will, on healthcare.
And the story I have here from Life Health Pro IRS: how should we treat the new health insurer fee?
Consumer representatives and others are trying to get the IRS to write the regulations in such a way that the IRS will discourage health insurance providers from trying to recover a large portion of the fee from policyholders.
The rulemaking notice set to appear in the Federal Register today.
Comments will be due 60 days after the official publication date, meaning there's two months for people to weigh in on it.
The proposed regulations, the fee itself is to help the IRS implement section 9010 of the Obamacare, which will require covered entities that are engaged in the business of providing health insurance to pay a total of $8 billion in fee amount in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015.
This is a tax on health insurers, which is going to get passed on to you.
A new excise tax.
It's been in Obamacare all along, just nobody ever talked about it, until Friday, when the IRS announced that they're going to be submitting the proposal for comment today.
Now, in two months, everybody can weigh in and say we don't want it.
We know any part it won't matter.
This thing is going to happen.
A brand new excise tax on insurance companies, i.e., covered entities engaged in the process of providing health insurance.
This is your private sector health insurance companies that are facing a new excise tax.
What are they going to do?
Add it to your premiums.
And this is just one of many little nickel and dime things that's going to be happening at the Secretary's discretion.
This tax alone will mean that next year, a person buying coverage on his or her own will pay an additional $110.
Small businesses will pay an additional $360 for each family they cover.
Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will face $220 in reduced benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs.
And this is just one of them.
Remember, your premiums are already skyrocketing now because of other Obamacare regulations.
This is a new one.
Another $110 if you self-insure.
Another $360 for you, small business owners to insure every family you cover.
And if you are a seasoned citizen getting Medicare Advantage, your benefits will be cut by $220.
That's what's being proposed.
It doesn't go into effect today.
It's proposed today.
It'll go into effect in a couple of months after the comment period.
I don't think Donna Brazil will not hear about this.
She's still trying to figure out why her premiums are going up.
You know, this leads me to another point.
We had this joke, we had our Skyfall song last week, the parody song, and we ended it with that soundbite of Maxine Waters claiming that 170 million jobs would be lost, and there are only 140 million jobs in the country.
And the point here, Donna Brazil, a leading Democrat campaign strategist, honestly, intellectually, honestly, was shocked her premium is going up.
Maxine Waters really thinks, somebody told her and she believes that the sequester will kill 170 million jobs when there are only 140 million jobs in the country.
Now, the point is, just how genuinely ignorant are these people who are running our lives.
How genuinely, seriously ignorant is Maxine Waters.
How much does she know that isn't so?
I think you would be shocked at the lack of information these people have.
It doesn't matter to Hillabins.
If they had the information, it wouldn't change the way they think.
It's just that this whole notion that we always expect our government to be made up of people better than we are, smarter than we are, I don't think it's even close now to being true.
From the Boston Globe, health costs in Massachusetts are heading upward.
The state's cap on the rate of increase is changing.
Mergers, changes in care are altering the picture.
An Obamacare rule intended to increase fairness will make it unfair and expensive for small employers.
That's actually in this story.
Obamacare rules intended to increase fairness will make it unfair and expensive to small business employees.
Right here it is.
The result is that a U.S. law intended to increase fairness in healthcare will make it more unfair and expensive for small employers, said John Hearst, the president of Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
And then, in the New York Times, I'm sorry, headline, a story by Robert Pear, Obama asks health plans to report rising rates.
The regime says that it's going to require health insurance companies to report all price increases, no matter how small, to the federal government so that officials can monitor the impact of Obamacare and how people are complying with it.
The purpose of this policy is to identify patterns that could indicate market disruption, which could occur given the additional standards that apply to insurance starting next year.
So the Obama administration is asking insurance companies and providers to report to them their rate increases.
Now, why do you think they're doing that?
Now, just stop and think for a minute.
It's not what the story says.
It's not so they keep track of how much it's costing and how much the increase is or anything.
That's not why.
Well, partly intimidation.
It's partly that they're trying to intimidate the providers and so forth.
But the reason that they are asking for these companies to report their price increases so that the Obama administration can blame them for it.
Note they are not being asked to explain why the prices they charge are going up.
They are just being asked to report price increases, rate increases.
This gives the regime the paperwork.
Says, see, these people are doing it.
We're not raising their rates.
You know, Pink Cross of Utah here raising their rates 25%.
We got the paper.
They admitted it right here.
It doesn't matter.
It's the Obama rules making them raise rate.
Remember, we're doing this for the low-information voter.
Everything's being done to the low-information voter.
So what happens is low-information voter health insurance premium goes up, and Obama's going to have paperwork.
Yep, yep, they've reported to us, and we're working on it.
And the health insurer is going to, but wait a minute, wait a minute.
It's Obamacare that's making us raise rates.
All right.
You big business people, you like to pass it off on everybody.
It's never your fault.
That's how it'll play out.
This is to insulate the regime from any blame or association.
And we will be back.
Don't go away.
This is Barting in Tucson.
Barney, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Rush, there's another hidden reason why the problem of nobody having any money is going to get much worse under this Medicaid expansion.
There's an additional Trojan horse in this legislation where the government will seize as much of the estates of Medicaid recipients when they die as it takes to reimburse the government for the services it provided.
And nothing's going to be off limits, including homes which have been in families for generations.
It's not a brand new thing.
It goes back to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and it's called the state recovery.
And it mandates requirements.
Under what auspices can they seize a home?
Under what auspices can they seize a home from somebody's estate?
They can't do it.
They already have the provision set up, but states have not pursued it aggressively.
But there is an accounting procedure there where they track what benefits have gone to recipients and a spouse who's living in the house.
There are provisions for them.
But if it's the only asset, nobody's living there, they will be able to seize it when they die.
Okay, hang on.
I got to take a break here.
I want to explore this further with you, and I don't have time to do it right now.
So be patient.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back, folks.
A for real and a delight to be with you.
I did some quick searching here during the break.
I may have a little bit on this.
I want to go back here to Barney in Tucson, Arizona.
You say this goes back to budget reconciliation 1993, did you say?
Yes, that was when the original provision was put in, but it stands to be greatly expanded under Obamacare because there's a multiplier for the federal poverty level, which is going to get a great deal more individuals enrolled in Medicaid's program.
But with the federal government essentially being able to do a reverse block grant of Medicaid funding, it can force the states to exhaust this estate recovery before reimbursing the states for their Medicaid costs.
It's just another Trojan horse in here.
But if I may, Rush, there is an elegant solution for all of this that we've been pushing in Arizona.
Elegant solution.
Elegant.
Elegant.
It's a beauty.
It consists of volunteer doctors treating Medicaid patients at no cost to the state in exchange for complete med mal coverage under the state's existing policy, which it has, all states have them, for university hospitals and clinics.
And there's been a model clinic in operation in New Jersey for over a decade that has taken the cost of a Medicaid encounter down from $150 a pop to $15.
Really?
And you bet.
That is elegant.
It's a beauty.
Trade doctors, it's been figured that it takes a lot of time.
Okay, well, I want to go back to the government to a state being able to seize your house when you die to satisfy Medicaid expenses.
Now, I did some research here.
Didn't have much time.
It was only a three and a half minute break there at the bottom of the hour.
I found a Christian Science Monitor story from 2006 and a headline, a flap over recouping costs of Medicaid.
Folks, I have to tell you, I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't know this existed.
I knew it did for drug dealers.
I knew they could seize the assets of any drug dealer, any boat, yacht, airplane, homes, whatever.
Well, Russia, it's a rare privilege to be able to tell you something you don't already know.
I can imagine.
It's probably made your day.
But here it is.
States try harder to recover their losses from providing health care to the poor, even seizing homes in the face of soaring Medicaid.
