All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
October 21, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, Rush is a little under the weather today.
Don't panic, nothing, no big deal.
He's not waiting in the virtual waiting room on an Obamacare healthcare exchange site.
He's just got a touch of the flu, a little glitch in the throat, as they say about Obamacare, a little glitchiness in the throat.
But he's going to be back tomorrow, assuming he's got tanked up on all that flu stuff and he's given the system a jolt.
And he'll take you through the end of the week with full strength, authentic all-American excellence in broadcasting.
This is your undocumented anchor man, Mark Stein, sitting in, coming to you live from Ice Station EIB in far northern New Hampshire.
If you're fleeing the country, do swing by and say hello.
You can't miss us.
There's a big sign on the highway saying last Rush guest host before the border.
And we're always happy to see you.
A couple of hours ago, 11.30 a.m. Eastern Time, the President spoke in the Rose Garden, and he was introduced by a woman who claimed to be the first person in the state of Delaware to enroll in an Obamacare healthcare exchange.
And we were led to believe that he was surrounded by enrollees.
But in fact, that is not the case.
Byron York at the Washington Examiner has looked into some of these people.
And they're not enrolled either.
Malik Hassan works at a restaurant in Philadelphia.
Hassan, who does not receive coverage through his employer, is looking forward to enrolling for health coverage this fall.
He recently used healthcare.gov to process his application and is waiting for the options for potential plans in Philadelphia.
This is government speak.
He recently used healthcare.gov to process his application.
Except it hasn't been processed in the sense of having reached a successful conclusion.
You know, if you go on Amazon.com and buy a book, when they process your application, they charge you a credit card and mail you the book.
That has not happened here.
He went there.
He's been on healthcare.gov.
He's got far enough to enter his personal information in some government database, but he's now waiting for the options for potential, waiting for the options for potential plans in Philadelphia.
That's four stages of vagueness and uncertainty.
Waiting, options, potential, and plans in Philadelphia.
So he's not an enrollee.
But just because he'd gotten so far in the process that he is now, he hasn't actually got a plan.
He hasn't got the potential plans.
He hasn't got the options for potential plans.
But he has got so far through the process that he is waiting for the options for potential plans in Philadelphia that he was with the president today and standing next to the president.
Then there's Nathaniel Honyaki, who received his master's degree at Johns Holtkins University and is an employment situation without benefits.
Honyaki recognizes the importance of coverage and is planning to enroll after he explores his coverage options on the DC Exchange.
So he hasn't enrolled either, but he's planning to explore his coverage options.
These are the Obamacare success stories.
And Byron York at the Washington Examiner has got a lot more of them.
I said earlier, I want to say, by the way, that this was a bigger disaster than socialized healthcare.
Socialized healthcare has the great clarifying simplicity of one size fits all universal mediocrity.
And when it was introduced in Britain, Canada, Europe, other developed countries, it was introduced very simply.
It was introduced in the United Kingdom on July the 5th, 1948, July the 5th.
July the 4th is Independence Day.
July the 5th is Dependence Day.
It's when the state assumed responsibility for your healthcare.
And if you're philosophically opposed to that, then you don't like the National Health Service, and it's a lot of rubbish and it's dirty and seedy and decrepit.
But it is simple.
You don't have to log on and explore the potential for finding options for planning, explorations of potential plans for looking at different plans for coverage.
None of that.
On July the 3rd, 1948, you went there to see a doctor and you wrote a check for the doctor.
On July the 6th, 1948, you didn't have to write a check anymore.
You just walked into Dr. Sam as you always did.
The doctor said, How are you this morning, Mr. Smith?
And he'd do all your tests.
And then he would and then he would actually just say thanks, see you next time.
There's nothing to do with going on and exploring different.
In other words, what's happened in the United States has overly complicated the entire system.
It's piled, but when we have its impact, for example, employment.
Employers are cutting people back to 29 hours a week now, so they don't have to give them healthcare benefits.
Because not content with developing a system in which employers are responsible for healthcare, that's insane.
That's insanity number one.
So how do you correct it?
You then governmentalize, you further governmentalize the system.
And so you put in even more rules so that employers have even less flexibility.
Employers are somehow responsible.
I am not my brother's keeper, but I am my janitor's keeper.
So if you're an employer, you have to take responsibility for the healthcare of your employees unless you cut them back below a certain number of hours.
So what is happening?
Obviously, people are being cut back below a certain number of hours because employees don't want to be burdened with this.
No other country in the world makes healthcare the responsibility of employers.
So now what we have here is the worst combination of pseudo-private and pseudo-government.
It doesn't have the great clarifying, simple mediocrity of government system, where you just go along to the government hospital and you sit in the lousy government waiting room and you go and see the doctor and he treats you and you don't have to show him anything.
There's no paperwork.
There's no cards.
There's no stupid numbers.
There's no copays.
There's no deductibles.
There's no nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.
You just go there, you get the same lousy treatment as everybody else does.
Nor does it have a private health care system.
So America doesn't have that.
But nor does it have a private healthcare system where people pay money to make their own choices about what they want in healthcare, to see the doctors they want to see, when they want to see them and get the treatment they want.
Instead, you have a government-distorted market that is driving people with higher and higher deductibles to fewer and fewer doctors as part of some insane system.
So it's like if you take a pantomime horse, if you take two guys in the horse suit, there's a private horse and a public horse, and you take the rear end of the public horse and sew it to the rear end of the private horse, that's the government healthcare horse right now.
It's the worst of all worlds.
And to go back to what Joe from New York was saying, Republicans are being very complacent if they think that this is just going to, you know, Republicans are basically that this Obamacare will implode and people will want to go back to some kind of genuine private healthcare system.
They won't.
I mean, because these implosions will be painful.
If you've basically made very careful provisions for your life and you've determined you have a certain amount of money to afford a certain level of health care each month, and then as in Florida and California and Pennsylvania and all over this country, you just open your mail one morning and there's a letter from some guy, some bureaucrat on the other side of the country telling you, sorry, you did everything responsibly, you planned, you budgeted, and we're kicking you off your healthcare plan.
The question Republicans need to ask themselves is: will those people then suddenly decide they're going to recover the individual entrepreneurial spirit and stand on your own two feet small citizen limited government model?
Are they going to be so distraught at what has happened to them that they're going to demand their priority is going to be a government security system?
They're going to demand even more healthcare security and even more government interference because they don't want to be opening up a letter like that from Blue Cross, Blue Shield, or Kaiser or whoever it is ever again in their lives.
And Republicans, so Republicans can't just do that, oh, well, just wait until we sweep the Senate.
And our next winning presidential candidate, who won't be like those losers we had last couple of times, that he's going to sweep the Electoral College in 2016 and then we'll repeal Obamacare and everything will be back to normal.
Don't bet on that.
Don't bet on that.
Because the betting is that as disastrous as Obamacare is, as disastrous as Obamacare is, if Republicans don't have a sane model, a sane model that regular people can understand without having to give it a lot of thought, without having a lot of mumbo-jumbo, all the stupid lingo, the donut hole, the Medicare donut hole, and all the other stupid jargon, if they can't come up with a system without donut holes, then people are going to be fleeing and clinging,
clinging ever more fiercely to the big government nurse.
You know, when you do shows like this, there's always a difference between a story that's like a big important story of the day and isn't no one's going to remember in six weeks' time.
And then the stuff that strikes you as really, you know, that's the real big stuff of the day.
And the real big stuff of the day, and it's also a healthcare story in reality, is one in today's Guardian from yesterday's Observer from London.
And the headline is this: why have young people in Japan stopped having sex?
And as I said, it's a healthcare story.
It's like it's an Obamacare story.
Obamacare basically needs lots of healthy young people to sign up for health insurance to pay for all the uninsured, sick, elderly people with pre-existing conditions that it's now going to be responsible for.
So you need your young people almost at some level or another.
Every society needs the young people to pay for the old people, to pay for the old people.
And this headline from The Observer in London, Why Have Young People in Japan Stopped Having Sex?
And it begins with an interview with a sex and relationship counselor who used to be a dominatrix.
Quote, and she did all the usual things like tying people up and dripping hot wax on their nipples.
Good times, good times.
Who doesn't enjoy that?
But she's now trying to cure what Japan's media called Sakushu Shinai Shokogan or celibacy syndrome.
Japan's under 40s have lost interest in sex.
Japan has one of the world's lowest birth rates.
Its population of 126 million has been shrinking for the past decade, projected to plunge by a third by 2060.
So it'll be the oldest society on earth.
And you can't get young people to have sex.
A survey found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18 to 34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship.
Another study found that a third of people under 30 had never dated at all.
45% of Japanese women aged 16 to 24 are not interested in or despised sexual contact.
More than a quarter of men felt the same way.
Japan is basically, if you know contemporary Japan with the karaoke machines and all the wacky reality shows on TV, Japan is basically amusing itself to extinction.
Last year was the first year when adult diapers outsold baby diapers.
They are developing robots to help change the old people's sheets in the old people's nursing home because there aren't enough young people to be the nurses in the hospital.
And being the Japanese, they're excellent.
They have really flesh-like hands.
So they're not all sort of cold and robotic and they can help turn you down, give you a bed bath.
They know whether you'd like a cup of tea or all the rest of it.
They've got cat cafes where grandchildrenless Japanese seniors can go for a couple of hours and stroke a cat so they can have some human contact.
As I said, this is like this is a society that has lost any kind of transcendent purpose.
Baby clinics are closing down.
So birthing is a dying business in Japan.
I wrote about this in my book, America Alone, a few years ago, that if you're on certain Japanese islands, the birthing clinic isn't, there's only a midwife there.
There's only someone there to do a doctor there to deliver the baby for one morning a week.
So if you can arrange your contractions for Tuesday morning, you'll get the baby delivered there.
Otherwise, you have to get on a little plane and fly all the way to Tokyo or some other big city.
And, you know, you really need the high-priced fancy La Mars classes to time your breathing for turbulence as you're coming down low over Tokyo International Airport.
This is, as I said, this is really the same story as Obamacare because Obamacare, the premise of Obamacare is that healthy young people will sign up and pay for old people.
And if you can't keep that ratio, if that ratio goes haywire, so that if you have the situation Japan is in where adult diapers are outselling baby diapers, your society is in deep, deep trouble.
And as you say, as this story reports, 45% of Japanese women 16 to 24 don't want to know about sex.
Eventually they give, it's not just that they give on upon marriage and breeding.
They eventually get too bored for sex too.
Mark Stein in for Rush 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush behind the Golden EIB microphone today.
Let us go to Larry who's calling us from Kansas.
Larry, great to have you on America's number one radio show.
What's on your mind?
Hi there, Mark.
Thanks for taking the call.
My pleasure.
What's bothering you today, Larry?
Oh, you invited liberals to call in to discuss the Affordable Health Care Act.
And so I thought I would give you a call as I was driving through Kansas.
There's not a lot else to do.
A couple of comments about the last thing you said, where young people are going to have to pay for old people.
That's the nature of all insurance in auto insurance.
Good drivers pay for the bad drivers.
The idea of all insurance is to get a pool of people where the people who act well, do well, pay basically for the sins of the others.
As far as affordable health care goes, I think you're absolutely right when you say that right now we have terrible system.
We've got a half private, half public.
It's the worst of all worlds.
To me, there's absolutely no reason that health insurance should be tied to your job, but it is in this country today.
And the reason I support it is because I think the government, well, two reasons.
One, I think the government is the only entity large enough to solve the problem.
And two, I think it's our constitutional responsibility.
Well, let's look at it this way, Larry.
Let's unpack those things.
You can't have insurance.
You're right about insurance, that you have a pool of people.
When you sell them car insurance, you assume that most people are not going to flip their car over on the interstate because if everybody did it, insurance rates would be through the roof.
Now, you have a system here where people with pre-existing conditions, they're diagnosed with a terminal illness, and the day after being diagnosed, they go and get so-called insurance.
So it's not insurance anymore.
It's like saying, well, I'd like to get home insurance.
Oh, yes, and where's your home?
Well, it was at 27 Elm Street, but it burnt down two nights ago.
That's why I need insurance.
That's what the government has just done.
Health insurance doesn't mean what the government now says it means, Larry.
Well, I think that's not correct.
You know, we all have different levels of health, right?
I've had severe health problems that got fortunate enough through my job to take care of.
But in the current system, right?
Right.
The current system is not designed to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.
And that's a basic American.
It's a basic American proposition to help those that can't take care of themselves.
Exactly, Larry.
But the question then is, how do you do that?
Do you have a centralized system?
Do you have a centralized system for 300 million people?
A bureaucracy, a centralized.
Nobody's tried that before.
And you know why they haven't tried it?
Because no first world nation has ever tried that.
Because it can't be done, Larry.
You can't have a cent.
Why should somebody in, why can't you have a Maine health care system and a California health care system?
It can be done if we work together.
Let me ask you this question.
I would imagine that you're one of those guys that thinks government should be run more like a business, right?
Yeah, on the whole, I think government should do—no, I don't actually.
I think government should do the things only government can do, by which I mean the Fire Department and the Army and the United States.
What is our government supposed to do?
It's enshrined in the Constitution.
There are six things that our government is supposed to do, right?
I'll help you out with that.
It starts, we the people of the United States in order to...
Yeah, we've only got a few seconds left, Larry.
Stay on the lighter.
We'll pick it up afterwards.
But we can't, because we can't, as admirably crisp as the United States Constitution is, I've got a hard break covered up, so we can't take all six clauses of it.
But let's get back to that point when we resume.
Can you have a centralized system for 300 million people's health care?
Nobody has ever tried that before.
It's a hell of a gamble.
And if the gamble goes wrong, you're basically collapsing a big part of American life.
Yes, Rush is a little under the weather, a little glitch in the throat, but he will return live tomorrow for full-strength, authentic, all-American excellence in broadcasting.
You need not be discombobulated by any sinister foreign guest hosts.
But this is Mark Stein taking care of things behind the golden EIB microphone for today.
Let us return to Larry, who was waiting in our virtual waiting room for a few minutes while we stepped out for an EIB professor.
Can you still hear me?
Yeah, you're live on air, Larry.
Let me ask you this question, Larry, because this is extraordinary.
A government bill that nationalizes one-sixth of the economy, the equivalent of the economy of France, an entire G7 economy governmentalized.
What was the problem that Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, was supposed to fix?
What was the problem?
What was that?
What was the problem that Obamacare is supposed to be fixed?
In other words, before Obamacare, what was the real problem with American health care?
Well, I think the problem is twofold.
One is there's a significant number of the people in the United States that have absolutely no coverage.
Right.
Okay, just one issue that the Affordable Care Act is designed to address.
Right, no, no, no.
Just hold it there a minute, Larry, because I mentioned this earlier.
There were over 40 million people uninsured in America.
And liberals and Europeans and everyone around the world says this is a moral outrage, that there are tens of millions of people who have no health coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office says that by 2020, in other words, after a full half decade of Obamacare, there will still be over 30 million Americans uninsured.
So it doesn't solve that problem, Larry.
No, no, it's not just a moral imperative.
It's our constitutional imperative.
You didn't answer my question about what the United States is designed to do.
There are six things that the Constitution says the United States is supposed to do.
Okay, lay it on me.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, one, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We are supposed to promote the general welfare.
Okay, that's fine.
But how does Obamacare promote the general welfare?
Well, I think it is a step in the direction of providing health insurance for the United States.
You said you think it is impossible to design a system to cover 300 million people.
Basically, what you're saying is it's impossible to administer that.
I disagree.
It's a bit together on that.
The problem is that there is a group of conservative individuals who disagree philosophically with that.
So they decided instead of trying to make it work, they're going to try to defund it.
They're going to try to defund it.
Wait a minute.
There are no conservatives or Republicans involved in what's going on right now.
Here's the issue, Larry.
This is nuts.
And I'm speaking here, by the way, not on behalf of right-wing American Tea Party extremist conservatives.
I'm speaking as a French bree-snorting, Chardonnay, chugging European socialist.
Because they can't make head nor tail of this crazy, wacky, stupid thing anyway.
When you talk about insurance, Larry, if you're someone who has you go in and you say, well, I'm riddled with cancer.
I'm covered with pustules and lesions that are leaking from every part of me.
Every single orifice on me is oozing.
I would like some health insurance.
That person is not insured.
Insurable.
That person is sick.
And so you have to distinguish, as continental socialist countries do, between people who are insuring against, who want to insure as private freeborn individuals against poor health outcomes and people who are just sick and haven't made provision and need effectively the 21st century equivalent of welfare hospitals.
So you need a private system and then you need a kind of public welfare hospital system.
What's wrong with that, Larry?
You know, I think you said it earlier.
A combination of the private-public system is not going to work.
So the dynamic there is not going to work.
Do you know how many, just let me ask you this question, Larry?
Do you know how many countries on the planet have only a government health care system?
I don't.
I know earlier you characterize the medical care as lousy, but I can tell you that I received medical care in Australia and it was fine.
No, Australia.
No, Australia has public-private.
France is public-private.
Britain is public-private.
The two countries with government health care systems, government monopoly, and that's the Dominion of Canada and North Korea.
And on the whole, you're better off being in Canada rather than North Korea because Canada has an unofficial private health care system called the United States.
So if you're in Toronto and you've got to wait two years for a hip replacement, you can drive to Buffalo.
Or if you're in Calgary and you're sick of waiting at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, but you happen to have a winter place in Arizona, you can get it done down in Arizona.
So America functions as the de facto private health care system for Canada.
But nobody thinks, Larry, and I hope you're not arguing for this today, that only the government should run the healthcare system.
Because that's way beyond the Swedes or the Danes or the Norwegians or the wussiest Euro-socialists you care to imagine.
You're surely not suggesting that the system that's in place now, which is effectively government monopoly on your body, Obama has taken jurisdiction of your colon and your appendix and your lungs.
You're not surely suggesting that that's the only system.
The government already has that capability.
Surely you're familiar with eminent domain.
If the government wants to take your property and they can prove some kind of public good and not necessarily just public good.
There's been an example where economic good was determined.
Right, right, right, right.
That's right.
I love that.
Ebit of a debate, yeah, because what you're saying is the government can take your house if one of their cronies wants to come and put a subdivision in.
So basically, if somebody wants to put a subdivision in your large intestine, the government should have the right to seize that by Ebida debate.
What about, hey, isn't this illegal slang?
Companies already have that right.
I mean, my brother is on a lung transplant list, and Venerable University Hospital said, sorry.
Hey, Larry.
An insurance company is not going to cover enough, so we're taking you off that list.
No, but how about this, Larry?
You're saying basically the government right now can fine you if you don't make arrangements for your body that meet their approval.
You're the party that said, keep your rosaries off my ovaries.
My body, my choice.
Where'd that all go, Larry?
Where's the my body, my choice stuff going that the old feminist, the old hairy feminists jumping up and down the street used to go crazy on?
Care, whether it's provided by the government or insurance company, if they want to.
Look, Larry, here's you're saying that we shouldn't give the government power that we've already given the government through the eminent domain.
No, I don't agree.
You're not going to get an argument from me on that.
The government of the United States has too much power anyway.
What I'm saying is that what I'm saying is there are arguments to be made for people, freeborn peoples, making their own decisions about health care, choosing their doctors, choosing the people they want to be treated by.
That's how such notorious right-wing extremist loony countries like Switzerland and Belgium and Netherlands and the Netherlands and Sweden and Norway and Denmark and Finland do it.
And then there's the American way now, which is Obama telling you you've got to do this and you've got to be railroaded into that plan and you'll have to drive four hours to see your doctor because there isn't another doctor in the network who's nearer.
Why give the government powers over your body that Scandinavian socialist governments don't have?
So you give up, you give up some of your flexibility because you don't have the financial resources to fund that flexibility.
I don't see a problem with that.
Well, if I have the money to choose any doctor I want to, I can still do that.
On the other hand, if I say to the government, I'm not financially capable of making and ensuring this flexibility, I want your help, then you have to give up some of your flexibility.
How are you?
How are your premiums looking for 2014, Larry?
My premiums are pretty high because I'm covering an ex-wife and two kids.
But I am fortunate in the fact that through my business career, I was successful enough to be able to fund those.
So I have the flexibility of that.
For some unwed, you know, mother with two children who's making $17,000 a year, then if she has to give up some of her flexibility in order for coverage, I don't see a problem with that.
No, but it isn't about giving up flexibility for coverage.
We've just seen what the coverage is.
It's a website that doesn't work.
Now, you're saying we want to double down on that.
The website doesn't work.
It doesn't work.
They've done something that is incredible.
They've created the world's most expensive website, and it functions, as I said earlier, like a Soviet-era Brezhnev 1970 supermarket, the classic Soviet supermarket where every checkout line is for nine items or less.
That's what Obamacare is.
And you say, well, we just need to double down on that and give government even more control, Larry.
They don't.
We've already given government that power.
No.
What we need to do is give them the capability to exercise that power in.
So basically, the government has sovereignty over your large intestine anyway.
So it's just about enabling them to exercise that sovereignty more efficiently.
Over your children's lives.
No, well, they shouldn't have that, Larry.
And that's one of the great concerns.
Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.
I can't believe that.
No, but they shouldn't have it.
How many times in the history of this country has the draft been enacted?
Well, soldiering has been an obligation of citizenship in most societies throughout human history.
That's a different thing.
It's one thing to say you've got to put on a uniform and fight for your country.
It's another thing for the government to say, we decide when and where you will be treated for.
We decide what you've got to get coverage for, Larry.
And these are serious things, by the way.
By the way, one issue, what I think is the real crux of the Obamacare thing is the lack of privacy, a centralized database.
They're already sending incorrect information to insurers.
All kinds of wacky stuff that's going to be out there on official records for you.
I happened, if you'll forgive the expression, I happened to find myself on French soil last year when I, like Rush, had a little bit of a medical need.
And I wound up going to a French hospital.
And I was astonished.
It was a very pleasant experience not to have all the personal information.
Do you wear a seat belt?
Do you own guns?
Do you sleep with bisexual male drug addicts?
None of that.
They just wanted to treat me for what the medical problem was.
And I think the real issue here is the idea of a centralized government system keeping government information records administered by the IRS.
It's not just a recipe for incompetence, as we've already seen.
It's also a recipe for the worst kind of corruption.
Markstein for Rush, we got more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
You know, I'll say this.
I'll say this for Larry.
I'll tell you what I liked about Larry because he argued using the Constitution, or the preamble at any rate, which is not, you don't often meet constitutional liberals.
But I also like the way he argued about healthcare on the grounds of eminent domain and the draft, which I thought you can't blame the guy as an Obamacare supporter for not giving it the old college try.
I thought that was excellent stuff.
Eminent domain, which is when the government confiscates your property because they want to put an interstate through there.
So if you're, I mean, I'm surprised actually, that's a much better constitutional argument than John Roberts used at the Supreme Court with his thing, his lame-o thing that it was the taxing power.
He should have just said it's eminent domain.
If the government wants to build an extension to I-95 and run it up through your colon, well, you've just got to take it.
That actually makes far more, as a constitutional argument, that is a lot more going for it than his claim that it was covered by the taxing power.
So you got to hand it.
What's this other one, HR, that he said it was?
The draft.
He said it was like the draft.
That's right.
They used to draft you and send you off to go and fight in Vietnam.
Now they're just basically drafting your body parts.
But it's basically the same.
It's basically the same principle.
By the way, these are liberal arguments.
These are the guys.
This is the party that said, was going out and saying, hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?
Now it's, hey, hey, hey, BHO, how many body parts are you going to let me take a woe?
That's basically his thing.
It's like the draft.
It's like the draft.
It's like eminent domain.
This is, but that's actually a better.
The eminent domain argument is actually a better one than John Roberts came up with at the Supreme Court.
I think that's great.
I wondered what that paid.
I wondered what I had that pain in my large intestine, and I realized what it was now is that the court has actually ordered a golf club and a shopping mall being built in there.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
Mark Stein, in for rush, we got more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
Maranatha Mark twerks, not twerks, tweets, tweets or twerks.
He says, you know, that eminent domain argument could take on a more sinister spin.
Obama needs a kidney.
And you have the perfect match, Mark.
Yeah, it's going to come to that.
That is essentially what has happened now.
The federal government, the national government, nothing federal about this, has basically taken jurisdiction over your body parts.
And who's to say they won't come up with different uses for them as things go on?
A report that's just out today, reported by Associated Press, almost 15% of Americans, young Americans, aged 16 to 24, are neither in school nor in work.
These are the people who are supposed to version of that Japanese syndrome where they're too tired to procreate.
They're basically checking out.
It's the death of the American spirit here.
That's a tragedy.
15%, neither in school nor in work.
They're just sitting around doing nothing all day.
This has been Mark Stein for Rush.
▲
Export Selection