CALLER: Not a problem. It's the truth. That's where the truth lives is on the Rush Limbaugh Show.Posted on 03/26/2015 5:51:31 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Back at it we are. This is Mark in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Welcome, sir. Glad you called. Great to have you with us.
CALLER: Thank you so much, Maha Rushie. I'm a 23-year-listener. First time I got through.
RUSH: I'm glad you made it, sir.
CALLER: Thank you very much. The comment... I loved yesterday's show. That's one of the days I wish you had six hours rather than three.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. You know, now, that's interesting that you say that, 'cause I went home yesterday and thought that it wasn't nearly as good as it should have been or could have been, and I kind of beat myself up for couple hours after the program yesterday and said, "I need to kick it up a notch or two." So I'm flattered to hear you say that.
CALLER: Not a problem. It's the truth. That's where the truth lives is on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
RUSH: That happens to be the case.
CALLER: Every day.
RUSH: I appreciate that.
CALLER: Yeah. My comment was on Ted Cruz and the purchase of Obamacare.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: Now, there's three things that just as Joe Average Middle of the Flyover Country Person I know. He's intelligent, obviously. By listening to your program and hearing about his professors explain how intelligent he is, I know. The second thing is, we know he's a world class-type debater.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: The third thing is, he's running for president. Now, in my humble estimation, I've got an intelligent man, he knows how to debate, and he's running for president. Now, those three things added together, you look at him purchasing Obamacare, and in the old adage, "A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument." Of all the Republicans --
RUSH: That's kind of a variation on the old adage, "Never get into an argument with a fool because people will not be able to tell the difference."
CALLER: (chuckles) Exactly. That's perfectly put. You know, how many of his Republican challengers are on Obamacare? I mean, how many senators? How many congressmen?
RUSH: Well, by law they all should.
CALLER: Exactly. But I scarcely think any of them do. But when it comes down to debating, and when Ted promised to repeal Obamacare, he -- as this world champion debater -- is gonna know the other side better than he knows his own side, and that's the key to winning.
RUSH: Okay, I got it now. So your theory is that it's a good thing that Cruz signed up for Obamacare. *The caller is also building off of yesterday's show, which he thought was great. I appreciate that.) I know what he's saying now. His theory is that it's a good thing, because Cruz, as a candidate and as one who is enrolled in Obamacare, will be an expert critic. He will be a customer. He will be one who signed up. He will be an Obamacare user and will be able, with credibility, to criticize it, even with more credibility than if he had not had it.
So, in other words: Cruz will not have to be theoretical in his criticism of Obamacare. He will not have to say, "It's gonna do this; it's gonna do that." He'll be able to explain its flaws because he will be living with it. I get your point. Let's use this as a transition. I guess it was actually yesterday afternoon on the Daily Signal website, David Brody interviewed Cruz, and they were talking about Cruz signing up for Obamacare.
The question was: "The media is really blowing this up, you know. And you know the deal. 'Oh, now he's gonna take Obamacare! Now he gonna take a government subsidy!' Do you want to clear this up for us? Because there are a lot of people saying that you're against it but you're signing up for it, and they're thinking that you've kind of blown it here."
CRUZ: The mainstream media loves to play gotcha games.
BRODY: Mmm.
CRUZ: When I announced the campaign, my wife also decided to take an unpaid leave of absence from her job. We have been for the past couple hours covered on my wife's health insurance.
BRODY: Mmm-hmm.
CRUZ: When she took an unpaid leave of absence, it means that she's also losing her benefits. And so we're gonna do what anyone else would do, which is take their health insurance from their employer. So in all looked likelihood, we'll go on the exchange and so suddenly all the media says, "Ah, ha-ha-ha-ha! Gotcha, 'cause Cruz is signing up for Obamacare." Listen, I have zero intention of taking any government subsidy or Obama subsidy. Rather than what I'm gonna do is pay in the marketplace for health insurance for my family, just like millions of Americans.
