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

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

June 23, 2017
Staff

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.

RELATED: It’s Here! It’s Here! The Senate Health Care Bill Is Here (And It’s Just Like Obamacare)

"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.

Empty house, heavy heart: A father’s realization after his kids move out

The silence of an empty home reminds me that life’s outcomes are out of my control — what matters is showing up.

My son moved out of the house this spring. My daughter moves out in a couple of weeks, and my older kids are headed up north. Now, it’s just Tania and me — and it’s been quiet. Too quiet.

As I sit here in a house full of space and silence, my mind has been meditating on the reality of being a dad — and what that really means.

As a father, I’ve learned that sometimes the most important thing is simply showing up and doing the best I can — even when I’m not sure what that looks like.

I didn’t grow up with the model of fatherhood that I now find myself trying to live out. My dad wasn’t present. He worked hard — harder than most people I’ve ever met — but he wasn’t there for me the way I needed him to be. My dad was passionate about his job, and that job was providing for the family. He taught me about hard work, but there wasn’t much emotional connection. We didn’t start developing any real relationship until I was 30.

I’m not complaining. That was just the reality. But such memories inevitably materialize as I reflect on my own experience as a father and try to navigate this new chapter in my life.When my kids were little, it was clear that I wasn’t home enough. And looking back, I knew that my work — this job — was costing me time with them. But we all talked about it as a family. When the opportunity to make this career change came in 2006, we discussed it openly because we knew it would change everything, for better or for worse. We made the decision as a team.

Now that they're moved out, I walk around in this big house filled with all this stuff, considering whether anything was worth it. In the end, it's just stuff. Everything in my home could be gone, and all I would miss are the kids.

The reality of fatherhood

Something I thought — and I think many others can relate — is that you think that your main job is to provide. You’re not needed in the same way mom is. You’re not the one the baby looks to in those early years. You watch your wife bond with the child, and you wonder where you fit in. It’s a strange feeling.

But as I’ve come to learn, you are needed in more ways than just a provider. You just don’t always get the immediate connection that mothers do.

A special season starts around age seven when dad becomes a little magical. You can feel it. The connection is there. It’s that sweet spot before the teenage years, when everything is awkward, when both dad and kid seem to be at odds. But in those years before, it’s golden.

Then, it all changes.

As kids hit the teen years, they start to pull away. The relationship with dad often becomes strained. They turn to mom when they need comfort, leaving dad in the background, unsure of where he stands. And that’s fine. That’s how it goes. But in this phase of life, as the kids start moving out and forging their own paths, I wish things were different.

I feel that loss deeply. As a father who wasn’t home all the time, I worked to provide. But now, I’m left with this ache in my chest, wondering, “Did I do enough?”

Releasing the outcome

The hardest part of fatherhood is when you stop expecting a certain outcome. My wife often tells me, “It’s going to happen. It will all work out.” And I believe her. But honestly, it’s hard not to be caught in the endless loop of second-guessing. Did I make the right decisions? Did I do enough? How can I fix this?

This struggle isn’t just about fatherhood. It’s about life. I’ve spent so much time looking ahead, planning, pointing to the horizon. I could always see the future and strive toward it. But in this season of life, I’m realizing that we also need to release our attachment to the outcome — whether it be over the injustices we see in the news cycle or the things we are wrestling with in our individual lives.

How strong fathers shatter a poisonous narrative about manhood one child at a time.Photo by Kelli McClintock via Unsplash

It doesn't mean we're not engaged. It just means we have to stop wanting a specific outcome. It’s a journey where the road is uncertain, and the destination might look different than what I expected.

I’ve always been someone who could picture the future and work relentlessly toward it. But it’s not just about getting to the destination — it’s about being present in the moment, doing the next right thing, and giving the end result to God.

Applying this to life

We live in a world obsessed with results, with winning, with reaching that end goal. But what if, just for a moment, we stopped obsessing over the outcome? What if we focused on doing the next right thing, one step at a time?

I don’t have all the answers. I’m still figuring it out. But what I do know is that there’s beauty in the process. There’s meaning in the moments, even if they don’t lead to the perfect outcome. As a father, I’ve learned that sometimes the most important thing is simply showing up and doing the best I can — even when I’m not sure what that looks like.

The house is quiet now, but the work isn’t over. There’s still plenty to do. And it’s time to focus on making each moment count.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The dangerous rise of foreign allegiances in Congress

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Jemal Countess / Stringer | Getty Images

The rise of dual loyalties in Congress is a dangerous trend. Rep. Ramirez's allegiance to Guatemala calls into question her commitment to America’s laws and sovereignty.

When an elected official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States, that pledge should mean something. But what happens when a member of Congress chooses to place her allegiance with another country over the United States? It’s a violation of that oath, plain and simple.

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a sitting member of Congress, openly stated in Spanish during a political event in Mexico City, "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American."

If we don’t demand that our elected leaders place their loyalty to the United States above all else, then we risk the very foundation of this republic.

Ramirez didn’t have a casual slip of the tongue. Her statement was a declaration of her loyalty to another nation. And it’s not just her words that are troubling; her husband, according to Rolling Stone, is in the U.S. illegally. That’s a violation of our immigration laws — laws that Ramirez should be sworn to uphold.

Ramirez’s statement isn’t an isolated incident. This is part of a growing pattern where elected officials, like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), proudly identify with their country of origin before America. They claim cultural pride, but celebrating your heritage is distinctly different from putting your identity above the country that gives you the freedom and opportunity to express that identity.

Heritage vs. loyalty

I’m proud of my heritage, as many Americans are. My wife’s family is a great example. They’re Italian-Americans who are very proud of their roots. But they would never say they’re “Italian before American.” They are Americans who cherish their heritage.

This is what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism." This is not a swipe at immigrants. This is a call for unity under one flag, one national destiny. For too long, we’ve allowed dual loyalties to take root in the very institutions that are meant to protect our sovereignty. This is how nations crumble.

George Washington warned against foreign entanglements and divided loyalties in his Farewell Address. He understood the dangers of dual allegiances. He knew the republic couldn’t survive if its leaders pledged allegiance to foreign powers instead of the Constitution.

This isn’t about whether you love your country of origin. It’s about the fundamental principle of loyalty to the United States. You can’t serve in Congress, be part of the body that governs and protects America, if you’re more loyal to another country than to the sovereignty and integrity of the U.S.

National security at risk

This issue goes beyond politics. It goes to the very heart of our national identity. The growing influence of foreign allegiance among our elected officials poses a direct threat to national security. You can’t be trusted to defend America’s borders and enforce immigration laws if you’re willing to place another country above your sworn duty.

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Congress must hold these people accountable. Ramirez must be removed from any committees related to national security or immigration. She has shown that her loyalty lies elsewhere. Her position on the Homeland Security Committee is not only a conflict of interest, it’s a violation of the trust placed in her by the American people.

Her husband’s illegal status must be investigated thoroughly. If you or I were in the same situation, we’d be facing the consequences. There’s no reason why she and her family should be above the law.

Time to act

This issue is about loyalty, integrity, and national security. If we don’t demand that our elected leaders place their loyalty to the United States above all else, then we risk the very foundation of this republic. The time to act is now.

Will Congressional lawmakers listen to the American people and choose America, or will they continue to play politics with our sovereignty? We need to know, now more than ever, whom these leaders are really serving.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Horror on Park Avenue: Is America’s mental health crisis out of control?

New York Daily News / Contributor | Getty Images

The Park Avenue shooter wanted us to study his brain. But will we study our culture?

Late Monday afternoon in Midtown Manhattan, the summer heat clung to the glass and steel of Park Avenue, usually a quiet street save for the occasional honking horn or blaring siren. But as the sun dipped behind the towering skyscrapers, violence erupted.

A 27-year-old man, whose name I won't bother mentioning, stepped out of a black BMW he had double-parked near 51st and 52nd Streets. His movements were calm, deliberate. In his hands, he carried an AR-15 rifle. His target was 345 Park Avenue, a tower of wealth and power, housing the offices of Blackstone, the National Football League, and Rudin Management. The idea of chaos here, in this building, felt foreign — until it wasn’t.

If we don’t get back to the root causes of violence, we’re doomed to continue spiraling into chaos.

The shooter made his way into the building lobby, where he shot in the back 36-year-old New York City Police Officer Didarul Islam, whose wife was about to give birth to their third child. The gunman then gunned down a woman hiding behind a pillar, her life taken in an instant.

The footage shows him moving with a chilling calm, methodical and relentless. A guard behind a desk became his next victim. Then another man, an NFL employee, was shot and is still in critical condition.

The shooter made his way to the elevators, and, strangely, as one opened, a woman stepped out. He let her pass. Why? We’ll never know. But she will likely ask herself that question for the rest of her life.

He continued to the 33rd floor, where Rudin is located. There, in the quiet hum of fluorescent lights and the soft chatter of cubicles, he began “to walk the floor, firing as he traveled.” Another victim fell, another family destroyed.

And then, in a final act, he turned the rifle on himself.

NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch confirmed that the scene was contained. But the damage was done. Four people were dead: one officer, one security guard, and two civilians. Several more were wounded.

The root issue: Mental illness

As details emerged, we learned more about the gunman’s background. He had driven cross-country from Las Vegas to New York. By trade, he was a security guard at a Las Vegas casino, and he held a concealed carry permit. Yet his history of mental illness, coupled with a backpack full of ammunition, medication, and his clear intent, painted a grim picture.

We also learned that his real target was the NFL, not Rudin. The shooter, suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease common in high-contact sports caused by repeated head collisions, blamed the NFL for his condition.

He had played football in his youth, but never at the professional level. His note, found on his body after he shot himself, said he wanted his brain studied, to contribute to the understanding of his condition.

This wasn’t just an ordinary act of violence; it was a tragic collision of a mentally unstable man and a gun.

A growing crisis

America is in the midst of an unprecedented mental health crisis. As I walk through cities like New York, I am confronted by the increasing number of unstable individuals teetering on the brink of violence. Not long ago, my wife and I were walking through Manhattan when a man on a bike circled us, looking me directly in the eye, saying, “I’m going to kill me a white man today. Today is the day.”

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The man was clearly unhinged. Fortunately, he noticed the armed security behind us, and he quickly rode away. But what if they hadn’t been there? What if he had been someone who wasn’t aware of the people around him?

The world we live in today is one where violence is erupting in public spaces, fueled by mental illness, societal breakdown, and a lack of accountability — and it’s becoming a national trend. This isn’t just about guns or laws — it’s about what’s happening inside the minds of those who perpetrate these acts.

A wake-up call

It’s easy for people to point fingers. To blame social media, to blame the media itself, to call for more laws. But this crisis is about much more than that. It’s about a loss of morality, family, social cohesion, transcendent purpose, genuine human connection, and so much more that comes with a society whose values are rooted in God’s truth.

I’m not a mental health expert, but surely the degeneration of these social goods and the historic rise in mental disorders, especially among young people, are not coincidental. We can’t keep turning a blind eye to such things and pretend that new laws or more regulations will fix it.

This isn’t just about changing laws; it’s about changing hearts. If we don’t, we’ll keep losing those we hold dear.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The DARK truth behind the Macrons' absurd lawsuit

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

While the media obsesses over elite scandals, Glenn is having a field day exposing the Macron lawsuit farce—and the twisted truth it tries to bury.

The era of unchecked narratives is coming to an end. We're reclaiming reality, one scandal at a time.

On his show, Glenn couldn't hide his glee over French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing Candace Owens for claiming she's really a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. Glenn called Brigitte the "Jeffrey Epstein of France" for grooming a 15-year-old Emmanuel when she was his 40-year-old teacher, and speculated that she is pressuring her husband to silence the rumors. Glenn also mocked the blatant overkill, which included childhood photos, birth announcements, and a desperate proclamation that Brigitte is "a woman."

But it goes deeper: The liberal elites have long proclaimed that transitioning is "wonderful," so why sue over the insinuation? It's hypocrisy—elites demanding silence on grooming while forcing conformity. This isn't about truth; it's control, proving no one's above scrutiny.

Want to see the absurd lawsuit firsthand? Download the Macron v. Owens lawsuit PDF here and see the evidence for yourself.

Download the PDF here.