Scott Walker unveils plans to replace Obamacare

August 17, 2015

WRITER

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio today to discuss his own health care plan for the country to replace Obamacare. Speaking on behalf of many conservatives and small government constitutionalists, Glenn asked the presidential candidate why even introduce another replacement government plan - shouldn't the free market replace it?

"It follows that principle," Walker said. "It's really about putting patients and families back in charge. It allows them to use the market, to access the market out there in a way that lifts many of the restrictions that Obamacare and, for that matter, other laws of government have put on the free market in the past.

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin and presidential candidate, hello, Scott, how are you, sir?

SCOTT: Hey, Glenn. I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on. How are you?

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

You have called Trump's campaign a sideshow. I happen to believe this. And I think the guy is just not healthy for our -- for our country. How long does this sideshow last?

SCOTT: Well, I think the obligation is on those of us running is that we have to lay out specific ideas, specific reforms. You know, one of the things you can't ignore is that he's tapped into something very real. And not just him, but look at some of the other nonelected candidates who are rising in the polls, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump. I think there's a correlation there that people are frustrated. Heck, I'm angry. I'm angry at the so-called leaders in Washington, particularly in the Republican Party who claimed they were going to repeal Obamacare if they got the Senate majority. Who claimed they would do something about immigration. We have yet to see that. There's a very real sentiment of frustration. The positive side of that is that people are is coming out, they're getting engaged. They're not just ignoring the problem. They're looking for someone who can do something about it. And I think in the end, the way someone like me, for example, ends up getting back up in the polls in states like Iowa and elsewhere is to lay out very real plans like we'll do tomorrow about how do we actually do more than say we're going to repeal Obamacare. How do we actually make it happen immediately in the next Congress? And then how do we put patients and families in charge of their health care?

GLENN: Okay. So you have a replacement for Obamacare. And for me, at least and I think many conservatives and small government constitutionalists, they say, why replace it? It should be replaced with the free market. What is your replacement plan? And why do we need government replacement?

SCOTT: Yeah. Without giving out all the details in advance of the announcement tomorrow, but it follows that principle. It's really about putting patients and families back in charge. It allows them to use the market, to access the market out there in a way that lifts many of the restrictions that Obamacare and, for that matter, other laws of government have put on the free market in the past. Part of the problem today is not just Obamacare. But if we went back to the way things were before Obamacare, there were still plenty of regulations and stipulations. There were still problems, for example, even with things like Medicaid that was sent to the state with all these strings attached. Those are the sorts of things we're going to talk about. Is not just going back to the way things were before Obamacare, but going in further to lift all the taxes, to lift the burdens, to put in place a system where patients can use the market to make good decisions for themselves and their families.

GLENN: I will tell you that I think what Donald Trump has tapped into and what Bernie Sanders has tapped into is this desire for Americans -- or by Americans to get out of the mushy middle and to actually -- if you're going to be -- I think what Bernie Sanders and the Democrats are saying is, you know what we're going to be over here, let's just be socialist. And I think on the other side, it is, let's just be common sense. Let's just not this special interest bullcrap out.

SCOTT: I would agree with you. And, again, this is where today I'll number Iowa. But I'll continue to make this case across the country. A lot of great candidates. A number of whom are tapping into that. I feel that sentiment as well. It's why I ran for governor in 2010 because I saw my state, much like I see my nation today, going down the wrong path. And I think if people are looking, not just for someone who shares that frustration, who shares that anger towards Washington, but who wants someone who can actually do something about it, I would say look at what we did in Wisconsin. We fought. We won. We got results. And we did it without compromising our common sense, conservative principles. Think about an issue out there. We didn't just take the unions on. We're not just right to work. We got rid of seniority and tenure. We have expanded school choice statewide. We cut taxes. In fact, by the end of this budget I'm in right now, taxes have been cut $4.7 billion in my state. We defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before these videos. We did castle doctrine and concealed carry. We now require a photo ID to vote in the state of Wisconsin. This is a blue state. A state that hadn't gone Republican for president since 1984. If we can do all those kinds of common sense conservative reforms in a blue state like Wisconsin, I think people can know that when I say we'll do common sense conservative reforms for America, they can take that to the bank. We've done it even with 100,000 protesters breathing down our neck. We did it for Wisconsin. We can do it for America.