Remember, folks, now this is seven years old now.
States try harder in the face of soaring Medicaid costs.
Tennessee and every other state are required to set up a Medicaid estate recovery program.
Many have been launched only recently.
Some, like Tennessee's, are becoming more aggressive.
Often, they target the home because it's all that's left after beneficiaries have spent their assets to pay for nursing home care.
Now, from the article, states base their programs, like what you said, on a 1993 federal law mandating that they recover what Medicaid spends on a beneficiary's long-term care.
Congress approved the law to prevent states from forcing the sale of beneficiaries' homes while they were still living in case their conditions improve and they can return home.
So the way I'm reading this, somebody's not living there.
They're either in a convalescent home or they die.
And if nobody's in the home and the state calculates that it's gone bankrupt or gone, not bankrupt.
If the state's calculated that the amount of money they have spent treating this person has resulted in a net loss, they can try to recoup what they've spent by seizing the person's house.
That's exactly right.
Well, the death panels are going to take care of this.
They won't be treating these people infinitum like that.
Well, then that just means they'll be able to get their homes sooner.
A lot of states have not been pursuing this aggressively, and they've made provisions for individuals and surviving spouses to be able to keep the homes permanently.
But the pressures put on by this legislation is likely to force states to recover costs wherever they can.
Yeah, exactly.
And you're right.
It's a Bill Clinton law.
It's a budget reconciliation 1993.
It's his first year in orifice.
And so in a nutshell, I hate to tell you here, folks, but old Barney's right.
States can seize houses for money they say they are still owed for their Medicaid treatment costs after somebody dies.
Think about this solution because it's the opposite of greater government involvement.
It's where doctors can connect better with patients, treat them directly at no cost to the state.
Okay, but where does the Medicaid patient get the $150?
They don't.
The $150 was the prior cost of a Medicaid patient.
Okay, well, whatever it costs the Medicaid patient that the government's paying, that they're no longer paying because the patient's dealing directly with the doctor, where do they get the money to pay for it?
There is no money to pay for it because the doctors are treating these patients under this provision.
We have a bill proposed, but it's not getting any traction in Arizona called the Arizona Volunteer Physicians Protection Act.
And doctors donate four hours a week of their time in exchange for complete med mal coverage, which can run into the six figures.
So it's a great deal.
Wait a minute.
What you're saying, MedMal, you're about malpractice.
You're saying that states can exchange Medicaid charges for the state covering malpractice coverage.
Well, actually, the Medicaid charges will disappear because the Medicaid patient will now go to clinics set up by volunteer doctors at no charge, and the doctors are amply compensated for their services.
By who?
That's what I, by who?
The state will put these doctors under the state's existing medical malpractice coverage, which is very cheap for the state, and they have it in place for their university hospitals and clinics.
And the payouts under that are minuscule.
The problem is, in Arizona, there's huge opposition from health insurance industry lobbyists.
Of course, there is.
And of course, there would be.
But, Rush, this solution could solve Medicaid nationally.
Well, Medicaid would become a charity run by the state, then.
Bingo.
That's the way your system works.
Yep.
Everybody wins.
Almost everybody wins.
No, everybody doesn't win.
Nope.
The insurance industry lobbyists lose.
The healthcare industry.
The people that count are losing.
The big enemies to this, the insurance companies, governments, this is the problem here is, look, I'm not going to be negative.
I don't doubt that your program works.
Here's the thing: what government, especially an Obama-type guy, what government official can allow for Medicaid to appear to be this inexpensive versus what it is now?
Well, the fact is, they're showing it in New Jersey, and they've done it for the last 11 years.
It's called the Zarephath Clinic.
The Arafat Clinic.
They've been operating it for more than a decade.
Arafat Clinic?
Zarefath.
Oh, it's with a Z.
It's a tough spell, but the doctors have the last name ECK, E-C-K.
So if somebody Googles them, they'll find the clinic.
Look, we've already lost 90% of the people in the audience with this.
