Glenn Beck: How bad is Universal Health care?

Glenn Beck's Common Sense

Now available in book stores nationwide...

GLENN: We may not recover from healthcare: So let's get down to the stats because they are throwing all kinds of stats around. Congressional Budget Office, the Kennedy healthcare bill, that should be your first tip off this is a bad idea.

The stats that are being thrown around are so bad, the Obama administration is now distancing itself from the bill saying it's not the president's bill, which nothing is ever this president's, ever. Have you ever noticed that? Nothing. There's no such thing as the president's bill. He just signs them. "Well, it was the only thing, I mean, I'm just it's the only thing that was presented to me." Here's what the bill does. It adds $1 trillion to our debt. That's not the cost. It adds $1 trillion to our debt and still will not come even remotely close to insuring everyone. After all of the spending plus $1 trillion in debt, how many people will still be uninsured?

Now, think about it. We're trying to make sure that we've covered all 45 million Americans that don't have healthcare. $1 trillion in debt and all the spending and all the hassle to you and everything else. How many people are still uninsured? According to the plan that is not the president's plan, 37 million still uninsured. But there's more in this bill that you're not hearing about.

For instance, 58% of the bill's effects will serve to move people from their current insurance to a new fancy government subsidize exchange. 58%. Where does the bulk of the money go? Quote: The federal government would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families with incomes between 150% and 500% of the federal poverty level. These subsidies would represent the greatest single component of the proposal's cost.

So let's now see what this really means. Take a family of four. If you make between $33,000 and $110,000 a year, the government is going to pay for some of your healthcare insurance and it will be on a sliding scale. A lot of Republicans will say, "Oh, the Democrats want to pay for your health insurance up to $110,000 a year," but that's not true. There is no limit. It's based on family size. For example, you are going to be paying for octomom's health insurance even if octomom pulls in $203,000. You will be paying for octomom's family. As long as Jon and Kate plus 8 remain Jon and Kate plus 8, you are on the hook even if they make over $220,000. But wait, there's more. What about all of the people that make less than $33,000 a year? This if you are driving, pull over to the side of the road. No, I'm going to give you time because you might you may have an aneurysm. You could kill people and they might be uninsured! Have you pulled over yet? This is going to blow your mind. What about the people making less than $33,000 a year? They are not covered! Quote: Expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date. A significant expansion of Medicaid would have an effect both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage. Translation: This trillion dollars of debt thing, everybody's worked up about a trillion, it's only dealing with the people who are relatively well off. It's not even accounting for a major expansion of Medicaid, which is coming. I mean, unless you think Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy are going to sign a healthcare plan that helps the wealthy and not the poor. I'm just saying.

So here's where it gets really good. We've helped the relatively well off. We're not helping the poor at all. And how do we pay for it? Are you still pulled over? The cost would be partly offset by... receipts, or savings, from three sources. In other words, receipts, receipts, receipts, what do you mean receipts? Oh, taxes or penalties. One: Increases in tax revenues who are you going to hit? Who are you going to hit? Increases in tax revenues stemming from the decline in employment based coverage. Wait a minute. What's that? Two: Payments of penalties by uninsured individuals. Penalties? What? And three: Reductions in outlays for Medicare and CHIP I'm sorry, Medicaid. So let's look at these one by one. First two are the easiest. Reductions in Medicaid and CHIP. Some of these people are going to be moving from Medicaid to other parts of the plan. So the savings are not really savings. It's a recordkeeping thing. It's not new people we're paying for. It's old people under a new plan. So it's not paying for them. It's just moving where you send the check. There's no savings there. There's savings in one pocket, but we move the people to the other pocket.

Next, the payments of penalties by uninsured individuals. This is where it gets good. If you don't have insurance, you are going to pay a penalty to the government. They are going to use that money to pay for some of the free and subsidized healthcare that they are giving out to other people. Now, how many people are going to pay that penalty? How stiff is that penalty? If it's really stiff, I would imagine you are only going to miss it once. How long does that penalty last? I mean, how many times you can't make an example out of people because that's a revenue source! What are you going to charge them? $10? Because you need them to keep violating it because you need the next $10 the next week. So unlike our current system that's supposedly so terrible, the uninsured will now pay to insure other uninsured people. Got it? Now, who has to pay? And who has to tell you what you pay? Well, if you are uninsured, you pay. You are going to love this. Quote: The proposal will also impose a financial cost on most people... most people, not all people... most people who do not obtain insurance, the size of which would be set by the secretary of the treasury. No insurance? Here is TurboTax Geithner.

Now, if that sounds like the worst part, it isn't. The one way they get more money to pay for free healthcare is by reclaiming the tax breaks you are currently getting on insurance. That was number one. The way it works now is your company gets a tax break if they give you insurance. So, so many people who they claim this isn't going to happen. This is not going to hurt people's insurance that they already have. You got good insurance at work? Don't worry about it; you're not going to but since they are projecting that so many people are going to be getting rid of their workplace insurance, the money's not going to be tax free anymore. The CBO also assumes that companies will basically give you all the money that they used to spend on healthcare as additional wages.

So in other words, you don't get healthcare, the company says, "Well, I ain't supplying it anymore; get it from the government." The government is just assuming once they finish taxing the rich and the businesses in other areas that they are just going to take that money that they had been spending on healthcare and just give it to you. They just, "I don't know what I'm going to do with that extra five grand. What do I do with it? I'll just give it to John," who's now getting his free healthcare benefit from the government. Why would a company invest that in the company? Why would the company take that money and try to offset some of the extra costs that the company has incurred in other areas because of taxes? So all of the additional, all of the money that the company has saved from giving their healthcare to the government is now going to be taxed.

Can I ask you a question? Since when did we believe in the good of companies? How suddenly refreshing from the Democrats and Barack Obama. So if a company used to spend $3,000 on insurance with a tax break, it becomes $3,000 in your pocket which they get taxed on. Then you have to buy insurance with that money if the company gives you that money. That doesn't sound like a tax hike to me, does it? Does it sound like a tax hike to you? I mean, I know that's not how the Democrats categorize it as a tax hike. How do tax hikes not come in combination with this?

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Monday, Harvard Law professor and lawyer on President Donald Trump's impeachment defense team Alan Dershowitz explains the history of impeachment and its process, why the framers did not include abuse of power as criteria for a Constitutional impeachment, why the Democrats are framing their case the way they are, and what to look for in the upcoming Senate trial.

Dershowitz argued that "abuse of power" -- one of two articles of impeachment against Trump approved by House Democrats last month -- is not an impeachable act.

"There are two articles of impeachment. The second is 'obstruction of Congress.' That's just a false accusation," said Dershowitz. "But they also charge him, in the Ukraine matter, with abuse of power. But abuse of power was discussed by the framers (of the U.S. Constitution) ... the framers refused to include abuse of power because it was too broad, too open-ended.

"In the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution, it would lead presidents to serve at the will of Congress. And that's exactly what the framers didn't want, which is why they were very specific and said a president can be impeached only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," he added.

"What's alleged against President Trump is not criminal," added Dershowitz. "If they had criminal issues to allege, you can be sure they would have done it. If they could establish bribery or treason, they would have done it already. But they didn't do it. They instead used this concept of abuse of power, which is so broad and general ... any president could be charged with it."

Watch the video below to hear more details:



Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

On Friday's radio program, Bill O'Reilly joins Glenn Beck discuss the possible outcomes for the Democrats in 2020.

Why are former President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama working overtime to convince Americans they're more moderate than most of the far-left Democratic presidential candidates? Is there a chance of a Michelle Obama vs. Donald Trump race this fall?

O'Reilly surmised that a post-primary nomination would probably be more of a "Bloomberg play." He said Michael Bloomberg might actually stand a chance at the Democratic nomination if there is a brokered convention, as many Democratic leaders are fearfully anticipating.

"Bloomberg knows he doesn't really have a chance to get enough delegates to win," O'Reilly said. "He's doing two things: If there's a brokered convention, there he is. And even if there is a nominee, it will probably be Biden, and Biden will give [him] Secretary of State or Secretary of Treasury. That's what Bloomberg wants."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.


On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Friday, award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon, a central figure in the impeachment proceedings, explained his newly filed lawsuit, which seeks the records of contact between Ukraine prosecutors and the U.S. Embassy officials in Kiev during the 2016 election.

The records would provide valuable information on what really happened in Ukraine, including what then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter were doing with Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, Solomon explained.

The documents, which the State Department has withheld thus far despite repeated requests for release by Solomon, would likely shed light on the alleged corruption that President Donald Trump requested to be investigated during his phone call with the president of Ukraine last year.

With the help of Southeastern Legal Foundation, Solomon's lawsuit seeks to compel the State Department to release the critical records. Once released, the records are expected to reveal, once and for all, exactly why President Trump wanted to investigate the dealings in Ukraine, and finally expose the side of the story that Democrats are trying to hide in their push for impeachment.

"It's been a one-sided story so far, just like the beginning of the Russia collusion story, right? Everybody was certain on Jan. 9 of 2017 that the Christopher Steele dossier was gospel. And our president was an agent of Russia. Three years later, we learned that all of that turned out to be bunk, " Solomon said.

"The most important thing about politics, and about investigations, is that there are two sides to a story. There are two pieces of evidence. And right now, we've only seen one side of it," he continued. "I think we'll learn a lot about what the intelligence community, what the economic and Treasury Department community was telling the president. And I bet the story was way more complicated than the narrative that [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff [D-Calif.] has woven so far."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Carter Page, a former advisor to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, found himself at the center of the Russia probe and had his reputation and career destroyed by what we now know were lies from our own intelligence system and the media.

On the TV show Thursday, Page joined Glenn Beck to speak out about how he became the subject of illegal electronic surveillance by the FBI for more than two years, and revealed the extent of the corruption that has infiltrated our legal systems and our country as a whole.

"To me, the bigger issue is how much damage this has done to our country," Page told Glenn. "I've been very patient in trying to ... find help with finding solutions and correcting this terrible thing which has happened to our country, our judicial system, DOJ, FBI -- these once-great institutions. And my bigger concern is the fact that, although we keep taking these steps forward in terms of these important findings, it really remains the tip of the iceberg."

Page was referencing the report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which revealed that the FBI made "at least 17 significant errors or omissions" in its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications for warrants to spy on Page, a U.S. citizen.

"I think this needs to be attacked from all angles," Glenn said. "The one angle I'm interested in from you is, please tell me you have the biggest badass attorneys that are hungry, starving, maybe are a little low to pay their Mercedes payments right now, and are just gearing up to come after the government and the media. Are they?"

I can confirm that that is the case," Page replied.

Watch the video clip below for a preview of the full-length interview:

The full interview will air on January 30th for Blaze TV subscribers, and February 1st on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.