If Trump Embraces Single-Payer Health Care, the Country Is Lost

April 03, 2017

WRITER

What is Donald Trump doing with health care? Is he moving our way --- or is he headed toward universal health care? It's hard to tell.

"What I can't figure out is he's playing golf with Rand Paul, he's trashing on Twitter the Freedom Caucus and then he comes out over the weekend and says --- the White House does --- No, you know, I can't believe all this fake news saying that we're arguing with each other and we're at each other's throats. Fake news? It's your tweets, dude," Glenn said Monday on radio.

One thing's for sure, if Trump embraces single-payer health care, we're done and officially the country formerly known as the United States of America.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want to get to the Los Angeles times on Donald Trump, which it really is incredible, how the mainstream media just does not see their own hypocrisy. We'll get to that here in just a second.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: What is Donald Trump doing with health care? Is he moving our way? Which way is he going?

STU: Maybe we can ask Rand Paul. They played some golf this weekend. Hopefully some good results out of that. Rand has a much better idea on health care than Ryan or Trump.

PAT: We should try to get him on the air. Ask him about it. Wonder if he would be willing to talk about it.

GLENN: Yeas. Of course he would. Of course he would.

Mike, see if we can get him on the air.

STU: Because he's been very solid on this since the election. He's been pushing hard. He has a much better plan than most --

PAT: Yes, he has. He's been maybe the most solid on it.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

PAT: Because you got other people defecting from like the Freedom Caucus, like Ted Poe.

GLENN: You can't let that go.

PAT: It just pisses me off. He wrote a big opinion piece on why I left the Freedom Caucus. And it's filled with the same infuriating BS. This is not a perfect bill. There's no such thing as a perfect bill. Hey, we must stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good?

No, why don't we focus on being good. And then maybe that can be the enemy of really terrible. How about that?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Just --

GLENN: We're not looking for perfection.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Just looking for --

PAT: That's the excuse the Democrats used when they crafted this piece of garbage in the first place. Well, it's not a perfect bill. But we had to do something.

GLENN: But we'll get there.

PAT: And we'll get there eventually. No.

GLENN: And we are getting there eventually.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We are. To their goal.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And I understand you're never going to get perfect. But shouldn't you be able to see perfect from your first proposal? Shouldn't you be able to at least in the distance be able to see perfect from your first beginning negotiating point? Now, I understand you're not going to get everything in there.

PAT: Yes. Yes. If perfect is heaven, this bill is in south hell right now.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: You can't even see it from there.

STU: On the wrong side of the railroad tracks. It's sad.

PAT: Yes. Yes. I mean, and for them to be okay with it, for them to craft this delicious turd burger and say, "Go ahead. Eat up. Okay. No, it's not steak, but it's better than going hungry." No, it's really not. It's really not.

GLENN: I just can't figure out --

PAT: Especially when we've got good chefs in the kitchen who could be cooking us something delicious.

GLENN: Rand Paul is doing it. Ted Cruz has done it.

PAT: Yeah. Mike Lee.

STU: Mo Brooks.

PAT: Yeah, Ted Cruz's plan is awesome.

GLENN: Yeah, there's some good plans out there. He should pick one and try that. You know what's -- what I can't figure out is he's playing golf with Rand Paul. He's trashing on Twitter the Freedom Caucus. And then he comes out, over the weekend, and says -- the White House does, "No -- you know, I can't believe all this fake news saying that we're arguing with each other and we're at each other's throats."

STU: So weird.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Fake news? It's your tweets, dude.

STU: You are the one saying -- and not even in another venue. It was on the same account. You're saying that everyone is fake for saying there's differences, when you are promising to primary people in 2018 that disagree with you. That's not a loving relationship.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: That's really incredible. I don't know -- I mean, I just don't think people care, right? We were talking about this off the air. Because there's a new -- there's a professor. His name -- Jonah Goldberg wrote about him. His name is F.H. Buckley. He's the law professor who helped organize Scholars and Writers for Trump.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Okay. And he wrote an interesting column for the New York Post this weekend. The headline: Why Trump should embrace single-payer health care.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: And it goes into saying that, well, Ryancare, which, again, is a bit fraudulent -- look, Trump pushed just as hard for this, and now he's saying he's going to primary people who opposed him on the battle. So it's just as much Trumpcare as it is Ryancare. Let's get over that for a second.

But Ryancare was something only an accountant or a right-wing ideologue could love. How could a right-wing ideologue love that?

That was a disastrous plan. It locked in 75 percent of Obamacare with a couple improvements on it.

So it goes in to say, Trump didn't promise that. He promised a plan that would leave no one insured. The SimpliSafe way to do this --

PAT: No one uninsured.

STU: Sure. Sorry. That would be a real weird campaign promise.

PAT: That would be weird.

STU: I promise you will not have insurance.

GLENN: But you'll pay through the nose.

STU: Sorry. The simplest way to do this is with universal health care or on the Canadian model with a right of individuals to purchase a Cadillac plan on top of this, out of pocket.

PAT: Oh, my.

STU: And there are things that might be added like removing the ban on reimporting drugs from Canada.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: And he goes on to say, you know who would support this? The people who elected Trump in 2016.

PAT: Would they?

STU: They weren't right-wing ideologues. They were people who had lost or feared they would lose their jobs. Many -- is this you, in the audience? I mean, certainly some of these things are these people. But a lot of other people voted for him as well.

They were people who had lost or had feared they would lose their jobs. Many were, but a few steps away from the diseases of despair, social isolation, drug and alcohol poisonings, and suicide.

PAT: What?

STU: And it goes on --

PAT: So it was suicidal people who voted for Trump.

STU: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Well, that explains a lot.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's so ridiculous. It's so crazy to say.

(laughter)

STU: As Jonah finished up: This is a problem. His estimation, Buckley -- and a lot of people say this -- that the Trump voter or the people who elected Trump, are one vast undifferentiated mass of down-on-their-luck, on-the-verge-of-suicide alcoholics and opiate-addicted sad sacks. As a mathematical or statistical proposition, it's a bit much to say they were the people who elected Donald Trump. Sure, they may have provided him the margin of victory in a handful of counties in Florida and Michigan, but if they did, it was only because rank-and-file Republicans put those states in play in the first place. About 9 percent of people who identify themselves as Democrats voted for Trump. About 7 percent of those who identified as Republican voted for Clinton.

So there's very little difference there. This whole idea that all these independents rushed one way or the other, it doesn't seem that that's necessarily what happened. The issue here though is, you know, if you did vote for Trump, you know, if he starts going down this road, will you oppose him then? We should get that on record now. Remember it now before he does it. Because people in the groups that supported him, the people he thinks have been loyal to him are going to him to encourage that he go to single-payer health care. At the same time, he's promising to primary the people who want it to be more conservative

PAT: And this is the Bernie Sanders plan, by the way. Keep that in mind. It's the socialist Bernie Sanders plan. So can we get behind that as a Republican Party?

STU: Say, we don't like that. Can we get to that one?

PAT: Can we? Can we say that right now, before Trump does get on board with this? Hopefully, he won't. But if he did, wouldn't that be wrong? Can we get that out of --

STU: It's a mental experiment. Sure, he's not going to do it. We can all agree he's not going to pay for it. But let's just think now how we feel if he did.

What would you say about it? Think about it now, before it happens, before it's a big issue.

Would you support it or oppose it?

STU: Right.

PAT: That's an important thing to remember.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And then write it down somewhere. Write it on like -- you know what, write it on permanent marker somewhere, like on a wall in your home, that you remember that when Donald Trump wasn't proposing single-payer health care, I thought it was a really bad idea. Just write it somewhere, I don't know, on your door. On your mirror, in permanent ink.

GLENN: There's no way -- there's no way -- I will tell you, you said eat your underwear. If the conservatives -- if you would go -- and he's not going to do this. If he would go for a single-payer health care system and the conservatives would go right along with him, I don't -- do I eat the whole underwear factory?

STU: I mean, would you?

GLENN: I don't know -- there's no way.

STU: Think of this scenario for a second.

PAT: If that happens, aren't we fairly lost as a country?

GLENN: Oh, yeah, we're done.

STU: In that crazy scenario, we would be lost, right?

PAT: We're lost.

STU: So -- but think of the scenario where let's say things don't go well the next couple years for Donald Trump as president and he's opposed by the Freedom Caucus and it pisses him off.

JEFFY: It's almost impossible.

STU: And in 2018, maybe the Democrats take control of the House. They only have 52 seats in the Senate. Maybe they take control of the House. And then he's thinking, well, things aren't going well. And these people stood in my way the whole time, and we have these real problems. I can solve them with the Democrats, and enough Republicans would certainly go along with him on this. You wouldn't need the Freedom Caucus on that one. You get the Democrats and you put together the most annoying Republicans in the House. He can absolutely get it done. It would be difficult for a Democrat president to get that done. It would not be difficult for a Donald Trump if he changed views on this or adopted his views from the campaign.

It would not be that difficult.

And, you know, it would be a big change, but, you know, you put --

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Trump supporting it.

PAT: He's done that stuff before though.

STU: He can do that. Trump supporting it. Because you'd get Democrats. You'd only have to get a few Republicans -- or maybe none! Depending on what happens in 2018. It might be none.

PAT: It's not like he's never changed a point of view, is it? In fact, it's quite the opposite.

GLENN: I don't think he's ever changed his view on health care. He has said that that's what he wants. Single-payer universal health care where everyone is covered.

PAT: Yes. And the government pays for it.

GLENN: And the government pays for it.

STU: And it seems like the Ted Poe argument here is to say, well, you should be scared of that. So let's embrace the really terrible policies he's doing right now so he doesn't get mad at us.

PAT: Yeah. Rather than saying, look, we've got a majority in Congress and we have the executive branch. Let's get something really good passed. I don't know why that can't be the mindset for the Republicans. But it just never is.

STU: And he's not making the policies. Put good policies in front of him and make him veto them.

PAT: Right. It's what they did with Obama.

STU: Right.

PAT: But they showed they weren't serious, didn't they? We're not serious.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep

If Trump Embraces Single-Payer Health Care, the Country Is Lost

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Picking up his torch

Two turning points, decades apart

A time for courage

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?