This Doctor Wants to Change Health Care to Give People Quality Over Quantity

Health care is a hot-button issue because it directly affects people’s lives. But is there a better approach than debating which government health care system is the least burdensome on Americans?

Dr. Ryan Neuhofel opened NeuCare in 2011, a “direct primary care” facility that uses a subscription-based model instead of health insurance. Patients can sign up and pay a flat monthly fee for comprehensive health services.

This model lets the patient be the true customer instead of an insurance company or the government.

“Whenever you enter into these direct relationships, it changes the way that the doctor thinks about things, it changes the way the patient does, and it inherently provides transparency,” Neuhofel said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So if you're like the average American, you are having problems paying for your health insurance. You are having problems keeping your doctor. You don't know what to do. Nobody in Washington is making any sense. It doesn't seem like anybody is doing anything at all.

What do you do? Well, if you're a doctor, there are things that you can do. And I want to introduce you to a guy who I read about a couple weeks ago. Dr. Ryan Neuhofel. Am I saying your name right, Dr. Neuhofel?

RYAN: That's correct, Glenn.

GLENN: So tell us what you're doing, because you've decided that you've had enough of this. And you're in, if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Kansas.

RYAN: Right.

GLENN: And you knew that people weren't being served. And you were no longer even a doctor, you were more of a paper pusher. So what did you do?

RYAN: Well, I started a practice about six years. So I guess you could say I got fed up a long time ago, even when I was in medical school. And so I operate in a pretty unique model of practice that is growing around the country, called Direct Primary Care. And basically what that is, is it allows patients to have a direct and simple relationship with me, their primary care doctor. It's organized around a membership fee, much like Netflix or a gym. And we're just able to serve people's needs in an innovative way and not be distracted by all the bullcrap that comes along by a normal system.

GLENN: So you're not -- you don't take insurance.

RYAN: No.

GLENN: And so how much is the monthly fee?

RYAN: So on average, my monthly fee for all of my patients combined is about $43 per member, per month. So some people pay a little more. Some people a little less. Families get a discount. And doctors around the country are doing this. And it's not just a few of us rogue people anymore. There's hundreds and maybe close to a thousand primary care physicians doing this model or something very similar to it.

GLENN: I will tell you that I have -- you know, I still try to purchase the best health insurance that money can buy for my employees and for myself for catastrophic. But I -- this is the system that I use. I have a doctor, and I pay him a -- you know, a retainer, I guess. And I can go see him when I want to go see him.

And I'm -- I'm glad that this is starting to come around, because the one thing that is good about this, is when you are paying for yourself, the doctor doesn't just say, oh, go here to get this done. You know, he -- he knows which tests cost the most money where, and where you can get them inexpensive. You know, an inexpensive run of that test.

Do you provide that as well?

RYAN: Yeah, absolutely. I think it changes the whole dynamic. If you really look at it, although doctors are really caring people. And trying to serve people and provide them great care. Ultimately, if you're using insurance, the insurance company or the government, if you're in a program like that, is the real customer. So the patient, at that point is kind of a building vessel of sorts. And whenever you enter into these direct relationships, it changes the way that the doctor thinks about things. It changes the way the patient does. It inherently provides transparency. So I'm working for my patients now, as opposed to a third party.

GLENN: So explain that to the average person. Because I think the average person knows this. When you hear your doctor say, are you insured? Who is your insurance provider?

What they're asking you -- and correct me if I'm wrong, what they're asking you is, I know the insurance providers, and some of them accept some things. Some don't accept others. And so I just need to navigate and how to write, instead of now -- you know, you don't have insurance. If you don't have insurance, your doctor says, okay. So here are the options. And it's -- it's never just, you know, here's a 3,000-dollar test.

RYAN: Yeah, well, I think the thing that's most difficult for people is actually the language. So people across the political spectrum use terminology like health insurance and health care. And they don't even really make a distinction between what those two things mean.

So you hear a lot of politicians talk, they'll say, you know, we're giving you health care. Well, they're kind of giving you an insurance product that gives you a network of doctors. But that gets all very confusing.

So what we're doing is we're stripping away all of that stuff. And much like if someone were purchasing food or something else in their life, you know, they -- I am serving my customers, my patients, and I have to be fully transparent in that. So we're very aware of what stuff costs, whereas if I was billing an insurance company, it's kind of just backwards stuff. And there's a bunch of complicated contracts. So, yeah, it's a totally different way to approach health care.

GLENN: So this is good if you're the run-of-the-mill, you know, I've got the sniffles. I've got the cold. Even a broken arm. Et cetera, et cetera. But what happens to your patients when you can't deal with it. They've got to go to a specialist, and it's going to be expensive.

RYAN: Well, you know, I think one of the big downsides of the system that we have, is it's devalued primary care to such a degree that most people don't really recognize the family physician, like myself, can take care of a lot of really complicated stuff.

So I do take care of a very broad spectrum of stuff. And I think in the normal system because doctors are so rushed and we don't get to spend time with our patients, we're paid on a volume basis. That we often do end up ordering stuff and referring people to specialists, when we could have taken care of it ourselves. But, you know, we're trying to get to the next patient. So I think that's the first thing to recognize, is that primary care get done correctly and valued high enough, that we could provide more service.

But really, what you're getting to, is there is a point, where financially insurance starts to make sense. What I think we're challenging is doing most people's health care across the spectrum of care, to a third party doesn't make a lot of sense. So, yeah, there is a point where insurance makes sense. But is that $100? Is that $1,000? Is that at $10,000? It kind of depends on the person.

STU: Talking to Dr. Ryan Neuhofel. Doctor, you have -- this is a great idea. And I think everyone looks at this and says, wow, this would be a perfect way to knock out 90 percent of the stuff that could happen as far as health care goes. It seems to me though that the current system would really discourage this. You're going to get fined if you don't have insurance and you decide to go this way. I mean, how are you dealing with that? And is this a problem with a lot of the patients that you have?

RYAN: Yeah. I'm not advocating that people not have insurance. In fact, I do the opposite. I think insurance makes sense for certain things. A great analogy, if we tried to use car insurance to cover everything related to our car --

GLENN: Oil changes.

RYAN: -- if we tried to use it to pay for our gas, oil changes, tire rotations, you know, shampooing our carpets in our car, that wouldn't make a lot of sense. Now, if our car gets totaled and it costs $20,000 to get replaced, that tradeoff with insurance makes sense. And the same thing with homeowner's insurance.

So, yeah, there needs to be a safety net and insurance policy of some type. Whether that's government-based, private-based, to where that makes sense.

Right now, in the current system, because of all of the mandates, they're basically -- you know, the ACA and many things before it are forcing people to pay a third party. A financial institution, which we call it an insurance company, to kind of manage all their money for them. And I think clearly that's led to many of the ills in our current health care system.

STU: Because it's more than just not having insurance at all. It's all the restrictions they put on higher deductible plans. There's so many things that must be covered by these insurance policies. I mean, if you could combine what you're doing, a monthly fee, you can go when you need to go, with a high deductible plan, for only the worst catastrophic stuff, that is a great formula for a family. But it's really discouraged right now.

RYAN: Well, yeah, you can get -- in fact -- and I'm sure your audience will tell you this. They had been forced into a high deductible. So a lot of the patients we're serving, you know, end up getting a bronze plan, or their employer switches them to a plan with a high deductible, they really start seeing the value and transparency and up front prices. And, you know, not overpaying for things.

So, yes, in a sense, I think we should move to kind of a more true catastrophic system. And I think that could be done in a lot of ways.

But, you know, our entire health care system is built upon kind of an understanding of what health care was looking like in 1930, through 1970. And, you know, health care is a much more integral part of our lives now. People have chronic diseases they live with their entire lives with. And 1960, whenever we developed Medicare and Medicaid and even going back further, you know, health care really couldn't do a whole lot. It could kind of do surgery to save you, but I think health care right now looks so much different. We're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole at this point.

GLENN: So neucare.net. NU -- I'm sorry. N-E-Ucare.net is the address if you would like to find out more.

How does somebody find somebody in your local area like you? What do you even look for?

RYAN: Yeah. Actually, there's a really great resource now online. The best one that I direct people to is called DPCfrontier.com. And there's a mapper on that website. So if you click FlashMapper, there's about a thousand doctors around the country, six to 800 practices, who are operating at a very similar model to mine. They all have their own kind of flavor of it. But if you're looking for a doctor in your area, that's by far the best resource to look for. Or you can Google -- Google if you Google direct primary care in your city, you'll probably stumble upon somebody.

GLENN: Great. Dr. Ryan Neuhofel. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Good work. God bless.

(music)

STU: So Dr. Ryan Neuhofel is at Neucare. N-E-U-C-A-R-E on Twitter. And Neucare.net is his website. But, yeah, DPC Frontier is a cool site. I've never been to this before. Direct Primary Care. DPC Frontier. And they have a map of all of the doctors that do this type of thing. And there's a lot of them. Worth checking out.

GLENN: I have to tell you, it's a different kind of health care.

STU: You do this?

GLENN: I do. I do.

STU: That's really cool.

GLENN: Because I -- the doctor is allowed to spend more time with you. The doctor gets to know you better. Because he's not -- like he said, he's not rushing through things. He doesn't have all the paperwork to do. He doesn't have to worry about that. So we'll get a call from our doctor. We'll call him up and say, hey, this is going on with the family. Blah, blah. And then he'll call. He'll treat. And then, you know, he'll call -- you know, 8 o'clock on a -- you know, on a Friday night, and go, hey, I'm just thinking about Raphe. How is he feeling? What's going on?

And so it's like that old style medicine.

STU: You don't to have hang out with him, do you? You don't have to go to his Christmas parties or anything like that?

GLENN: No, you don't have to. No, you don't have to.

STU: Just wanted to make sure. I've got enough relationships.

GLENN: I do know that. I do know that. But it's nice to be able to have a doctor who has the time to actually get to know the family.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.