Rush's Answer To The Public Option : Public Option

Sunday, November 01, 2009

This is not a paste from an article. I was watching Chris Wallace's interview with Rush Limbaugh this morning. To paraphrase Rush, the Public Option was the worst thing that could happen to America, would destroy our way of life, etc.

Posted by skizziks at 09:51 AM | 46 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

skizziks

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2005/11/03
Visited 2009/11/20

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Lawyer: Texas Banned All Marriages (58 comments) ...

Psalm 109:8: A Prayer for Obama to Die (258 comments) ...

Anti-Abortion Group Claims Palin is Pro-Choice (29 comments) ...

Pollsters Slam Rasmussen Presidential Index (37 comments) ...

Black Man Shoots - White Woman Scores (9 comments) ...

Obama Honors Victims of Fort Hood (95 comments) ...

Grayson Reads The Names of the Dead (9 comments) ...

Tom Coburn Put Anonymous Hold on Vet Benefit Bill (5 comments) ...

Which City Has Douchier Fans: New York Or Philly? (16 comments) ...

Jewish Settlers Force Eviction of Palestinians (9 comments) ...

Afghan War Vets To Congress: Withdraw-We Are The Problem (15 comments) ...

Rush's Answer To The Public Option : Public Option (46 comments) ...

Liz Cheney: No Class - No Decency (13 comments) ...

Lieberman To Turn Traitor Again (10 comments) ...

Rasmussen Poll:Republicans at 99% Popularity-Dems Are Scum (7 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

....of course, Wallace did not challenge him on that either.....

The only challenge Wallace did make, was when Rush said that Republicanism is a big, big tent, with lots of viewpoints....however....they should kick out the moderate Republicans because they are dragging the party down.

#1 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-01 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"He must have pulled that number out of his ass"

Unlike the Obama administration, right?

#2 | Posted by KBM at 2009-11-01 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Unlike the Obama administration, right?
....#2 | Posted by KBM

.....so you agree that 3.30 per year will buy health insurance for someone ??......

......you can't be that stupid.......

#3 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-01 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

......you can't be that stupid.......

#3 | Posted by skizziks

Oh yes he can....
He's not Kept-By-Mama for nuthin'...

#4 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-11-01 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

.....so you agree that 3.30 per year will buy health insurance for someone ??......

......you can't be that stupid.......

#3 | Posted by skizziks

so as to maintain my impartiality & accuracy I reviewed my TIVO before commenting - -

skizziks' regarding the numbers . .
paraphrase of the interview is NOT accurate

whether makin' shit up, or just wrong again - - it's anyone's guess

#5 | Posted by markh at 2009-11-01 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"RUSH: Well, I've run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that want insurance is 12 million. Take some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. Take some of it. For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4 -- if that's the objective, do it now. " (FROM THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW)

Gee Skiddo, Mr. Fact has somehow made a huge error in his gathering of them. I also was LISTENING the day Rush stated the VERY SAME thing above which is JUST a bit outside(apology to Bob) your error above stating $12 million.

So start the apology tour now fool. Or should we say TOOL. And oh yeah, learn the diff in million and billion. Safe to say you are not a banker.

Either works.

#6 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-01 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

$40 million vs. $40 billion.

Zeros matter.

And $40 billion vs. $1.4 trillion low side.

Zeros matter.

Line up the numbers and see if you need the Pre-School way to do it.

#7 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-01 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. Take some of it. For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4 -- if that's the objective, do it now. "

Nah, makes too much sense. And not the real objective here.

#8 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-01 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

***For 35 to $40 billion a year***

.....I don't have tivo but, I heard 40 million.....

.....if I am wrong about that, then I am wrong.....

.....but as you will note from the title of this thread........

... the main point here, is that Rush's answer to the PUBLIC OPTION......WAS.....THE PUBLIC OPTION........

#9 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-01 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, it wasn't.

It was to keep Obama from his real objective of controlling 1/6th of the US economy which then bleeds over into all other aspects of citizens lives by it's very virtue.

The whole thing is not about HC reform. That is the lipstick they put on this pig. But the so called HC reform bill is still a big ole hog.

If we can do it for the amount Rush states, then why the bloated, 1900 page far left appeasing one?

And more and more Americans know.

Unless they are still on their knees or have yet to awaken from their Obama Faints.

#10 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-01 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was to keep Obama from his real objective of controlling 1/6th of the US economy which then bleeds over into all other aspects of citizens lives by it's very virtue.

.......life with the Public Option will be just the same as VA medical benefits and Medicare.....

......this fearmongering is so rediculous........

....the government plan will control people less than the insurance companies patchwork of health care Russian Roulette does right now.......look at Medicare, look at the VA, that's what the Public Option is........

#11 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-01 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we can do it for the amount Rush states,
.....#10 | Posted by The_Chapel

.....because we can't......

....why would you take the word of an uneducated, self-described entertainer, over the Congressional Budget Office ?.......

#12 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-01 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was to keep Obama from his real objective of controlling 1/6th of the US economy which then bleeds over into all other aspects of citizens lives by it's very virtue.

.......are you saying it's better to let the insurance companies (like AIG that failed) control that slice of the economy than your elected representative.?........

......besides......Obama & the House & the Senate control 100% of the economy NOW.....

......you people are duped so easily.......

#13 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-01 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

This would all be settled by a simple single payer option that no bureaucrat could fuck up.

#14 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-01 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

No surprise. Rush was touting the mediscam prescription plan offered by the pubs rather than support the dem plan years ago. A real "conservative." What a paper-thin liar he is. He never complained about the expense until after the fact for these plans and never, ever questioned the consitutionality of them either.
In the end, rush is a neo-socialist.

#15 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-11-01 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

This would all be settled by a simple single payer option that no bureaucrat could fuck up.

#14 | Posted by andyuhenet

ummm - Andy . . . a single payer option is by definition "a bureaucratic fuck-up"

#16 | Posted by markh at 2009-11-01 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"a single payer option is by definition "a bureaucratic fuck-up""

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Just ask those on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Government Employees.

AKA 40% of the insured. Hear a lot of bitching, do ya?

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-01 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny that any supporter of Israel would say what Rush does about having a Public Option. Those same folks don't seem to think Israelis lost their freedom when their government passed a law requiring all Israelis to have one of four health care plans funded by their government.
People like Rush care more about Israelis than they do Americans.
People like Rush, love America just not Americans.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-01 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

a single payer option is by definition "a bureaucratic fuck-up"

#16 | Posted by markh

No country in the world with a single payer system is spending 1/6th of their GDP on healthcare, as we are, while many of those countries are providing better care in including virtually ALL of their citizens. That statistic alone makes healthcare more efficient in many of those countries. How is the lack of a universal system a fuck-up for anyone but us in the U.S.?

#19 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2009-11-01 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

So Rush Limbaugh is in favor of the U.S. government funding a public option for 12 million uninsured Americans?

Megadittos, Rush.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-01 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rush caught 'Excessivio Stupidto Bloviatia' in the Dominican Republic in the 1980's.

#21 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-01 11:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Limbaugh: "Well, I've run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that want insurance is 12 million."

Rush knows how many uninsured actually want insurance? How could he know that? Where would one get these numbers?

It's the same as saying that he has run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that don't want insurance is 38 million. I don't think so. What the hell - the Dem's should insure all of the uninsured that want insurance, and when people cry "Socialists!" they can just say that it was Rush Limbaugh's idea.

#22 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2009-11-02 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its 40 billion which is 3,300 dollars per person. That beats the hell out of Obama trillion dollar health care hostage takeover.

If only Democrats would get their communist heads out of their asses.

#23 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-11-02 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That beats the hell out of Obama trillion dollar health care hostage takeover."

Over TEN years. Duh. Takeover? 5% of adults? Sure.

#24 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-02 04:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Chapel zeros do matter.

Age of earth is 4.5 billion.

#25 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-02 04:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

40 billion a year for ten years is 400 billion.

Where as in a large portion od the 1 trillion plus over 10 years comes from money already allocated to health care.

Logic and simple reasoning missing by the dr elite right clearly show there is absolutely no difference in the "obama" plan vs the "rush" plan.

Very similar cost.

#26 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-02 05:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

3300 a year for health insurance.

Mine is 500 a month THRU my company.

3300 won't even buy cobra.

