All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:54
November 12, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't know, folks.
I still can't get over Clinton telling Obama to honor his commitments and not break his promises.
I can't, you know, I famously said, I hope he fails.
Clinton is admitting he failed, demanding that he fix it.
The guy who lied to a grand jury telling the sitting president to be honest.
And greetings, my good friends, and welcome, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute.
I've I've folks, this politico piece that I just stumbled across here during the program, if I don't mind saying so, is a huge see I told you so.
I have been, and I hate that phrase, by the way, I've been saying.
I hate it, but I hate it when other people use it, because it implies that nobody's listening.
And I know you've heard me say this.
I just it's almost an habitual thing to remind people that they've been told of something.
And I have tried been trying to make the point now, uh, really hammered it yesterday with a caller, but uh ever since people started bellyaching about losing their policies.
I mean, I've practically been pounding my fist on the table here.
Telling people that you have to lose your policy if there is going to be Obamacare.
You cannot.
I don't want to have to go through this again.
I by the way, I need to really apologize to you all for being all over the ballpark today.
I'm just really fatigued.
I'm just worn out, tired, and not assisted by being rudely awakened by my kitten.
Uh well, you know, what I mean by that, I'm I'm I'm saying silly things.
Like, why do people not remember what something I mean, I know the answer to these questions I'm asking.
I'm just I let my guard down.
I'm asking stupid questions to which I already know the answers.
I'm just basically saying, gee, why can't it be some way else?
And I know that that's silly, you know, wishing for it to be otherwise is is silly, it's childish.
Because it is what it is.
But this is this is big.
I I'm telling you that that's why this lie that he told is so fraudulent.
I mean, it's impeachable what he's done here.
Because there was no way anybody was ever going to be able to keep their plan.
And yet he made that the number one selling point.
Without that lie, he might not have been re-elected.
And without that lie, we might not be saddled with this albatross.
The American people have been deceived and defrauded.
You let Richard Nixon try this and see what happens.
Bernie Madoff is a piker compared to the fraud, including the money compared to what Obama has done with that one lie, because it was never true.
There was never going to be a way that you or anybody can keep your plan.
And the simplest way to understand that is he's out there telling the entire nation, if you like your plan, you can keep it.
And for the most part, the vast majority of people liked that characteristic of Obamacare.
That's why they supported it.
Do you think he would have been re-elected if he would have told people that this is what was going to happen?
If he would have campaigned now, you're going to lose your plan, and the replacement's going to cost you three times as much, but we have to do this to ensure the uninsured.
You think he would have been re-elected?
You think we would have to deal with this.
As as Joe Biden was, this is a big effing deal.
You were never going to be able to keep your plan.
And the and the fact that he made it the number one selling point and that they knew, Federal Register admit that 93 million people were not going to keep their plans.
They knew that.
And they've known it since since 2010, when this all started.
The fact that he Made that the number one selling point for this.
Stop and think for a second.
If everybody keeps their plan, then what the hell are we talking about?
Why do we need Obamacare?
If you like your plan and get to keep it, what's wrong?
The only thing that anybody can say is wrong, well, the uninsured.
Now, I realize that some people might have not liked their plans because they believe there was something better.
And that was the second lie that was told.
If you like your plan, you can keep it, but the alternative is going to be even better for you.
This is the scope of this fraud is incalculable and almost unimaginable.
It's how big it is.
And so for this Obamacare architect, a man by the name of Jonathan Gruber in the politico today, admitting this is a huge C, I told you so.
And the the C I told you so is specifically what I drilled home to a caller yesterday.
That these canceled policies will never be brought back.
Now you're going to hear Democrats talk about reinstating your lost policy, and you might hear some idiot Republicans talking about wanting to support that.
And you might hear the media talk.
It's not possible.
Your policy cannot be restated or reinstored unless Obamacare is repealed.
And that isn't going to happen.
Obama will not.
That might put the fire out in hell.
That would never repealing this thing, that'd be one of the biggest embarrassments ever.
And it's just, it's, it's, it's not.
They might delay the individual mandate.
They might try to do a bunch of things here to limit the pain or to s move the pain, you know, after the 2014 elections.
But these plans cannot be brought back.
They're they were canceled precisely because Obamacare doesn't permit them financially.
And with regulation.
That's why you've been canceled.
It's not because the insurance companies hate you.
It's not because they want you to get sick and die.
It's not because they're a bunch of Republicans and they're trying to save money.
It's none of that.
They can't stay in business with your old plan.
They're not going to be in business anyway by the time this is all said and done.
Now, the political piece also has this.
The Huffington Post reported that the regime is considering providing subsidies to those who lost coverage but wouldn't qualify for subsidies otherwise under the law.
So they're going to buy you off.
You've lost your plan.
You can't get it back, so they're going to cover the difference with a subsidy.
Now, if you're the Republicans, I don't know how you deal with that.
If you oppose that, what can they say about you?
Well, you want people to starve?
Oh, you don't want people to have health care?
Oh, you want people in pain?
Oh.
Once you get to the point where the Federal Treasury becomes the number one weapon for a political party to stay in power.
I don't know how.
I really don't.
I don't know how you battle that, given how many low information voters we have, given how many people are already on food stamps and dependent, how many people are already in poverty.
I don't know how you reinstill a sense of self-reliance.
And particularly when it comes to health care.
I just don't know how you do that.
And that is why I am sounding wistful here and wishing for fantasy.
Because it is fantasy that people understand and remember how devastating liberalism is.
They just don't.
They fall for it every time it's pitched to them.
Well, maybe not.
They had to be lied to big time to fall for this.
Anyway, let me take a brief time out because I got the other there are other things in the news out there besides this.
We kind of beat this into the ground today.
So let's take a brief time out and we'll come back and resume with the in fact there's remember the story we had from Annapolis, Maryland yesterday, where they elected a Republican mayor and the Democrat town council said, okay, well, we'll just strip the mayor of all power.
Well, there has been a development in that story.
And they say it has nothing to do with uh anything that happened in the news yesterday.
No, no, no, no.
Share with you the details when we get back.
So don't go away.
Well, I keep saying we're gonna move on to other things, and then stuff keeps happening here.
So we've got another soundbite from Jay Carney in which he signals that subsidies for people who've lost their policies are coming just in time for Christmas.
And wait till you hear this question.
It's from an unidentified reporter in the White House press court.
You ready for the question?
It sounds like you guys are heading towards that latter piece, where the real concern here is the affordability question, and that the direction you guys are heading is that we are not gonna let people keep substandard plans, which frankly you guys have always railed against anyway.
So this guy's saying, look, you guys have always been trying to do the right thing, and you've always wanted people to get a better plan, and you've always wanted people to get this, and it just hasn't worked out.
I'm sure you tried as hard as you could.
So we're not gonna let people keep these substandard plans, right?
We're we're gonna find a way.
This is this reporter asking Carney, we are going to find a way somehow with extra subsidies or something, which are the options you're not talking about, but you're probably gonna do that right to fix this affordability question.
I think that you've accurately diagnosed the problem that is most concerning to the president.
How he assesses the options available for addressing that problem, uh I will leave to him and to the experts who are compiling the options.
What is not, I think an effective fix uh is one that has envisioned on the hill by some legislation that would simply tell insurers that they can sell substandard plans to anybody who might purchase them because that would cause more problems and create more problems and do more harm uh than uh any good it would do for individuals in this market who might be affected.
Uh do you folks we're just not gonna there's nobody suggesting that people do you know what a substandard plan is?
Well, but it's not just that.
A substandard plan is one that does not have free birth control, free contraception, free condoms, as much sex as you want with no consequence, free maternity leave, free prenatal care, free postnatal care, free garden, free seeds for the garden, free.
It's not just that.
A substandard plan is also what you lost.
When when Carney talks about here, well, you we simply can't tell insurers they can sell substandard plans.
A substandard plan is what you just had canceled.
And what he's saying is this all this talk on the hill about letting people have the insurance companies reinstate what was canceled, that's a non-starter.
And what Carney doesn't admit it, he says, I'll I'll leave assessing the options available to the president and the experts.
He's talking about subsidies.
And I guarantee you...
No, it's Obama's gonna be better than keeping his word.
Not only you have to keep your plan now, we're gonna get a better one that we're gonna subsidize you with.
That's that's what Carney is intimating here.
You're he's telling this reporter, you're right, we're thinking about subsidies.
But I can't say that, because I gotta leave that to the president and the experts.
But you're right, you've diagnosed this exactly right.
So what this tells me is that Kearney is signaling that subsidies are coming for people who've lost their plans.
That's not in the law.
So they're just they're just gonna change the law willy-nilly, which they've been doing anyway.
And by the way, on the substandard plan business, we still the regime still has not defined one.
They s they talk about it, they use the term, but we still haven't seen any examples of a substandard plan.
Now they expect 93 million people to lose their plans.
If we start subsidizing 93 million people, that's gonna get pretty expensive.
However, that's what Obamacare is ultimately going to be anyway.
What everybody needs to realize is this is all on schedule.
In fact, they're probably throwing a party in the White House right now overall, because this is accelerated by five years where they wanted to get subsidies for everybody losing their policy?
That's it.
This is exactly where they hope to be in five years.
I better take a call.
Just to be fair.
Who's next?
Uh this is TJ in High Point, North Carolina.
Uh, thank you for your patience.
I'm glad you waited.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Pretty good, sir.
Thank you.
Overall.
Thanks for having me on.
First time caller, been listening to you since almost since day one.
Well, I appreciate that sincerely.
I appreciate everything that you do for us.
We need your voice out there.
I was just wanting to on the uh insurance thing, bring up the point which you've been pounding at uh today.
But kind of dancing around the edges a little bit is how many hundreds of billions of dollars are lost from the economy by all these people losing their policies.
And you just pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said that uh just a couple minutes ago when you said uh it was all by design, they're five years ahead of where they want to be.
I really think that.
I think this chaos, this uh you know, people losing their insurance and having a freak out over it, and then the regime getting to come in and play savior with by giving away money is exactly what they envisioned.
Absolutely.
And it it just boggles my mind how many people don't understand that this isn't about health care at all.
They don't care because it is about health care to them.
They've lost their policies, all they care about is health care.
Don't the Democrats did a great job of thinking health care is the most important part of living.
You may as you may as well not be alive if you don't have health insurance.
Because you're just one uh hangnail or sickness from bankruptcy from ruin.
And they've done uh masterful job of getting people to orient their whole lives around health insurance, not even health care, health insurance.
And they don't care where it comes from.
All they know is they can't possibly afford it.
They can't afford $300 band-aids in the hospital.
They can't afford somebody has to pay for it, and they can't, so who whoever comes along and offers to end of story, end of problem.
Merry Christmas.
Hmm?
Right.
Snerdley is asking me if the money hasn't been appropriated, where are they going to pay the subsidies from?
You're missing the whole point.
The money doesn't have to be appropriated.
Obama is king.
If Obama wants to give people subsidies, then that's what he's gonna do.
There he's already changed the health care law in too many ways to count outside his powers by granting waivers, that was not in the law.
He didn't have the authority to do it, but he did, and as long as nobody's gonna push back or stop him, he's not gonna stop.
And I I I expect that the the extent of this on the Republican side, maybe a couple of hearings, And ISA will call some witnesses up, and everybody will express shock and outrage and then say we can borrow the money.
And we'll go to the Fed, they give us some of the money you're giving a stock market, give it to Obama for health care or whatever.
I don't know.
But uh you're you're asking a question that people who abide by the law are concerned about.
Okay, if we're gonna have to spend a bunch of money that was not allocated in this bill in order to subsidize everybody who's lost their insurance, where's that money come from?
That's that's a detail that you you shouldn't even be concerned about.
What you need to be concerned about is that Obama is willing to spend it to help people.
That's the purpose of government.
And getting it done lickety split without having to go through these six months of negotiations and hearings and meetings, that's even better.
Streamlining bureaucracy.
Getting the money of the people who need it right now.
That's great.
Where it comes from, who cares?
As long as it doesn't come from these people and their back pockets, it doesn't matter to them where it comes from.
Doesn't matter if the Constitution is being abridged, none of this matters to them.
I'm talking about the recipients.
Because they have been convinced that without health insurance, their lives are at great risk every day.
And if somebody comes along and removes that risk, who cares how?
It's a compassionate thing to do.
Here is Amy in Cameron, Missouri.
Amy, thank you for calling.
Great to have you with us today.
Thank you, Rush.
Um, I've been wondering for a long time, and I if you've already answered this question, sorry to repeat it, but do the Democrats ever give thought to what happens when the private sector money runs out?
We know that we're borrowing unbelievable amounts of money now, and every time we turn around, there's more statistics of more people getting handouts.
There's eventually going to be a point where there is no money going to the government.
We don't have it.
So what do they give thought to when that point comes and it's that just to end game?
In in realistic terms, we're almost there now.
The government takes in um income taxes and other revenue sources about two trillion, and they're spending near f nearly four trillion.
So for all intents and purposes, they're spending money that the private sector doesn't produce or create now.
But the answer to your question, and it may shock you, says there's two different kinds of liberals.
Now, if you're talking about the Harry Reed Pelosi liberals, that's different than the brain-dead people that vote for them.
The brain-dead people that vote for them have this idea that there is always money in the private sector, and that the people who have it, the rich, hoard it, keep it for themselves, steal it from everybody, and it's always there.
They don't they have no concept that the private sector gets smaller.
They have no concept that they can take all the money from it.
If they thought they could, they would.
And they're in they're actually in the process of trying.
They just to them, the golden goose is always going to be there.
There's always gonna be a stash of money in the private sector to take.
Always.
They'll never get it all.
They have no concept of bleeding it dry.
None.
And if they do, they just borrow like they're doing now.
They don't have any concept of they never they never think about Cuba, Russia, you know, all the countries that have completely folded.
They they don't believe we'll ever get to that point.
No, it's not possible.
Wow.
They think that kind of is not possible here.
There are too many evil rich people here.
And that's a scary thought because I believe we're very close to that point now.
I well, theoretically I agree with you, but it's it's it's worse than that.
If that day were to ever come.
But the idea of I mean, you're you're talking eventual collapse.
They never Ponder that.
That's not on their radar.
Not possible, in their view.
In fact, I don't think they'll be happy until they've taken everything from everybody.
With the government having all they don't think they're destroying anything, they're just transferring it.
They're just moving it from people that unfairly have too much to them to redistribute in a fair and equitable way.
The concept of production, producing that money, creating it, growing economy, who needs it.
Well, if our leaders are really that stupid, we're in much more trouble than I ever thought we were.
Well, what happened in Greece?
The government in Greece simply raided people's bank accounts.
What will happen here is they'll simply go into people's pensions, They'll go into any number of there's all there's there's a lot of money tied up in public employee retirement, pension funds and so forth.
Jesse Jackson has had his eye on that money for 30 years, for example.
So of the unions.
The government of Greece just went in and just we're going to take a percentage of your bank account today.
Well, that's the government for years, the people that are smart are the ones who are going to find ways to prepare for themselves, take care of themselves, put their money in ways that the government can't.
Well, there used to be there used to be a way to do it.
It was called Switzerland, but now the the IRS and the regime have persuaded the Swiss banks to give up every bit of information on everybody that's got money, every American in Swiss banks.
It's not just the Caymans, it's uh Swiss banks and everything else.
It's your your your question touches on the real definition of these people, who they are and and how they think.
And they the concept of of production is even evil to them.
They don't ever view anybody running out of money.
They just want to transfer it.
They want to take as much as necessary and get it out of the hands of people in the private sector who A don't know how to spend it properly, who are not fair with it, or have more than their share, and they want to be in charge of all of it and how it's spent.
And they have no compunction about borrowing or printing.
This this administration is uh takes the cake on all of that.
We haven't had the money, we haven't had one dime for what they've wanted to do.
Stimulus, we didn't have that.
Stimulus is a misnomer anyway.
How can you stimulate a private sector when you take the same amount of money out of it that you put back in?
But I don't I don't I don't think they have now I mean dingy Harry Obama, he knows exactly what he's doing.
Obama is from this group that resents the private sector, resents the capitalistic means of production.
They resent all that.
They think they've got a moral duty to take from people who are earning it unfairly, spending it improperly, enriching themselves, and they have convinced their brain-dead voters that all of this is justice, social justice, fairness and equitable behavior and treatment.
And that's why brain-dead idiots go for it.
And the way that it manifests itself, if this happens, look at this.
They've just come up with a health care plan that causes 90 million minimum, 90 million people lose their health insurance that they like.
That creates a problem.
So what are they going to do?
Well, okay, w you're gonna get a new plan that's that you can't afford, but we'll we'll give you the cash difference so that you have no out-of-pocket, you got a better policy, and we're subsidizing it.
And people will say, oh, good, okay.
And that's as far as they're concerned, because for so many years the Democrats have convinced people that without health insurance, you're dead anyway.
It's just a matter of time.
Could be tomorrow, it could be next week.
Have health insurance, you're alive forever.
Until you die of natural causes.
But if you don't have health insurance, you better not even get out of bed.
That's how risky life is.
And they want to take that risk out.
Now, the question of these subsidies, the next question for how long are they going to subsidize people?
Just beyond the 2014 election, just beyond the 2016 election.
At what point do they pull the subsidies back?
Or do they ever.
It really is hideous.
And what's lost in all of this, Amy, this is the sad loss, there are many of them.
What's lost here is the entire concept of self-reliance.
What's also lost is the concept of rugged individualism.
The things that built this country combined with the freedom that human beings born in this country had to be their best.
All of those things are under assault.
And it's going to have to change one way or the other.
The direction's going to have to change.
People are going to have to somehow be made to realize that they are presiding over their own demise.
I you know, I I've been fired seven or eight times, and I've throughout all of that.
One of the things that slapped me upside the head.
I can't remember specifically when it happened.
I'm sure it's part of my upbringing, obviously.
But I vowed at some point I was never going to be dependent on anybody for what I needed or wanted.
But I mean, I was not, I didn't want to be obligated.
I didn't.
To me, that was the definition of insecurity.
It was the definition of no confidence.
It was the definition of not even being alive.
It would be dependent on somebody else's mood, somebody else's vote, somebody else's attitude, somebody else.
I didn't want to go there, but safe to say half the country is fine with it.
To me, I just don't understand it.
No, I do.
This is what I mean.
I do understand it, and it's I don't understand it personally, can't relate to it, but I understand it.
But I couldn't do it.
I I couldn't go through life being dependent this way, particularly on politicians.
But other people swear by it.
I gotta take a break.
I'm a little long here, folks.
Don't go away.
By the way, folks, all of this that I'm lamenting here, this loss of self-reliance and rugged individualism, it's it's another reason why I have uh I wrote the uh the book on the pilgrims, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims for young people.
Try to what little I can to put them back in touch with the reality of the founding of this country and what's possible here.
And I continue to get some great email.
I'm gonna fan mail these the the horse liberty, Rush Revere, continue to get some great email.
I'm gonna share some of that with you tomorrow.
Jay Carney said today that letting you keep your old insurance plan would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Lo and behold, we've finally found a baby Democrats want to protect.
▲
Export Selection