Correcting the Healthcare Record on Hillary Clinton

February 03, 2016

WRITER

The Context

In the midst of sorting out votes during the Iowa Caucus, Hillary Clinton declared herself a "progressive that gets things done." She also stated her position on healthcare, saying “I know that we can finish the job of universal health care coverage for every single man, woman and child.” As with most statements made by a Clinton, the particular choice of words matter. Glenn stated Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program that Hillary was in favor of a single-payer healthcare system, but that wasn't exactly what she said. Given her penchant for wordsmithing, he wanted to set the record straight.

Word Games

What did Hillary actually say about healthcare? Is she for a single-payer system? It all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

“So correction, if you will, and I think it's kind of a word game that we're playing. I said earlier today that in Hillary Clinton's acceptance --- or her Iowa speech --- she said that she was going for single-payer health care,” Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "What she said was she was going for universal health care for every single payer.”

Hillary Clinton's speech from Iowa in which she addresses healthcare around mark 4:00:

Reading Between the Lines

The Clintons, known for parsing words when facing scrutiny, artfully craft statements to confuse and allow for wiggle room. (Were those emails "marked" classified, Hillary?) She's trying to make herself appear less radical than Bernie Sanders by using the phrase "universal healthcare" rather than "single-payer," but it's all the same thing, really.

“Yeah, the difference is, in a single-payer, a true single-payer system, Glenn Beck, evil rich person gets his insurance from the government,” Co-host Stu Burguiere said. "The only reason there's any bother to even make this distinction here is because Sanders is trying to go to Hillary's left by saying single-payer, specifically. And she's trying to go to the sensible side and just say, 'No, we'll just pay for 90 percent of people. Not 100 percent. That's crazy.'"

Muddying the Waters

Does she mean she wants the government to pay for everyone’s healthcare or does she mean the feds should oversee a ‘privately run’ system? Her supporters have just enough room to defend her and just enough doubt to support whichever way she goes. Her masterfully crafted statements do plenty to muddy the waters.

Common Sense Bottom Line

The difference between "universal healthcare" and "single-payer" is negligible. Everyone knows what she means is a government-controlled system of healthcare. Hillary keeps saying she's an early 20th century progressives. That's code for socialist. And socialists want the government to control your healthcare.

Listen to the full segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So correction, if you will, and I think it's kind of a word game that we're playing. I said earlier today that in Hillary Clinton's acceptance -- or, her Iowa speech, she said that she was going for single-payer health care. What she said was she was going for universal health care for every single-payer.

STU: Yes. Every single man, woman, and child.

PAT: That's amazing. And it's the same thing. Virtually the same thing. It's very close to the same thing.

STU: Yeah, the difference is, in a single-payer, a true single-payer system, Glenn Beck, evil rich person gets his government -- his insurance from the government.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Hillary's idea, Glenn Beck will pay for his own insurance and for everyone else's as he gives his money to the government. So someone who can't afford it will get it from the government, where in a true single-payer, everyone gets it from the government. The bottom line is we pay for everyone who needs it in both instances.

JEFFY: Right. Plus, this is Hillary being allowed to move further left because of Bernie and say it out loud.

PAT: Didn't Obama say I'm for single-payer universal health care, and he said it in the same sentence? It seems like --

OBAMA: A single-player health care plan, a universal health care plan.

PAT: I thought he did.

GLENN: Yes. That's the same thing.

PAT: It's interchangeable. It's essentially the same thing.

STU: A lot of times, the terms are very interchangeable. The only reason there's any bother to even make this distinction here is because Sanders is trying to go to Hillary's left by saying single-payer specifically.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And she's trying to go to the sensible side and just saying, "No, we'll just pay for 90 percent of people. Not 100 percent. That's crazy." So, you know, she's trying to make the distinction that my idea is pragmatic and can get done, where Sanders, while it's a great idea, we'll never get there. And that's how Barack Obama sold Obamacare too.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: He said in that clip he said back in the day, I want to get a single-payer program. When he got in front of the country, he said, well, single-payer is too far. Maybe if I started a country, I'd go to single-payer. But we're not there. We need to work within our system to expand coverage and make things affordable.

I mean, in reality, they all want the same thing, they're just arguing how far they can get --

GLENN: What we said was going to happen, we said that they would -- they would start with this Barack Obamacare. Then they would collapse the medical system. Everything would become way too expensive. Then they would say they needed to move to single-payer because this wasn't working and they would expand. I believe we got to get the credit for being right on that one.

PAT: Again, we were right on every point of that Obamacare thing.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: And that was one of the many things we were right about.

GLENN: Right. I mean, they called us crazy. Conspiracy theorists. Haters. Everything else. Because we said that's what was going on.

PAT: Exactly what they're going for though.

GLENN: Exactly.

PAT: Exactly. And it's interesting to watch the Democrats because the sensible position Hillary is taking is like the difference between, well, I'm not Marxist, I'm like Vladimir Lenin. I'm not Karl Marx. I'm just Lenin. I'm just carrying out his plan. That's all I'm doing.

That's the difference between Sanders and Clinton. Is the same difference as between Marx and Lenin. One of them is -- one of them is the idea person, the other is just carrying out the ideas. Big deal.

GLENN: She keeps saying I'm an early 20th century progressives. They were all socialist.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That said we don't want a revolution here. We just want to take it one step at a time. So when Bernie Sanders says, "You want something revolutionary?" She says no.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters as Former U.S. president Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton look on during her caucus night event in the Olmsted Center at Drake University on February 1, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa. Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Martin O'Malley are competing in the Iowa Democratic caucus. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

5 videos that reveal the WOKE GARBAGE being taught to our kids

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?