Sound like obama has a better plan

#27 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-02 05:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

wasn't Rush's idea for government to purchase or subsidize the purchase of private insurance through tax credits as opposed to a federally administered super-MEDICARE? doesn't one method support the private sector & the other (government takeover of medical care) bloat an already excessive federal government?

#28 | Posted by edb at 2009-11-02 06:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

crap... had issues remembering my password & forgot to conclude. this headline is a red herring.

#29 | Posted by edb at 2009-11-02 06:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Supporting the Private sector is exactly what we want to avoid.

#30 | Posted by jackass at 2009-11-02 06:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rush knows how many uninsured actually want insurance? How could he know that? Where would one get these numbers?

It's the same as saying that he has run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that don't want insurance is 38 million. I don't think so. What the hell - the Dem's should insure all of the uninsured that want insurance, and when people cry "Socialists!" they can just say that it was Rush Limbaugh's idea.

#22 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar

hmmm - -

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 1, 7:35 am ET

WASHINGTON: What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

#31 | Posted by markh at 2009-11-02 06:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

2%??? Did they ask anybody without insurance that question?? That seems incredibly low.

#32 | Posted by jackass at 2009-11-02 06:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

2% is incredibly lying

#33 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-02 07:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Supporting the Private sector is exactly what we want to avoid.

#30 | Posted by jackass

We? Just how many personalities do you have running around in that jug of yours?

#34 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-11-02 08:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

I take it you're a public servant then Jackass?

public servants require taxation for their wages. private sector jobs create wealth. how can we 'sustain' more public sector jobs when BHO is goona cut taxes for 95% of us? or was that a lie? how can the government pay for public servants if the private sector is attacked through excessive taxation?

#35 | Posted by edb at 2009-11-02 08:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

2%??? Did they ask anybody without insurance that question?? That seems incredibly low.

Do you know anybody without insurance?
Do you know how much it would cost them?

conduct your own poll.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2009-11-02 08:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Eberly I was without insurance a few years ago while I was in between jobs. I would have supported a public option. Due to pre-existing conditions I couldn't get pvt insurance even if I wanted to.

#37 | Posted by jackass at 2009-11-02 08:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you know anybody without insurance?
Do you know how much it would cost them?

yes a lot of people
more then they can afford

#38 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-02 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Kiff, I was referring to how much the public option would cost them.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2009-11-02 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

1300 a year was the quote I heard which is reasonable.

#40 | Posted by jackass at 2009-11-02 08:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

i read this morning (some AP report) that the CBO estimates the premiums contained in the current proposal would cost the insured more than private insurance. however, the CBO stated the loose restrictions would still attract some -- that 2% i guess.

#41 | Posted by edb at 2009-11-02 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Unlike the Obama administration, right?
....#2 | Posted by KBM

.....so you agree that 3.30 per year will buy health insurance for someone ??......

......you can't be that stupid.......

#3 | Posted by skizziks

Have you not read any of KBM's stuff?!?!?!

He absolutely is that stupid.

#42 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-02 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"i read this morning (some AP report) that the CBO estimates the premiums contained in the current proposal would cost the insured more than private insurance."

You lack reading comprehension. The CBO said that SINCE MOST OF THOSE TAKING THE PUBLIC OPTION HAVE HEALTH PROBLEMS THEIR RATES WOULD BE HIGHER THAN AVERAGE POLICYHOLDERS WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE.

If those same people were to buy private insurance the cost would be even higher.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-02 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hospitals, LTACs, Dr. Offices, Nursing Homes, etc. all make their money on private insurance plans. If they relied on medicare & medicaid they would go out of business. A govt. plan would only reduce everyones standard of living in the field. Its called leveling the playing field.

#44 | Posted by markh at 2009-11-02 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they relied on medicare & medicaid they would go out of business.

......not true.....they would just make less profits......

.....this is one of the myths the health care industry perpetuates so they can keep ripping us off.......

......the government does not force doctors to subsidize anybody's care........

......they just don't make the usual killing on it.....

#45 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-02 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "public option" (i.e. government run insurance) and the government subsidizing insurance (Rush's plan) aren't the same thing.

Rush's plan, however, would be mostly a payout to insurance companies.

#46 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-02 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag: