December 2, 2025 • 13 mins
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, says the US attacks on alleged drug boats coming from Venezuela are a "prelude to war." He says Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has to take responsibility for the second strike that was ordered on a boat on Sept. 2. He speaks with hosts Joe Mathieu and Amara Omeokwe.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
We spoke with Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky, who
chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and also serves on
the Foreign Relations Committee, tried to pursue some of these
questions we discussed with. Wendy asked him about the legality
of the Pentagon's actions in Venezuela and whether he thinks
they amount to a prelude to war.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
I'm very fearful that these boat strikes and the positioning
of our ships and our troops right off the coast
of Venezuela as a prelude to war. I think that
there is a real question of legality under the military
jo justice. Under the Code of Military Justice, it says
that when someone has been incapacitated or shipwrecked or they're
(00:45):
clinging to the wreckage of a boat, that they're out
of combat and they're no longer subject to be killed.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
And so there is a real question who.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Gave the order and why would they give the order
to kill someone who is out of combat. Now the weekend,
the Secretary of Defense was saying, well, I don't know
anything about it. I don't know anything about a second attack.
But today when he was interviewed, he said, well, yes,
I left the room for a while, the second attack occurred,
and I learned about it when he came back.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
But why was he telling us this weekend.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
He didn't know anything about a second attack, and he
had never authorized it. But now that it's come to light,
he says, oh, I didn't do it. Somebody else did it.
The admiral did it. So they're all pin and blame
on the military guide. But I'm one who tends to
give a lot of leeway to the military guy and
not so much leeway to.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
The person who gave him the orders. These orders came from.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
The Secretary of Defense, and ultimately he's gonna have to
accept responsibility. But to my mind, there's a question about
whether or not killing people in the first place, who
you have no proof that they're armed, you have presented
no proof that they're carrying drugs, and that you simply
kill them. I think that's outrageous. But now not only
do we kill them, our government is following up by
(01:57):
killing them when they're wounded and stranded and of no
threat whatsoever, which is, according to our own laws illegal.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Well, you've illustrated that carefully, Senator, it's Admiral Frank Bradley
we're talking about. He's been named by the administration. I
don't know if you think it's appropriate that his name
is made public before he testifies before the Armed Services
Committee on Thursday. But I guess the question now is raised,
where does the buck stop? Is it with the admiral,
(02:25):
the Defense Secretary or the commander in chief.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
I think it's to me amazing that anybody in the
public accepts the idea that we would make an acca accusation.
We will simply accuse someone and then they are found
guilty without any kind of process. We asked the Coast
Guard for specific statistics off the coast of Venezuela, and
they said, of boats that have been interceded off of
(02:49):
the coast before we came up with this blow them
to smith a 'reens policy, we used to interdict them,
and of the boats that we interdicted off the coast
of Venezuela, about one in four twenty one percent, to
be exact, we're not caring drugs. That would mean if
you're going to blow up all of the boats off
the coast that look like drug boats, or that you're
(03:10):
suspicious For twenty one percent of the time, you'd be
killing innocent people. So I think it's outrageous that anybody
would countenance this kind of activity, And I'm surprised that
I seem to be one of the few people who
seem to be.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Alarmed at this. But I think it's unconscionable.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
It's wrong on any level to kill people with no
proof that they are engaged in combat at all with
your country.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, so should Pete hagsth be fired?
Speaker 1 (03:36):
There has to be an investigation, and I am glad
that for a change, there is a bipartisan push from
the Armed Services Committee to get to the bottom of this.
So to be an investigation, I think he needs to
be asked under oath, did you give the order to
kill any survivors? And if you didn't give the order,
what was the order? Why did the admiral think that
he was supposed to kill people clinging to wreckage? The
(03:59):
idea that these people were still a threat. It's a
debate whether they were ever a threat. They're on a
motor boat two thousand miles from our coast. If you
want to take that motor boat to the closest point
of entry, in Miami. You probably have to fill it
up twenty times. These motorboats can't go two thousand miles
on a tank of gas. If there was drugs on board.
They may be going to other countries, but probably not
(04:21):
to the US.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
So the whole thing is.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Just remarkable that in our country we would allow this
to happen.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
Senator Senator Schumer has asked for footage of these strikes
to be released.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Is that something that you would support. Yes, we need
to see the footage, We need to hear the audio.
The Secretary of Defenses now said that he left the room.
