All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:51
September 23, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in live from Ice Station EIB in far northern New Hampshire.
If you're fleeing the country, do swing by.
We love to see you.
You can't miss us.
Got a big sign out in the highway saying Last Rush guest host before the board.
We got Mark Belling here tomorrow.
Well, not here.
It'd be a little ways wester here.
Or south of here, maybe.
I think he's doing it from New York.
I'm not sure.
And then Rush Rush will be in live Wednesday to take you through the end of the week.
I said right at the beginning of the show that it's UN Dictator Week, and I love that.
All the colour and bustle of UN Dictator Week, the happy sound of clashing machetes as rival entourages crowd into the elevators at the Plaza Hotel.
It's a wonderful thrill, the sights, the sounds of UN Dictator Week.
I love it.
But it is also Climate Week, which I think is also run by the United Nations.
It's Climate Week.
And if you don't take global warming seriously, this is how bad it's heating up and getting out of control.
Climate Week now is apparently 10 days.
It's a 10-day week.
That's how long Climate Week is.
They had the big launch party, what was this, at the Little Cupcake Bake Shop in the Bowery in New York?
That can't be the official, I mean, I like the Little Cupcake Bake Shop in the Bowery.
I'm sure it's a charming place, but that can't be the official place the whole thing launched.
Anyway, this whole climate change thing, the new Australian Prime Minister, who is a great man, Tony Abbott, one of his first actions was to abolish the Climate Change Commission, the official government climate change commission, and to say that body wasn't needed.
It was a complete waste of time.
And he fired the head of it, who's one of the big global warming balls they got down there.
But climate change, it's actually, this is fascinating.
This is the moment when a consent, if we remain firm on this, this is the moment when a consensus changes.
The LA Times, the Los Angeles Times, has a story today.
Global warming, quote, hiatus puts climate change scientists on the spot.
Now, I was saying this a few years ago, and I got a lot of heat from people.
Denier, denier, denier.
These people go crazy.
There's like you're not allowed to question any of the theories.
This was just before the big Copenhagen thing, the big meeting in Copenhagen, saying there'd be no global warming since 1998.
That is now officially conceded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They're the people who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
They've conceded that the Earth's average global surface temperature has not risen this century.
This century.
We're now in 2013.
There has been no global warming as that term is understood, if it means anything, since 1998.
Now, people are saying, oh, well, no, that's just a decade and a half anomaly in the long-term trend.
You remember back in the 70s, they were all talking about the ice age.
They were warning there was going to be a new global ice age.
Well, you know, maybe the global warming of the 80s and 90s was just a short-term blip in the long-term cooling trend of the 1970s.
The truth is, we don't know.
But what we do know is that there's been a sustained program, in effect, and this is why the Copenhagen meeting was so dangerous, to in effect have a kind of global government, basically planet-wide global government restrictions on functioning capitalist economies in aid of something we don't know whether it's going on or not.
We don't know whether man is responsible for it, and we don't know whether any of these plans are going to make any difference to it.
Like the European Union, at the height of all this, they drew up their plans for taxing bovine flatulence.
And they drew it up for real.
And if you had like a Holstein in Bulgaria, you would pay a greater flatulence tax than the Holstein in Ireland or in Denmark.
Now, I don't know why.
I don't know why a poor Bulgar has to pay more for his cow's emissions than some Irish guy does.
But apparently this was all worked out at the European Union level.
Now we say the Los Angeles Times, 15 years since global warming.
So you think of the children, a generation of children brainwashed by this stuff.
This, oh, saving the planet, recycling, doing all this stuff.
Fifteen years making videos showing that the earth is on the verge of burning, blazing, destroying.
Fifteen, there's been no, they entered kindergarten.
When they entered kindergarten, there was no global warming.
There's been no global warming in first grade.
No global warming through middle school.
When they graduated from high school this summer, there was no global warming their entire life.
But we brainwashed a generation of children, and we grossly corrupted science to do so.
And it's hilarious, they're clutching at straws now, these global warming types.
There's no doubt, says this guy in the Los Angeles Times piece, there's no doubt that in terms of global temperature, we've hit a little flat spot in the road here, says this guy, Bill Patzett of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
He says, we've hit a little flat spot in the road here, Patzett said, but there's been no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise, so global warming is alive and well.
Oh, no, no, global warming in the sense of the globe warming isn't alive, but there's just enough of a little corner of it keeping it going for you in the hopes of keeping all the grant money coming, keeping all the cushy careers coming, keeping all the pseudo-government special bodies and agencies staffed.
There's just enough about all that.
And I hope, by the way, I think this is great because some of us said this was Hooi.
Rush said it was Hooi.
He's got his big Al, years ago.
He had his big Al Gore 10 years before the planet goes up kaboom.
He had the big Al Gore countdown when Al Gore said that.
He's had the Al Gore countdown right there on the homepage of the website, counting it down.
Some of us said this was Hooi.
Complete hooey at the beginning.
And we paid a high price called deniers and all the rest of it.
And as it happens, I'm actually in court.
I'm being sued by Michael Mann, the guy who invented the hockey stick, showing this basically the planet's temperature is flat for millennia.
And then suddenly this big hockey stick blade shooting up in the 20th century.
And I was mocking his hockey stick in the same way that I was mocking that poor fellow in Colombia who took the overdose of Viagra and had to have his penis amputated.
That's basically what's happened to Michael Bad's hockey stick.
And I was mocking it because the models haven't lived up to it.
And the guy sued me.
The guy's suing me.
Yeah, he's suing me for hate speech for mocking it.
I'll tell you why he's suing me, HR, actually, since you ask.
It was at the time of the Jerry Sandusky thing.
This guy, Michael Bad, works for Penn State.
And I quoted a fellow at another website who said that Michael Madd was the Jerry Sandusky of climate change, by which he meant that, you know, Penn State, whose president is under indictment, Graham Spania, the president of Penn State, is looking at 30 years in the slammer for covering up what Sandusky and the other fellow were doing there at Penn State all those years.
And this guy noticed that Graham Spania, who exoderated Sandusky and all the other fellas carrying on down there at Penn State, also exonerated Michael Mann from any shenanigans in those climate change emails.
And Michael Mann didn't like being called the Jerry Sandusky of climate change.
I quoted him as that.
I said rather mockingly, I'm not sure I'd have followed that metaphor all the way into the boys' locker room with quite the zeal that the other guy did.
But as a result, I think we're coming up, we've got a court date on Friday, which I think is our motion to reconsider the appeal of the interlocutory motion to strike down the order denying the slap mode.
Some impenetrable bit of mumbo-jumbo American legalese.
But actually, it's a clear free speech issue.
Michael Mann has gone around, you know, the lady quoted in this LA Times piece, Judith Curry, she was a brave, iconoclastic individual scientist who looked at the evidence and decided she wasn't going to get on the climate change bandwagon that all these corrupted scientists who drank the climate change Kool-Aid got on.
They put on the cover of Scientific American, Judith Curry.
She heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
They put on the cover of Scientific American with the word heretic.
They're using the same language as the Spanish Inquisition.
And they don't realize, and yet they deny that theirs has become a faith, not a science, but a faith.
When you claim to be a scientist, when you claim to be scientific American and you're putting the word heretic out there, and that's what they've done to these few brave scientists who dared to stand up and say, well, you know, there hasn't been anything since 1998.
Maybe the science isn't so clear-cut.
Maybe we ought to be asking ourselves why our climate change models are wrong, why they've been wrong for a decade and a half.
But instead, this guy, as far as I said, it's a basic free speech thing.
This guy, Michael Mann, is suing me.
And I have to say, it's not going so well so far because we had a judge deny the motion to dismiss the case.
And she did something, by the way, she did something I've never had.
I've been in court in Canada, the United Kingdom, all over the world.
Did something I've never heard from any other judge.
She mixed up the defendants.
And in denying the motion, she attributed statements and positions to me and National Review that were, in fact, held by the other defendants.
And we appealed that motion.
We pointed out, you know, this is, where is she?
I think the, what's it called? Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Judge Combs Green.
And I've never had this.
I've been up against judges all over the world.
Never had a judge who is actually too stupid to tell one defendant from another defendant.
So she denied the motion, mixed up the defendants.
Then when we pointed out, filed a motion to reconsider, say, well, you've mixed me up with some other fella, she doubled down and said that she knew full well what she was doing.
She hadn't mixed us up, but that she was deliberately attributing these things to me.
In fact, I think I could make the case she's defamed.
She's up for a senior judgeship of all things.
But anyway, but the point about all this is Michael Mann, Michael Mann, Who has attacked the integrity of everybody?
He's called other people deniers.
He's called them villains.
He's appearing in an ad for McAuliffe, running against Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia.
He's a political figure.
He's a political figure who actively campaigns politically for the side of the political spectrum that benefits him.
And yet he wants to make climate change.
And they've been doing this for a decade now.
They want to put climate change beyond criticism.
And it's been disastrous for science.
It's corrupted scientific bodies all over the planet.
The hockey stick graph that he did was more responsible for this than almost anything, any other single event.
It was responsible for the IPCC, which is supposedly a respected global body, going out on a limb and making wild predictions about what was going to happen to global warming this century.
And it would have been responsible for embryo global government.
That's what the European Union and the United States were in favor of at that Copenhagen conference.
Global government, global regulation of climate change.
And the only thing that prevented it was the leak of those East Anglia emails.
And so we got very near to a tipping point where a vast self-enriching bureaucracy, a whole parade of people at special institutions, government agencies, quasi-government watchdogs and consultants, was basically going to be regulating global capitalism in service to a fiction.
And those of us who stood out against it, like Rush with the Al Gore countdown to Armageddon, the 10-year countdown to our army.
By the way, there were two countdowns to Armageddon.
Al Gore said it was 10 years, and the Prince of Wales said it was something like eight years and three months.
And I've got to give him credit for this, because if you're going to predict the end of the world, any old fool can be like Al Gore and say the world will end in 10 years.
But it actually takes guts to say the world will end in eight years and three months.
That's specific.
That's got more credibility.
But actually, it was a very small number of people who said, whoa, this is crazy.
This is rampaging out of control.
And the idea that in their last desperate throes of credibility, the people who perpetrated this racket are now actually trying to make it criminal to criticize, criminal to criticize people who stood up against this climate change racket.
But that's what it is this week, Climate Change Week in the United States and around the world.
And they're finally, the IPCC is meeting this week to explain why for 15 years, 15 years, that means if you're going to be voting, a young adult voting next year for the first time, there has been no global warming throughout your entire sentient life.
If you're an 18-year-old in Virginia, do you want to vote for the guy endorsed by Michael Mann, what's he called?
Terry McAuliffe, who's on board with this whole scam?
Or do you want to vote with the guy Ken Cuccinelli, the one who wanted to shine sunlight on the racket that is global warming?
If you're 18 years old, there's been no global warming in your entire sentient life.
Mark Stein in for Rush, more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB Network.
Let's go to Drew in Clearwater, Florida.
Drew, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, thanks.
Thanks for taking my call.
Mr. Stein, I've been trying to talk to you for years.
I was lucky enough to talk to Rush three times over the last 20 years.
Anyway, if you give me like a minute and a half or two, I can tell you three things about Obamacare that'll blow your mind.
Okay.
The first one is I have never seen on any TV or radio show an actual insurance expert.
They always have political politicians and pundits, and they don't have anybody that knows anything about insurance.
I've just never seen one.
And I listen to all the Salem radio network, Rush, you know, Hugh Hewitt, I listen to you every Thursday.
I've just never seen an insurance person that knows what they're talking about.
I've got 35 years' experience in demographics and marketing and as an actuarial in the insurance business.
Most of these guys, you can't, if you ask them one question, what's the difference between health insurance and health care, they can't even answer that question.
I can answer that question in 15 seconds.
The second thing that I, or the third thing that I wanted to make is that this whole thing of pre-existing conditions, if you apply that to car insurance, just think about this.
You buy a car, you don't get car insurance.
You drive your car into a lake, and then you want to buy insurance, and your car has a pre-existing condition.
You buy a house, you don't buy homeowner's insurance, it burns down.
Now your house has a pre-existing condition.
You don't buy life insurance, and then you're on your deathbed 48 hours from death, and you want to buy life insurance.
What is that going to do to the premiums that everyone else has to cover for you?
Well, Drew, I mean, you say you can explain in 15 seconds the difference between health insurance and health care.
I mean, basically, the pre-existing condition thing, once you take that out, then there is no health insurance.
The term insurance has no meaning anymore, does it?
No, no, sir, sir.
If you buy a car and you don't buy insurance for it, and then you wreck your car, you have a pre-existing condition because you have a wrecked car.
Right.
And now you're supposed to be allowed to buy insurance.
What is that going to do to everyone else that's been paying their premiums for years with not having a wreck?