I'm just exploring it in my own curiosity.
Rush, the more you think about it, the more you're going to realize this could solve our Medicaid problem nationally.
It's the cure.
Well, I'll tell you what I'll do.
I'll go home and think about it.
I've got nothing else to do today.
I'll go home and think about this.
And you may be right.
Rush, thank you so much for all the time.
Marnie has been on this for about a year and a half.
Well, I'm glad you made it.
I'm glad you got through.
By the way, his original point was that there's a this that he was discussing, the seizing of your home business, would apply even now to the states taking $300 billion from the federal government for Medicaid.
They can still take your home even after taking the $300 billion from the feds.
He's calling it a Trojan horse only because you don't know it's there.
Anyway, I'm glad he got through and I made his day.
He told me something I didn't know.
Mr. Snerdley, now that you know this, are you glad that you've learned this?
Are you worthwhile?
He says it's worthwhile, but he's not glad.
Okay.
I appreciate it, Barney.
Thanks much.
A brief obscene profit timeout, and we'll just think of it, folks, as Medicaid becoming a charity as far as the doctor-patient relationship is concerned.
That's what he was saying.
Medicaid becomes a charity, and medical malpractice insurance fees end up being directed somehow to compensate the doctors for their charity work at no loss to the doctors, but not nearly as expensive as straight Medicare.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Get this, folks.
During her Google Hangout today, First Lady Michelle Obama reminded the audience that dogs need a proper diet and exercise just like children do.
I have it right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
The first lady admitted that President Obama liked to tease their own dog, Bo for being lazy, but they encouraged her girls to take him on walks.
Dogs are no different, Michelle explained to a woman on the chat.
You want to make sure that they're eating a balanced diet, a fair diet.
And if they're not an active dog, make sure their food is reflective of an inactive dog and then get them out there.
Throw that ball, get them running.
First lady said it was important to worry about every member of the family.
I'm not making this up.
Google Hangout.
Much of Obama.
Here's Joan in Georgia.
Joan, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I've been depressed since November, and I agree with what you say about us being outnumbered.
The Libs have won.
It just, it sounds like you're giving up.
I don't know what we're going to do.
This country is just dying, and I'm watching it, and it's horrifying.
No, wait a minute.
What makes you think that I've given up?
Because I hear you talking about how we're outnumbered.
The liberals are.
Well, for now, yeah.
We're outnumbered.
But if we're already outnumbered, how do we ever get a vote to get the right kind of people back in there?
Well, how did they ever outnumber?
How did it get to the point that they outnumbered us?
It took them 50 years or longer.
So are you saying it's going to take 50 years to get back to our well, it's going to take some time.
Yeah, it's going to take some commitment.
Damn right.
There have been way too many people haven't cared about enough for long enough.
This is what happens to you.
I won't live long enough to see my country the way it was then.
Well, I probably won't either, but I'm not going to stop trying because there are kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, and all that.
It's what we do.
I just don't see, I don't see how if we've already been outvoted by the people who want to sit on their butts and not take care of themselves, and they want everybody else to take care of themselves.
How do we outvote that?
Don't forget a lot of these people who you categorize as sitting on their butts don't think they're doing that.
You tell them they're voting for Santa Claus and they're offended, even though they are, they don't think so.
They can be won over.
They can be had.
How?
Events.
Right now, we are a prisoner to unknown events that will happen that will shake people's faith in what's happening.
I am totally convinced, combined with the ongoing efforts that we're engaging in here.
But reality is coming.
This stuff can't go on.
It cannot sustain itself.
It will implode.
It's only a matter of time.
You're just reacting.
We're not able to persuade people with words.
Fine.
We've done our best.
We set a foundation.
Events.
Something is going to happen.
Folks, it's been great.
I wish we weren't out of time, but we are.
But there's always tomorrow.
There is always tomorrow.
And we will be here then in 21 hours.
Thanks so much.
▲
Export Selection