All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
March 25, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists everywhere, all across the fruited plain, time for yet another excursion.
Into broadcast excellence, great to have you here.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
Listen for a couple days and you will come to agree with me.
Listen for six weeks.
And you will never doubt me.
And listen for six months, and you'll think you've always agreed with me.
Yes, sir, Rebom.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, your host being blamed partially or totally for the lack of compromise in Washington, D.C. Last night on some website at Larry King now has a show.
Name of the website is ORAD TV.
O-R-A-D-O-T, Oura.tv.
That's where Larry King is hanging out.
And he had Barney Frank, as is uh as his guest, the former congressman from Massachusetts, Larry King said, Art of compromise is dead, Barney.
What happened to it?
Part of it is the ideological rigidity of this Tea Party group, but there's another factor.
They live in parallel media universes.
The left is over here listening to their programs, MSNBC or the Hupping New Post, the rights watching Fox News and Russian Remember.
If you were trying to compromise with the other side, your supporters say to you, why are you giving in?
And you say, Well, we don't have the votes to do what we want.
And they say, Oh, how can you say that?
Everybody I know agrees with us.
People on the left and all the people on the right, they only talk to people and hear from people who reinforce them.
So if somebody from their position says, you know, we need to work with the others, they see it as a betrayal because they believe they're in the majority.
Now I understand why Barney Frank thinks that.
It's a popular misconception of people on the left because they don't listen to us.
They don't know what we believe.
They think they do, but they have never endeavored to really understand it.
They've tabbed it as extremism.
See, the left, if you can understand this, and this is true, it it it have to explain it.
The left thinks that we are ideological.
They aren't.
Liberalism to them is not an ideology.
Liberalism is just what is.
They call themselves pragmatists.
They think that they look at things issue by issue and decide based on what's best.
And they think they'll go along with anything as long as it's best.
But they discount totally and automatically conservatism because there's no pragmatism there.
It's all ideology in their mind, and therefore it's disqualified.
Ideologues are extremists, they're wackos, in their view, and they don't see them that way.
Now, you who listen to this program know that what Barney Frank just said may apply to some, but not to me.
You learn more about liberalism on this program than you will watching MSNBC.
You will see the examples of liberalism on MSNBC.
You will see the examples of liberalism on CNN, or you'll read liberalism in the New York Times, the Washington Post, but nowhere do they explain themselves.
Only on this program, I am as able to give you the liberal position, any issue you want.
I'm able not only to tell you what their position is going to be, I'm able to tell you why.
I'm able to explain the way they arrive at their conclusions.
I know them as well as they know themselves, but they haven't the slightest idea, for example, who I really am or who any conservative really is, because it's beneath them to try to find out.
This idea that they have a point here in a way.
They had a monopoly on everything.
They had a monopoly on what was news, they had a monopoly on what wasn't news, they had a monopoly on what the commentary of the news was.
And then in nine, there wasn't any national conservative media national review, maybe, uh, a magazine here.
There was certainly in broadcast media, there was Zilch Zero Nada.
And then quite innocently, in 1988, along came the EIB network.
And then a couple three years later, other talk show hosts sprang up.
And then uh 1997, here came Fox News.
And that blew up their monopoly, and that blew up their world.
They had never had to compete.
They owned it, they dominated, they had a monopoly.
Now they have to compete.
And so they have they've decided that rather than anything involving them be problematic.
What has happened instead is that people like me have come along and have succeeded in destroying compromise by dividing the country?
We have made it overtly and overly partisan.
And the people like you who listen to this program only listen to this program in their view.
And you do not know what they think.
That's the that's the flaw you see.
You don't have to listen to them because I tell you.
You don't have to watch MSNBC because you know, because you listen to this program.
You know as much about liberalism as you as you can stomach when I explain it to you here.
So your decisions that you agree with, or the decisions that you make are the result of your own independent thought.
You're not mind-numbed robots, and you are not purposely avoiding compromise.
It's the other side that won't compromise.
The other side defines compromise as us giving in.
They're the pragmatists, they're never wrong.
We're the ideologues, we're always the extremists.
But it is all rooted, folks, this perplexity that they have over the fact that there's no compromise anymore.
They blame me.
They really blame you've heard it before, I don't know how many times.
How many Republicans in Congress are supposedly afraid to disagree with me?
And that leads them to never compromising.
And it's therefore too partisan, and it's all because of conservative media.
Everything was just fine when there wasn't a conservative media, and the Republicans had 120 members in the in the House, and half of them never showed up day to day.
That was just great.
But now it's a whole different thing.
Let's jump forward to number three, Peter Orzog, who's a former member of the regime.
He was early on a member of the uh Obama economic team, was on CNBC Squawk Box last night.
Becky Quick, the uh the co-hostette.
So why do you think the moderates have disappeared?
So they're obsessed with this.
There aren't any independents anymore.
Do you know that?
There are no more independents because of me, because of Fox News.
And they're they're they're gone.
The independents have become partisans.
They've chosen sides now.
And they're either left or right, and nobody is getting along, and nobody's compromising.
Nobody is able to escape this this rigid partisanship that exists out there.
So Becky Quick says, So, Peter, oh my God, oh my God, what what what do you think the moderates have done?
Why have they disappeared?
I mean, there used to be plenty of moderates.
I'll tell you where they are.
They're in the Republican Party, if you want to know, Becky.
If you want to find the collection of moderates today, you want me to name names?
I'd be happy to name names in the Republican Party.
I'm talking to the elected class.
The political class is where you find them.
And they lose.
That's the liberals love them.
Anyway, here's what Orzag said, and keep in mind what you just heard Barney Frank say.
We are increasingly surrounding ourselves with like-minded people.
Physically, so neighborhoods are becoming polarized, and virtually because uh your Twitter feed and what TV you watch and what have you is more aligned with your thought process, and that causes polarization.
It basically causes people to go to extremes.
And it's not clear how that reverses.
Right.
And so the the see the argument that uh has taken hold on the left is this that uh they own every media and pop culture out except for us and Fox, and because they no longer own it all, it's your fault, and it's my fault that we have divided the country up and made them partisans and uncompromising.
But if you take a look, they own everything in the media.
They own books for the most part, they own television, they own certainly pop culture entertainment TV, dido movies, music, they own that.
They own what we consider the drive by news media.
Uh they're the ones so close minded, They're the ones that don't want to live next door to Republicans.
They're the ones that don't want conservatives on campus.
They are the ones that are exclusionary.
This is fascinating to me.
So they blame everything on us, and they've this is why Time Magazine back in 1995 had that cover cover story on me is Rush Limbaugh bad for democracy.
And of course, we're not a democracy.
That's that's a faux paw anyway.
Democracy does not equate to individual liberty and freedom.
But the word is thrown around as though it does.
One more Barney Frank soundbite, Larry King, after Barney's answer about why all the partisanship and why the lack of compromise because of Wushamboard Fox News.
King said, What do you make of the Tea Party there, Barney?
I wish some of my liberal friends were more like them.
They are a very disciplined group.
They have their views and they go out there and fight them.
I told some of the people in the Occupy movement.
The difference was that the Tea Party people were serious about politics and the Occupy people having a good time emotionally, uh having demonstrations and cheering.
The Tea Party people were organizing and voting.
Well, the Tea Party people are real.
The Tea Party people are mom and pop citizens that sprang up out of anger and fear over Obama's spending and Obama cared any number of things.
Occupy was a manufactured movement in reaction and response to the Tea Party.
It was totally made up.
There was nothing genuine about it.
They're just a bunch of people that recruited to sit out there and pitch tents, cause trouble, engage in civil disobedience, and make it look like it was a bigger popular uprising on the left than the Tea Party was.
But it was pure fake and phony, plastic banana.
Good time rock and roll.
The drive-by media today is just beside itself over the fact that Ted Cruz has signed up for Obamacare.
Sit tight, we will be back after this.
John Kerry, the haughty John Kerry, by the way, sir to Vietnam, on his way to Switzerland to close the deal with Iran on nuclear weapons, a New York Times story today.
Headline is in nuclear talks, Iran seeks to avoid specifics.
Well, of course, why would they get specific?
Get to America.
It's just for domestic consumption.
In nuclear talks, Iran seeks to avoid specifics.
First sentence of the article says this.
If an agreement to limit Iran's nuclear capability is reached by deadline in the next seven days, one thing may be missing.
An actual written accord signed by the Iranians.
Not kidding.
If there is a nuclear deal with Iran, it may not be committed to paper.
It may not be written down.
And if it isn't written down, obviously there is no way anybody can verify what it actually says.
And if it isn't written down, any signature that is said to accompany it is meaningless.
No wonder Obama doesn't want to have to show this deal to Congress.
It's a secret deal.
No wonder he doesn't want to have to show it.
There isn't going to be anything on paper to show.
Here's more from the article.
If a deal is reached, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of describing the accord as they understand it, while the Iranians go home to offer their own version.
So in other words, folks, the Iranians might uh uh might say that tell their people that they're still going to continue to pursue nuclear weapons, but the regime, the Obama regime, will probably explain that they're only saying that for domestic consumption.
And is it going to be written down?
The Iranians to go home and tell their people whatever they want.
Now let's imagine a scenario based on real life that happened already this week.
We got a deal with the Iranians.
We don't know what it is, other than what we're told because it's not on paper.
Kerry and Obama tell us, let's say the Iranians have agreed, they've seen the wisdom of our ways, and they have agreed to postpone the development of any nuclear weapons for ten years.
They are going to continue to develop nuclear for the purposes of generating power for the poor in their country, but they have agreed with us to uh to to abstain from any nuclear weapons development for ten years.
Trust us, don't doubt us, and that's what the Iranians sign.
Then, back in Iran, the Ayatollah hominy, or the president goes on TV and announces that they just agreed with the United States to create nuclear weapons within the next two years to balance the uh the status of forces and power in the Middle East.
Okay, so then we have the regime telling us that they forced the Iranians to agree to postpone any nuclear weapons development for ten years, which is the deal that we've been told.
That's what Netanyahu says, that's the deal.
But let's just say the Iranians go home and start bragging to their people that they're gonna have a nuke in two years.
So obviously some in the media might see the disparity here and ask somebody at the State Department about this.
Now, wait a minute, you just told us here that the Iranians have agreed, and we haven't seen it because there isn't a written agreement, but you've told us that they've agreed to postpone nuclear weapons for ten years, but the Ayatollah homie just told his people are gonna have them in two years.
Well, he was just saying that for domestic consumption, Rudy Harsh might say.
I mean, we have to allow that the Iranians got their clocks cleaned.
This is this is the State Department spokesman's talking.
We have to allow, we have to understand that our superior negotiators, led by our superior world leader Barack Obama, really just skunked the Iranians in these talks.
We got them to stand down, no nukes for ten years, but they have to save face.
So the Ayatollah hominy will go on Iranian TV and tell everybody's got a nuke coming in two years just to save face, and we're gonna have to understand this.
So we're gonna have whatever.
I mean, that's a hypothetical, but we're gonna have two different characterizations of the deal, or we likely could.
And nothing is going to be written down.
So we're gonna have to take somebody's word for what it is.
I mean, did the Obama administration, do they really think they can make a gentleman's agreement with these lunatics in Iran?
They really think that they can take the mullahs at their word.
I I think Obama does.
I think Obama thinks, based on his personality type and the way he comported himself in the 2007-2008 campaign period, that he believes in the power of his words, the power of his charismatic personality, and whatever else he thinks he's got going for him.
Because I think, see, Obama will be more than happy to take the Iranians at their word.
He seems to get along better with them than he does with our allies.
He doesn't seem to have any problem with the Iranians.
The Iranians and the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah hominy, go on Iranian TV, death to America, that to America, that is no new deal.
That is no deal.
What do we ought to push putting a nuclear weapon development to America?
Just don't worry about it, we're told.
That's just for domestic consumption.
He doesn't seem to have any problem with the Ayatollah hominy.
Pledging death to America.
He doesn't seem to have any problem with them eventually getting a nuclear bomb or taking over the Middle East in Yemen, which how many short years ago was it that Obama told us that Yemen was one of the great success stories of American foreign policy, and Yemen has fallen.
Yemen is now under the control of ISIS and other extremist militant Islamists.
And we were told just a few short years, maybe months ago, that Yemen stands out as a gigantic success story for American foreign policy.
I looked at all of this sounds somewhat extreme, I admit, but we don't have any actual evidence to show that Obama is opposed to any of this.
All we have is his word, and now we're told in the New York Times, no less, that's the Bible of the administration that we're going to have a nuclear deal with Iran that is not written down.
It will not likely be committed to paper.
What?
In the name of Sam Hill.
Anyway, I wanted to get that out of the way.
Uh we get uh break here at the bottom of the hour, come back from it, and I'm not kidding.
The drive-bys are literally.
I mean, they're all over the ballpark.
They are just beside themselves over Ted Cruz.
Well, they're beside themselves for Ted Cruz, period.
But now he went and signed up for Obamacare.
And they're just they've gone batty over this.
Okay, so Ted Cruz announced he's gonna run for president.
As you know, he's pledging if he's elected to repeal Obamacare word for word.
He's gonna just repeal the whole thing.
And he's become known for, among many other things, that stance.
So he announces he's gonna run for president, and his wife, who is a very accomplished financial wizard at Goldman Sachs, announces that she's stepping aside temporarily from that job to join him in his quest for the presidency of the Republican nomination.
She's gonna be out there on a campaign trail with him and so forth.
Turns out that the Cruz family got their health care from her employment at Goldman Sachs.
So the moment she stepped down, and that and the the the one understand the value of the health care package at Goldman Sachs is about 20 grand.
That's the value of the benefit, the health benefit that they provide to their masters of the universe there.
She was one of them.
So now the Cruz family doesn't have health care.
And that places them in jeopardy of being in violation of the law.
Because the law says you have to have Obamacare.
You have to have insurance.
If you don't have insurance, then you have to pay a fine.
And I don't think somebody running for president wants to be on the list of people paying a fine.
The law is the law.
Whether you disagree with it or not, you've got to have Obamacare.
You've got to have health insurance.
One of the things Cruz is doing is illustrating this by going out and signing.
He said he's going to go to healthcare.gov and sign up.
He's going to find a policy and he's going to get it.
And he said if he qualifies for subsidies, he's not going to take them.
As anybody running for president would have to claim.
No, I am not going to accept anything in form of subsidies.
I'm not going to have my fellow taxpaying citizens help me defray my costs, even though that's what the law permits.
Couldn't very well do it.
Well, this just extended the drive-bys don't know what to do with this now.
Because on the one hand, here's the guy who has vowed to repeal the whole thing if he's elected president, signing up for it.
They think he's a hypocrite.
They think he has blown it with his base.
They think that he is advocating now, making it whether he likes it or not, that he is making the case for Obamacare.
They think that he has just disqualified himself because after all of these months promising to get rid of it, what has he done?
Why he signed up for it.
So he's appearing with some of these drive-by types to talk about it.
We have some sound bites.
This is uh last night on CNN, Jake Tapper show.
Dana Bash actually interviewed Cruz, questioned you and your family have been getting your health insurance to your wife's job at Goldman Sachs.
And she's now left that to help you with your campaign.
So where are you getting your health insurance now?
She's taking an unpaid leave of absence from her job, and so we're transitioning.
We'll be getting new health insurance, and we'll presumably do it through my job in the Senate.
And so we'll be on the federal Exchange like millions of others uh on the federal exchange.
So you will be getting Obamacare effectively.
It is one of the good things about Obamacare is that the statute provided that members of Congress would be on the exchanges without subsidies, just like millions of Americans.
So there wouldn't be a double standard.
Meaning he doesn't get any subsidies.
That wouldn't look good.
It's thought that members of Congress don't need any help.
They don't need any subsidies.
So he's um he's he's gonna basically be signing up for Obamacare.
Now the hate that they have for Ted Cruz, and by the way, it's not just them.
It's not just people on the left.
There are there are just as there were Sarah Palin haters on the right, there are Ted Cruz haters on the right.
And they're there and they're loud and they are uh I don't know how numerous they are, but that and they make up both uh members of the Republican establishment and even some who think that they're conservative.
And I'll tell you the reason why they hate Cruz is uh well that the two main reasons I've been able to deduce why these conservatives slash establishment Republicans hate him.
And number one is they well, both reasons are rooted, they don't think he can win.
The first reason he can't win is because the media has already destroyed him just like they destroyed Palin, and it makes it impossible for them to support him, because they fear that if they support him, the media is gonna come after them.
And they don't want the media coming after them.
Since the media has destroyed Cruz, in other words, these people are allowing, whether they look at it this way or know it or not, they are allowing the media to once again determine who they will or will not support in the Republican presidential primary.
The second reason that I'm hearing why they hate Cruz and oppose Cruz also rooted in the fact they don't think he can win.
Are you ready for it?
Because he doesn't have enough experience.
It's just what he thinks, what his policy proposals are, don't seem to matter.
And I'm talking about people on the on the right.
Now the conversation between Dana Bash and Ted Cruz uh continue.
And every question that he gets from these people is accusatory.
And I just the contrast is amazing.
Obama never gets an accusatory question.
Never ever.
In fact, did you see the other day Mrs. Clinton shows up somewhere?
I have the story in the stack, I forget where it was.
She showed up somewhere, and it was an audience of journalists, and they gave her a standing ovation.
When the notion of her server came up.
Everybody, I remember last week and the week before, there were people on our side.
I got the emails from them.
I talked to them out on a golf course.
Hey, we got Hillary now.
This server business, she's not going to be able to come back from that.
Have you seen all these drive-bys jumping on her?
And I even pointed it out.
It was amazing the number of drive-by media people really jumping on Hillary over her server.
But what's happened is that she appears to have survived it.
No damage.
So she shows up somewhere where there's an audience of drive-by media types, and she gets a standing O from journalists.
Ted Cruz will never get a standing O from journalists.
Everything they ask him is accusatory.
Here's the continuation of the uh Obamacare bite he was having with Dana Bash.
The irony is just kind of unbelievable that you have made your name fighting against Obamacare, and you now are going to sign up to get your insurance through that very process, Obamacare.
Listen, it was the case before Obamacare that federal employees could get health insurance through their jobs.
That's not a new development.
So yes, I'll get my insurance through my job, like millions of other Americans.
But she is outraged at that.
She thinks he's a hypocrite.
And so she continued.
We will follow the text of the law.
That means you are going to take a government subsidy.
I believe we should follow the text of the law.
The law that you want to repeal.
Yes, no, I I believe we should follow the text of every law, even laws I disagree with.
Yeah.
Uh so snurly, let me ask what did you think?
When you when you first heard that Ted Cruz signing up for Obamacare, I tell me the truth now.
What was your gut, your first gut reaction?
You laughed.
It was hysterically funny.
Why did you think it was hysterically funny that Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare?
Oh, you think it was brilliant that he signed up for Obamacare.
Well, okay.
So Snerdley's theory is that if he's ever elected and the day comes where he authors the repeal of Obamacare, he can do it and say, I hey, I signed up for this boondoggle.
I'm like everybody else.
I was forced to sign up for this POS, and I've done it, and now I'm getting rid of it.
So you think it's a brilliant, brilliant move.
Ron Fournier, who has been in the sewer of depressment.
The sewer of depression, I should say, over the plight of Hillary Clinton.
He's just been this this email server business has had Ron Fournier bamboozled.
He has been among the few in the drive-bys who believed that it was going to spell the end of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy, and he has been revived.
Ron Fournier has been reborn.
Not to be confused with Christianity.
He has come back to life lady.
He is enthused again because he thinks Ted Cruz has been profoundly humiliated.
He believes that Ted Cruz is now sucking air.
He thinks that Ted Cruz has been demonstrated, has shown to be the biggest hypocrite because he had to sign up for Obamacare.
He's decided to take Obamacare, which is, you know, rich in irony.
And one of his supporters told me, well, you know, it's better than nothing.
And I said, Well, that's the point.
Obamacare is better than nothing.
I think it's great.
We should have as many people as possible, sign up for Obamacare, and really judge.
Is this better than nothing or not?
He's doing this to follow the law.
Well, that's B.S. Can I say that on air?
You just didn't.
Because there's other things he can do.
He doesn't have to sign up through Obamacare.
FBS.
He's he's it he's a Cruz said that he had to sign the law.
So he's calling Cruz out.
This is a Cruz saying he's doing this to follow the law is not true.
Cruz isn't being honest.
He's not being honest.
He's not, he's not doing this.
There's plenty of other options.
Well, all the other options are in the law.
You either sign up or you pay a fine.
That's also in the law.
And here is Chris Kumo over on CNN's New Day this morning.
Uh, and he had this to say about Cruz signing up through the federal exchange.
I know you think you know Ted Cruz, but when you hear what he said that he's going to do now, after everything that this man has said about Obamacare, you will not believe a position he has just taken.
This is the point in the conversation where you hear the needle drag across the record and you come to a full stop.
The nice thing about Obamacare, Ted Cruz hates Obamacare, doesn't he?
Compared it to the Nazis, what green eggs and ham was like was nothing compared to how bad this is, that it needs a tsunami and he was gonna bring it.
What is going on here?
And now they're gloming, hey, a cruise aide said it's better than nothing, and Ron Fournier says, isn't that the point?
Is that how low the standard has now sunk?
So Obamacare can now be promoted by pointing out that it's better than nothing, and that that's the point of Obamacare?
That it was to be better than nothing.
I thought they had loftier goals for Obamacare than that.
I thought Obamacare was supposed to be a panacea.
It was supposed to be ten steps on the road to utopia.
Obamacare was going to equalize all of the unfairness and discrimination in our society.
Nobody was going to be treated better or worse.
Everybody was going to get the absolute best health care.
Nobody was going to be denied.
The uninsured were going to be insured.
And now the measure of Obamacare is it's better than nothing.
You know, I tell you what, if it's better than nothing is the new selling point for Obamacare, I think a bunch of people ought to pick up on it.
Can you imagine, like Taco Bell saying, hey, it's better than nothing.
McDonald's, hey, you may not think it's the best food, but it's better than nothing.
If this has become the new selling point for Obamacare, it's better than nothing.
What a standard.
What a plunge.
This lofty law has experienced.
And isn't it fascinating?
Here's Ted Cruz.
We've got a law in this country.
You have to have health insurance.
And you have to have some form of it approved by Obamacare.
He's gone out, he has obeyed the law, and the drive-by's think he's being a hypocrite.
He said, I obey, you have to try to obey the text of every law.
Now compare that to Obama, who's doing everything he can to avoid laws he doesn't like.
We're 180 degrees out of phase.
A guy who says he's following the law of the land is mocked and ridiculed.
And the people who were swerve and weave their way around the law are applauded and supported and encouraged.
Such as Obama and take your pick of any of them.
All right, let's go to the phones.
I'm I'm interested to hear what you have to say about this.
Because I think I know what we're going to get here.
I think we're going to run the gamut on responses.
But I'm I I think I'm I'm I'm curious to see if there is a I'm looking for particular response here.
I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I don't want to tip anybody to calling and saying because they've heard me say this is what I expect.
But there is I have an expectation about this, let's just put it that way.
Let's start in Miami with Danny.
Your uh your thoughts on Cruz and Obamacare.
Hey, Rush, long time uh listener.
I uh appreciate you taking my call.
You bet.
And and um uh I'm as a Republican as it can come.
I have a question for you because I'm a little bit confused.
Uh he's currently having forced to take Obamacare, but do he have any other options, such as uh uh taking Cobra?
Because when a person takes a leave of absence or has to uh uh such as his wife did, uh did they have that option of taking something besides Obamacare?
And and by the way, just to put it out there, I do not believe in Obamacare.
I've seen too many horrible horrible stories.
I think it should be repealed as soon as possible.
Let me let me rephrase your question.
Let me ask your question to me, because I think I know what you're asking me.
May I try that?
Uh absolutely.
What you're asking me is, hasn't Ted Cruz basically wiped himself out with this?
There are plenty of other ways he could have done this, you cite Cobra, but doesn't this make him look like a giant hypocrite?
Isn't he tacitly uh advocating Obamacare by not finding someone?
No, no.
I I don't believe that.
I believe that he's doing this basically uh to show that he's forced to take this to take Obamacare.
That's what I believe.
I don't believe that he's doing it because he wants to, he's doing it because he has to.
But I just wanted to know if if if did he have any other options?
Well, there are other options.
You mentioned Cobra.
Cobra's Cobra's damned expensive.
I mean, it's it's not it's not a way to save money.
Cobra's not a Cobra's not a deal.
Cobra just is a way to stay insured when your evil employer cuts you loose.
The other thing he can do is would opt to pay the fine.
And the and the but see, he's got a family.
What it's gonna boil down to is if he opts to pay the fine, he doesn't have insurance.
He's got two young girls.
He's got a wife.
What if something happens and they need health care?
Does he have enough money to pay for it out of pocket?
And if he does have enough money to pay for it out of pocket, is that how he wants to spend his money?
So he's obviously said, you know what, I don't want to pay the fine because that means whatever health expenses my family needs got to come out of pocket.
He either Has it or doesn't, based on costs, procedures, whatever unknown would be necessary, or insurance.
Those are the options under the law.
Now you can you could there's a third option.
You can do nothing and wait to be discovered that you have done nothing.
At which point the IRS, when they find you, will keep your tax refund and collect your fine from you that way.
Those are the three things off the top of my head that he could do.
What do you think the drive by us would have done if Ted Cruz had opted not to insure his family?
If he'd have gone the fine route, they'd call him a dangerous lunatic.
They call him a monster.
Monster, they call him selfish.
If he decided not to insure his family, you want to.
▲
Export Selection