It's going to make their premiums go up.
Am I right or wrong?
No, you're right.
They're going to go through the roof because every teenager who drives his car into the lake, as you said it, and then decides his car's got a pre-existing condition and wants coverage, he's going to drive all the law-abiding people's insurance way through the roof.
But that's what I mean.
It's not an insurance market anymore once you start doing that.
Because you're not insuring against what might happen.
You're basically coming up with a scam to protect things that have already happened.
The system of Obamacare is if you don't buy insurance, you pay a very small tax, which John Roberts calls it a tax, for not having insurance.
That's correct.
That's absolutely right, Drew.
And that's why, to go back to what I was saying yesterday, that is why, for many people, the most affordable form of health care expense is going to be paying, at least while it's the first couple of years, while it's just 1% or 2%, is going to be actually paying that cheap Obamacare tax.
That'll be cheaper than health insurance.
Yes, Mark Belling comes in tomorrow for three hours of Excellence in Broadcasting, stunning live at 12 Eastern.
Don't forget, Rush Returns Wednesday to take you through the end of the week with the real deal, the genuine article.
Just going back to what Drew was talking there, and the idea that You can have insurance that doesn't take account of whether you've already got the thing you're trying to get insurance against, which is the point he was making: that if you've got a crashed car and it's all broken up, you can't then just nurse it into the yard of the insurance agency and take out insurance when the hubcaps are falling off and the big ends split and the smoke pouring out of the thing.
And that's essentially what we got now with healthcare.
But it actually is beyond that.
If you go back, and this gets back to what I was saying earlier about how national government don't use the term federal anymore because there's nothing federal about it, they're micro-regulating every aspect of life for over 300 million people.
And there's nothing federal about that.
Otherwise, there'd be 50 states making their own arrangements for healthcare, and we'd see how that worked out.
And there'd be, if you don't like the healthcare in Maine, you could move to Vermont.
If you don't like it in Vermont, you can move to Pennsylvania.
If you don't like it in Pennsylvania, you can move to Indiana.
But they don't want it to be like that.
They want it one size fits all.
And when you do it one size fits all, the way these phony pseudo-Urzats legislators, because they're not real, that's a Potemkin legislature.
The bills aren't written by these guys.
They're written by, who knows?
They're written by some minion down the chain who's doing it in consultation with whichever lobbyists and special interest groups have the most pressure on him.
But just to go back to what Mike was talking about in Salem, Alabama, Mike does a job and his employer provided health insurance.
And his health insurance plans are now changing.
And basically, Mike will still be covered, but Mike's family, including his two teenage children, will no longer be covered.
So in other words, he thought he had health insurance for four people.
He's now got health insurance for just one.
This is actually a fault in the law.
The law was written by all the clever people.
All the clever people came up with this law and they told us they'd come up with a law that works for 300 million people.
And what it said is that a certain proportion of an employee's wages was set as the figure for what is affordable in healthcare.
And it was 9.5% of the employees' wages that was defined as the point below which you could be transferred into the subsidized coverage of these state exchanges.
By the way, this is another one of my exploding head moments here.
Because if you are, if you live any, and I apologize to anybody listening to this show in New Zealand or listening to this show in Norway, because they're wondering, well, what has this got to do with healthcare?
What's it got to do with doctors or nurses or anything like that?
No, it's all insane.
And you just have to bear with me because this is the insane mumbo words like exchanges and are now part of the conversation in healthcare.
So in other words, they didn't want people all being kicked off their employer schemes and going on to these exchanges.
So they set this figure of 9.5% of an employee's wages below which you could be put onto the exchange.
But it didn't occur to the geniuses in Congress that the 9.5% only implies to the employee, not to the spouse, not to the kids, not to the family.
So what is happening now where everybody from Mike in Salem, Alabama to whatever university it was in Virginia that said it was no longer going to cover spouses and children, never occurred to these geniuses in Washington that people would say, okay, well, we'll still cover Fred, but we're not going to cover Fred's missus and we're not going to cover Fred's kids.
The average plan, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average plan for an individual is about $5,600.
But for families, it's up to about $15,700, something like that.
So if you're an employer and you've got these increased costs from Obamacare and you understand the legal obligations and you can't dump people into the exchanges and all the rest of it, one very simple thing can be done.
You can take the family off the health care plan.
