You should probably correct the attribution of this song. It has nothing to do with Rush other than he aired it. This is a song by satirist Paul Shanklin. Please correct the attribution.
The typical judgemental, vulgar response we've come to expect from a liberal. Its not your fault, its the public education system you were subjected to that puts intentions ahead of outcomes.
I call them like I see them. Is your Lord - Rush - not judgmental? Remember Jesus was a liberal too, and he would never subscribe to the trash that falls out of Limbaugh's gaping, stench-emitting, ass hole of a mouth. Have fun paying for health care when you're 80 and can't work any more.
"Rush the oxycodone man can! What a worthless piece of shit. "
is not judgmental? Its very clear that liberals believe in equality of liberals and have no respect for the rights of conservatives to even be alive. On the other hand conservatives don't wish death on liberals. See the difference? Its the extreme judgments from the liberals.
Hey I never said I wasn't judgmental. You're the one criticizing me for judgmentality, when the guy I was judging (Rush) is the biggest judge out there. And actually it's Republicans that don't want people to be alive. They are the ones working for insurance corps. denying health care to those who can't pay. Did you notice that 95% of peoples taxes were lowered by Obama and the Left? Or did you make more than 250,000.00? You idiots foolishly fight against what benefits you because Rush says to.
I think you are confusing the ideology of wanting the gov't to leave people alone and not be a massive overlord in our daily lives with "don't want people to be alive". In fact history has shown over and over that people have the highest standard of living whenever there is minimum gov't. Not wanting big gov't is not synonymous with "wanting people to be alive" and its unfortunate that you believe we need gov't so much that the two seem to be the same to you.
I'm not confusing anything. Right now insurance companies are making medical decisions for you and I based on profit. I want that stopped, and I want my tax money to go to health care rather than wars for oil. It doesn't take more govt. to do that. It just takes honest govt. It's the GOP that are fighting for the insurance companies because they receive major finance from them. Now that corporations are people we'll have much more finance going to get GOP to stop any health care reform.
" Right now insurance companies are making medical decisions for you and I based on profit."
The dirty little secret is that most of the major insurance co's in the US are non-profits, as are most hopitals. So you are saying that you believe that the gov't will run a more efficient operations than non-profits.
The problem is that everyone believes the insurance co should pay millions for any little treatment they want. Gov't says that a 60 year old lady must have pregnancy cov, etc.
Whatever - insurance companies save money by denying coverage. We pay exorbitant premiums to these companies, and they drop us when we get ill, and they deny coverage if they deem it too expensive. A doctor will perscribe a treatment, and the insurance company will deem it unnecessary. And people don't just get "any little treatment they want" without a doctor prescribing it after an examination. You are just spouting Rush' talking points without thinking. You are slitting your own throat.
I'm a vet, and I get free coverage - and I've never been denied any treatment. Guess what - all of Congress and the Senate have no premium, single payer, government coverage - and they never get denied. So you are just making stuff up now. That's the difference. Dumb ass.
So you are saying that if we go to a gov't program that everyone can instantly have unlimited coverage and it won't cost anything more? You are lucky that, as a vet, you've never had to fight for a necessary procedure. Not all of us are so lucky. Fighting the gov't for a procedure is no fun because you can't choose to switch gov'ts if you don't like the coverage.
Oh I've had to fight. I've only had vets coverage for 3 yars. Have you ever dealt with workman's comp? They immediately refuse anything, and bring in their doctors to refute what your doctor says. You say I'm "lucky" because I get complete government care. So why don't we all push to be as lucky as I am, and get universal health coverage? Your fears are based on info from guys like Rush who are working for the GOP, who work for insurance interests - not the little guy who wants fair coverage.
So your argument is that the gov't can pay out more claim on less money than the non-profits? Can I swich gov'ts if the current gov't is refusing my claim? If you make that part of the deal; I'll buy into it.
Are all insurance companies are non profits? And Non-Profit does not mean low cost to the consumer. I will not be instructed to "fear" anything. No matter what the GOP says, there will always be a government. If they want it smaller, then they should just quit. Just ask anyone in France, Canada, England if they like their health coverage. I want that model for my country - but fear and misinformation has been instilled into the pitchfork wielding hoards of tea-baggers.
"If they want it smaller, then they should just quit. Just ask anyone in France, Canada, England if they like their health coverage. I want that model for my country "
Sounds good you can have it. But don't force it on me. Don't make we wait a year for a hip replacement and don't make me pay for your high cost gov't plan. If you think the gov't can compete with the non-profits, let them do it; but don't use tax payer money to unbalance the fair field and don't force it on me.
That's where it's heading Bobby. Your way has already been forced on me, so it's now time for the people to benefit. The right is slowing down the change, but change will still happen and all that will be forced on you is lower bills.
But again, do you really believe the gov't is more efficient? Do you think that a gov't plan would be an attractive choice along with existing plans if it were not heavily subsidized?
Yes the Government is more efficient than the insurance companies. Especially when we oust more of the corrupt politicians who work against us, and for special interests like insurance, oil, or financial companies. Of course a govt plan that covers any medical need with no monthly premium, no co-pay, no cost out of pocket, and no increase in my taxes would be a more attractive choice. That's what the liberals want. Any compromise to that will decrease efficiency. Get on board and get patriotic.
Of course not. They run completely on taxpayer money. I don't want a government OPTION - I want complete care from my doc - covered by my taxes. Healthcare isn't supposed to be a competition. I know it's a hard concept, but we could actually use our tax dollars for US! Just like the highways, police, fire fighting. Health coverage isn't working now. If we always do what we have always done, we will always get what we have always got. Have you ever injured yourself when you were not covered?
If you believe people would be happy with a gov't option, then why can't we have the existing companies compete with the gov't option? Seems like if the gov't option were as cool as you say, everyone would take it. What are you afraid of? Everyone standing in line at the Post Office?
Unless you plan to print money, either option is going to cost money. Dr's aren't going to just start working for free under either program.
I know that is a misprint, you meant to say "all paid for with your taxes", right? Just want to clarify. So in reality this has nothing to do with public/private healthcare and everything about asking someone else to pay for something you don't want to pay for.
Oh, so then you are a top 5% income earner then. So you are one of the "rich" that Obama wants to increases taxes on to pay for this. Because the top 5% pay 97% of the total IRS collection according ot the IRS so if you were below the top 5% you wouldn't even be paying for your gov't services today; much less than than the gov't spends on you today. You have already said the gov't program is more expensive than private otherwise you wouldn't mind me keeping my money.
@RobertGary1 Its not surprising that the top 5% would be paying 97% of the total colection. the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of the population, however, controls only 7%. Could you imagine the state our country would be in if we relied on scraping the wallets of that bottom EIGHTY percent?!
I love Limbaugh's parodies. The parody page hasn't been updated lately - then again, Obama's given so much material that the website updater guy probably can't keep up lol
fuck this druggy fat fucker.
AMPDOG2 1 month ago
Is Limbaugh in prison for his illegal drug buying ans using yet? Don't forget to hand your children over to this groveling pig.
jack113ful 3 months ago
Rush get off the drugs, this video only shows how hooked you are on them.
StellarTechnology 1 year ago
@StellarTechnology No it does't.
BJTGamer 6 months ago
hdsusususususususususususususususususususususususuihs
cod6nukekid 1 year ago
You should probably correct the attribution of this song. It has nothing to do with Rush other than he aired it. This is a song by satirist Paul Shanklin. Please correct the attribution.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Rush kicks ass. Chadfish sucks!
jmspflw 2 years ago 2
Rush the oxycodone man can! What a worthless piece of shit.
Chadfish 2 years ago
The typical judgemental, vulgar response we've come to expect from a liberal. Its not your fault, its the public education system you were subjected to that puts intentions ahead of outcomes.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
I call them like I see them. Is your Lord - Rush - not judgmental? Remember Jesus was a liberal too, and he would never subscribe to the trash that falls out of Limbaugh's gaping, stench-emitting, ass hole of a mouth. Have fun paying for health care when you're 80 and can't work any more.
Chadfish 1 year ago
Yet you believe that...
"Rush the oxycodone man can! What a worthless piece of shit. "
is not judgmental? Its very clear that liberals believe in equality of liberals and have no respect for the rights of conservatives to even be alive. On the other hand conservatives don't wish death on liberals. See the difference? Its the extreme judgments from the liberals.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Hey I never said I wasn't judgmental. You're the one criticizing me for judgmentality, when the guy I was judging (Rush) is the biggest judge out there. And actually it's Republicans that don't want people to be alive. They are the ones working for insurance corps. denying health care to those who can't pay. Did you notice that 95% of peoples taxes were lowered by Obama and the Left? Or did you make more than 250,000.00? You idiots foolishly fight against what benefits you because Rush says to.
Chadfish 1 year ago
I think you are confusing the ideology of wanting the gov't to leave people alone and not be a massive overlord in our daily lives with "don't want people to be alive". In fact history has shown over and over that people have the highest standard of living whenever there is minimum gov't. Not wanting big gov't is not synonymous with "wanting people to be alive" and its unfortunate that you believe we need gov't so much that the two seem to be the same to you.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
I'm not confusing anything. Right now insurance companies are making medical decisions for you and I based on profit. I want that stopped, and I want my tax money to go to health care rather than wars for oil. It doesn't take more govt. to do that. It just takes honest govt. It's the GOP that are fighting for the insurance companies because they receive major finance from them. Now that corporations are people we'll have much more finance going to get GOP to stop any health care reform.
Chadfish 1 year ago
" Right now insurance companies are making medical decisions for you and I based on profit."
The dirty little secret is that most of the major insurance co's in the US are non-profits, as are most hopitals. So you are saying that you believe that the gov't will run a more efficient operations than non-profits.
The problem is that everyone believes the insurance co should pay millions for any little treatment they want. Gov't says that a 60 year old lady must have pregnancy cov, etc.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Whatever - insurance companies save money by denying coverage. We pay exorbitant premiums to these companies, and they drop us when we get ill, and they deny coverage if they deem it too expensive. A doctor will perscribe a treatment, and the insurance company will deem it unnecessary. And people don't just get "any little treatment they want" without a doctor prescribing it after an examination. You are just spouting Rush' talking points without thinking. You are slitting your own throat.
Chadfish 1 year ago
"Whatever - insurance companies save money by denying coverage"
Sure, and so does gov't healthcare . What's the difference?
RobertGary1 1 year ago
I'm a vet, and I get free coverage - and I've never been denied any treatment. Guess what - all of Congress and the Senate have no premium, single payer, government coverage - and they never get denied. So you are just making stuff up now. That's the difference. Dumb ass.
Chadfish 1 year ago
So you are saying that if we go to a gov't program that everyone can instantly have unlimited coverage and it won't cost anything more? You are lucky that, as a vet, you've never had to fight for a necessary procedure. Not all of us are so lucky. Fighting the gov't for a procedure is no fun because you can't choose to switch gov'ts if you don't like the coverage.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Oh I've had to fight. I've only had vets coverage for 3 yars. Have you ever dealt with workman's comp? They immediately refuse anything, and bring in their doctors to refute what your doctor says. You say I'm "lucky" because I get complete government care. So why don't we all push to be as lucky as I am, and get universal health coverage? Your fears are based on info from guys like Rush who are working for the GOP, who work for insurance interests - not the little guy who wants fair coverage.
Chadfish 1 year ago
So your argument is that the gov't can pay out more claim on less money than the non-profits? Can I swich gov'ts if the current gov't is refusing my claim? If you make that part of the deal; I'll buy into it.
Fear gov't.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Are all insurance companies are non profits? And Non-Profit does not mean low cost to the consumer. I will not be instructed to "fear" anything. No matter what the GOP says, there will always be a government. If they want it smaller, then they should just quit. Just ask anyone in France, Canada, England if they like their health coverage. I want that model for my country - but fear and misinformation has been instilled into the pitchfork wielding hoards of tea-baggers.