Ted Cruz Has 'Zero Intention of Taking Any Obama Subsidy'
RUSH: Okay, does that answer satisfy you? I'm asking you, not the caller. The caller has politely moved on. Does that answer satisfy those of you who are troubled by. And I know some of you remain troubled by this, and it's at a basic level. On the one hand, here's Ted Cruz railing against it. "It's worthless! In fact, it's worse than worthless; it's harmful. Obamacare's gonna destroy America. Obamacare's gonna just rip the guts out of or economy. Obamacare is gonna result in higher costs.
"Obamacare is gonna result in less actual treatment for people. If I'm elected president, I'm gonna repeal it word-for-word, sentence by sentence. It's a goner." And then one day, "Well, my wife quit her job, so I had to sign up for Obamacare. I'm following the law." And people say, "Wait a minute! There seems to be a bit of a imbalance or disconnect here!" People are saying, "Where is the guy saying, 'I' really wish I didn't have to do this. I don't think this is something I ought to have to do, but it's the law of the land, but I'm not happy doing this.'"
Cruz isn't say that. He's not saying he's unhappy about signing up for Obamacare. He's not saying he's bothered by it. He's not criticizing. He's not doing any of that. He's saying, "I'm just doing what everybody else does. I'm getting my health care through my employer. That's what everybody in America traditionally has done. I'm not gonna take a subsidy. I'm not gonna take it." He doesn't sound like somebody signing up for something he doesn't like.
He doesn't sound like somebody signing up for something he wishes weren't there. He doesn't sound like somebody signing up for something that he can't wait to get rid of. Instead what he's saying is, "It's the law of the land; I got health care for my family. My wife had it. She's quitting to follow my campaign. She lost her health care. I have a responsibility; I'm doing what millions of Americans are doing. I'm gonna go on the exchange. I'm gonna buy a policy and be covered."
I think some people -- I don't know how many, but some people -- are expecting to also hear, "But I hate it! I resent having to do this. I resent my options are limited. I resent that it's gonna cost me so much." People want to hear that from Cruz, and they're not hearing it. I mean, it's a natural human nature thing, isn't it? Here's a guy who has made no bones about his disgust for it, about his opposition to it and for all the reasons (and they're all legitimate) and when he signs up for it, he doesn't talk about any of that.
There doesn't seem to be any anger, any resentment, any pressure at being forced to do this because there aren't any other options. And some people think that if you on one hand have such disgust or if you disapprove or disagree with it -- if you think it's so harmful -- then at least when you sign up, you ought to be saying how uncomfortable you are doing it. But he's not doing that. So we will see. This could be a huge nonstory to most people, and it probably, as the days go by, will end up being.
But I still notice that we have a number of people calling here yesterday and today telling us their theories. The latest we got was, "Hey, Rush, don't sweat it! Ted's doing this 'cause now as an Obamacare customer. And 'cause expert debater, he's gonna be able to blow this thing to smithereens once the campaign gets rolling 'cause they're gonna actually have experience with it."
Okay. We'll see if that happens to be the case.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Sandy somewhere in parts unknown in Maine. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I work for the federal government so I wanted to clarify something about our health benefit plan because the Congress is eligible for the same plan. As federal employees, we can choose from a variety of health plans that cost less than others or more than others, and our contribution to those plans is about 30% and the government's is about two-thirds.
RUSH: Right. That's exactly what I've pointed out.
CALLER: Yes. So Ted Cruz could choose Obamacare or he could choose the Federal Employees Health Benefit plan, but he said he didn't want to take subsidies from the government, and I think he was probably referring to the 75% that the government kicks in on a federal employee's health plan. It's also brilliant that he would go with Obamacare, because it shows that he's willing to take what the rest of the country is forced to do. I think the news media will fix it so whatever he does -- whether it's health plans or Obamacare or whatever choices he makes, basically, whatever he does -- is wrong. So if he takes Obamacare, that's wrong. If he doesn't take Obamacare, "See! He didn't take Obamacare." So they'll fix it however they want.
RUSH: Well, when this all happened yesterday, one of the first places that I was aware he went to talk about was CNN, and on CNN they tried to make him out to be a hypocrite, because on the one hand they say, "Well, here you are you're constantly criticizing it. You're saying you would repeal it, you're saying it's doing all this damage, and yet here you are signing up for it. Aren't you a little hypocritical?"
