Glenn Beck: Healthcare or Freedom grab?


Glenn Beck's Common Sense


Now available in book stores nationwide...

The media's saying the plan's going to cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. By the way, you didn't know this was happening? Maybe this is the first time you heard it because they did this while you were asleep! Using the Congressional Budget Office's numbers, which seem like a lot for something that's supposed to be free ‑‑ but maybe that's just me ‑‑ $1 trillion for this free healthcare. But the problem is it's not even close to true. When you hear $1 trillion over 10 years, what do you think? What do you think? Do you think $100 billion a year, right? No. No, you've got to think like a congressman or a senator or a slime ball. That's what the left is hoping that you're thinking. It's actually far higher than that, and the reason is just like when you have liver failure on universal healthcare, most of the programs in the bill are on a long waiting list. But we are the world! We are the children! And Michael Jackson's dead. Should we talk about that some more?

The long waiting list of the programs in this bill, typical government delay. They don't actually kick in for a few years. Only 17% of the spending comes in in the first five years. 83% comes in in the second five years. So only 17% of us can have the frickin' sniffles! But once everything has kicked in, we're going to make the world a better place, just you and me. Once everything kicks in, the plan actually costs $230 billion a year, yet another lie from Washington. The cost rises every year.

Also, this cost of $230 billion a year does not include administrative costs. It doesn't account for the cost of implementing the program. It doesn't count the effects on other spending, not to mention the aspirin or the Advil that the millionaire won't give you now! So how do you pay for something that is so unbelievably free and yet so expensive? By using the only two answers these clowns ‑‑ I could call them so much more than that ‑‑ the only two answers that they ever have: One, you make the rich pay for it; and two, you let the government fix everything. Number one is, and I kid you not, an additional 5.4% surtax on everyone who makes over $1 million a year. Well, that's fine, the rich millionaire. You know, the guy who started out poor, worked his frickin' ass off. Yeah, let's penalize him so we can pay for the guy who refuses to work. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, the job that Americans just won't do.

There are other taxes as well, you know, for those who make between $350,000 and up. The 5.4% tax is almost double the original number leaked to the press last week and, of course, this hits the small businesses the hardest. If you are not feeling bad for the evil rich people, which I understand because they're all so evil, I had the president of my company. I am a small business owner. I employ 23 people, something like that, 20 people, 23 people. I have a total staff of part‑time and full‑time of about 45 people that we are involved with, but 23 full‑time employees. They all have 100% medical care, 100%. The best money can buy. I have matching. You make a charitable donation, I match it dollar for dollar. Everybody pretty much has a nice, nice existence. I asked the president of my company, do some back‑of‑the‑envelope math. This tax, just this tax by itself, completely independent of all other tax hikes that are coming our way, will stop me from hiring five and ten people. One tax on one small business cost between five and ten jobs. Think about that against the entire scale of the economy. You'll begin to see what this p lan is going to cost in free healthcare. The higher the tax, the less people get hired. The more people need government to give them healthcare or housing! This is a freedom grab!

By the way, the tax hikes only cover about half the plan. Half the plan. Wait a minute. Really? So what covers the rest of it? I kid you not, the expected ‑‑ I'm quoting ‑‑ the expected windfall savings that the government will achieve with government healthcare. Because we all know the government has a history of achieving unbelievable savings. I mean, there's no way the free market system could send an envelope across the country cheaper! There's no way they could do that! Jeez. If that plan, if you happen to be a hate monger and that plan sounds a little unlikely, you'll be interested to hear what the plan is if those savings don't materialize. But we, of course, know the government will save all kinds of money. This is going to be ‑‑ you are never going to have to have a heart transplant because as soon as this happens, our heart will grow three sizes that day. We'll all be super healthy. We'll just be living in sunshine, lollipops, candy contains and Tamiflu will flow in every river.

This is from the Politico report. If those savings don't materialize, quote, those making more than $1 million would see a 5.4% surtax added to the tax bill. Some of the rates could climb if anticipated savings from elsewhere in the bill did not materialize. So as long as the government does a far better job on anything else they've ever done, it should only be about 5.4% tax. If they can't, at this point they are claiming that it could go as high as double, so those five to ten jobs have now become ten to twenty jobs.

I just want to point out that there's no history of our government ever doing this. When they passed the income tax in 1913, the progressive income tax, Woodrow Wilson, they promised us it would never go as high as 10%. It was only 7% for the evil millionaires. 7%. It will never go past 10. Yeah, yeah. They passed it. Never go past 10. Four years later it was 67%. Oh, and by the way, it will never ‑‑ that was an emergency! And there's no more emergencies left. Just like ‑‑ 67%, but it was an emergency. It will never go higher than 60. It's just during the emergency, until the last emergency came or the next one where, I kid you not, the income tax was 92%.

FDR wanted to make it 100% of anybody who made over $25,000, but congress would only go to 94. Now, their other option that they talked about in the past is to pay for some of it with money that they take from you, if they can just get cap and trade. Mark my words. They are going to go for cap and trade. While we are all debating healthcare, they're going to go for cap and trade. Isn't that what happened last time? They introduce healthcare and then they pass cap and trade. Now here comes the healthcare bill. You see, they have to have cap and trade to be able to pass this. Remember, all of this is based on the idea that the evil insurance companies are just so profit‑hungry. The government can beat them in efficiency because they don't have to care about profits or paying CEOs millions of dollars. They won't have all of that greed.

If you take nothing else from this monologue, remember this one thing: Health insurance profits account for .6% of healthcare costs. .6%. That's not me saying that. That's factcheck.org. CEO pay accounts for .005% of costs. This is not about healthcare. It never has been about healthcare. This is about, what does he call it, remaking America. This is government taking control of 1/6th of the economy. In one signature they will take 1/6th of the economy. They will take your arteries, your valves and your pancreas. Yes, you heard me. Your pancreas is at stake. But don't worry because the government can save it, because there's a choice we're making. We are the world. Can I get an amen!


 

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he had refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. So, the Left is after him again.

Phillips says that on the same day of the Supreme Court decision, he received a call from an attorney asking him to make a cake that fades from blue to pink to celebrate his gender transition. Phillips again refused. He has also been harassed by the same attorney with multiple requests for cakes celebrating everything from drug use to Satanism. Naturally, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is going after Phillips for discrimination. Again.

RELATED: The 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' ruling is actually a win for LGBT rights

Well, Phillips has understandably had enough. This week he filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado. In the lawsuit, Phillips says his family lost 40 percent of its income due to the harassment he has received. He also says he and his employees were forced to complete a "reeducation program" about not exercising his faith at work.

In the Declaration of Independence, just before the list of specific grievances against King George III, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"To prove this [talking about the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all.

I wonder, do candid citizens in the U.S. notice that the tyranny against personal liberty, and religious liberty is not coming from the Right? Really, you would think that the Left would be all about the anything goes, to each his own kind of philosophy. "You do you," that's the typical Leftist philosophy, isn't it? It's certainly the spirit of postmodernism.

But the Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all. They're interested in liberty and justice only for their vetted list of oppressed groups.

The Left is also pretty confident in its ownership of the "bigot" label to slap on whomever it deems necessary. But let's just go ahead and say it since no one else will – the Left is bigoted toward Christianity. This has nothing to do with the state of Colorado defending LGBT rights, and everything to do with their contempt for Jack Phillips' religious beliefs.

You know you're in for trouble any time an article begins with the following words: "These have been challenging times to be white in America."

Oh. I see where this is going:

People who aren't white may find this surprising. After all, it has been decades since white people could feel so free about loving their whiteness, or so openly celebrate whiteness, or talk about how much they relish being white and doing white activities.

RELATED: Redemption of a Grand Dragon: Can such a hateful person actually change?

Those are the opening lines of a recent NBC News op-ed- titled "Are 'white people' jokes racist? Let a fellow white person explain." I mean, it would make for incredible satire. I mean, if it were mocking the outrageous postmodern mental gymnastics of the modern Left, this article would be awe-inducing in its satirical prowess. Alas, it is not. It's real. The author, somehow, means what he's writing.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing. It's a clever mechanism which allows that racism against white people is purely linguistic, based on the idea that power determines who can say what.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing.

The idea is embodied by the entire article, but one sentence in particular smacks of it: "one of the great things about being white is that you'll never have to know what racism feels like (on the receiving end anyway)."

I think I know what it feels like. It feels like someone is judging based entirely on my skin color. Kinda like this entire article about how white people cannot be judged based entirely on their skin color. How does that not make sense?

The great censorship jihad continue'ith. And maybe one of the most bizarre developments in this war is how members of the media have formed a Caliphate to wage this jihad. There are actually beat reporters from the mainstream media, hanging on every word Alex Jones says with the hopes of catching him violating social media terms of service rules.

If these mainstream media jihadis catch Jones in the act of saying anything haram - or forbidden - they instantly charge the battlefield and pummel companies like Twitter with examples of how their rules are being infringed upon. Their strategy bared more fruit yesterday. Twitter, one of the last platforms Alex Jones still had, slapped him with a seven-day ban.

RELATED: Alex Jones BANNED?!

I just can't understand where the Media Caliphate is coming from here. When you're in the business of and count on, the free flow of information, is it not counter-productive to your business model to advocate for censorship? Do you not see the slippery slope you're on? Look, I get it. You think Alex Jones is looney tunes and maybe even dangerous, but silencing ideas and information should never be the answer.

Countering crazy and dangerous speech with rational and sane speech should be your mission… not censorship. You're helping Jones get silenced and cheering it on, but what will you do when someone comes to censor you? Because that's where this is headed.

But while the call for jihad was raised for Alex Jones, and silence now falls on his Twitter account, these accounts still have full access. The Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, Beverly Hills Antifa, Antifa Philadelphia… there are more Antifa twitter accounts than I have time to mention.

The radical Left is so well represented on Twitter, you'd think they have their own private office at Twitter headquarters right next to Jack. The Revolutionary Communist Party of America is but one still posting and calling for things like - you know - just the violent takeover of the U.S. government.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

But the Media Caliphate isn't calling for their social media heads. They just want people like Alex Jones and Gavin McGinnis to shut up. I sure it doesn't have anything to do with - no it couldn't be - this is crazy talk, but both Jones and McGinnis work for rival media outlets and deliver rival narratives to the mainstream media.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. If smaller outlets like CRTV and Infowars are cutting into their viewership and stealing their YouTube and Social Media clicks, would it benefit the Caliphate to come at them full bore on a digital battlefield where they're currently getting their butts kicked? You bet it would, but that's just crazy talk.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

How could you say no to that face?

WANG ZHAO/AFP/Getty Images

Do you trust your own ability to unplug from technology? Some people born before the 1990s are wearing it as a badge of honor now – that they quit Facebook, or they do a regular technology fast.

We like to think we're not overly dependent on technology, while posting on social media about how old-school we are. That's all well and good until the technology starts giving you puppy dog eyes and producing digital crocodile tears. What if your robot begs you not to turn it off? Will you still do it?

RELATED: Glenn's Predictions on Technology and AI for 2018

This isn't science fiction anymore. It's right around the corner. And if you're skeptical whether humans will treat robots like a family member, a new study might alter your view.

Researchers in Germany set up an experiment to examine how people treat robots when the robots act like humans. Each human participant was asked to work with a robot named Nao to create a weekly schedule and answer a series of questions.

What the participants didn't know was that completing the tasks was just a way for the researchers to find out what they were really interested in – how the participant's interaction with Nao would affect their ability to shut down the robot when asked.

Half of the participants were asked to shut down Nao without the robot protesting. But the other half of the participants heard Nao plead with them, saying: "No! Please do not switch me off! I am scared that it will not brighten up again!"

Of the 43 people who heard Nao's plea, 13 chose not to turn him off. Some said they felt sorry for him, others that they didn't want to act against his will.

The other 30 people did turn him off, but they took twice as long on average to do so than the group that did not hear the robot's plea.

Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.

The experiment confirms previous research demonstrating that humans are prone to treat technology, especially robots with human-like traits, as living beings.

Now, take this human tendency, and fast-forward a few years in the future when robots will look, sound, and act human, and know everything about us. Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.