Chadfish 1 year ago
"If they want it smaller, then they should just quit. Just ask anyone in France, Canada, England if they like their health coverage. I want that model for my country "
Sounds good you can have it. But don't force it on me. Don't make we wait a year for a hip replacement and don't make me pay for your high cost gov't plan. If you think the gov't can compete with the non-profits, let them do it; but don't use tax payer money to unbalance the fair field and don't force it on me.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
That's where it's heading Bobby. Your way has already been forced on me, so it's now time for the people to benefit. The right is slowing down the change, but change will still happen and all that will be forced on you is lower bills.
Chadfish 1 year ago
But again, do you really believe the gov't is more efficient? Do you think that a gov't plan would be an attractive choice along with existing plans if it were not heavily subsidized?
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Yes the Government is more efficient than the insurance companies. Especially when we oust more of the corrupt politicians who work against us, and for special interests like insurance, oil, or financial companies. Of course a govt plan that covers any medical need with no monthly premium, no co-pay, no cost out of pocket, and no increase in my taxes would be a more attractive choice. That's what the liberals want. Any compromise to that will decrease efficiency. Get on board and get patriotic.
Chadfish 1 year ago
So do you believe a gov't option could compete with existing plans without taxpayer money?
RobertGary1 1 year ago
Of course not. They run completely on taxpayer money. I don't want a government OPTION - I want complete care from my doc - covered by my taxes. Healthcare isn't supposed to be a competition. I know it's a hard concept, but we could actually use our tax dollars for US! Just like the highways, police, fire fighting. Health coverage isn't working now. If we always do what we have always done, we will always get what we have always got. Have you ever injured yourself when you were not covered?
Chadfish 1 year ago
If you believe people would be happy with a gov't option, then why can't we have the existing companies compete with the gov't option? Seems like if the gov't option were as cool as you say, everyone would take it. What are you afraid of? Everyone standing in line at the Post Office?
Unless you plan to print money, either option is going to cost money. Dr's aren't going to just start working for free under either program.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
I want unlimited health care available to all paid for with our taxes. If you want to pay for insurance on top of that - go ahead.
Chadfish 1 year ago
"all paid for with our taxes"
I know that is a misprint, you meant to say "all paid for with your taxes", right? Just want to clarify. So in reality this has nothing to do with public/private healthcare and everything about asking someone else to pay for something you don't want to pay for.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
I pay for it already with my taxes. And you pay for my free treatment right now. I just want you to get what I already get. You could always opt out.
Chadfish 1 year ago
Oh, so then you are a top 5% income earner then. So you are one of the "rich" that Obama wants to increases taxes on to pay for this. Because the top 5% pay 97% of the total IRS collection according ot the IRS so if you were below the top 5% you wouldn't even be paying for your gov't services today; much less than than the gov't spends on you today. You have already said the gov't program is more expensive than private otherwise you wouldn't mind me keeping my money.
RobertGary1 1 year ago
@RobertGary1 Its not surprising that the top 5% would be paying 97% of the total colection. the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of the population, however, controls only 7%. Could you imagine the state our country would be in if we relied on scraping the wallets of that bottom EIGHTY percent?!
shea1788 1 year ago
OBAMA MAN CAN!!!!!!!
coolboyandcooldad 2 years ago
Paul Shanklin is a national treasure!
TauntedTiger 2 years ago 2
GOD BLESS RUSH !!
kiddbrother3 2 years ago 2
Thank god for Rush...
DavidSontz 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, hate speech is easy, positive change isn't.
Kyah 2 years ago
lol good one, anyone know where I can find the one about the healthcare plan? It's hillarious.
wildcatzb3 2 years ago 11
I love Limbaugh's parodies. The parody page hasn't been updated lately - then again, Obama's given so much material that the website updater guy probably can't keep up lol
SessHydraxis 2 years ago 16
1st! Thank you so much for posting this, I heard it on the radio but could not record it. Thank you sooo much!
txfirehawk 2 years ago 5