Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Will Congress Introduce a Health Insurance Competition Law to Drive Down Costs?

June 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

This week on O'Reilly Friday, the topic of health care naturally came up following the release of the Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. While Glenn still favors a full repeal of Obamacare, O'Reilly outlined what he believes will be a two-step strategy by Republicans.

"The goal for the Republican Party is to bring down health premiums for the American people because that translates into votes, but they couldn't do it all in one bill because of the filibuster rule, very complicated. So there's another rule that comes up if this passes that says insurance companies selling health will be able to compete in every state, and the Republican party says that will drive down premiums," O'Reilly said.

The first step --- passing the Better Care Reconciliation Act --- removes all the mandates and fines that require employers and citizens to have health care. The next, according to O'Reilly, would be a bill allowing competition among insurance companies to drive down premiums.

RELATED: It’s Here! It’s Here! The Senate Health Care Bill Is Here (And It’s Just Like Obamacare)

"I just don't believe that you actually believe a second of that," Glenn said.

"I'm just telling you what the strategy is," O'Reilly replied

"Oh, I understand the strategy, but I don't believe that anyone in this country actually believes that that is a real strategy behind closed doors," Glenn countered.

Bill O'Reilly joins Glenn every Friday on radio to discuss current headlines. Visit BillO'Reilly.com to follow Bill, subscribe or purchase his wildly successful "Killing" book series.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Let's get right to ObamaCare and what happened yesterday.

BILL: Well, I mean, the Republicans in the senate come out with this vision of national health care and right away of course every Democrat doesn't like it. Two things in play here. Number one, it's all about giving free health care to Americans who are poor or sick, and they can't afford their premiums health care. That's what this is all about fundamentally. The Democratic Party wants to give free health care to people who don't have a lot of stuff. And the Republicans say, "No, you can't do that. It's going to bankrupt the nation, skits not fair to the working people who have to support the free health care by their tax money. It's not fair the $20 trillion deficit -- debt. Not deficit. So we'll give you tax credits, which means you'll get refunds if you work. The promise is a lot of people don't work. And we're not going to give you freebies anymore. We're going to cut back on that through Medicaid. So right now Medicaid, which is state run has unlimited payments to people to give them free health care. There are going to be limits on that and the states are going to decide.

So every Democrat says no. No. No. We want the free stuff, so we're going to vote against it. That's essentially what's in play here. All of the other details are so confusing and so crazy, your head will below off, so I'm not -- and I'm not an expert in medical, you know, what's good and what's bad. But the essential war is over giving Americans free stuff. That's the essential war.

GLENN: Right. I got that. But maybe you're only sharing this on your iTunes number one podcast. But the way this is playing out politically, the Republicans have abandoned their post of, "Hey, we don't believe in free stuff, and we don't believe in a government-run program, and they're not cutting -- in some places, they're actually adding to, and they're just reducing the amount of spending. It's not even a cut. It's a reduce the amount of future spending, of future increases.

BILL: Right. Right.

GLENN: And so the question is, is this really even a repeal and replace of ObamaCare? Or is this just window dressing?

BILL: Well, I think that if you look at what the Republicans have come up with, it's a -- it's certainly a different health care law. So you wouldn't have to buy health care, number one. Okay? So right now, you have to or the government fines you. Number two, employers wouldn't have to provide it. Right now, they do if you have more than I think it's 50 -- or 49 employees, something like that. And if you don't, they fine you. So that's gone. And then the other stuff is basically, you know, preexisting conditions. That's still there. Okay? So if you want insurance, and I have a disease, you'll get it. You'll get it.

You know, they can debate it all day long. There are four Republican senators who don't like this bill will vote for it, they say. Rand Paul likely Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson. The Republican party needs two of those to come over. I think they'll get them. They'll make a few tweaks. Because if they don't, then the Democrats will succeed in holding onto ObamaCare. That's what it's all about. So if the Republicans don't pass this new bill, ObamaCare will remain law.

GLENN: So do you think that Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson would be unreasonable to with hold their support?

BILL: Depends what their value system is, you know? If you're not going to support it, then you're giving the Democratic Party a lot of power.

STU: Bill, for example --

BILL: I mean, it's like Lincoln said and Reagan said: You've got to get a structure in place where you can do things going forward. If you continue to say "no" to everything, then the Democrats will make a stunning come back in the congressional elections next year. So they've got to take that into account. I don't think Rand Paul is ever going to come over. I think the other thing will if they maybe make a few tweaks. So I think that there's -- there's a better than 50/50 chance the senate will pass it.

PAT: These are just bad bills. That's why these guys -- they're not conservative bills. I mean, how is it possible Republicans can't do better than this?

GLENN: You just said --

BILL: You have to have votes to pass a strict conservative bill in the house or the senate. There's not enough votes.

GLENN: You just said it depends on what their principles are. If their principles are the Constitution, and they find this unconstitutional, and they find this destructive, how could they? I mean because you said it depends on what their principles are. You will give -- if they don't, you will give the Democrats a lot of power.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: Well, that's not a principle. That's a strategy.