CALLER: No, it's the law. He knows it's the law, and he's gonna follow the law until he can change the law, if he can. But if he follows the law, that's what everyone has to do including him. And he's a very calm person so he's not gonna get rattled and he's not gonna get resentful. That's one of the things I like about him.
RUSH: That's true. He is unflappable, and that's very good.
CALLER: It is.
RUSH: So you work at the Office of Personnel Management?
CALLER: I do.
RUSH: Yeah. Well, your agency is providing the subsidies for federal employees as per an order from President Obama. I went back to my website and I found the source story for this back in 2013, and it basically was what I said. A bunch of members of Congress and congressional aides really started complaining about the cost when they found out that Obamacare was gonna apply to them, and Harry Reid was leading the charge.
It all got started by Chuck Grassley. Grassley inserted this provision that everybody that wrote and voted for this law was gonna have to be subjected to it, and they didn't fight him on it. They thought it would just be forgotten. But they were held to it, and they started complaining, and Obama decided to run the subsidies through your department rather than through the normal exchange setup that had been set up for them.
CALLER: I think they've always been eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefit because Congress are federal employees.
RUSH: Well, they weren't gonna be if they went the Obamacare route. That's what it was all about. They were gonna have to pay full boat. That's what Grassley's amendment required, and they were just raising holy heck about it. Anyway, you got it right at the beginning of your call, as normally you would do.
I don’t know what his reasons are. I tend to not think this is an issue because it is similar to what we would have to do if my husband lost his employee coverage. We are both in our 60’s and have a few serious health issues so going without coverage is not an option.
Cruz is a very smart man. I can’t imagine that he didn’t know that doing this wasn’t going to raise eyebrows. So my gut feeling is that maybe there is a method to this madness. I don’t believe flouting the law is an option for a man running for POTUS.
In the meantime it is not a worry to me as he has made his position on the ACA very plain and he apparently believes that what is good for the little people should be good enough for a US Senator as well.
To paraphrase David Horowitz, the controversy is never the controversy. His conservatism is the controversy. This man is the biggest threat to the pigs at the trough and they will try and harm him from now until, God willing, he leaves office in 2024. If Bush is any indicator maybe even after that.
I don’t. And I don’t get why Rush is so dense as to not understand.
Ted Cruz signed up for Obamacare… we hope he doesn’t get sick. We know “progressives” despise any and who disagree with their narrative and insults are their standard practice. This administration has used government power as a weapon against political opponents. Lois Lerner and IRS a glaring example. Americans must “surrender” to the almighty state or face persecution? I fear that these not just un- (but anti)-Constitutional quasi-Gestapo type actions will also be part of Obamacare, where those who dissent will have medical care delayed and even denied till they get with the “program” and kneel to the power of the centralized all powerful state. Yet DemWits still follow the Serpent promises with smiles of their faces... till they too late realize it ain’t utopia it’s HELL!
Exactly!
The Rats play the same thuggish games with public schools.
They force households to pay property taxes for the local govt school, then when you send your kid there because you have no discretionary funds left for a private school they say — “See - you LIKE the public schools, don’t you!”
It’s sssssssickening.
He is playing chess while the rest of the field and MSM are playing checkers.
Of course it makes no sense. Good thing is that the attacks will get tired soon and have less impact. Let them attack stupid things with stupid ideas early.
That's what it comes down to. Look at Hillary -- violating laws left and right. Look at Obama -- no respect for the law. Now, look at Cruz -- he follows the law. There's the difference.
Plenty of people realize that we now have a two-tier society. The laws are (apparently) for the little folk. The "important" people can ignore the laws. Well, Cruz is letting people know that he stands with the little folk.
He'll follow the law. Even when he doesn't like it. He'll pay his taxes. He'll sign up for Obamacare. He is not above the law.
But, given the chance, he'll make changes, and get rid of the laws that trouble the little folk. But the time for that hasn't come yet. And until it does come, he does what's right. Unlike the Power Elite of the Democrats (and too many Republicans).
I agree with you. Obamacare will be used as a weapon against those who will not conform.
One’s healthcare and the ability to pay for it is a powerful weapon.
I agree with your grasp of the reality that Senator Ted Cruz has to take. Those who fail to see it are living in the fantasy land of the Unicorn Farm. Obamacare give us little margin of variance and, it is that freedom it has taken away from us.
Compare that with what 'Rats have usually done when they're protesting something, which is to make a big show of "civil disobedience", chain themselves to fences, throw paint, go to jail, and then scream at the newspapers and evening news shows.
That's when DeathCare will really come to America, and docs and hospitals will be incented to kill (white) people.
But I'm looking too far down the road. First they have to get their Soylent Corporation shares and warrants lined up.
Cruz then would be asking well okay, why am I getting the VIP treatment?
That was the saying of a guy who did worse than Readers Digest to the bible...
Good thing Jesus ignored that. Or He never would have gone to the Cross and we’d still bear the blame for our sins.
Theologically this would be known as the “humility of Christ.” The “sons do not owe taxes.” But they can choose to pay to satisfy the formality and to identify with those who really do owe taxes.
I agree with you. Political miscalculations don’t mean a whole lot to me as it is an impossible mine field.
I just see it as a practical decision with political impact. Again, I don’t think thee is any real hidden agenda he has but I still think this is a non-issue.
""Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" is a summation of the famous 1750 sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, based on Biblical and reformation principles.
"...On 30 Juanuary 1750, Mayhew delivered a sermon "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I." Its critique of the proper Christian response to tyranny would lay the philosophocal groundwork for the American Revolution. As Peter Kershaw writes:John Adams called Rev. Mayhew "the morning gun of the Revolution." Adams also dubbed him a "transcendent genius." Robert Treat Paine called Dr. Mayhew, "The Father of Civil and Religious Liberty in Massachusetts and America." No one today should underestimate the significant contribution that the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew made toward the cause of liberty and American independence. Mayhew preached several sermons on Romans 13. The sermon . . . was considered so important that it was printed and widely distributed throughout the American Colonies. Mayhew was also famous for his election sermons (in Mayhew's day it was common for preachers to preach a sermon to the governor and the legislators immediately following an election). The message of Mayhew's sermon challenging passive obedience and non-resistance to all rulers was radical and unmistakable -- the king must repent of his tyrannies or face the consequences of his subjects forcibly throwing off the chains of tyranny. Mayhew's sermon was even sent to the king and the British parliament as a "remonstrance." Mayhew's habit of serving remonstrances on tyrants became a common practice with many other patriot preachers, as well. King George branded these "nonconformist" clergymen as the "Black Regiment" (mocking them for the black robes they wore). Mayhew's sermon resulted in the motto for the American Revolution: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548
Jesus obeyed the Father and went to the cross voluntary to pay the penalty for our sins. The point of my post was that that a civil government has authority in civil matters, but the authority is limited and defined. See the article below the one linked above on Romans 13, which clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
"Any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law"".
Cordially,
Since government is, like all humanity, all sinners, then by the light you “cordially” proffer no government could ever have any authority. It’s not a question of whether it will err, it’s only a question of how BADLY it will err.
Paul wrote Romans 13 while Nero was on the throne. Not a nice guy.
The actual biblical limit is drawn at being required to sin. Nobody has obligation to yield to being required to sin by the government.
Not at all. Merely that government does not have unlimited authority. Do you disagree? Do you think government has unlimited power and authority? I think not. All I'm saying is that government has limited authority, which is strictly defined by its purpose:
"... it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
In our case, our government is (or ought to be) limited by our Constitution, which severely limits the powers of the Federal government. Now this next statement is just my own opinion, mind you, but laws that are made by the Federal government, such as Obamanocare that are made outside the scope of the stated powers of the Constitution are simply ultra vires. It's none of the Federal goverment's damm business whether I have health insurance or not because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or grants them any power over health insurance, because health insurance is not and has never been regarded as interstate commerce.
The actual biblical limit is drawn at being required to sin. Nobody has obligation to yield to being required to sin by the government.
"Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17
Do they cause you or others to sin when they compel you to pay money that goes for abortion-killing the innocent? Do they have the authority to do that?
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.