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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

April 03, 2017
Staff

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.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

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.