BILL: Well, it just depends on how you see it. Because if you're going to allow the Democratic Party to gain or regain power, which they would, in my opinion, then your principles are flying out the window because you're not going to have any chance of enacting them in the first place.

GLENN: Okay. So we have --

BILL: Lincoln I believe was, like, look, I have principles, but I'm not going to sell them out, but it's a long game.

GLENN: Yeah. So I --

BILL: Therefore, I'm not going to get anything done.

GLENN: So I agree with that long game. However, the Republicans have, you know, the GOP has really run hand in hand and tried to convince the tea party that they were -- that they were going to repeal ObamaCare. And then with Mitt Romney, it became repeal and replace. And that was a major shift there. But I think most voters believe that we were going to get rid of ObamaCare, and that's what this president promised. There are people that are suffering all over this country because they can't afford their health insurance anymore. This does not help reduce the cost of health care at all.

When you're looking at the Republicans and the Democrats honestly, what's the difference between the two? 5 percent?

BILL: The goal for the Republican Party is to bring down health premiums for the American people because that translates into votes. But they couldn't do it all in one bill because of the filibuster rule. Very complicated.

So there's another rule that comes up if this passes that says insurance companies selling health will be able to compete in every state, and the Republican Party says that will drive down premiums. That can't be attached to this bill because if it were, then there would be a level of acceptability that's 60 votes in the senate. I don't know why it's a rule. Okay? But if you do it separately as a separate law, then it's only the majority. Okay? So that's why they didn't attach that. So it's a stair step.

First we get this bill passed. All right? That knocks out all the mandates, knocks out all the tax stuff, and puts in place a structure that ObamaCare is pretty much done. And then we pass the bill about insurance companies competing, which drives down the premiums, you see?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I just don't believe that you actually believe a second of that.

BILL: I'm just telling you what the strategy is.

GLENN: Oh, I understand the strategy. But I don't believe that anyone in this country actually believes that that is a real strategy behind closed doors.

BILL: You don't believe that if this passes, that the next step would be to introduce a health insurance competition law? You don't believe that will happen?

GLENN: Nope, I don't.

BILL: Why not? Why wouldn't it?

GLENN: Who's talking about it besides those four? Besides those four --

PAT: Besides the holdouts, those are the only ones talking about it.

GLENN: Who's talking about that? There's no desire for that.

BILL: Trump made a big deal out of that. Trump made a big deal out of that in his campaign. That was, like, one of his major issues that there should be competition.

PAT: Not making a big deal about it now.

STU: Making a big deal about repealing health care and making the government pay for everyone.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A break in trust: A NEW Watergate is brewing in plain sight

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

When institutions betray the public’s trust, the country splits, and the spiral is hard to stop.

Something drastic is happening in American life. Headlines that should leave us stunned barely register anymore. Stories that once would have united the country instead dissolve into silence or shrugs.

It is not apathy exactly. It is something deeper — a growing belief that the people in charge either cannot or will not fix what is broken.

When people feel ignored or betrayed, they will align with anyone who appears willing to fight on their behalf.

I call this response the Bubba effect. It describes what happens when institutions lose so much public trust that “Bubba,” the average American minding his own business, finally throws his hands up and says, “Fine. I will handle it myself.” Not because he wants to, but because the system that was supposed to protect him now feels indifferent, corrupt, or openly hostile.

The Bubba effect is not a political movement. It is a survival instinct.

What triggers the Bubba effect

We are watching the triggers unfold in real time. When members of Congress publicly encourage active duty troops to disregard orders from the commander in chief, that is not a political squabble. When a federal judge quietly rewrites the rules so one branch of government can secretly surveil another, that is not normal. That is how republics fall. Yet these stories glided across the news cycle without urgency, without consequence, without explanation.

When the American people see the leadership class shrug, they conclude — correctly — that no one is steering the ship.

This is how the Bubba effect spreads. It is not just individuals resisting authority. It is sheriffs refusing to enforce new policies, school boards ignoring state mandates, entire communities saying, “We do not believe you anymore.” It becomes institutional, cultural, national.

A country cracking from the inside

This effect can be seen in Dearborn, Michigan. In the rise of fringe voices like Nick Fuentes. In the Epstein scandal, where powerful people could not seem to locate a single accountable adult. These stories are different in content but identical in message: The system protects itself, not you.

When people feel ignored or betrayed, they will align with anyone who appears willing to fight on their behalf. That does not mean they suddenly agree with everything that person says. It means they feel abandoned by the institutions that were supposed to be trustworthy.

The Bubba effect is what fills that vacuum.

The dangers of a faithless system

A republic cannot survive without credibility. Congress cannot oversee intelligence agencies if it refuses to discipline its own members. The military cannot remain apolitical if its chain of command becomes optional. The judiciary cannot defend the Constitution while inventing loopholes that erase the separation of powers.

History shows that once a nation militarizes politics, normalizes constitutional shortcuts, or allows government agencies to operate without scrutiny, it does not return to equilibrium peacefully. Something will give.

