RUSH: We've got another sound bite 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'll you hear this question. It's from an unidentified reporter in the White House press corps. You ready for the question?
"It sounds like you are heading towards that latter piece where the real concern here is the affordability question and that the direction you guys are heading is, we are not going to 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. 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 gonna find a way to fix them? (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"?
CARNEY: 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 I will leave to him and to the experts who are compiling the options. What is not, I think, an effective fix is one that, as 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 than any good it would do for individuals in this market who might be affected.
RUSH: Folks, there's nobody suggesting that people -- do you know what a substandard plan is? A substandard plan is one that does not have free birth control, free contraception, free condoms, as much sex as you want with no consequences, free maternity leave, free prenatal care, free postnatal care, free garden, free seeds for the garden. It's not just that. A substandard plan is also what you lost. When Carney talks about, "Well, 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, all this talk on the Hill about letting people have the insurance companies reinstate what was canceled, that's a nonstarter.
What Carney doesn't admit when he says, "I'll leave assessing the options available to the president and the experts," he's talking about subsidies, and I guarantee you -- (interruption) No, Obama's gonna be better than keeping his word. Not only do you get to keep your plan now, we're gonna get a better one that we're gonna subsidize you with. That's what Carney is intimating here. He's telling this reporter, "You're right, we're thinking about subsidies. But I can't say that 'cause 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 Carney is signaling that subsidies are coming for people who've lost their plans. That's not in the law. So they're just gonna change the law willy-nilly, which they've been doing anyway. And, by the way, on the substandard plan business, the regime has still not defined one. 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 'cause 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 hoped to be in five years.
I better take a call just to be fair. Who's next? This is T.J. in High Point, North Carolina. Thank you for your patience. I'm glad you waited. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, how you doing?
RUSH: Pretty good, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Thanks for having me on. First-time caller, been listening to you almost since day one.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that sincerely.
CALLER: I appreciate everything you do for us. We need your voice out there. I was just wanting to, on the insurance thing, bring up a point which you've been pounding at today, but kind of danced 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 just a couple minutes ago that it was all by design, they're five years ahead of where they want to be.
RUSH: I really think that. I think this chaos, people losing their insurance and having a freak out, and then the regime getting to come in and play savior by giving away money, is exactly what they envisioned.
CALLER: Absolutely. And it just boggles my mind how many people don't understand that this isn't about health care at all.
RUSH: They don't care, 'cause it is about health care to them. They've lost their policies. All they care about is health care. The Democrats did a great job of making them think health care is the most important part of living. You may as well not be alive if you don't have health insurance because you're just one hangnail or sickness away from bankruptcy, from ruin. They've done a 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.
Somebody has to pay for it, and they can't, so whoever comes along and offers to, end of story, end of problem, Merry Christmas. (interruption) 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 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. He's already changed the health care law in too many ways to count outside of the law, outside of 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.
I expect that the extent of this on the Republican side may be a couple of hearings. Issa will call some witnesses up, and everybody will express shock and outrage, and then say we can borrow the money. We'll go to the Fed, "Give us some of the money you're giving the stock market, give it to Obamacare for health care," whatever. I don't know. But 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 subsidize, everybody who has lost their insurance, where does that money come from? That's a detail that you shouldn't even be concerned about.
What you need to be concerned about is 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 six months of negotiations and hearings and meetings. That's even better. Streamlining bureaucracy. Getting the money to 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 'em where it comes from. It doesn't matter if the Constitution is being abridged, none of this matters to 'em. 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.
RUSH: Here is Amy in Cameron, Missouri. Amy, thank you for calling. Great to have you with us today.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I've been wondering for a long time, and if you 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 gonna be a point where there is no money going to the government. We don't have it. Do they ever give thought to when that point comes and is that just the endgame?
RUSH: In realistic terms, we're almost there now. The government takes in income taxes and other revenue sources of about two trillion, and they're spending 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 -- there two different kinds of liberals. Now, if you're talking about the Harry Reid, Pelosi liberals, that's different than the brain-dead people that vote for 'em. 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 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 actually in the process of trying. 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 --
CALLER: But they never think about Cuba, Russia, you know, all the countries that have completely folded. They don't believe we'll ever get to that point.
RUSH: No. It's not possible.
RUSH: They think that kind of thing is not possible here. There are too many evil rich people here.
CALLER: That's a scary thought because I believe we're very close to that point now.
RUSH: Well, theoretically, I agree with you. But it's worse than that. If that day were to ever come, 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 it 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, eh, who needs it.
CALLER: Well, if our leaders are really that stupid, we're in much more trouble than I ever thought we were.
RUSH: Well, what happened in Greece? The government in Greece simply raided people's bank accounts. What'll happen here is they'll simply go into people's pensions, they'll go into any number of -- there's a lot of money tied up in public employee retirement pension funds and so forth. Jesse Jackson's had his eye on that money for 30 years, for example. So have the unions. The government of Greece just went in and said, "We're gonna take a percentage of your bank account today."
CALLER: Well, Rush, like you've said for years, the people that are smart are the ones that are going to find ways to prepare for themselves, take care of themselves, put their money in ways that the government can't come and take it from 'em.
RUSH: Well, there used to be a way to do it. It was called Switzerland, but now 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 Swiss banks and everything else. Your question touches on the real definition of these people, who they are and how they think. The concept 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. They have no compunction about borrowing or printing. This administration 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 that you put back in?
Now, Obama 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. 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 gonna do? "Well, okay, you're gonna get a new plan that you can't afford, but 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, could be next week -- but if you have health insurance, you're alive forever! Until you die of natural causes. But if you don't 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, 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. 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 change. People are going to have to somehow be made to realize that they are presiding over their own demise. You know, I've been fired seven or eight times, and 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. I didn't want to be obligated.
To me, that was the definition of insecurity.
It was the definition of no confidence. It was the definition of not even being alive.
To be dependent on somebody else's mood, somebody else's vote, somebody else's attitude, somebody else at all, I didn't want to go there. 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, but I don't understand it. Personally, I can't relate to it. But I understand it. But I couldn't do it. I couldn't go through life being dependent this way, particularly on politicians. But other people swear by it.
RUSH: Jay Carney said today that letting you keep your old insurance plan would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Lo and behold, we finally found a baby Democrats want to protect. Obamacare.