That's fine, But the whole idea is the Admiral's not
just making these decisions.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Without an order.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
The order came from the Secretary of Defense. And then
I hear some of my colleagues in the hallway just saying, oh, no.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Big too.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
We do this all the t Whenever we bomb people,
we just do a second tap on them.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Man, if they're moving, we go back and hit them again.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Well, if it's soldiers with guns shooting our soldiers, I'm
fine with that, but this is a pretense of a war.
They've just said, oh, we call these people in these
boats Narco terrace, So we can kill them without any
kind of proof, without any kind of just fashi gup
because we say so, because we say it's a war.
This is insane, This isn't a war. These people don't
(05:29):
We don't even know if they're armed or we've killed
eighty people, Are any of them armed? What are their names?
What is it they're transporting? All these people going off saying, oh,
Fentel's killing people. I know people have died of Fennel.
I have a great deal sympathy. I know a family
lost two sons defendant. I have sympathy for that. There's
no evidence there's any fentyl on this boat. There's no
(05:50):
evidence that any fentanyl comes from Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Zero.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
There is fentyl come out of Mexico. But since we're
blowing these boats up, maybe we're taking our eye off
the border in Mexican go. So the whole thing is
a pretense and a prelude to war in Venezuela, and
I hope it doesn't happen.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Senator, you've said previously that you've received not one briefing
on Venezuela. In your eyes, does the administration have a
coherent strategy? On this issue, and how does it square
with the President and the administration's America first posture, this
idea that they were going to keep America out of
ever increasing foreign entinglements.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
The one thing I've always liked about Donald Trump, and
the reason I've supported him and still do support him,
is that I think his instincts towards less intervention and
less foreign war have been sincere He's been against the
Iraq War for several decades before it happened, and after
it happened, he was against the war in Libya that
Obama took us into. So those were legitimate ideas that
(06:48):
are jegitimate part of America first. But this idea of
invading Venezuela, I think comes from the Secretary of State
who's long wanted regime change there.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Now, if you could wave.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
A wand and have regime change where there's adversaries we
don't like, we would do it for China, we would
do it for Columbia, we would do it for all
the countries that have ten socialist dictators.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
But we don't do that because the.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
End result of regime change often is more chaos or
chaos worse even than the authoritarianism they live under.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Well, I'm getting confused here, Senator, because there was also
a pardon that the administration announced this week former Honduras
President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted for pushing hundreds
of tons of cocaine into this country. If we're concerned
about the drug trade in America, why would the administration
(07:42):
pursue this pardon.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Oh, didn't they tell you he's not an arco terrorist?
Speaker 3 (07:49):
And I'm being facetious.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
I heard the President say today that it was a
Biden hoax, that it was Biden overreached.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
So you don't support this part. So here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
If they say he's not a narco terrorist, he's not
a threat to America, and maybe he was falsely accused.
And I say that facetiously because it gets to the
point of if they label you a narco terrorist, they
can kill you without trial. But if they say you're
not a narco terrorist, you can be given a pardon,
even though you have been convicted. Even though he's gloated
(08:19):
over all the people he's loaded with drugs, including some
who have probably and inevitably have died in our country,
but he's okay because the administration does not label him
and sell him a narco terrorist.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
It gets to the whole problem of this.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
So I have brought forward with Senator Cain on a
couple of occasions, and we'll do again the idea that
we have to debate whether this is war. There is
a lower standard for rules of engagement in war. But
they say it's not war. But then they say, what
kind of is war? Because we've labeled a narco terrorists
and they are designated to be foreign terrorists, so you
(08:54):
can kill them without any proof because their enemy combatants.
But if you try to have a vote in Congress
as to whether it's war, said, we can't have that
because this is our prerogative. But then you get into
the lunacy of well, Orlando Hernandez is not a narco terrorist,
but these guys who we don't know their name and
we presented no proof they're narco terrorists. It's absolutely and
(09:17):
utterly insane, Senator.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Republicans have often been hesitant to push back on the
administration's policy moves. How optimistic are you that Republicans will
be able to come together, find some unity on this
issue and provide oversight on this issue of the boat
strikes and the posture towards Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
I'm encouraged that the Arms Services Committee is going to
do an investigation.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
That is a bipartisan thing.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
The Republican Chairman Wicker is going forward with an investigation.
I hope they will demand the actual footage and the
audio of what happened during that strike. These are strikes
that are going out without the approval of Congress, at
the very least after the fact. They ought to show
us the actual video, the actual footage, and the actual audio.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
And we should hear.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Under oath from the admiral that gave the order, and
hear under oath from the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I got to ask you about healthcare, Senator. Just a
couple of hours ago. You probably saw this, the President
posting on truth Social what appears to be a screen
grab of a text that you sent him.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Is that real?
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Just for starters, is that a text that you sent
the president?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
I did, and I've engaged with the President because I've
worked with him before and still want to work with
the president. In the first administration, I engaged with him
on something called association health plans. These are group plans
that individuals can buy so For example, the biggest problem
we have in healthcare is that if you're a small
business person, say you're an accountant and you have three
employees you want to buy insurance, you go into the
(10:47):
individual market and you have no leverage, and if one
of your employees gets cancer or you get cancer, they
jack up the risk for your really small risk pool. Instead,
what I'm proposing is you should be allowed to go
anywhere where you want to buy insurance across state lines,
including places like Costco, Sam's Club, Amazon, and then if
you became one of millions of people buying insurance, Amazon
(11:11):
or Costco would negotiate directly with the insurance company and say, look,
I got ten million people want insurance, and I'm negotiating
for them, and all of a sudden they become the
large they become the largest entity in America, and they'll
drive the prices down. The problem with Obamacare, although well
intended to help people, is when you give people money
to buy insurance. As insurance rates are going up, you
(11:32):
say I'll give you more one thousand dollars, then I'll
give you five, then I give you ten. You just
keep chasing the rates higher because you're artificially increasing the
demand and the price just goes hired and has it
worked so Originally President Obama said prices will go down
twenty five hundred dollars within I don't know a year
or two of Obamacare, and the exact opposite has happened.
(11:53):
So if we continue to do this, it won't get better.
We're chasing in our tail, we're chasing inflation, and so
well we need is leverage and to allow the marketplace
work to work to bid down prices. My plan would
also let everybody have an HSA, and it would let
you purchase your health insurance out of an HSA. So
as you save money and you're able to purchase your
(12:15):
insurance out of it, there would be a possibility, particularly
over time, that you might be able to a crew
enough money that you would be able to get larger
and larger deductible because you have a big savings account
to cover your deductible.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Just to understand for our viewers and listeners here, Senator,
do you need the President now that you're pitching him
on this, to say which plan yours or bil cassidys
should be pursued here and will this get a floor vote?
When that happens.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
It's the debate.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
We're having this debate right now within our caucus. Others
in my caucus want to take the Obamacare money and
stick it in your HSA. That to means another form
of Obamacare, and I'm not really for that. I'm for
letting you save your own money in your HSA and
letting ninety percent of people who don't have an HSA
get one, and then let you negotiate through a buying
quote co op like Amazon to get lower prices.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky with a sun balance
of power
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
We spoke with Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky, who
chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and also serves on
the Foreign Relations Committee, tried to pursue some of these
questions we discussed with. Wendy asked him about the legality
of the Pentagon's actions in Venezuela and whether he thinks
they amount to a prelude to war.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
I'm very fearful that these boat strikes and the positioning
of our ships and our troops right off the coast
of Venezuela as a prelude to war. I think that
there is a real question of legality under the military
jo justice. Under the Code of Military Justice, it says
that when someone has been incapacitated or shipwrecked or they're
(00:45):
clinging to the wreckage of a boat, that they're out
of combat and they're no longer subject to be killed.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
And so there is a real question who.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Gave the order and why would they give the order
to kill someone who is out of combat. Now the weekend,
the Secretary of Defense was saying, well, I don't know
anything about it. I don't know anything about a second attack.
But today when he was interviewed, he said, well, yes,
I left the room for a while, the second attack occurred,
and I learned about it when he came back.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
But why was he telling us this weekend.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
He didn't know anything about a second attack, and he
had never authorized it. But now that it's come to light,
he says, oh, I didn't do it. Somebody else did it.
The admiral did it. So they're all pin and blame
on the military guide. But I'm one who tends to
give a lot of leeway to the military guy and
not so much leeway to.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
The person who gave him the orders. These orders came from.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
The Secretary of Defense, and ultimately he's gonna have to
accept responsibility. But to my mind, there's a question about
whether or not killing people in the first place, who
you have no proof that they're armed, you have presented
no proof that they're carrying drugs, and that you simply
kill them. I think that's outrageous. But now not only
do we kill them, our government is following up by
(01:57):
killing them when they're wounded and stranded and of no
threat whatsoever, which is, according to our own laws illegal.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Well, you've illustrated that carefully, Senator, it's Admiral Frank Bradley
we're talking about. He's been named by the administration. I
don't know if you think it's appropriate that his name
is made public before he testifies before the Armed Services
Committee on Thursday. But I guess the question now is raised,
where does the buck stop? Is it with the admiral,
(02:25):
the Defense Secretary or the commander in chief.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
I think it's to me amazing that anybody in the
public accepts the idea that we would make an acca accusation.
We will simply accuse someone and then they are found
guilty without any kind of process. We asked the Coast
Guard for specific statistics off the coast of Venezuela, and
they said, of boats that have been interceded off of
(02:49):
the coast before we came up with this blow them
to smith a 'reens policy, we used to interdict them,
and of the boats that we interdicted off the coast
of Venezuela, about one in four twenty one percent, to
be exact, we're not caring drugs. That would mean if
you're going to blow up all of the boats off
the coast that look like drug boats, or that you're
(03:10):
suspicious For twenty one percent of the time, you'd be
killing innocent people. So I think it's outrageous that anybody
would countenance this kind of activity, And I'm surprised that
I seem to be one of the few people who
seem to be.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Alarmed at this. But I think it's unconscionable.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
It's wrong on any level to kill people with no
proof that they are engaged in combat at all with
your country.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, so should Pete hagsth be fired?
Speaker 1 (03:36):
There has to be an investigation, and I am glad
that for a change, there is a bipartisan push from
the Armed Services Committee to get to the bottom of this.
So to be an investigation, I think he needs to
be asked under oath, did you give the order to
kill any survivors? And if you didn't give the order,
what was the order? Why did the admiral think that
he was supposed to kill people clinging to wreckage? The
(03:59):
idea that these people were still a threat. It's a
debate whether they were ever a threat. They're on a
motor boat two thousand miles from our coast. If you
want to take that motor boat to the closest point
of entry, in Miami. You probably have to fill it
up twenty times. These motorboats can't go two thousand miles
on a tank of gas. If there was drugs on board.
They may be going to other countries, but probably not
(04:21):
to the US.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
So the whole thing is.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Just remarkable that in our country we would allow this
to happen.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
Senator Senator Schumer has asked for footage of these strikes
to be released.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Is that something that you would support. Yes, we need
to see the footage, We need to hear the audio.
The Secretary of Defenses now said that he left the room.
That's fine, But the whole idea is the Admiral's not
just making these decisions.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Without an order.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
The order came from the Secretary of Defense. And then
I hear some of my colleagues in the hallway just saying, oh, no.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Big too.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
We do this all the t Whenever we bomb people,
we just do a second tap on them.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Man, if they're moving, we go back and hit them again.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Well, if it's soldiers with guns shooting our soldiers, I'm
fine with that, but this is a pretense of a war.
They've just said, oh, we call these people in these
boats Narco terrace, So we can kill them without any
kind of proof, without any kind of just fashi gup
because we say so, because we say it's a war.
This is insane, This isn't a war. These people don't
(05:29):
We don't even know if they're armed or we've killed
eighty people, Are any of them armed? What are their names?
What is it they're transporting? All these people going off saying, oh,
Fentel's killing people. I know people have died of Fennel.
I have a great deal sympathy. I know a family
lost two sons defendant. I have sympathy for that. There's
no evidence there's any fentyl on this boat. There's no
(05:50):
evidence that any fentanyl comes from Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Zero.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
There is fentyl come out of Mexico. But since we're
blowing these boats up, maybe we're taking our eye off
the border in Mexican go. So the whole thing is
a pretense and a prelude to war in Venezuela, and
I hope it doesn't happen.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Senator, you've said previously that you've received not one briefing
on Venezuela. In your eyes, does the administration have a
coherent strategy? On this issue, and how does it square
with the President and the administration's America first posture, this
idea that they were going to keep America out of
ever increasing foreign entinglements.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
The one thing I've always liked about Donald Trump, and
the reason I've supported him and still do support him,
is that I think his instincts towards less intervention and
less foreign war have been sincere He's been against the
Iraq War for several decades before it happened, and after
it happened, he was against the war in Libya that
Obama took us into. So those were legitimate ideas that
(06:48):
are jegitimate part of America first. But this idea of
invading Venezuela, I think comes from the Secretary of State
who's long wanted regime change there.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Now, if you could wave.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
A wand and have regime change where there's adversaries we
don't like, we would do it for China, we would
do it for Columbia, we would do it for all
the countries that have ten socialist dictators.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
But we don't do that because the.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
End result of regime change often is more chaos or
chaos worse even than the authoritarianism they live under.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Well, I'm getting confused here, Senator, because there was also
a pardon that the administration announced this week former Honduras
President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted for pushing hundreds
of tons of cocaine into this country. If we're concerned
about the drug trade in America, why would the administration
(07:42):
pursue this pardon.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Oh, didn't they tell you he's not an arco terrorist?
Speaker 3 (07:49):
And I'm being facetious.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
I heard the President say today that it was a
Biden hoax, that it was Biden overreached.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
So you don't support this part. So here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
If they say he's not a narco terrorist, he's not
a threat to America, and maybe he was falsely accused.
And I say that facetiously because it gets to the
point of if they label you a narco terrorist, they
can kill you without trial. But if they say you're
not a narco terrorist, you can be given a pardon,
even though you have been convicted. Even though he's gloated
(08:19):
over all the people he's loaded with drugs, including some
who have probably and inevitably have died in our country,
but he's okay because the administration does not label him
and sell him a narco terrorist.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
It gets to the whole problem of this.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
So I have brought forward with Senator Cain on a
couple of occasions, and we'll do again the idea that
we have to debate whether this is war. There is
a lower standard for rules of engagement in war. But
they say it's not war. But then they say, what
kind of is war? Because we've labeled a narco terrorists
and they are designated to be foreign terrorists, so you
(08:54):
can kill them without any proof because their enemy combatants.
But if you try to have a vote in Congress
as to whether it's war, said, we can't have that
because this is our prerogative. But then you get into
the lunacy of well, Orlando Hernandez is not a narco terrorist,
but these guys who we don't know their name and
we presented no proof they're narco terrorists. It's absolutely and
(09:17):
utterly insane, Senator.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Republicans have often been hesitant to push back on the
administration's policy moves. How optimistic are you that Republicans will
be able to come together, find some unity on this
issue and provide oversight on this issue of the boat
strikes and the posture towards Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
I'm encouraged that the Arms Services Committee is going to
do an investigation.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
That is a bipartisan thing.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
The Republican Chairman Wicker is going forward with an investigation.
I hope they will demand the actual footage and the
audio of what happened during that strike. These are strikes
that are going out without the approval of Congress, at
the very least after the fact. They ought to show
us the actual video, the actual footage, and the actual audio.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
And we should hear.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Under oath from the admiral that gave the order, and
hear under oath from the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I got to ask you about healthcare, Senator. Just a
couple of hours ago. You probably saw this, the President
posting on truth Social what appears to be a screen
grab of a text that you sent him.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Is that real?
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Just for starters, is that a text that you sent
the president?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
I did, and I've engaged with the President because I've
worked with him before and still want to work with
the president. In the first administration, I engaged with him
on something called association health plans. These are group plans
that individuals can buy so For example, the biggest problem
we have in healthcare is that if you're a small
business person, say you're an accountant and you have three
employees you want to buy insurance, you go into the
(10:47):
individual market and you have no leverage, and if one
of your employees gets cancer or you get cancer, they
jack up the risk for your really small risk pool. Instead,
what I'm proposing is you should be allowed to go
anywhere where you want to buy insurance across state lines,
including places like Costco, Sam's Club, Amazon, and then if
you became one of millions of people buying insurance, Amazon
(11:11):
or Costco would negotiate directly with the insurance company and say, look,
I got ten million people want insurance, and I'm negotiating
for them, and all of a sudden they become the
large they become the largest entity in America, and they'll
drive the prices down. The problem with Obamacare, although well
intended to help people, is when you give people money
to buy insurance. As insurance rates are going up, you
(11:32):
say I'll give you more one thousand dollars, then I'll
give you five, then I give you ten. You just
keep chasing the rates higher because you're artificially increasing the
demand and the price just goes hired and has it
worked so Originally President Obama said prices will go down
twenty five hundred dollars within I don't know a year
or two of Obamacare, and the exact opposite has happened.
(11:53):
So if we continue to do this, it won't get better.
We're chasing in our tail, we're chasing inflation, and so
well we need is leverage and to allow the marketplace
work to work to bid down prices. My plan would
also let everybody have an HSA, and it would let
you purchase your health insurance out of an HSA. So
as you save money and you're able to purchase your
(12:15):
insurance out of it, there would be a possibility, particularly
over time, that you might be able to a crew
enough money that you would be able to get larger
and larger deductible because you have a big savings account
to cover your deductible.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Just to understand for our viewers and listeners here, Senator,
do you need the President now that you're pitching him
on this, to say which plan yours or bil cassidys
should be pursued here and will this get a floor vote?
When that happens.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
It's the debate.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
We're having this debate right now within our caucus. Others
in my caucus want to take the Obamacare money and
stick it in your HSA. That to means another form
of Obamacare, and I'm not really for that. I'm for
letting you save your own money in your HSA and
letting ninety percent of people who don't have an HSA
get one, and then let you negotiate through a buying
quote co op like Amazon to get lower prices.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky with a sun balance
of power
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.