The question is what — and when.

The responsibility now belongs to us

In a healthy country, this is where the media steps in. This is where universities, pastors, journalists, and cultural leaders pause the outrage machine and explain what is at stake. But today, too many see themselves not as guardians of the republic, but of ideology. Their first loyalty is to narrative, not truth.

The founders never trusted the press more than the public. They trusted citizens who understood their rights, lived their responsibilities, and demanded accountability. That is the antidote to the Bubba effect — not rage, but citizenship.

How to respond without breaking ourselves

Do not riot. Do not withdraw. Do not cheer on destruction just because you dislike the target. That is how nations lose themselves. Instead, demand transparency. Call your representatives. Insist on consequences. Refuse to normalize constitutional violations simply because “everyone does it.” If you expect nothing, you will get nothing.

Do not hand your voice to the loudest warrior simply because he is swinging a bat at the establishment. You do not beat corruption by joining a different version of it. You beat it by modeling the country you want to preserve: principled, accountable, rooted in truth.

Adam Gray / Stringer | Getty Images

Every republic reaches a moment when historians will later say, “That was the warning.” We are living in ours. But warnings are gifts if they are recognized. Institutions bend. People fail. The Constitution can recover — if enough Americans still know and cherish it.

It does not take a majority. Twenty percent of the country — awake, educated, and courageous — can reset the system. It has happened before. It can happen again.

Wake up. Stand up. Demand integrity — from leaders, from institutions, and from yourself. Because the Bubba effect will not end until Americans reclaim the duty that has always belonged to them: preserving the republic for the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Warning: Stop letting TikTok activists think for you

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Bad-faith attacks on Israel and AIPAC warp every debate. Real answers emerge only when people set aside scripts and ask what serves America’s long-term interests.

The search for truth has always required something very much in short supply these days: honesty. Not performative questions, not scripted outrage, not whatever happens to be trending on TikTok, but real curiosity.

Some issues, often focused on foreign aid, AIPAC, or Israel, have become hotbeds of debate and disagreement. Before we jump into those debates, however, we must return to a simpler, more important issue: honest questioning. Without it, nothing in these debates matters.

Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

The phrase “just asking questions” has re-entered the zeitgeist, and that’s fine. We should always question power. But too many of those questions feel preloaded with someone else’s answer. If the goal is truth, then the questions should come from a sincere desire to understand, not from a hunt for a villain.

Honest desire for truth is the only foundation that can support a real conversation about these issues.

Truth-seeking is real work

Right now, plenty of people are not seeking the truth at all. They are repeating something they heard from a politician on cable news or from a stranger on TikTok who has never opened a history book. That is not a search for answers. That is simply outsourcing your own thought.

If you want the truth, you need to work for it. You cannot treat the world like a Marvel movie where the good guy appears in a cape and the villain hisses on command. Real life does not give you a neat script with the moral wrapped up in two hours.

But that is how people are approaching politics now. They want the oppressed and the oppressor, the heroic underdog and the cartoon villain. They embrace this fantastical framing because it is easier than wrestling with reality.

This framing took root in the 1960s when the left rebuilt its worldview around colonizers and the colonized. Overnight, Zionism was recast as imperialism. Suddenly, every conflict had to fit the same script. Today’s young activists are just recycling the same narrative with updated graphics. Everything becomes a morality play. No nuance, no context, just the comforting clarity of heroes and villains.

Bad-faith questions

This same mindset is fueling the sudden obsession with Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in particular. You hear it from members of Congress and activists alike: AIPAC pulls the strings, AIPAC controls the government, AIPAC should register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The questions are dramatic, but are they being asked in good faith?

FARA is clear. The standard is whether an individual or group acts under the direction or control of a foreign government. AIPAC simply does not qualify.

Here is a detail conveniently left out of these arguments: Dozens of domestic organizations — Armenian, Cuban, Irish, Turkish — lobby Congress on behalf of other countries. None of them registers under FARA because — like AIPAC — they are independent, domestic organizations.

If someone has a sincere problem with the structure of foreign lobbying, fair enough. Let us have that conversation. But singling out AIPAC alone is not a search for truth. It is bias dressed up as bravery.

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

If someone wants to question foreign aid to Israel, fine. Let’s have that debate. But let’s ask the right questions. The issue is not the size of the package but whether the aid advances our interests. What does the United States gain? Does the investment strengthen our position in the region? How does it compare to what we give other nations? And do we examine those countries with the same intensity?

The real target

These questions reflect good-faith scrutiny. But narrowing the entire argument to one country or one dollar amount misses the larger problem. If someone objects to the way America handles foreign aid, the target is not Israel. The target is the system itself — an entrenched bureaucracy, poor transparency, and decades-old commitments that have never been re-examined. Those problems run through programs around the world.

If you want answers, you need to broaden the lens. You have to be willing to put aside the movie script and confront reality. You have to hold yourself to a simple rule: Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

That is the only way this country ever gets clarity on foreign aid, influence, alliances, and our place in the world. Questioning is not just allowed. It is essential. But only if it is honest.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.