Glenn Beck: What Brits think of gov Healthcare


British politician and Member of the European Parliament, representing South East England for the Conservative Party.

GLENN: Daniel Hannan is, I don't know, some muckity muck in a European parliament. He's from ‑‑ I don't know how that whole system works. I just know it's old, you know, and he's one guy in it that I think has made complete sense. Ever since I saw this guy, and I think most of America feels this way, here is a politician I could actually vote for. Here is a politician who seems to be, oh, I don't know, sane or at least honest and will say what he really believes. Daniel Hannan, welcome to the program, sir.

HANNAN: Hi, Glenn, nice to talk to you again.

GLENN: Good to have you here in the United States. Would you consider staying and running for congress?

HANNAN: You know, I love this country. I really do. I like everything about it. I like your Constitution, I like the old way of doing things. But if there's one thing I like even more, it's my country and what I really want to do is stick around and work to bring back your ideas which we exploited to you in your revolution and repatriate them and try and improve the situation in the U.K.

GLENN: You exported the ideas of the revolution to us?

HANNAN: Yeah, I was just reading your book here, Glenn. Where do you think that Jefferson and Franklin and all these people got their thinking from, the idea that, you know, governments should be controlled by elected people, that the legislature should be supreme, that you shouldn't raise taxes without permission. They ‑‑ you go back to what they were saying at the time, they thought they were defending their rights as free men. The tragedy is that we in the U.K. have now lost the conception that you should only be allowed to make law through elected people, and I can see some of the same grievances that your colonial leaders laid against George III, I can see them now creeping into your government in Washington.

GLENN: Oh, I have to tell you something. I think that we are seeing ‑‑ the words of the Declaration of Independence come alive again. We have all of these politicians, and I know you and I, we saw each other yesterday. So you and I have already spoken about this a little bit that these politicians are going home and they are being questioned by their voters. And Daniel, I said yesterday to you, I said, you know, what do you think's going to happen. And you said that politicians, they are afraid of, they have got to answer to the people, right?

HANNAN: And there is no dishonor in doing that, you know. Sometimes say, politicians should take a lead, they shouldn't be so populist. My take on this is that a politician who listens to his constituents and tries to act according to what they regard as being in their best interest is a good Democrat and he shouldn't be ashamed of doing that.

GLENN: Okay. So here are some of the things that the politicians are saying now. After the big meetings that they had with people, they are now saying that the people that they are seeing on the streets, the people that they are seeing coming to their town hall meetings are nothing but extremists, they are all politically connected and put together by these organizations and they are all on talking points and that they are dismissing these people. Where does that lead?

HANNAN: Well, if they are right about that, then they will be all right. But if they're wrong about it, then it's going to be they who are dismissed when the next election comes. That's how the system works. And, you know, I have a lot of confidence in the good sense of the American people, you know. This is a freedom‑loving country, a country founded in the ideal of independence, the dispersal of power, the constraint of people in office, and I can't believe that the American people will suffer this encroachment of state power and state coercion in their life. I just don't believe that is compatible with the good sense, the sturdiness, the independence of the American people. And American legislators I'm sure because there are good people, patriotic people in both parties in this country, on both sides of the aisle, I'm sure they want to listen to what their constituents are saying.

GLENN: I know you have to catch a train to go to Washington. Do you have any more time?

HANNAN: I reckon we've got time for one or two more questions.

GLENN: I'd like to know, the healthcare system, they are saying that this is going to save us money, that this is going to be better healthcare system. You know, Chris Dodd, God forbid, you know, nobody wishes anything to happen to anyone or anyone to get ill and even though I disagree with this guy, you know, I wish him the best. But here he is pushing for healthcare, the kind of healthcare that you have in your country where I'm trying to remember the number. I think it's 75% of those men who get prostate cancer in your country live.

HANNAN: Five years, yeah, five years later you've got a one in four chance of being dead from the moment of diagnosis.

GLENN: Five years ‑‑

HANNAN: Whereas in the U.S. you've got a zero percent of having died five years, if the condition was good.

GLENN: Canada is already, I heard a story on Fox and Friends this morning where somebody who had to come into the United States, Canada said, you know, there's nothing we can do for you; your cancer is too far gone. He came down here and he got the radiated pellets and he's fine.

HANNAN: There you go. I mean, if your health system was that bad, why is the whole world knocking at the door to try and get in and use it. Look, I don't think the U.S. healthcare system is perfect, right, because nothing is perfect in this life. And it's not for us to create perfection. But you can improve your system without junking the essence of it which is that you get to choose as a consumer. You get to choose a doctor, you get to choose the specialists. And if you are unsatisfied, you can go for better treatment elsewhere. And that's what is missing in the British system or in any state‑run system. You basically have to put up with whatever you're given.

GLENN: We have the AARP, which is the association for retired people. They are supposed to be the guardians of the elderly. This special interest group has just thrown their hat in the ring with universal healthcare. I have never, ever read anything other than not good for the elderly if you are in universal healthcare. Why would they do that? Is there anything that shows you, anywhere in Europe that healthcare gets better for the elderly if you are in universal programs?

HANNAN: The opposite is true. First of all I'm slight ‑‑ I'm going to slightly convolute the use of the word universal. I mean, I haven't ‑‑ I've been here a few days now and I haven't seen anybody kind of dragging their broken leg behind them down the street because they are not getting treated. So you already have universal healthcare in the sense that if you are in need of treatment, you get it, right? But no, I mean, if you look at our system, they probably reflect the values of society to some extent when I say this, but this isn't really an excuse for it. It is very good at treating children. They will make a real effort if your child is sick. They will move whatever machinery they can to get you the treatment you need. But elderly people, you know, Glenn, I could tell you horror stories of people that are left without being fed, left without having their beds changed, you know, and it's the worst situation to find yourself in because there's nothing you can do about it. You've got no opportunity for redress as the user of the system. The whole NHS is based around the idea that you are a supplicant, you are meant to be grateful for anything you get, you are meant to smile and say thank you, doctor, and if you are dissatisfied, that's too bad.

GLENN: Daniel Hannan, I hope that the next time we speak, this will be dead and buried, if you will, and we will have come to our senses.

HANNAN: I have ‑‑ like I say, I repose a huge amount of confidence in the instincts of the American people and I just can't believe that they will suffer the minutian of their freedom.

GLENN: I tell you, I feel the same way but I think most Americans are wondering if their government is even listening to them at this point.

HANNAN: Well, the great thing about your system, the great thing about any representative democracy is that if the government doesn't listen, you good he the to change it.

GLENN: Thank you very much, I appreciate it, Daniel Hannan.

HANNAN: Thanks, Glenn.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

RELATED: Media Are Pushing Inflated '18 School Shootings' Statistic. Here Are the Facts.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

RELATED: POWER GRAB: Here's how US presidents use 'moments of crisis' to override Constitutional law

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at PeakProsperity.com.

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)
'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:

(Source

That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.

TreasuryDirect

For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

  • Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
  • Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

  1. Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
  2. Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
  3. Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
  4. Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with PeakProsperity.com's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: PeakProsperity.com does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.