GLENN: Tell me because I'm not quite sure where you stand on immigration. You handled a guy who came out and said, why do you want to deport me and my family. You handled that really, really well while on the campaign stump.

But, you know, if you look at what Trump has released this weekend, it's very, very clear. I don't necessarily believe he'll do it. But it's very, very clear. What is yours? Where do you stand?

SCOTT: That's a great point. And you're right. He has tapped into this issue, as well as a bunch of others. He's tapped into a very real passion, a very real concern of folks out there. I mentioned -- in fact, it was one of the times I was on your show, and you weren't on. But guest hosts were filling in months and months ago. I walked through exactly where I'm at and how I got there.

For me, when I talk about securing the border, now having been to the border with Governor Abbott and talking about it with others out there, I see it as much greater than just immigration. We need to have a wall. We need to have the infrastructure.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Let me stop you here. We have heard -- who was it, Pat, from San Diego. Duncan Hunter went on when I was at CNN. He went on and on and on. And I love Duncan Hunter. But he went on and on and on about how he put -- the wall shall be built into the law. And if you know anything about the law, Glenn, if it says shall, they have to build this wall. We've been hearing about this wall forever. President Obama says it's 95 percent complete. How -- how are you finally going to get people in Washington to actually build the wall?

SCOTT: Well, I've been to the border and I can say it's far from 95 percent. That's for sure. I mean, I've seen the opening. The passings. I've seen the problems that are created out there. To me, in a way that's similar to how we'll repeal Obamacare and other things in the sense that when I came to Wisconsin, a blue state, everything was Democrat, went Republican. We didn't just take on the unions. We didn't just take on the Democrats. We took on particularly one of our legislative houses. The Republican establishment that didn't want to do anything. I remember a week after the election, I came in and talked to all the Republicans and said, it's put-up-or-shut-up time. They went from all Democrat to all Republican. I made the point that if we just did a little bit less bad things than the Democrats did, the voters have every right to throw us out. And so we said it was put-up-or-shut-up time. Then we went through with one of the most, if not the most aggressive common sense, conservative agendas in the country. And we did it -- we didn't just do where I got elected three times. We've actually added seats to the legislative majorities in 12 and 14. Why? Because for Republicans, but even for independents, what they want more than anything is not someone to move to the center, they want someone to govern, to lead, do what they said they were going to do. And in this case, I think it's a matter of pushing back the House and the Senate and say, we have to do this.

Israel, I was in Israel earlier this year. They just completed a 500-mile fence. By doing that and staffing it and having the technology to make sure it works effectively, they've seen something like over a 90 percent reduction in terrorist acts in that country that they attribute to having an effective fence. 500 miles. That's about a quarter the size of our southern border. But, heck, Israel is a much, much smaller country. If Israel can do it effectively, there's no reason why America can't. And it's not just because of immigration. It's much bigger than that. We have international criminal organizations penetrating our southern-based borders. If it was happening in our water ports --

GLENN: We have ISIS here.

SCOTT: -- we'd be sending in the Navy. We should do something on our borders.

GLENN: I wrote a piece online this weekend about Mike Lee. There was a -- there was an article in the New York Times about Mike Lee. And it -- it talked about how Mitch McConnell is telling Mike Lee, who is one of the most reasonable, sound thinkers in the Senate.

SCOTT: Yep.

GLENN: How he's got to decide, you know, between these Tea Party freaks and -- and his party. And Mitch McConnell is part of the problem. Will you go so far as saying that there are people in the G.O.P. that are part of the establishment like Mitch McConnell that are part of the problem?

SCOTT: Yes. I hear it all the time. And I share that sentiment. This was -- we were told if Republicans got the majority in the United States Senate, there would be a bill on the president's desk to repeal Obamacare. It is August. Where is that bill? Where was that vote? We were told they would do something about illegal immigration. If it hadn't been for me and 24 other governors out there, the president would be able to do what he claimed he couldn't do 22 times before last November and then went off and did it a couple weeks after the election. It's because I and Governor Abbott and 23 other governors went to court and stopped him. At least got a stay from doing that. It's not because the Congress, a Republican-led Congress, did anything to stop him from doing that. This is where the frustration is. This is why nonelected candidates are surging in the polls. It's because people are sending a very clear message to say, you may dismiss this candidate or that candidate, but people are saying loud and clear, do not dismiss my concerns. Do not dismiss the fact that you told us that Republicans stood for something, and it's not happening in Washington. Now more than ever, I think people are yearning. They're crying out. The good part of this is, while they're angry, they're not walking away. What I hear people tell me is do something about it. Do something about it, not just for me. Do something about it for my children and my grandchildren. I think people are still optimistic that there's enough time left to turn this country around. And that's what I want to be a part of.

GLENN: Well, let me ask you this. Because you say it's getting close. How close do you think it is? We're at the third longest bull market on record. The only other two that have been longer than this was 1929, right before the crash, and then right before the crash of the dot-com bubble. We have China in a massive slowdown. A commodity collapse. We have a credit crisis beyond anything probably -- probably 100 times worse than it was in 2008. And all of the signs are pointing towards this is a fantasy economy that we're living in. Do you agree with that? And how much does the fed play a role in this?

SCOTT: Oh, I think there are incredible, incredible concerns. Not just now, but on the horizon. As interest rates change, those debt and deficit problems only get worse out there. There's a lot of things that if things stay the way they are today. And arguably if Hillary Clinton is in, she makes it worse. As much as that's hard to imagine with this president. I think a Hillary Clinton presidency makes it worse. But having a Republican in the White House who is not committed to fundamental reform. Who is not committed to fundamentally change things. I think ultimately that creates a real problem as well because we've got to take dramatic action. We need somebody who will take forceful, immediate actions. I believe we can do it.

Again, parallel to what I did in my own state. We acted not just in the first 100 days. We acted on day one to join the federal lawsuit against Obamacare. We called a special session to get government out of the way to help lift our economy up on day one. We took actions within the first month, month and a half, to take on the big government unions and the other special interests in our state. And we got things done.

Now, it's much bigger, obviously at the federal level, but I have every confidence that if we have a leader in the White House, who is not just a Republican, but a reformer. A common sense conservative reformer, who demands that kind of reform, I mean, to me, that's things you have to do on day one. And you have to start pushing that Congress to be prepared to act on day one as well.

GLENN: Scott Walker, governor and presidential candidate, I have about a minute left here. I just want to ask you one last question. This is from my email over the weekend. It comes from -- it's in Arabic and translated. But it says: The day will come when we capture you cross-worshiping impure redneck polytheists of the United Snakes. Not only will we kill you, but we will take your women as slaves and all of your properties and blood will be lawful. Have patience because the hour will not be established until we have removed your falsehood pagan religion from the world and killed many of you. He quotes from the Koran. This is someone who is living here in the United States. Is this -- will the Walker administration go in and actually go into these mosques and call a spade a spade here in the United States, or will we co-exist and say that all of Islam as it is practiced is peaceful?

SCOTT: No, it's been clear. There's a war going on against Christians, against Jews, against people not only here, but around the world. And it's led by radical Islamic terrorists. And there are far too many people, not only in the Middle East, but around the world, including many places here, and we have to take this seriously. Anyone who doesn't think this is a serious issue is ignoring places like Chattanooga and plenty other places around the country that we've seen as of late. We have to treat this seriously. We have to have leadership in Washington who is going to make sure, increasingly, we take the fight to them overseas before they bring the fight to us. But we have to deal with the challenges we have here in America as well.

GLENN: Governor Scott Walker in Iowa today. Best of luck to you, Governor. Thank you for being on the program.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep