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.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep