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

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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.