Will Congress Introduce a Health Insurance Competition Law to Drive Down Costs?

June 23, 2017

WRITER

This week on O'Reilly Friday, the topic of health care naturally came up following the release of the Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. While Glenn still favors a full repeal of Obamacare, O'Reilly outlined what he believes will be a two-step strategy by Republicans.

"The goal for the Republican Party is to bring down health premiums for the American people because that translates into votes, but they couldn't do it all in one bill because of the filibuster rule, very complicated. So there's another rule that comes up if this passes that says insurance companies selling health will be able to compete in every state, and the Republican party says that will drive down premiums," O'Reilly said.

The first step --- passing the Better Care Reconciliation Act --- removes all the mandates and fines that require employers and citizens to have health care. The next, according to O'Reilly, would be a bill allowing competition among insurance companies to drive down premiums.

"I just don't believe that you actually believe a second of that," Glenn said.

"I'm just telling you what the strategy is," O'Reilly replied

"Oh, I understand the strategy, but I don't believe that anyone in this country actually believes that that is a real strategy behind closed doors," Glenn countered.

Bill O'Reilly joins Glenn every Friday on radio to discuss current headlines. Visit BillO'Reilly.com to follow Bill, subscribe or purchase his wildly successful "Killing" book series.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Let's get right to ObamaCare and what happened yesterday.

BILL: Well, I mean, the Republicans in the senate come out with this vision of national health care and right away of course every Democrat doesn't like it. Two things in play here. Number one, it's all about giving free health care to Americans who are poor or sick, and they can't afford their premiums health care. That's what this is all about fundamentally. The Democratic Party wants to give free health care to people who don't have a lot of stuff. And the Republicans say, "No, you can't do that. It's going to bankrupt the nation, skits not fair to the working people who have to support the free health care by their tax money. It's not fair the $20 trillion deficit -- debt. Not deficit. So we'll give you tax credits, which means you'll get refunds if you work. The promise is a lot of people don't work. And we're not going to give you freebies anymore. We're going to cut back on that through Medicaid. So right now Medicaid, which is state run has unlimited payments to people to give them free health care. There are going to be limits on that and the states are going to decide.

So every Democrat says no. No. No. We want the free stuff, so we're going to vote against it. That's essentially what's in play here. All of the other details are so confusing and so crazy, your head will below off, so I'm not -- and I'm not an expert in medical, you know, what's good and what's bad. But the essential war is over giving Americans free stuff. That's the essential war.

GLENN: Right. I got that. But maybe you're only sharing this on your iTunes number one podcast. But the way this is playing out politically, the Republicans have abandoned their post of, "Hey, we don't believe in free stuff, and we don't believe in a government-run program, and they're not cutting -- in some places, they're actually adding to, and they're just reducing the amount of spending. It's not even a cut. It's a reduce the amount of future spending, of future increases.

BILL: Right. Right.

GLENN: And so the question is, is this really even a repeal and replace of ObamaCare? Or is this just window dressing?

BILL: Well, I think that if you look at what the Republicans have come up with, it's a -- it's certainly a different health care law. So you wouldn't have to buy health care, number one. Okay? So right now, you have to or the government fines you. Number two, employers wouldn't have to provide it. Right now, they do if you have more than I think it's 50 -- or 49 employees, something like that. And if you don't, they fine you. So that's gone. And then the other stuff is basically, you know, preexisting conditions. That's still there. Okay? So if you want insurance, and I have a disease, you'll get it. You'll get it.

You know, they can debate it all day long. There are four Republican senators who don't like this bill will vote for it, they say. Rand Paul likely Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson. The Republican party needs two of those to come over. I think they'll get them. They'll make a few tweaks. Because if they don't, then the Democrats will succeed in holding onto ObamaCare. That's what it's all about. So if the Republicans don't pass this new bill, ObamaCare will remain law.

GLENN: So do you think that Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson would be unreasonable to with hold their support?

BILL: Depends what their value system is, you know? If you're not going to support it, then you're giving the Democratic Party a lot of power.

STU: Bill, for example --

BILL: I mean, it's like Lincoln said and Reagan said: You've got to get a structure in place where you can do things going forward. If you continue to say "no" to everything, then the Democrats will make a stunning come back in the congressional elections next year. So they've got to take that into account. I don't think Rand Paul is ever going to come over. I think the other thing will if they maybe make a few tweaks. So I think that there's -- there's a better than 50/50 chance the senate will pass it.

PAT: These are just bad bills. That's why these guys -- they're not conservative bills. I mean, how is it possible Republicans can't do better than this?

GLENN: You just said --

BILL: You have to have votes to pass a strict conservative bill in the house or the senate. There's not enough votes.

GLENN: You just said it depends on what their principles are. If their principles are the Constitution, and they find this unconstitutional, and they find this destructive, how could they? I mean because you said it depends on what their principles are. You will give -- if they don't, you will give the Democrats a lot of power.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: Well, that's not a principle. That's a strategy.

BILL: Well, it just depends on how you see it. Because if you're going to allow the Democratic Party to gain or regain power, which they would, in my opinion, then your principles are flying out the window because you're not going to have any chance of enacting them in the first place.

GLENN: Okay. So we have --

BILL: Lincoln I believe was, like, look, I have principles, but I'm not going to sell them out, but it's a long game.

GLENN: Yeah. So I --

BILL: Therefore, I'm not going to get anything done.

GLENN: So I agree with that long game. However, the Republicans have, you know, the GOP has really run hand in hand and tried to convince the tea party that they were -- that they were going to repeal ObamaCare. And then with Mitt Romney, it became repeal and replace. And that was a major shift there. But I think most voters believe that we were going to get rid of ObamaCare, and that's what this president promised. There are people that are suffering all over this country because they can't afford their health insurance anymore. This does not help reduce the cost of health care at all.

When you're looking at the Republicans and the Democrats honestly, what's the difference between the two? 5 percent?

BILL: The goal for the Republican Party is to bring down health premiums for the American people because that translates into votes. But they couldn't do it all in one bill because of the filibuster rule. Very complicated.

So there's another rule that comes up if this passes that says insurance companies selling health will be able to compete in every state, and the Republican Party says that will drive down premiums. That can't be attached to this bill because if it were, then there would be a level of acceptability that's 60 votes in the senate. I don't know why it's a rule. Okay? But if you do it separately as a separate law, then it's only the majority. Okay? So that's why they didn't attach that. So it's a stair step.

First we get this bill passed. All right? That knocks out all the mandates, knocks out all the tax stuff, and puts in place a structure that ObamaCare is pretty much done. And then we pass the bill about insurance companies competing, which drives down the premiums, you see?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I just don't believe that you actually believe a second of that.

BILL: I'm just telling you what the strategy is.

GLENN: Oh, I understand the strategy. But I don't believe that anyone in this country actually believes that that is a real strategy behind closed doors.

BILL: You don't believe that if this passes, that the next step would be to introduce a health insurance competition law? You don't believe that will happen?

GLENN: Nope, I don't.

BILL: Why not? Why wouldn't it?

GLENN: Who's talking about it besides those four? Besides those four --

PAT: Besides the holdouts, those are the only ones talking about it.

GLENN: Who's talking about that? There's no desire for that.

BILL: Trump made a big deal out of that. Trump made a big deal out of that in his campaign. That was, like, one of his major issues that there should be competition.

PAT: Not making a big deal about it now.

STU: Making a big deal about repealing health care and making the government pay for everyone.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Will Congress Introduce a Health Insurance Competition Law to Drive Down Costs?

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

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

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

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity