All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:40
November 7, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And here we are, just as promised, folks.
Back we are with, you know, I just told a broadcast engineer, okay, standby soundbites 29, 9, and 10.
Keep 23.
What am I saying?
I know I'm never going to get to all of this.
I can't get to everything I want to do in this album.
I'm going to try.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, illrushbo at eibnet.com.
Somebody's a funny note.
Change the Redskins' name.
Take what's really offensive out of it.
Washington.
Kind of like that.
Here, Christopher Rubaker, who is a mouthpiece for the regime, AP reporter.
Why a spike in October unemployment may not be so bad.
Okay, this tells us the unemployment numbers tomorrow are not going to be good.
And so AP is setting a table.
That's actually good.
The number is going to says that the jobs report for October due out Friday may be bleak.
It may even be scary.
Unemployment rate could jump by the most in three years.
Hiring may slow, but don't panic.
The ugly figures will reflect the government's partial shutdown.
And that's why it's going to be bad.
The trends for the job market will likely reverse themselves in coming months.
Nobody lost their job because of the government shutdown.
What's the shutdown have to do with the unemployment rate?
Zip Zero Nada.
So somebody's told this schlub that we're going to have a rotten unemployment number tomorrow.
And AP is out there.
Said, don't sweat it.
It isn't, it's just the shutdown, and it'll roar back in the next few months or so.
Don't sweat it.
And then also from AP, headline, nations poor at 49.7 million higher than the official rate.
The number of poor people in America, 3 million higher than the official count.
One out of six residents due to out-of-pocket medical costs and work-related expenses, according to a revised census measure.
But again, don't be fooled.
This is the AP.
They're not exposing Obama's disastrous economy.
What they're trying to do, if you read the whole story, they're making sure that food stamps and other welfare benefits don't get cut.
That's what, that's the only reason.
It is a shame.
It is unacceptable.
The number of Americans living in poverty and it's going up.
And we can't get one story from anybody in the media that maybe the last five years of economic policies might have something to do with this.
They even say here that medical, out-of-pocket medical expenses are going up, work-related expenses are going up, but there's no connection.
Why are out-of-pocket medical expenses going?
Everybody ever heard of Obamacare?
Well, oh, no, no, no, no, no.
It's just a piece to make sure that these Republicans don't seize on this and cut food stamps or welfare benefits.
That's all this story is.
Now, I talked about this other story earlier.
I mentioned it last week, last hour.
It's from ProPublica, which is a left-wing hack site.
It's supposedly a journalist clearinghouse site, but it's a bunch of leftist wackos.
And the headline, loyal Obama supporters canceled by Obamacare.
And here's what this is.
San Francisco architect Lee Hammock and his wife, Joe Ellen Brothers, are cradle Democrats.
They've donated to organizing for America.
They've worked the phone banks a year ago for Obama's reelection.
Cradle Democrats, I mean they're cradle to grave Democrats.
They're cradle in it.
They're died in the wool Democrats.
And the ProPublica reporter has been hearing about all these horror stories with healthcare, and he wanted to find out if they're really true.
So he found this San Francisco couple that is losing their health insurance, and their prices for replacement are skyrocketing, and he wanted to find out if it was really the case or if there was some other explanation for it.
Since 1995, Lee Hammock, San Francisco architect, and his wife, Joel and brothers, have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente.
We've both been in very good health all of our lives.
Exercise, don't smoke, we drink lightly, a healthy weight, no health issues, and so on.
They're 60 and 59, respectively.
They've been paying $550 a month for their health coverage, a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans that Obama's criticized.
Recently, Kaiser informed him the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it didn't meet the requirements of Obamacare.
The couple would need to find another plan.
The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.
And so this guy wanted to find out this report.
Is this really true?
We keep hearing these horror stories.
He wanted to get to the bottom of it.
From all the stob stories I've heard and read, ours is the most extreme, said Lee.
And that's because it's happening to him, of course.
That's why he thinks it's the most extreme.
I've been skeptical.
This is the reporter writing.
I've been skeptical about media stories featuring those who claim they'd be worse off under Obamacare because their policies were canceled on account of Obamacare.
So I tried to find the flaws in what Hammock told me.
I tried to find out where he was wrong about the way he was looking at his insurance, and I couldn't find any flaws.
The couple's existing Kaiser plan was a good one.
Their new options were indeed more expensive, and the benefits didn't seem any better.
They do not qualify for premium subsidies because they make more than four times the federal poverty level, though Hammock says not by much.
Hammock.
Sorry, wrong button.
Hammock recalled his reaction when he and his wife received letters from Kaiser in September informing him their coverage is being canceled.
I worked downstairs.
My wife had a clear look of shock on her face.
Our first reaction was clearly, there's got to be some mistake here.
And this was before the exchanges opened up.
We calmed down.
We were confident this would be all straightened out.
But it wasn't.
I asked Hammock to send me details of his plan.
Carried a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits, $150 emergency room visit fee, and 30% co-insurance for hospital stays after the deductible.
The out-of-pocket maximum, $5,600.
That plan was ending.
Kaiser's letters told him because it did not meet the requirements of Obamacare.
Everything's taken care of, the letter said.
There's nothing you need to do.
The letter said the couple would be enrolled in a new Kaiser plan that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them.
That's more than $15,000 a year.
Remember, they were paying $5,600.
The letter said the couple would be enrolled, and for that higher amount, what would they get?
Higher deductible, higher out-of-pocket, higher hospital costs, and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.
What is going on here? writes the reporter.
How can this be happening?
Because they all trusted Obama.
They just thought you keep your plan, you like your plan, you keep it.
Doctor, premium goes down 25.
These people bought it.
They're big Obama supporters.
Hook Line and Sinker.
Now their medical costs are just skyrocketing on the new plan they're going to be forced into taking.
And the way this story ends, what is Hammock going to do?
Well, if his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, 62 grand for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as much as zero.
If he makes just a dollar more, he gets nothing.
So what the Hammocks have decided they have to do is figure out a way to get subsidies, meaning get their neighbors to pay the freight.
Even though they make over the $62,000 a year cutoff, they want to find a way to get their neighbors to pay for it.
Typical Democrats.
And that's what Mr. Hammock is leaning toward, lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.
That's what this couple is going to do.
They are going to lower their salary so they are below the poverty level, the four times poverty, so that they get subsidies from their neighbors.
Here is a case of Obamacare harming economic ideas.
A couple giving up income in order to get a freebie, lowering their standard of living.
Died in the wool, Obama supporters love Obama.
They think this guy's the greatest thing.
In fact, the end of the story.
No, we're not changing our views on Obama or the Democrats because of this.
But it did hurt to hear Obama saying just the other day that if our plan has been dropped, it's because it wasn't any good or our costs would go up slightly.
We're gratified that the press is on the case, but we're frustrated the stewards of Obamacare don't seem to have heard.
So it isn't Obama that did this.
They have implicit trust in Obama.
Limbaugh theorem right here.
Obama has destroyed their lives, but he didn't.
It's the stewards of Obamacare.
He probably doesn't even know, but they're happy the press is on the case now.
So they're going to lower their income so they qualify for freebies.
And they're going to remain dyed in the wool, loyal San Francisco Democrats.
In fact, the story says this guy called Nancy Pelosi for assistance, which might prove beneficial.
Once the word gets out, you'll see the value here.
So loyal Obama supporters canceled by Obamacare, remaining loyal Obama supporters, lowering their standard of living to qualify for freebies, and talking about what a great guy Obama is.
And that's, folks, this is these are low information.
These are just dyed in the wool.
These are nincome poops.
There's no amount of reality that's going to ever wake people like this up.
Obama could carpet bomb their neighborhood and somehow be the fault of the Air Force.
And gosh, I wonder if Obama knew.
Well, we're not changing our views.
We'll just go down to public housing and try to get a subsidized apartment.
And we love Obama.
And then there's a companion story to this.
From CBS Eyeball News New York, from website crashes to long holds on calls, the issues involved with the unveiling of Obamacare well documented.
But now, could it be breaking couples up?
CBS Eye Bowl 2's Don Champion spoke to one Brooklyn couple on Wednesday who said they may be forced to get a divorce in order to get health insurance.
Nona Willis Aronowitz and Aaron Kassara's love affair began at a party in 2008.
Oh, get me the Stradivarius.
We kissed on a beanbag chair, said Aronowitz.
A year later, it grew into a marriage at City Hall in Manhattan.
It was really sudden, Aronowitz said.
It was basically because he needed health insurance, and I had a job that would give that to him.
So, my God, these people admit they got married for health care.
This is what it's not just professional leeches, snerdly.
Look at what this kind of cradle-to-grave socialism is doing to our culture.
One kiss on a beanbag chair, you head over to the Justice of the Peace in Manhattan, you get married for health care.
But four years later, there is now irony in the fact that the couple could soon divorce for the same reason.
After Obamacare is rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced, Aronowitz said.
So, why don't you head back to the beanbag chair, take back the kiss, head back over to the justice of the peace, and break it up?
The issue for Aronowitz and Kassara is that together as a family of only two, they make more than the $62,000.
It's the same thing.
They make too much money.
So, not only is Obamacare rotten for the economy, it is bad, very bad for families.
Together, as a family of only two, they make more than the $62,000 level to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
But if they lived together unmarried, they would qualify for the subsidies, and they could literally save hundreds of dollars a month on their health care.
So, that's what they're going to do.
Obamacare, Affordable Care Act.
Maybe this pair in Brooklyn need to call a couple in San Francisco and say, you don't have to get divorced.
You just have to find a way to lower your income.
And that can't be too hard now with this new mayor because everybody's going to have less money.
Did you know this de Blasio guy?
Do you know he's married to a lesbian?
He is.
He's married to a lesbian.
The new mayor of New York is married to a lesbian.
Well, I don't know about health care implications.
That's just something I saw today.
What?
He's got two kids.
I think she's a former lesbian.
She's a former lesbian.
I don't know what happened.
It's not a choice, so I don't know what happened.
Well, it isn't, so I don't know what happened.
She was a lesbian.
Now she's not.
or married.
I wonder if healthcare is...
What's this going to do to gay marriage?
I wonder if people thinking about this.
That could really.
All right, here you go.
After graduating from Wellesley, the current Miss DeBlasio looks like Sherlane McRae published an essay in Essence magazine, 1979, entitled, I Am a Lesbian.
The article was described as groundbreaking for how a black woman discussed her sexuality in a black magazine.
And we're told the purpose of the essay was to dispel the myth that there are no gay black people.
And then, so she married De Blasio and in a honeymoon in Cuba.
And I don't know this, but I wouldn't be surprised if some Sandinista communists didn't show up as best men for the ceremony.
You people, if you're what?
If you're a lesbian, and they have got two kids.
If you're a lesbian and you marry a man and we have two kids, you're asking, how does that make you a lesbian?
I don't know.
You say so.
You're asking the wrong guy, snerdily.
There's no way that I'm going to answer this question for you.
I'm way, way above my pay grade.
Where are we going on the phones?
Who's Cliff in Savannah, Georgia?
Hi, Cliff.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's an honor and privilege to speak with you today, sir.
Appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
I wanted to go back to something you mentioned in the first hour about the Virginia race and single women fall into the Democrat about two-thirds, roughly.
Oh, it was massive, like 62 to 27%, 67 to 22% single women, unmarried women, voted for the Democrat.
Yeah.
Well, I'd just be interested to know is how many of these are single mothers, because me, myself, I'm a single father, and I speak to multiple single women.
And when they find out that I am a single father, you know, it kind of piques their interest.
And they just tell me, I mean, I don't make a lot of money, but I go out and I work every day and do the things that I ought to do.
But, I mean, they just tell me about program after program after program that they can get involved with and just milk the system.
The single women tell you this.
Yes, yes.
Are they?
How does this even come up?
Is this part of courtship?
No, no, sir.
Not at all.
It's just that they talk about all these things that they get just from the government for not being married and having children.
It's like, you know, they just mentioned it to me.
Do you know what they're talking about?
Well, well, now, if your point is that they are fully aware of how to game the system, I don't doubt that at all.
That's the whole point.
The Democrat Party has rigged the game to make government attractive.
Single mothers, single women don't need men, don't need a husband.
The government will do that for them.
I understand that, but it just amazes me.
You know, it's like they tell me, you know, well, have you gone to collect child support?
I'm like, no, I don't need it.
Well, it's like they say that the child support office, they have all this literature that they can give you about how to get on these programs and how to get rent assistance and utility assistance and food stamps.
I'm like, you got to be kidding me.
I mean, it baffles me.
Why?
I just don't see.
I do it.
I do it on my own.
I know.
You have a different value set.
It doesn't occur to you to have somebody else take care of you.
It doesn't occur to you that your friends and neighbors ought to pay for what you want.
But the Democrat Party has created this atmosphere among people that they're owed something, that they're entitled, that life has been unfair, that America has savaged them, and brutish men have come along and been mean to them.
And so the government's going to make it right.
And they've got them programmed here to be taken care of by Democrats and government.
Okay, some of these soundbites that I want to get in here.
Let's see.
Grab 9 and 10.
These fascinating.
This is Frank Rich, ex of the New York Times.
By the way, do you know, you mean Frank Rich, in order to relate and understood, left his family for a year and lived with a gay couple in order to be able to more accurately understand and write about that condition.
Now, he didn't marry a lesbian, but he lived with a gay couple, I think, for a year.
Yeah, when I say he lived with them.
No, I don't.
No, no, he just in residence.
He just lived with them.
That's where he left.
He left his family, his wife, and his kids, and he moved in with a gay couple.
I don't know what else happened.
That's not the point.
I'm just, it's just a little aside as to who the guy is.
That's all.
He's a New York Times columnist.
He's left there.
He now works at either New York or The New Yorker or The Cosmopolitan.
Some says, I don't know where he writes now.
He started out as their theater critic, and then they made him an opinion columnist.
Anyway, he was on Piers Morgan Live last night.
It's New York magazine's word.
He's an at-large writer there.
And Piers Morgan said, you wrote a fascinating piece today, and the headline was, Cuccinelli's near win says more than Christie's landslide.
What do you mean by that?
He had almost everything, according to conventional wisdom, going against him, but he came within three points of Terry McAuliffe, who had the Clintons campaigning for him.
He had President Obama campaigning for him.
He had a ton of money.
And he had a government shutdown to beat over Cuccinelli's head because Northern Virginian government workers were affected by it.
And, you know, Cuccinelli is part of the right wing that supported the shutdown.
This guy did as well as he could and might have won, frankly, if it hadn't been for a third-party Libertarian candidate, I think does not look great for Democrats and also does not look great for moderate Republicans who take such heart in Chris Christie's victory in New Jersey because I think the Tea Party is alive and well.
You know, the reason I wanted you to hear this is because that's now three different Democrat liberal analysts who I think have got this right.
I think Stephanie Cutter was right in her analysis of the Christie win.
And I think Big Ed over at MSNBC had a point, although he may not have known it.
And Rich, Frank Rich is right here in the way he's analyzing this.
The Cuccinelli win means far more to the Republicans and the Democrats than Christie's win.
Because in New Jersey, everybody, there really wasn't an election there.
But in addition to that, the exit polls in New Jersey all show Hillary cleaning up in a presidential race in that state.
And believe me, these people live and die by exit polls or any poll.
That is public opinion to them.
So Piers Morgan, after hearing this, shocked, will say, well, let's come to Chris Christie because he's a hugely popular figure, a popular governor, re-elected with a thumping margin.
Contrary to what a lot of people in the pundit profession think, I think Christie's victory is meaningless in terms of the National Republican Party.
This is not an acceptable candidate for the Republicans who are going to vote in presidential primaries.
Christie is popular in New Jersey.
There's no question about it.
But even in New Jersey, in the exit polls that CNN showed, he lost in a matchup with Hillary Clinton.
He's a New Jersey phenomenon.
Is he a national phenomenon?
Only if they cancel all the Republican primaries.
Ooh, man.
That's if they cancel the Republican primaries, meaning in Rich's view, Christie's going to have a tough time in the primaries against whoever else might seek the nomination, i.e. conservatives.
But again, I want to tell you, just so you know, the RNC and the Republican establishment don't believe any of this.
They are thrilled because Christie won a majority of Hispanics.
And right now, that is all that matters.
Well, maybe not all, but I mean, that's huge.
You know, the GOP is big on amnesty, big ones.
They believe this notion that if they don't do amnesty, they're never going to win anything because they're never going to win the Hispanics.
And if they don't win the Hispanics, they ain't going to win anything.
And Christie did.
But then, of course, he's not going to win the Hispanics in a presidential race.
The Democrats are.
And especially if the Republicans throw it all away and go amnesty.
Because that would be the official separation of the Republicans and their base.
And it seems to be where the Republicans are headed.
Let's take a quick break.
We'll do it.
We'll come back and continue after this.
Okay, the politico.
They're all excited right now, folks.
Senate backs gay rights bill in historic vote.
You ever notice that when Democrats get what they want, it's historic?
Historic gay rights bill passes in Senate.
Somebody tell me what gay rights are denied now.
Are there any gay rights that are you know what this really is?
This now goes to the House.
And Boehner and the boys have said, we're not going to pass this.
I mean, there's plenty of protections for everybody already in the Constitution.
And that's why they did it in the Senate.
They pass a new gay rights bill that's not necessary, send it to the House Republicans, hoping they'll vote it down so they can run around saying anti-gay bigots, blah, blah, blah, Republicans.
Now, what would you do to counter this?
If you're Boehner, would you go ahead and pass it to avoid the allegation?
Or would you do what they're going to do and not pass it and then deal with the fact that you're anti-gay in the media?
What would you do, seriously?
I mean, we sit there and we say, these damn Republicans don't even know what to do.
What would you do?
Well, if you're going to vote against this, against it, you're going to have to get aggressive in explaining why.
You just can't let it sit there.
I know.
It is a lawsuit magnet.
It's a giveaway to the trial lawyers out there.
You've got to come out and say why you're going to oppose this.
And then, you know, to say, well, I got enough rights as it is.
That won't fly, even if it's true.
They're going to have to explain.
It's just a never-ending, a full court press, constant Democrat offense.
And it's not meant to pass anything.
It's always meant to categorize Republicans and conservatives as anti-this or whatever the Democrats want.
You know, this Ashton Kutcher guy, I have to wonder.
He won this Teen Choice Award and he goes on TV and he starts talking about how valuable work is.
And don't misunderstand this, but he sounded like me, which was pleasant to hear, but it stunned me.
He's a Hollywood actor.
He promotes left-wing Democrat causes, but out there, he's telling these kids that one of these lines was, there's no job he thought that was beneath him.
He would do whatever he could get, and he would do it the best he could.
And now he's back again.
Ashton Kutcher, urging teens to get a job they love and be thoughtful and forget about fame.
He said, fame is crap.
I think that so much of what we see in the world today is this sort of propaganda machine around fame and around celebrity.
And I actually think there are some kids in the world that grow up today and think, I want to be famous instead of when I grow up, I want to do something.
I want to build something.
I want to create something.
And he's exactly right.
He's just identified the Kardashians.
They haven't done anything, but they're famous.
Paris Hilton, famous for being famous.
What have they done?
nothing.
But this is, now some people might say, well, Ashton, easy for you to say.
You're already famous.
Already rich.
You already have all this stuff.
But he's right, nevertheless.
Was on with Ellen DeGeneres talking about this.
And by the way, I think the same thing.
I think all this social media, you know, I've talked about this a lot, this desire that these young people have for everybody to know everything about them because they want fame.
They have the red carpet.
They want to live that life because they think everybody loves you when you're famous.
I think everybody loves you, that you're rich, and that life is a giant party.
They have a total misconception about it.
And he's out there saying so.
I want to also, I promise this, Michael Wilbon, ESPN, pardon the interruption last night.
They're talking about Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin.
And there's been a shift here in opinion as to Incognito being a bad guy.
Now he's not so much.
Listen to this.
It doesn't ring true.
It is true.
This goes back to slavery.
House in and field in, okay?
When they were separated and seemingly the people in the house were closer to who?
The white man.
This is about relationship.
This is about how you're perceived.
This is about blackness, okay, culturally and spiritually, not about the actual color of your skin.
There are people always in all black subcultures who are white, who are more accepted as being blacker than black people who may be, as we say, blue-black.
Now, what he's saying here, let me translate.
He's basically explaining why Incognito is a brother in the Dolphins locker room.
The brothers love him because of the way he carries himself and he's not black.
On the other hand, the brothers do not like RG3.
Are you aware of this?
The brothers do not like RG3.
He's too white.
He's Republican.
He's dating a white girl.
They don't like RG3.
And we've got some bite here, this Rob Parker guy back on December 13th of last year explaining that RG3, he's not a black guy.
He doesn't do black stuff.
He's not a brother.
And incognito is.
This is what Wilbon's explaining.
And how in the world that happens.
Thank you so much for being with us today, folks.
Sadly, we are out of busy broadcast moments, but there's tomorrow, Open Line Friday.
We'll be back in 21 hours and do it all over again.
▲
Export Selection