There's a guy quoted in USA Today, Kosali Simon, a professor of public affairs at Indiana University, who says, quote, we saw this two and a half years ago and thought, has anyone else noticed this?
This guy specializes in health economics.
And everyone said, no, no, you must be wrong.
But we weren't.
And that's going to leave a lot of people out.
Going to leave a lot.
All the clever people, the people like Nancy Pelosi, the ones who say, you have to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it.
This was in it.
And Nancy Pelosi passed it anyway.
And here's the thing.
We were told that the great wickedness of America, the great wickedness of America, this is how people think of America around the world, that there's all these millions of uninsured people and they can't get any health care because if they're taken to a hospital and they haven't got the right number of their health care policy and they're riddled with gunshot wounds because they happen to live in a neighborhood organized by Obama as community organizer in Chicago,
so they've been riddled full of bullets on a Saturday night and they're taken to the hospital, then they won't get taken because they don't have any health care insurance.
And that's how mean America is.
It's where people are in need of health care and they can't get any because they don't have health care insurance.
So the geniuses reform healthcare and there's actually going to be more people uninsured as a result of the health care reform.
All these people where once, you know, four people were on one health care policy, like the case of Mike in Salem, Alabama, now there's only going to be one on the health care policy.
And the children are going to be out in the cold.
Some other means is going to have to be provided for them.
Some other system is going to have to be provided for them.
Nobody else does this.
And you know, I explained all the little shenanigans that Harry Reid's trying to do, the cloture, the 60 votes.
At a certain point, somebody in the conservative movement, people need to step back and get less excited about Harry Reid and all the shenanigans between the House and the Senate and say, what would we on the right like to see in healthcare and how do you work towards it?
And I'll tell you, you know, what I would say.
I would like no employers involved.
I think that's been a disaster for American healthcare.
I think it's distorted the labor market.
I think it makes something, I think it, particularly now where you get into employers having to provide contraception and birth control.
In fact, I don't even like the idea of that.
If I was a promiscuous person who wanted to have sex with anything that moved, I wouldn't want my contraception needs determined in some kind of insecure healthcare data bank that nominally sluiced through my employ or whatever.
So there's all kinds of reasons why it shouldn't be done like that.
But at some point, conservatives are going to have to start thinking about unscrambling all this stuff and what they want health care provision in the United States to look like when this thing collapses, when this thing collapses.
But there isn't going to be health insurance.
How can you ensure?
If there's pre-existing conditions, you can't have a health insurance.
Whatever that is, it isn't insurance.
As Drew was saying, you know, if your house burns down, but on Tuesday morning you can go to your insurance agency and say, I'd like to insure my house for half a million dollars, then whatever else it is, it isn't insurance.
There is no health insurance.
The government has killed health insurance.
It's kept the name, but the name is no longer anything to do with insurance.
And all this, again, it comes back to these 2,000-page bills unread by the legislature that passes them.
People should be annoyed about this.
People should say, wait a minute, would this guy, this professor of public affairs at Indiana University, Kassali Simon, he spots this thing.
He spots the catch that you'll be able to kick the spouse and the kids off the company health insurance and still meet the demands of the Obamacare law.
But nobody, none of the geniuses, none of the geniuses in Congress spotted it.
Well, in that case, you've got a totally dysfunctional legislature.
And we shouldn't be passing laws that way.
Not over one-sixth of the economy.
We've got a few hundred people annexing one-sixth of the economy and then being surprised that there are all these glitches in it.
The system is nuts, nuts, nuts, nuts.
Nothing to do with the founding fathers, nothing to do with the United States Constitution.
This is nothing to do with anything anyone would start out as a means of organizing health care.
It's completely crazy.
And it happened because the American people allowed it to happen and then rewarded Obama last November for letting it happen.
And in that sense, the American people are to blame for what is about to engulf them.
But the lesson to be learned from this is that you do not make law.
Free societies do not legislate this way.
Mark's sign for Rush.
More of your calls straight ahead.
I love this story in the Los Angeles Times I was quoting on climate change at the top of the hour.
I love the way they put this: quote, temperature has failed to rise despite soaring CO2 emissions.
Don't you hate it?
Don't you just hate it when the earth's temperature refuses to do what all the climate change models assured us it was supposed to do when they said the science was settled?
Temperature has failed to rise, failed to rise.
How could temperature underperform like this?
It's absolutely shocking.
Let's go to Bob in Tallahassee.
Bob, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Greetings, sir.
Earlier, you were talking about the health care situation in regards to the economy.
We'll look at it like this.
So far, the Republicans have not voted for it officially on the record.
If they vote for the funding, then when the economy does fail, Obama's going to have a finger of blame to point, as he always does, saying, hey, they are in on it now, too.
Yeah, and you're absolutely right there.
I think that's the way this bill would be.
In other words, if the GOP can be presented as enablers of this disaster, then they will be.
And then that's what will happen.
And they'll take delight in saying, oh, well, you know, it was a bipartisan disaster.
My good friend Senator so-and-so voted to fund Obamacare and all the rest of it.
And another example of not funding something, and the government will continue to survive.
Look at the original border fence.
It was approved from Texas to San Diego.
Congress only financed, what, 15 to 17 to 20 percent of that.
And every year since then, the government seems to just continue to operate without any funding for the fence.
No, no, that's right.
It makes no absolutely no difference to it.
And by the way, you're right to point out that a lot of that is a lot of smoke and mirrors, Bob, on that border front sense.
You know, the bureaucracy does what it wants.
The bureaucracy has drones on the Canadian border for some whatever reason.
I don't know why.
But they do what they want.
And the idea, these symbolic votes, the most important thing about them is for the Republican Party to be able to say one, two, three, four years down the line, we were right on this.
We were right on this.
And we stood firm.
And we stood firm and we were not enticed by explanations.
Oh, no, it's the law of the land.
It's the law.
All kinds of things are the law of the land that principled people still stand against and wait until they've persuaded their fellow countrymen that they should not be the law of the land.
And that's the position the Republican Party should take on this, Bob.
Another thing, too, another example is for before Obamacare was even a conception of an idea, 85% of the people in this country approximately had some type of health care and were basically happy with it.
15% did not.
Last week, Rush was talking about how there's various surveys around where 12% of the people surveyed supposedly think that it's a good idea.
Obamacare, that is.
Well, look at what are they doing?
They're destroying the 85% of the people who had health care.
They're destroying it for them.
And instead of fixing the Medicare, the Medicaid situation, which did need, what should we say, repair, re-evaluating, re-engineering, whatever, instead they're going to destroy it for everybody.
Right, right.
And that's the great socialist mantra, the equality of awfulness.
And by the way, Bob, I mean, this came up tangentially yesterday, on Friday.
I think eventually, because we're now seeing people moving to these concierge health care plans where you basically pay a doctor, the doctor doesn't want anything to do with all these third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh parties, just wants to deal with the patient, just wants the patient to pay with cash or with check, pay a certain amount per year, and then you just pay whatever it is, a token sum for each time you go and see the doctor.
Eventually, because they will spend more time trying to shut down that loophole than they will trying to do anything about all the kids being left uninsured because of what happened to Mike in Salem, Alabama.
At some point, they will make it.
There's a hospital somewhere down in southern New Hampshire that it's announced that if you walk in with a broken leg and you get your checkbook out, they won't take checks.
They won't take cash.
When Rush had his heart attack, his heart problem out in Hawaii a couple of Christmases ago, and he came back on air and he talked about the cost of it.
And he said, when he was taken into the hospital and they asked him for his insurance number and all the rest of it, he said, forget about all that and got out his checkbook and said, how much is it going to be?
And he put pay Honolulu General Hospital, however many dollars.
They're going to make that illegal.
You're going to have to leave the country to do things like that.
Because in the end, what's important to them, what's important to them about this is not the health care you're getting, but that the health care you're getting is regulated by the government and you are living your life in compliance with the national government.
That's more important to them than the healthcare.
Markstein for Russia, Mordecai.
Email from Scott Mason on Obama's great line.
If you're under 26, you'll be able to stay on your parents' health plan.
No, not if your parents' employer no longer offers a family plan.
And that is what's happening.
That's what we heard from Mike in Salem, Alabama, and what we've heard more of today.
And was one of the great features of the Obamacare health debacle.
Rush will re-mark Belling's going to be here tomorrow, and he'll have three hours of great entertainment and insight for you.
Rush returns live at Wednesday for full-strength All-American Excellence in Broadcasting.
And if you're anywhere near Ashland, Mansfield, Ohio, I will see you there.
I'll be talking live at the Ashbrook Center for live action, gloom, and doom.
▲
Export Selection