Here's the Quick Version of What's in the New Health Care Bill

September 20, 2017

WRITER

The Senate is planning to vote next week on yet another health care plan.

Why is it called the Graham-Cassidy bill?

The plan was introduced by two GOP senators: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. It has the support of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

How is it different from Obamacare?

The short version is that the plan aims to ease states out of the Obamacare system and let each state decide what health care people want.

“It is a federalist version of Obamacare,” Stu Burguiere summed it up on Wednesday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”

Under the plan, states could request waivers for various Affordable Care Act provisions, including the coverage mandate and the ban on insurers charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. States that want to keep Obamacare protections would theoretically be able to do so under their own health care plan.

Will it pass?

Hard to say … but just three Republican senators need to vote against Graham-Cassidy for it to fail in the Senate. So far, the bill has 13 supporters and one definite “no,” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Everyone else is still mulling it over.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: With everything going on in the world, there are a few things that will actually change your life that we should pay attention to. And one of them is the Graham-Cassidy bill.

This is the Republicans -- what some are saying the last shot of getting anything done on a repeal and replace Obamacare. It is -- it is starting to shape up. And it looks like it has a chance of passage. First, let's explain what it is.

STU: So let me give you a couple of headlines. Reason.com. Libertarian angle. Obamacare repeal is dead. Here come the bailouts.

Now, Vox, from the left says, I've covered the G.O.P. repeal plan since day one. Graham Cassidy is the most radical.

Don't you push me into Lindsey Graham's arms. Don't do it. So what does this thing actually do? If you want a real quick summary, it's basically a Federalist summary of Obamacare. It is not a repeal of Obamacare. It is a Federalist version of Obamacare.

GLENN: Which means a state version of Obamacare, which is exactly what we were arguing for. If Massachusetts wants to do Obamacare, they could do it. If Texas says, "No, there's a better way, let Texas do it." So that would have been okay back then. But that's not what this is now.

STU: No. Because all the money is still coming in. So the federal -- all the money from Obamacare, largely, still goes to the federal government. And then it is distributed through block grants to the states to do what they want with. So you would have a situation where your conservative state would probably do a much better job with this, if you're a conservative, or a liberal state can do all the liberal things that they want.

And what they're doing is they're taking the states that -- all the money that's going to the states now and dividing it up, what I would argue as more equitably. Like, right now, you have $100 in Obamacare money. That's split up between California and Texas.

Right now, it's, let's say, $75 go to California, $25 go to Texas. What they're going to do is split that up and make it 50/50, as a really generic way of explaining what it is.

GLENN: So far, for a really bad idea, I'm okay.

STU: Yeah. Again, I think this is another situation, where it's better than Obamacare. But it's still Obamacare.

You would be able to get rid of the individual mandate. However, states could pass that on their own.

GLENN: I don't have a problem. If the state wants to do it, the state can do whatever they want.

STU: I personally think it's unconstitutional, as I know you do, at least from the federal side. But you're right, it's much better the smaller government that you get to.

Now, the reason why this is in such a rush is because the Republicans have ten days to do this. The reconciliation process, which basically means you only have to get 51 votes, instead of 60, that expires on September 30th by rule because you can only do it once per fiscal year. So they have to get it done by September 30th, which means that the House won't be able to change it. There will be no negotiation between them.

GLENN: Oh, what a surprise.

STU: Yeah. So it's --

GLENN: Convenient.

STU: Well, yeah.

So if this happens, they're going to use reconciliation in 2018 for the tax bill. That's why they need to get this done in the next ten days. And that's why it's such a panic.

So what does -- how does the vote look?

Forty-one pretty much on board, for sure. Forty-one senators have voted for all the Republican Obamacare repeals. So you're at 41. There are Heller and Graham. Graham is one of the cosponsors. Heller has said he's on board with this as well. That gets you to 41.

There are five that are likely to vote yes. Lamar Alexander, Shelley Moore Capito, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, and Rob Portman, which all have very similar names. That puts you at 46 senators.

You probably are definitely not going to get Susan Collins, okay? You're probably definitely not going to get Lisa Murkowski, though that's not determined yet. You need to get all four of these in the scenario, which would be Mike Lee, who has not said anything about it yet. Jerry Moran, who has -- who is probably a yes. Although, he's complained about the Medicaid cuts, which are not really cuts, but that's a whole another story. John McCain who has voted against this thing. However, his buddy, Lindsey Graham is the guy behind this one. So I'm so far counting --

GLENN: Lindsey stinking Graham is the author of this.

STU: I know. And Rand Paul who has said flatout he's a no on it. But if he's the determining vote between this thing passing and not, will he hang with that? My guess is probably he will. I think there's a small chance of this passing. There's a better chance of this passing than what we remember them doing with skinny repeal. Remember that whole thing? Because that would have -- they would have had to negotiate between the House and the Senate. It never would have gone anywhere. There's a chance here.

GLENN: What's the worst thing in it?

STU: Well, there's a lot of bad things in it.

First of all, all the Obamacare money stays. Obamacare in California could actually go further to the left. If you're someone who lives in a liberal state, you could actually get hit to the left and go further left than Obamacare. There are people arguing that this actually paves the way for single-payer.

GLENN: Sure, it does. Some say it's a Trojan horse, but it's right there.

STU: It's right there. So a state like California could take this money and institute single-payer. They would have to obviously add some more tax dollars on their side to pay for it. But they could get the federal government to pay for let's say, three-quarters of single-payer. So they make single-payer in California. And they just go for it and go all out. If ten states do that, you've paved the way.

GLENN: I have to tell you -- as long as -- this isn't the world we live in, I don't care if California goes completely flat broke, as long as we make it very clear: We're not bailing your ass out.

STU: Right. And you know that's not going to work.

GLENN: And you that's not true. But that would be fine. Look, if you want to try something, try it. If you could make it work -- if we could find a single-payer system that actually worked, which I don't think is -- is possible --

STU: No.

GLENN: But if it would actually work, I'd be for it. It doesn't work.

Now, if you can do an experiment in your state and you're not going to drag me down with you, go for it. But I'm not in on your experiment. It doesn't work.

STU: Yeah. Of course, that's how it winds up going every time. You wind up bailing them out anyway. And that's the risk here. We're going to see that with pensions, which is another thing we should get to at some point. But this is -- one more thing on this: The DACA deal with Chuck Schumer. Remember this? They talked about this -- and, you know, they've denied, well, there's not really a deal.

But that whole deal, one of the big arguments for it on Donald Trump's side was to say that you're going to get help now from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, when it comes to legislation like tax reform or Obamacare. Right?

Like maybe they'll work with you a little bit.

Listen to this quote from Chuck Schumer, when Graham-Cassidy comes out. A proposal that the president strongly supports.

After a few weeks of lying dormant, Trumpcare is back. And it's meaner than ever. While its latest version of Trumpcare may live under a new name, no matter how many ways Republicans try to dress it up, this bill is even more dangerous than its predecessors.

Even after dealing with this guy, he not only came out strongly against the proposal, which you can understand. He shouldn't change his principles. Right? He personalized it to Trump. He took one of Trump's old quotes calling it mean to vilify him even further, and called it even more dangerous than all of the predecessors. Never deal with these people. They never, ever, ever will honor what they've said.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

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

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

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

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

Should Starbase become its own city?

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

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

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

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

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

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep