About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh: "47 million" people do not want health insurance

July 21, 2009 2:54 pm ET

From the July 21 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by epkklk851 (July 21, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
      4  
      Leapin' Lizards! Who would have thought that Ol'Lardbum could make such a fantastic leap? He hears one foolish, young guy say he is making a wise choice not to have health insurance and he immediately assumes that all 46,999,999 otherpeople who don't have health insurance don't want it either! My daughter is young, she would love to have health insurance, but, because of pre-existing conditions, she is unable to get it and we can't afford the $00 a month to add her back to ours. Like this young man, we are gambling on her youth and good health beyond her condition. Other people have made the same decision as this young man but suddenly, they have found themselves very sick or very injured and they can't pay for their care. In some cases, their costs are passed on to the rest of us, in other cases, they just stay sick or they die because of their choice. With medical costs being what they are, a person who willingly cancels their insurance is being foolish, and their choice should not be assumed for the rest of the group, which I am sure is much larger.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (July 21, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
      5  
      The Oxycotin is really strong today, huh Rush

      It's fair to say that if someone doesn't want health insurance than they don't have to get it... but unfortunately, those people become the "free loaders" who we all pay for when there is an emergency.

      This is a real problem that most countries solve with National Health Services, but that apparently isn't an option here.

      If that same person has a family and chooses not to purchase health insurance for his children so he can buy a better car, well than that speaks volumes to the kind of person he is.

      To think that 47 Million people don't want health insurance is asinine... and that tells us a lot about the kind of person Rush is.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (July 21, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
      4  
      Mr. Limbaugh is taking a page from former President Reagan's playbook. I remember living in a tent when Mr. Reagan stated that people who were homeless -chose- to be. It was a choice I could've wished on him, so that he could understand just how absurd such a position really is.

      Now comes Rush to explain that everyone without health insurance is voluntarily uninsured. If this is so, Mr, Limbaugh, why is it that the single payer option, which would cover -everyone-, has between 70 and 80 percent approval? Surely some of those who approve have no insurance and the moment, and realize that they suddenly would have under single payer. (I realize this discourse may be too rational...)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
        6
      The full context was that 47 million don't want this socialized formula of fixing the problem forced upon them.

      This guy is 22 and could be given a voucher for @$6500 to find his own health insurance. A catastrophic coverage policy would probably only cost about 1/2 that. He could put the extra into his HSA to use for more specialized care as he ages or his family grows.

      He then could use his money to both save government motors and buy a gas-guzzlig SUV that would keep his family safe an allow him to protect his family while travelling and afford the health coverage for each family member.

      The 47 million who don't want socialized medicine aren't foregoing the idea of insurance, just a cookie cut program that would ration care and limit the individual' choice.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (July 21, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
        1  
        Would you force the insurance companies to accept these vouchers for people with pre-existing conditions?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
             
          Yes and make it portable as well. Allow for competition between insurers to get that money.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (July 21, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
           
        That health insurance is fantastic stuff until you get sick and become a cost. Insurance companies are at cross purposes with healthcare goals of the population it is supposed to serve. The more money the insurance providers spend to get you better, the more diminished their profits are (which is obviously unacceptable to them).

        It is time we start to look at healthcare insurance as a public service like police, fire and defense. The so-called "free market" (which has been anything, but free) has failed miserably to achieve anything close to the best system of healthcare.

        If you disagree, tell me a free market solution that will add the rest of the population to healthcare insurance AND lower insurance administration costs from 30% of overall healthcare spending to 5% (which is what most nations spend while covering their entire populations). I am all ears.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
             
          You are correct about 2 things, the free market hasn't existed in health care and that profits drive private enterprise.

          Think of our voucher system for college education. Many students get financial aid to afford college. Some choose prestigeous unviersity but many choose an institution they can manage finacially. It could be the same for our health care.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (July 21, 2009 10:12 pm ET)
            1  
            The majority of college funding is through loans. That aside, how do you think vouchers will contain costs. College has not contained the cost of education for most people the way it is currently funded. Is there a college in the country that has managed to reduce administrative costs as a direct result of competition or vouchers (or an equivalent)?

            Secondly, I do not think the free market can adequately apply to the health insurance industry anymore. As far as I can tell, mandating coverage - as the health insurance lobby would like and providing vouchers would do nothing at all to control costs. It may even be comparable to throwing gas on an open flame.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 21, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
        2  
        This guy is 22 and could be given a voucher for @$6500 to find his own health insurance
        It wouldn't be enough. There's no insurance you can get for $500 a month. It's just like the school voucher BS.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (July 21, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
          1  
          I agree. It's just a giveaway to the insurance companies. The second you get sick, they drop you and you have nothing you can do. Total scam.

          The insurance companies are glad to take your money as long as you don't cost them anything.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 9:57 pm ET)
          1 1
          Scott,

          Just google for purchasing insurance. Then complete a profile for a single person, aged 22, non smoker. The best available came in around 170.00 a month for me. No copays or deductible. Try it yourself.

          It can be done, it is a much better offer that socialized care, you know, one size fits all. Freedom is a much bette system
          Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
      1 7
      The full context was that 47 million don't want this socialized formula of fixing the problem forced upon them.

      This guy is 22 and could be given a voucher for @$6500 to find his own health insurance. A catastrophic coverage policy would probably only cost about 1/2 that. He could put the extra into his HSA to use for more specialized care as he ages or his family grows.

      He then could use his money to both save government motors and buy a gas-guzzlig SUV that would keep his family safe an allow him to protect his family while travelling and afford the health coverage for each family member.

      The 47 million who don't want socialized medicine aren't foregoing the idea of insurance, just a cookie cut program that would ration care and limit the individual' choice.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (July 21, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
        4  
        Yep, let him fire up that monstrous SUV, between the environmental damage from pollution and low fuel mileage and the increased tendency to roll over in a crash, his family will be SO much safer...and let's not forget that SUV drivers tend to be less secure as drivers and make riskier choices while driving. Please don't make the assumption that my daughter is uninsured because she opposes "socialized medicine," she would tell you what she saw in Asia and wonder out loud how you could be so dumb as to oppose it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blueline99 (July 21, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
        5  
        That's a great argument and a dream scenario except that it presumes that the insurance company acts in good faith.

        According to the American Journal of Medicine
        25% of patients have their insurance canceled immediately when a catastrophic event occurs.
        Another 25% have their insurance canceled within a year.

        The Health Insurance industry is corrupt. They make profits by denying care and letting their customers die... I'm not using scare tactics it's simply the truth.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 21, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
        6  
        You have far too much faith in the insurance industry. Where it comes from, I have no idea. Insurers have proven themselves over and over again to be profit driven, not patient driven. That's not going to change by giving people vouchers.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (July 21, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
        1  
        LOl..typical winger arguement. don't address the issue, just stick to the talking points....stick to the talking points....stick to the talking points....

        well done
        Report Abuse
      • Author by artsboy (July 21, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
           
        Try Wikipedia for adverse selection. Of course there are a lot of young people who believe they don't need health insurance - and many won't have the need for it if they have it. Let the healthiest remove themselves from the pool of insureds and the average loss grows and rates have to be raised. At the higher rate there are more people who believe - probably correctly so - that they can go without insurance at the higher price. They remove themselves from the pool or are forced out and the average payout increases and rates have to be raised again. More people are forced out of the market, many of them healthy folks who make few claims. Eventually the pool of insureds becomes the least healthy among us and the rates are prohibitive for everyone else. Again, it's called adverse selection.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (July 21, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
      5  
      For me and my wife my insurance costs my employer $8200 and I pay about 25% of that. If I lose my job, I join those 47 million people. It is ignorant to say 47 mil do not want health care. The accurate statement would be 47 mil cannot afford health care. But this fat a$$ makes millions, so what the he11 does he care
      Report Abuse
      • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
          1
        Imagine if .......

        Take all the legal residents of the US, @230 million. divide that by what the price tag for socialized medicine @1.5 trillion+ and you come up with $6500 and change for everybody. This includes all medicaid and medicare then too, which will overwhelm the county in debt very soon.

        Make both private and public, if you insist, insurance companies compete for that price. Have the extra be allowed to be put into an HSA to accure money to cover co-pays or special procedures. Make the insurance companies accept both portability and previous conditions. Allow for younger people to purchase cheaper insurance to increase their HSA.

        People will become very aware of the cost and choose care judiciously. Make certain everyone has at least a catastrophic coverage policy too.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (July 21, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
      5  
      Make no mistake - this is the neocon mentality. They call liberals elitists but as always it is projection. Neocons simply don't care about those who are less fortunate. To them, anyone who is poor deserves it. After all, if you were a good person, you would be successful.

      Neocons truly do not want democracy, what they want is an 18th century monarchy where an elite few have all the priveleges.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (July 21, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
      7  
      Until something catastrophic happens, everyone with Health insurance feels they are secured. They can't fathom being denied coverage.

      But 75% of all bankruptcy claims due to medical bills are people who had health insurance. The problem is that the insurance company either caps the payments or cancels the insurance once they are forced to pay out.

      The system is broken. Until you see it in real life most people they don't understand.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seroquel (July 21, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
      3  
      I take issue with Rush, and PC-
      The gentleman is thinking Government is going to make you buy insurance. With this bill, you can KEEP your private insurance.
      For those who can't afford insurance because of the high cost of premiums or preexisting conditions you would be covered REGARDLESS, which means no longer will these FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES be able to stack the deck. PC, do you like having an insurance company tell you which doctors you can see? How about which treatments you can get?
      6500 dollars? What insurance plan can you get for that price? I've yet to see one that completely covers you for that amount. Unless you're talking about the deductible that you have to pay upfront.
      I have Medi-Cal, and Medi-Care. Insurance companies control who you see, and if the treatment costs too much, it gets denied. Or I have to pay for it out of pocket. And Bush said it would be more affordable. Right.
      47 million Americans don't want insurance, RIGHT NOW, because they can't afford it. They want insurance that's reasonably priced, and with a guarantee that they can't be turned down, that doesn't line the pockets of some soulless CEO and his or her company.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (July 21, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
      2  
      It could only be one reason why this total idiot is allowed to spew his venomous stupidity and hate and keep his job. He is white and he is saying what many of them think.
      How else can you explain advertisers and the FCC willingness to ignore Rush treasonous talk?
      By allowing Rush to get away with what he is doing, they are guilty of creating a bigger monster than what he already are. Rush is dangerous and he is inciting people to act on their hate.
      Rush is a racist and his problem is with the black President and he doesn’t give a damn what he says. His audience is made up of mindless people who don’t care about facts or truth. If they did Rush would be off the air in no time, because it is easy to disprove the lies and ignorance he talks.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 21, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
        2  
        Since we're making stuff up, Rush, I suppose there are 100 million people who don't want clean drinking water, either.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (July 21, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
      1  
      So, let me get this straight... a 22 year old who doesn't care about health insurance proves that 47 million people also don't want it either? Wow, that's a hell of a leap.
      I remember when I was 22. I thought I'd live forever. Health insurance wasn't even a blip on my radar then. Did I represent all uninsured Americans? Of course not. I was a kid who didn't know any better.
      Fill a stadium with middle-aged uninsured Americans who don't want health insurance and then you might starts to have a point.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (July 21, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
        4
      Nowhere in that clip does he state that all 47 million don’t want health insurance. He said “he is one of the 47 million” “does not want it”. That is not saying that all 47 million don’t want it just that he is one of the 47 million uninsured and he individually doesn’t want insurance. Another perfect example of how MMFA distorts comments made by conservatives. If you notice they only have the 47 million in quotes in the headline not the people do not want health care. What a Joke.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 21, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
        2  
        Wrong. Try again.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blueline99 (July 21, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
           
        "He is one of these 47 million who doesn't want it"

        nice apology...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by papabear45 (July 21, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
           
        Did you watch the whole clip? he says it at the end.

        " he's one of these 47 million who doesn't wanna buy health insurance."

        what does that quote mean to you?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (July 23, 2009 10:46 am ET)
             
          Wrong again he never use the word WHO "he is one of the 47 million Does not want it”. Big difference! Which is exactly why MMFA does not quote it that way. He is stating that he is one of the 47 million uninsured and that he does not want insurance. He never implied that all 47 million don’t want it. You are adding a word that changes the meaning of the quote.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Rsw58 (July 21, 2009 6:47 pm ET)
      1  
      You people just don't understand conservatives! Don't you know that if just one person, like the 22 yr old idiot that was on Rush's audio clip, says that they don't want health insurance that it PROVES that the other 46,999,999 people without health care coverage don't want it either! Jeez! It's like when Fox News interviews ONE Iraqi who says he is glad that the Americans came and overthrew Saddam that it PROVES that all Iraqi's feel the same way. Why can't you understand that!
      Oh and by the way, I never like to wish for bad things to happen to anyone but I would make an exception for the smug 22 yr old who said he didn't want health insurance coverage for his family. If his wife came down with cancer or a heart condition that would cost hundreds of thousands to treat I think he would change his mind in a hurry.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by proudconservative (July 21, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
          1
        Again, I believe in the ability of the individual to choose what's best for himself, is what is also great for others. A voucher system gives people the power, takes the burden off of employers and will make health insurance available to every legal resident and citizen of the country.

        The fallacy of socialized care is that all of a sudden, everyone will get every treatment their heart desires, from the simple to the severe. The problem will be that the government will make the choices for us. If that man's wife becomes ill and facing mounting medical costs, the government will simply look to a formula that considers age, seriousness of illness, chance for recovery and make a decision on that basis. It won't improve anything but the overall cost of medical care by limiting access. Today, if that man wanted the expensive care he could seek it even if it cost heavily financially, bringing bankruptcy but the end result would be a chance for her to get the treatments to extend her life.

        I think with the purchasing power of the citizenry, every insurance copy will be motivated to please the consumer, especially if portability and pre-conditions are dealt with legislatively.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 21, 2009 11:59 pm ET)
             
          You actually sound sane and reasoned with your responses on this thread. I'm not totally on board with vouchers, but I'd be willing to include them in with Obama's insurance option. Let them compete and let the free market show which one is better.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by blueline99 (July 22, 2009 12:29 am ET)
          2  
          The problem with the voucher system is that it gives credibility to the corrupt insurance companies. They are happy to take your vouchers and your money as long as you don't need their services.

          Let's see what happens when you get sick and need substantial medical services... not just the initial treatment, but possibly therapy, follow up visits, tests, meds, etc...

          50% of patients who have catostrophic medical requirements have their insurance cancelled within the first year.. stats from the American Journal of Medicine.

          The other problem with vouchers is that insurance costs have gone up three times the rate of pay. $6500 may pay for mediocre care now, but what will it pay for in 10 years... how does that voucher money get reevaluated. It's like giving a college student a $10,000 grant to go to school in 1986, when I went to school would have paid for my entire education, but today it would barely cover the first semester.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by terrapin53 (July 22, 2009 11:21 am ET)
             
          Isn't a voucher a redistribution of wealth which is a NO NO for you proud conservatives?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 22, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
             
          PC, Your second paragraph is utter nonsense.

          I live in Canada under "socialized medicine". My doctor and I decide on treatment for my condition and the treatment is done. The government pays for the treatment.

          Your second paragraph would be true ONLY IF the government operated in the same manner as an insurance company. I have additional insurance to cover dental and eye work, as well as to cover some costs of medications not covered by my provincial plan. Coverage is limited (rationed?) and no meds for pre-existing conditions are covered.

          Judging from what you and others have put forward in the threads regarding this topic, I know that I live in a better country.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by jlmincey (July 21, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
         
      Okay can someone explain to me how not taking the public OPTION would make you have to pay a fine? And honestly what is that guy's problem that makes him think he will be better off without free health care? I am just assuming that the job he got that pays lower then the one he was fired from pays lower then $250,000 a year if that is so he will be paying less then he is now in taxes with the added benefit of getting free health care...socialism be damned
      Report Abuse