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

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

September 20, 2017
Staff

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.

The SAVE Act scandal: Why are Democrats blocking voter security?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Dire Wolves resurrected: CIA’s shocking plan exposed

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Top THREE takeaways from Trump's "Liberation Day"

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.