September 30, 2024 • 29 mins
U.S. speeds approval of citizenship applications as election nears. Newsom signs California law banning medical debt from credit reports. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty and this is KFI AM six forty Bill Handle.
It is a Monday morning, September thirtieth.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Nice weather weather today, so we're going in through that
period of time. You know, we had insane range during
the rainy season. We had heat that was ridiculous. I
just did a story on recess and why kids can't
even go out in the middle of the day when
they're at school.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Also, a Hurricane Helena.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
It did as much damage and caused as much death
as we thought it was going to and they still
don't know how many people, even though one hundred and sixteen.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Have already died.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Now, a couple of things that happened. The Governor Gavin
Newsom veto to Bill I talked about earlier, and that
was regarding AI and this one. He signed a bill
that not only makes sense, the only question here why
did it take so long? Medical debt will no longer
(01:06):
show up on your credit report. And this was effective
Tuesday when Governor Newsom signed a bill that says that
your medical debt does not show up on your credit report.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Healthcare providers as well.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
As collection agencies contracted collection agencies cannot share a patient's
medical debt with a credit reporting agencies. Eight states so
far have banned medical bills from consumer credit reports in
the past two years, California joining that right now, actually
an effect of January first. Now, the Biden administration proposed
(01:46):
similar protections, but we don't know where that's going. We
don't know if those ruels are even going to be
enacted or if a former president Donald Trump, and we
don't know which way he's going, whether the protections will
go so federally.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
And here is the difference, and here.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Is why your medical bills should not go on your
credit report, because even if you keep your credit up,
medical bills can be so astronomical that there's no way
you can pay them off, or if so, you pay
them off over years, and if you're thirty days late, right, boom,
(02:27):
it hits your credit report. If you're sixty or ninety year,
ninety days late, it hits your credit report.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
If they've charged it off, it hits your credit report.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
And that is no fun because try to get an apartment,
try to get a car loan, try to get a
loan to buy a house at a reasonable interest rate,
if it shows you owe two hundred thousand dollars or
one hundred thousand dollars or twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
And here why it makes so much sense.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Number one, the medical bills are so high people are
inevitably going to be laid on them. And unlike other
kinds of debt, no one goes out and gets into
debt because they are buying their overreaching, they're buying a car,
they're buying clothes, spending money that they shouldn't spend where
(03:25):
they make a conscious choice. Medical debt is a very
different animal. Medical debt hits you hard, hits you heavy,
and you really can't do anything about it. So this
bill at least says that medical debt cannot show up.
And by the way, what is that If you have
(03:45):
good credit in general other than medical debt, what does
that tell you or what does that tell a lender
about who you are? However, what ends up happening is
there so many automatic applicatation issues.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
There are algorithms out there.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
You apply for a loan and it doesn't go through
a loan officer, it goes through a computer program which
immediately notes, oh my god, you're in debt and you
owe money and you haven't paid it, or you haven't
paid enough, or you haven't paid it quickly enough. Boom,
you're already put in that category that you're a flake.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
And that's just not fair.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
So the three largest US credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experience, TransUnion,
said they're going to stop listing some medical debt one
including paid off debts and those that are less than
five hundred dollars. But there is a loophole big enough
to drive a truck through. And that is and this
(04:47):
is what the debt people, the hospitals, et cetera, have
been able to at least they were able to secure
and keep themselves protected if you want to call it protection,
and that is if you get a medical credit card,
you set up a card with your hospital and medical
(05:11):
medical provider, or you go out and get a loan
specifically for the purpose of paying off your medical debt,
then they can report it. Then the exception kicks in
and so at least we're halfway there, and that has
(05:32):
to be expanded. And it's one of those things that
make are so destructive. Medical debt. Of course, if we
have a national health plan, which they call Medicare for All.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Which is basically national health, all of that stops.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
No one needs protection because all the bills are paid
through well, the government, and your taxes pay for it.
Makes sense to me, But then I'm on my soapbox,
and I have been for years, ever since I started broadcasting,
I have been on that soapbox.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
But at least this is a way to get going.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
By the way, if you are part of Kaiser, and
it's probably the best HMO in the country, Kaiser is
basically National Health brought down into a specific HMO. You
don't have much medical debt. You just don't depending on
the plan you know. You just don't have many deductions,
(06:32):
you don't have many copays. And believe me, I've got
to tell you, I've had two big surgeries, three big
surgeries with Kaiser too, heart one back in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars, and I have great credit. It
wouldn't happen that way if I'm stuck with a four
hundred thousand dollars bill, which I would be, by the way,
(06:54):
based on those surgeries that I had, Kaiser's lost a lot.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Of money with me.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
By the way, I'm pleased to say I have. It's
like going to and all you can be eat buffet.
You know, when you eat as much as Neil and
I do, they lose a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
On us, don't they kneel? And how okay?
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Coming up before we go to do they have a case?
Newsom signs no, do they are? We we're at eight fifteen. Oh,
I'm now going to do the approval of citizenship application.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
As the electioneers, I've sort of conflated the two. Just
call me Brian Williams.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Now the vote Right November, we have the presidential the election,
and what is going on. Well, there are more immigrants
getting their citizenship than usual, and there are two reasons
for that. One of them, well, let me tell you
(07:57):
what the accusations are. The Republicans and and President former
President Trump are saying the reason that the State Department,
actually Department of Homeland Security is speeding up the applications
and speeding up the granting of citizenship is so immigrants
can vote. And since new citizens generally vote democratic, not
(08:20):
to a huge degree, but they do skew democratic and
so therefore, here's the allegation that is why the State
Department is speeding up the granting of citizenship. Now, let
me tell you what the FEDS are saying Department of
(08:42):
Homeland Security is that it has been working for years
to speed up the applications, particularly it was terrible during COVID,
and so this is a long term plan to simply
speed the applications coming through the backlag during COVID was
nine hundred and thirty thousand applications.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
It is about half of that.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
It used to take an average of almost a year
for the application to be processed.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Now it's taking half of that. So that is one reason.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
And the administration is saying this has nothing at all
to do with the fact that there is a presidential
coming up.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
It happens to be pure coincidence. Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Now, former President Trump and Republican his Republican allies have
been repeating claims that the Democrats are admitting immigrants to
allow them to vote unlawfully. We've gone through all that
that these immigrants, by the thousands, by the millions, are
being admitted into the United States, the holy issue of
our border security, and the reason so many immigrants are
(09:56):
being allowed in illegal immigrants is so they can illegally vote.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I mean, that's kind of a stretch. But you know,
even to the point where.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
The funding bill that did pass, House Speaker Mike Johnson
try to insert that GOP proposal to require states to
obtain proof of US citizenship when people register. And for
many years that hasn't been the case. And it was
a former President Trump pushing that and saying, stop the
(10:28):
funding of the United States government. Just stop it because
I want that inserted. And even the Republicans for the
most part and Democrats said no.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
So that funding bill went through without that.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
And what happens is and here's another thing that happens
is during the course of a presidential there is an
uptick in immigration and application for citizenship. It's just that
immigrants are appreciating that there is an election coming up
(11:01):
and they want to grab the opportunity to make their
vote count or to vote.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
And here are the rules. You get a green card.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Five years after the green card, you can apply and
get your US citizenship.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
And I remember, and I was eleven years old when this.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Happened, and that is my parents came in with a
green card and they were given the green card in
some Paul of Brazil. In those days, you actually get
it at the consulate, and that's still the case.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
In many cases.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
They were given their green card, came into the United
States five years and one day after they got their
green card, they applied for US citizenship. They wanted to vote,
and they did, and they were able to vote as immigrants.
(11:55):
Now it just so happens in their case. Former President
Trump is absolutely right in that they skewed Democrats. My
parents were so liberal I called them knee jerk democrats
to they had so much knee jerk in them that
they jerked both knees up at the same time and
fell on their asses. The point is they came in
(12:19):
this country and took the first opportunity to vote, and
therein lies the accusation that this is why there's an uptick,
and this is why this administration is speeding up as.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Much as it can the granting of citizenship. That is
a croc.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Just to let you know, the plan to speed up
immigration started before Joe Biden became president. It's something that
has gone on for years to make it as accessible
as possible, because one of the things this country wants
is people who have green cards should be part of
(13:00):
the American landscape. If you come here and you get
a green card, then that becomes a path to citizenship,
and that is something that we want. Unless they tend
to vote one party or another, then all of a sudden,
the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Is a plan.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
It's a scam, it's a conspiracy. Well, I don't buy
that at all. I really don't. I think people want
to be citizens, and I think anything the government can
do to speed it up. And it just so happens
because of money that was funded to the State Department,
Department of Homeland Security. Actually the issues the passports now
and the plan was long in coming to speed up
(13:42):
the process where people can become US citizens.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
It's a good thing. It's a good thing. Now. Am
I thrilled about illegal immigrants? No? Do they vote, Not
in any numbers. They just don't vote.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
I appen to be a fan of producing, I really do.
I am a fan of Hey, you got to be
a citizen to vote. Those are the rules. But on
the other hand, and those people that argue the other
side say there is no big fraud here. Green card
(14:18):
holders don't vote. Illegal immigrants don't vote. Why Because number one,
they know what the rules are and they want to stay.
Because someone holding a green card can be deported tomorrow
afternoon for committing a crime, for example, registering to vote
or trying to vote. If the FEDS know that that's
(14:41):
happening out, you can go. Once you're a citizen, you're here.
You are the same as anybody born here. As much
as you want me to be deported back to Brazil,
you can't do a thing about it. I am a
US citizen. I was naturalized when I was eleven years old.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
And it is.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Time for Wayne Resnick. Do they have a case? So Waine,
let's just jump right into it, because you know, we
generally run out of time because we have such a
good time doing.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
This, all right, So let me tell you about doctor
Ronald Hines.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
He is a veteran and a veterinarian, and he's eighty
years old and he's been a licensed veterinarian for like
fifty years.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
He's worked all over the place.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
He's very expert, and he had unfortunately an accident and
he was declared completely disabled by the VA, so he
couldn't really have a live practice anymore. But what he
started to do from his home is he would answer
emails and take telecalls from people all around the country.
(15:54):
Who had issues with their pets, and he would help
them out until the State of Texas came to him
and said, you are not allowed to do this because
in Texas the law says you have to first establish
a veterinarian client patient relationship before you can engage in
the practice of veterinary medicine. And the only way you
(16:17):
can do it is to examine the animal or go
to the place where the animal is, which obviously he
can do neither of those. And he said, Okay, here's
what I will do instead. I'm not gonna stop helping people.
What I'll do is I'll put on my website a
big disclaimer that I am not engaging in the practice
(16:39):
of veterinary medicine and I'm not offering any specific diagnoses
or treatments. How about that in the State of Texas said,
absolutely not. They put him on probation for his veterinary license.
They find him five hundred dollars, and they made him
retake part of the licensing exam that had to do
with the laws about the practice of veterinary medicine. He
(17:01):
decided he's going to sue the State of Texas for
violating his First Amendment rights. He has a right to
talk to people about their pets and give his advice
about their pets. So the lower court didn't seem to
really even want to listen to him very much, dismissed
the case.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
You have no case.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
He goes up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which I know you know is a very conservative court
of appeals.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Which way did they go for the good doctor? Wow,
interesting case.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
I want to just throw something out very quickly, and
that is because the lower court usually says no on something.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
In my case, I was attacking.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
The spermid over law in California, of which I had
a winner.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
The lower court, the judge, who I had knew, just said, Bill,
this is beyond my pay grade.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
I'm denying, and you just take it up and let
the guys above me make a decision. And that quite
often happens. And I'm guessing the lower court felt the
same way here, and that is defining the practice of medicine.
I think he wins because giving general information and not
specifically as to your pet is very different than practicing
(18:22):
veterinary medicine. I would argue the same thing with the law.
You cannot give advice as to the law. You're not
a license attorney. By the way, it's a miracle that
I am. People don't even know how I got there.
But unlike me that can give specific advice wrong. Usually
if I were to call you, you are allowed to
(18:46):
state this.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Is the law.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
And I think if he limits himself to that, I
think he's okay. By the way, the other issue is
is giving advice over the internet specifically, would that be allowed?
Because effectively what they're saying is you can't do telemedicine,
(19:10):
which how if that were the case, then it becomes
real problematic because you have to bring in.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
The dog the cat, and if.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
You're in Springfield, Ohio, you want to do it before
you eat the cat.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Oh No, you really did say that, didn't you.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Of course I did. Interesting point you, bro, I think
he wins.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
That was one of the side notes here is that
the court pointed out that it's perfectly legal for a
MD to have a telehealth visit with a lot with
a human being, and yet somehow the agency that regulates
the veterinary medicine will not allow this. So it really
boiled down to this, are they regulating his speech or
(19:58):
are they regulating his conduct. The state says, we're not
regulating his speech. This regulates professional conduct. Except they never
said he was violating the laws by looking at the emails,
looking at videos pets that people would send in, or telling.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Or like showing how to put a splint.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
On a bird, which is a real thing that happened
that he did once that had a bird that needed
a splint, and he showed the person how to do it.
The only thing that got him in trouble was communicating
with the people. Therefore, he said, it regulates my speech.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Not my conduct. My speech is the only thing.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
That's an interesting spin on that. Because I would have
gone the other way completely. I would have argued the
law the telemedicine, the definition of what a veterinary practice is.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
I mean, I would have gone across the board with that.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
So based on us the first Amendment, I still think
that as long as he is not giving specific medical advice,
he's okay.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
It's totally okay, Okay, he wins big time. The Fifth
Circuit did not like the law in Texas. They did
not like the veterinary board in Texas. They made that
very clear in their opinion. They started the opinion this
is the very first sentence of the opinion. Today we
uphold doctor Hine's First Amendment rights. And then they go
(21:31):
on to land base the state for their stupidness. So yes,
he and listen, what if it was I at thirty
five year old dude who'd never served the military and
wasn't this wonderful person, would they have ruled differently? Because
I feel like it certainly helped that he's an eighty
(21:52):
year old veteran who was disabled and still wants to
help people and is a long time, very excellent veteran.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Yeah, but they would never mention that in the decision.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
No, of course, not that would not happen. Okay, good
one for one.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
I like that case.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
There were a lot of issues on that one. Great
fun all.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Right, here's a case about a bulge.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
So this guy's on a Greyhound bus and it pulls
into a station in Albuquerque, and a drug task force
gets on the bus and they start talking.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
To people where you go and where you're coming from.
What's up.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
They're just seeing if anybody is maybe suspicious. And this guy,
who may not realize what's happening, he takes his backpack
and he puts it under the seat, which the agent
notices and thinks, oh, maybe he's trying to hide that
backpack or disassociate himself from that backpack. So he goes
(22:50):
to talk to the guy. They have a little conversation,
and first the guy says, oh, I don't have any luggage.
I don't have anything under the bus. I don't have
a backpack. And the agent goes, well, I saw you
put the backpack under the seat. So he goes, oh,
I guess I do have a backpack. So they get
the backpack out and he says, can I look in
the backpack? And the guy says, sure, look in the backpack,
(23:10):
and he starts going.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Through the backpack. The guy, not the agent.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
He pull He goes, yeah, you can look in my backpack,
and then he starts going through his own backpack, which
is another suspicious thing.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
The police will call this a self search.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
This is where maybe you're gonna see if you can
get something out of there. In any event, he finally
the agent reaches into the backpack and he feels around
and he finds a black bundle and he feels this
black bundle and it feels hard to him and a
(23:46):
little crinkily, and he forms the opinion that perhaps.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
It's drugs in this black bundle.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
So they get the guy off the bus and they
take him in the DEA office and they search the backpack,
and to make a long story shortness to this part,
oh yeah, he had some methamphetamine in there. And he
went to federal court and he said, you have to
suppress this evidence that you got you or you didn't
have any probable cause to search my backpack.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
You didn't have it on.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
The bus, you still didn't have it when we were
at the DEA office.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
You had no probable cause.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
And the agent lays out all the reasons that he
felt he had probable cause.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
The putting the backpack under.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
The seat, the self searching of the backpack, the lying
about having a backpack? Did I mention Bill? I didn't
because I wanted to be a surprise. He was traveling
under a fake identity. So the agent says, based on
all of that, I've probable cause. And the lower court says, yeah,
he has probable cause. Leave this agent alone. But this
(24:51):
guy says, here's what I'll do. I'll plead guilty. I'll
plet guilty conditionally, I have a right to appeal. The
denial of the suppression of the evidence. And if I win,
then there's no case. And if I lose, well, then
I'm already getting a head start. I guess on my guilt.
So it goes up to the ten Circuit Court of Appeals,
and at that point he gets a pretty savvy lawyer
(25:14):
who says, hey, the.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Guy did not have.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
The right to search the backpack because at that point
he had no probable cause. He had some suspicious behavior,
but he didn't really have probable cause. And the exception
to needing a warrant is the plane view idea, which
(25:41):
is if you if a cop, if you're legally where
you can see it, and you see it and what
it is is obviously illegal, and.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
You also are legally allowed to.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Access it, then you can take something and you don't
need a warrant. And this guy's lawyer says, this was
just a black bundle.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
He felt it.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
He could not have deduced anything about it by looking
at it. He felt it up, and that's a bridge
too far. That's a search. Feeling a bundle is a search.
And he had no probable cause and he didn't have
a warrant, so he shouldn't have searched and he shouldn't
even have arrested the guy. What do you think the
(26:35):
circuit court said.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
I think that the fellow had the argument of no
probable cause from the minute the cop started and argued
putting a backpack underneath the seat. I don't think that's
enough unless he acted furtively and he acted light, there
(27:00):
was a problem there where a cop, a reasonable pop
cop would say, oh, yeah, he was really suspicious.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
I think that would fly as opposed to my opinion.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Then the issue is as far as feeling the crinkly
I think that works in favor of the dea because
if he is if he has given the pack by
the defendant, I think that's the case, right, it was
handed to him, or he went into the backpacking.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
The agent went and got it, but the guy did consent.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Okay with that, I think feeling the package where it
is crinkly and it is hard and that's typically how
drugs are packed, I think that is enough for his search.
So if it turns out that, I think I would
attack it at the very beginning and say there was
(27:56):
no probable cause and that stopped everything and everything else,
no matter how legal it appeared, it's it's all tainted
and the suppression works.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
That's what I would say. So the guy wins.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Yes, I say, the guy wins, Andy wins with the
ten circuit.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
And they said it was it was feeling the bundle
was an illegal search.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You can look at it, okay, but you can't. You
can't be touching it.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
And and the standard is this, if a cop touches
your stuff in a way that you would never expect
an ordinary person to do, then that's a search. So
you would not expect another passenger on the bus to
come over and start feeling your bundle.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
But he felt the bundle, Okay, I would okay that part.
That part I would disagree.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
But if they ruled on that issue and not on
the initial issue of he put the he put the backpack.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Under the seat, did the court even discuss that issue.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Well, the weird thing is it doesn't matter because once
they found that it was an illegal search, the thing
is suppressed. Now they would have to try try him
again on a drug charge with no drugs.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Fair enough, all right, So I didn't do too badly today.
Two for two, Wayne, Thank you. We'll catch you again
next Monday. In the meantime, we're over we're done. We
come back again tomorrow five am with Amy and wake
Up Call.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Neil and I join.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
From six to nine and show that's cleverly entitled The
Bill Handle Show. And then kno and and of course
are always with us. This is KFI AM six forty
Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty and this is KFI AM six forty Bill Handle.
It is a Monday morning, September thirtieth.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Nice weather weather today, so we're going in through that
period of time. You know, we had insane range during
the rainy season. We had heat that was ridiculous. I
just did a story on recess and why kids can't
even go out in the middle of the day when
they're at school.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Also, a Hurricane Helena.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
It did as much damage and caused as much death
as we thought it was going to and they still
don't know how many people, even though one hundred and sixteen.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Have already died.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Now, a couple of things that happened. The Governor Gavin
Newsom veto to Bill I talked about earlier, and that
was regarding AI and this one. He signed a bill
that not only makes sense, the only question here why
did it take so long? Medical debt will no longer
(01:06):
show up on your credit report. And this was effective
Tuesday when Governor Newsom signed a bill that says that
your medical debt does not show up on your credit report.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Healthcare providers as well.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
As collection agencies contracted collection agencies cannot share a patient's
medical debt with a credit reporting agencies. Eight states so
far have banned medical bills from consumer credit reports in
the past two years, California joining that right now, actually
an effect of January first. Now, the Biden administration proposed
(01:46):
similar protections, but we don't know where that's going. We
don't know if those ruels are even going to be
enacted or if a former president Donald Trump, and we
don't know which way he's going, whether the protections will
go so federally.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
And here is the difference, and here.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Is why your medical bills should not go on your
credit report, because even if you keep your credit up,
medical bills can be so astronomical that there's no way
you can pay them off, or if so, you pay
them off over years, and if you're thirty days late, right, boom,
(02:27):
it hits your credit report. If you're sixty or ninety year,
ninety days late, it hits your credit report.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
If they've charged it off, it hits your credit report.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
And that is no fun because try to get an apartment,
try to get a car loan, try to get a
loan to buy a house at a reasonable interest rate,
if it shows you owe two hundred thousand dollars or
one hundred thousand dollars or twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
And here why it makes so much sense.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Number one, the medical bills are so high people are
inevitably going to be laid on them. And unlike other
kinds of debt, no one goes out and gets into
debt because they are buying their overreaching, they're buying a car,
they're buying clothes, spending money that they shouldn't spend where
(03:25):
they make a conscious choice. Medical debt is a very
different animal. Medical debt hits you hard, hits you heavy,
and you really can't do anything about it. So this
bill at least says that medical debt cannot show up.
And by the way, what is that If you have
(03:45):
good credit in general other than medical debt, what does
that tell you or what does that tell a lender
about who you are? However, what ends up happening is
there so many automatic applicatation issues.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
There are algorithms out there.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
You apply for a loan and it doesn't go through
a loan officer, it goes through a computer program which
immediately notes, oh my god, you're in debt and you
owe money and you haven't paid it, or you haven't
paid enough, or you haven't paid it quickly enough. Boom,
you're already put in that category that you're a flake.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
And that's just not fair.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
So the three largest US credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experience, TransUnion,
said they're going to stop listing some medical debt one
including paid off debts and those that are less than
five hundred dollars. But there is a loophole big enough
to drive a truck through. And that is and this
(04:47):
is what the debt people, the hospitals, et cetera, have
been able to at least they were able to secure
and keep themselves protected if you want to call it protection,
and that is if you get a medical credit card,
you set up a card with your hospital and medical
(05:11):
medical provider, or you go out and get a loan
specifically for the purpose of paying off your medical debt,
then they can report it. Then the exception kicks in
and so at least we're halfway there, and that has
(05:32):
to be expanded. And it's one of those things that
make are so destructive. Medical debt. Of course, if we
have a national health plan, which they call Medicare for All.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Which is basically national health, all of that stops.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
No one needs protection because all the bills are paid
through well, the government, and your taxes pay for it.
Makes sense to me, But then I'm on my soapbox,
and I have been for years, ever since I started broadcasting,
I have been on that soapbox.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
But at least this is a way to get going.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
By the way, if you are part of Kaiser, and
it's probably the best HMO in the country, Kaiser is
basically National Health brought down into a specific HMO. You
don't have much medical debt. You just don't depending on
the plan you know. You just don't have many deductions,
(06:32):
you don't have many copays. And believe me, I've got
to tell you, I've had two big surgeries, three big
surgeries with Kaiser too, heart one back in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars, and I have great credit. It
wouldn't happen that way if I'm stuck with a four
hundred thousand dollars bill, which I would be, by the way,
(06:54):
based on those surgeries that I had, Kaiser's lost a lot.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Of money with me.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
By the way, I'm pleased to say I have. It's
like going to and all you can be eat buffet.
You know, when you eat as much as Neil and
I do, they lose a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
On us, don't they kneel? And how okay?
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Coming up before we go to do they have a case?
Newsom signs no, do they are? We we're at eight fifteen. Oh,
I'm now going to do the approval of citizenship application.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
As the electioneers, I've sort of conflated the two. Just
call me Brian Williams.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Now the vote Right November, we have the presidential the election,
and what is going on. Well, there are more immigrants
getting their citizenship than usual, and there are two reasons
for that. One of them, well, let me tell you
(07:57):
what the accusations are. The Republicans and and President former
President Trump are saying the reason that the State Department,
actually Department of Homeland Security is speeding up the applications
and speeding up the granting of citizenship is so immigrants
can vote. And since new citizens generally vote democratic, not
(08:20):
to a huge degree, but they do skew democratic and
so therefore, here's the allegation that is why the State
Department is speeding up the granting of citizenship. Now, let
me tell you what the FEDS are saying Department of
(08:42):
Homeland Security is that it has been working for years
to speed up the applications, particularly it was terrible during COVID,
and so this is a long term plan to simply
speed the applications coming through the backlag during COVID was
nine hundred and thirty thousand applications.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
It is about half of that.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
It used to take an average of almost a year
for the application to be processed.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Now it's taking half of that. So that is one reason.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
And the administration is saying this has nothing at all
to do with the fact that there is a presidential
coming up.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
It happens to be pure coincidence. Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Now, former President Trump and Republican his Republican allies have
been repeating claims that the Democrats are admitting immigrants to
allow them to vote unlawfully. We've gone through all that
that these immigrants, by the thousands, by the millions, are
being admitted into the United States, the holy issue of
our border security, and the reason so many immigrants are
(09:56):
being allowed in illegal immigrants is so they can illegally vote.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I mean, that's kind of a stretch. But you know,
even to the point where.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
The funding bill that did pass, House Speaker Mike Johnson
try to insert that GOP proposal to require states to
obtain proof of US citizenship when people register. And for
many years that hasn't been the case. And it was
a former President Trump pushing that and saying, stop the
(10:28):
funding of the United States government. Just stop it because
I want that inserted. And even the Republicans for the
most part and Democrats said no.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
So that funding bill went through without that.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
And what happens is and here's another thing that happens
is during the course of a presidential there is an
uptick in immigration and application for citizenship. It's just that
immigrants are appreciating that there is an election coming up
(11:01):
and they want to grab the opportunity to make their
vote count or to vote.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
And here are the rules. You get a green card.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Five years after the green card, you can apply and
get your US citizenship.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
And I remember, and I was eleven years old when this.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Happened, and that is my parents came in with a
green card and they were given the green card in
some Paul of Brazil. In those days, you actually get
it at the consulate, and that's still the case.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
In many cases.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
They were given their green card, came into the United
States five years and one day after they got their
green card, they applied for US citizenship. They wanted to vote,
and they did, and they were able to vote as immigrants.
(11:55):
Now it just so happens in their case. Former President
Trump is absolutely right in that they skewed Democrats. My
parents were so liberal I called them knee jerk democrats
to they had so much knee jerk in them that
they jerked both knees up at the same time and
fell on their asses. The point is they came in
(12:19):
this country and took the first opportunity to vote, and
therein lies the accusation that this is why there's an uptick,
and this is why this administration is speeding up as.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Much as it can the granting of citizenship. That is
a croc.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Just to let you know, the plan to speed up
immigration started before Joe Biden became president. It's something that
has gone on for years to make it as accessible
as possible, because one of the things this country wants
is people who have green cards should be part of
(13:00):
the American landscape. If you come here and you get
a green card, then that becomes a path to citizenship,
and that is something that we want. Unless they tend
to vote one party or another, then all of a sudden,
the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Is a plan.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
It's a scam, it's a conspiracy. Well, I don't buy
that at all. I really don't. I think people want
to be citizens, and I think anything the government can
do to speed it up. And it just so happens
because of money that was funded to the State Department,
Department of Homeland Security. Actually the issues the passports now
and the plan was long in coming to speed up
(13:42):
the process where people can become US citizens.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
It's a good thing. It's a good thing. Now. Am
I thrilled about illegal immigrants? No? Do they vote, Not
in any numbers. They just don't vote.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
I appen to be a fan of producing, I really do.
I am a fan of Hey, you got to be
a citizen to vote. Those are the rules. But on
the other hand, and those people that argue the other
side say there is no big fraud here. Green card
(14:18):
holders don't vote. Illegal immigrants don't vote. Why Because number one,
they know what the rules are and they want to stay.
Because someone holding a green card can be deported tomorrow
afternoon for committing a crime, for example, registering to vote
or trying to vote. If the FEDS know that that's
(14:41):
happening out, you can go. Once you're a citizen, you're here.
You are the same as anybody born here. As much
as you want me to be deported back to Brazil,
you can't do a thing about it. I am a
US citizen. I was naturalized when I was eleven years old.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
And it is.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Time for Wayne Resnick. Do they have a case? So Waine,
let's just jump right into it, because you know, we
generally run out of time because we have such a
good time doing.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
This, all right, So let me tell you about doctor
Ronald Hines.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
He is a veteran and a veterinarian, and he's eighty
years old and he's been a licensed veterinarian for like
fifty years.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
He's worked all over the place.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
He's very expert, and he had unfortunately an accident and
he was declared completely disabled by the VA, so he
couldn't really have a live practice anymore. But what he
started to do from his home is he would answer
emails and take telecalls from people all around the country.
(15:54):
Who had issues with their pets, and he would help
them out until the State of Texas came to him
and said, you are not allowed to do this because
in Texas the law says you have to first establish
a veterinarian client patient relationship before you can engage in
the practice of veterinary medicine. And the only way you
(16:17):
can do it is to examine the animal or go
to the place where the animal is, which obviously he
can do neither of those. And he said, Okay, here's
what I will do instead. I'm not gonna stop helping people.
What I'll do is I'll put on my website a
big disclaimer that I am not engaging in the practice
(16:39):
of veterinary medicine and I'm not offering any specific diagnoses
or treatments. How about that in the State of Texas said,
absolutely not. They put him on probation for his veterinary license.
They find him five hundred dollars, and they made him
retake part of the licensing exam that had to do
with the laws about the practice of veterinary medicine. He
(17:01):
decided he's going to sue the State of Texas for
violating his First Amendment rights. He has a right to
talk to people about their pets and give his advice
about their pets. So the lower court didn't seem to
really even want to listen to him very much, dismissed
the case.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
You have no case.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
He goes up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which I know you know is a very conservative court
of appeals.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Which way did they go for the good doctor? Wow,
interesting case.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
I want to just throw something out very quickly, and
that is because the lower court usually says no on something.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
In my case, I was attacking.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
The spermid over law in California, of which I had
a winner.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
The lower court, the judge, who I had knew, just said, Bill,
this is beyond my pay grade.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
I'm denying, and you just take it up and let
the guys above me make a decision. And that quite
often happens. And I'm guessing the lower court felt the
same way here, and that is defining the practice of medicine.
I think he wins because giving general information and not
specifically as to your pet is very different than practicing
(18:22):
veterinary medicine. I would argue the same thing with the law.
You cannot give advice as to the law. You're not
a license attorney. By the way, it's a miracle that
I am. People don't even know how I got there.
But unlike me that can give specific advice wrong. Usually
if I were to call you, you are allowed to
(18:46):
state this.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Is the law.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
And I think if he limits himself to that, I
think he's okay. By the way, the other issue is
is giving advice over the internet specifically, would that be allowed?
Because effectively what they're saying is you can't do telemedicine,
(19:10):
which how if that were the case, then it becomes
real problematic because you have to bring in.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
The dog the cat, and if.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
You're in Springfield, Ohio, you want to do it before
you eat the cat.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Oh No, you really did say that, didn't you.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Of course I did. Interesting point you, bro, I think
he wins.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
That was one of the side notes here is that
the court pointed out that it's perfectly legal for a
MD to have a telehealth visit with a lot with
a human being, and yet somehow the agency that regulates
the veterinary medicine will not allow this. So it really
boiled down to this, are they regulating his speech or
(19:58):
are they regulating his conduct. The state says, we're not
regulating his speech. This regulates professional conduct. Except they never
said he was violating the laws by looking at the emails,
looking at videos pets that people would send in, or telling.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Or like showing how to put a splint.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
On a bird, which is a real thing that happened
that he did once that had a bird that needed
a splint, and he showed the person how to do it.
The only thing that got him in trouble was communicating
with the people. Therefore, he said, it regulates my speech.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Not my conduct. My speech is the only thing.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
That's an interesting spin on that. Because I would have
gone the other way completely. I would have argued the
law the telemedicine, the definition of what a veterinary practice is.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
I mean, I would have gone across the board with that.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
So based on us the first Amendment, I still think
that as long as he is not giving specific medical advice,
he's okay.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
It's totally okay, Okay, he wins big time. The Fifth
Circuit did not like the law in Texas. They did
not like the veterinary board in Texas. They made that
very clear in their opinion. They started the opinion this
is the very first sentence of the opinion. Today we
uphold doctor Hine's First Amendment rights. And then they go
(21:31):
on to land base the state for their stupidness. So yes,
he and listen, what if it was I at thirty
five year old dude who'd never served the military and
wasn't this wonderful person, would they have ruled differently? Because
I feel like it certainly helped that he's an eighty
(21:52):
year old veteran who was disabled and still wants to
help people and is a long time, very excellent veteran.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Yeah, but they would never mention that in the decision.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
No, of course, not that would not happen. Okay, good
one for one.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
I like that case.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
There were a lot of issues on that one. Great
fun all.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Right, here's a case about a bulge.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
So this guy's on a Greyhound bus and it pulls
into a station in Albuquerque, and a drug task force
gets on the bus and they start talking.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
To people where you go and where you're coming from.
What's up.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
They're just seeing if anybody is maybe suspicious. And this guy,
who may not realize what's happening, he takes his backpack
and he puts it under the seat, which the agent
notices and thinks, oh, maybe he's trying to hide that
backpack or disassociate himself from that backpack. So he goes
(22:50):
to talk to the guy. They have a little conversation,
and first the guy says, oh, I don't have any luggage.
I don't have anything under the bus. I don't have
a backpack. And the agent goes, well, I saw you
put the backpack under the seat. So he goes, oh,
I guess I do have a backpack. So they get
the backpack out and he says, can I look in
the backpack? And the guy says, sure, look in the backpack,
(23:10):
and he starts going.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Through the backpack. The guy, not the agent.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
He pull He goes, yeah, you can look in my backpack,
and then he starts going through his own backpack, which
is another suspicious thing.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
The police will call this a self search.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
This is where maybe you're gonna see if you can
get something out of there. In any event, he finally
the agent reaches into the backpack and he feels around
and he finds a black bundle and he feels this
black bundle and it feels hard to him and a
(23:46):
little crinkily, and he forms the opinion that perhaps.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
It's drugs in this black bundle.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
So they get the guy off the bus and they
take him in the DEA office and they search the backpack,
and to make a long story shortness to this part,
oh yeah, he had some methamphetamine in there. And he
went to federal court and he said, you have to
suppress this evidence that you got you or you didn't
have any probable cause to search my backpack.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
You didn't have it on.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
The bus, you still didn't have it when we were
at the DEA office.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
You had no probable cause.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
And the agent lays out all the reasons that he
felt he had probable cause.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
The putting the backpack under.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
The seat, the self searching of the backpack, the lying
about having a backpack? Did I mention Bill? I didn't
because I wanted to be a surprise. He was traveling
under a fake identity. So the agent says, based on
all of that, I've probable cause. And the lower court says, yeah,
he has probable cause. Leave this agent alone. But this
(24:51):
guy says, here's what I'll do. I'll plead guilty. I'll
plet guilty conditionally, I have a right to appeal. The
denial of the suppression of the evidence. And if I win,
then there's no case. And if I lose, well, then
I'm already getting a head start. I guess on my guilt.
So it goes up to the ten Circuit Court of Appeals,
and at that point he gets a pretty savvy lawyer
(25:14):
who says, hey, the.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Guy did not have.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
The right to search the backpack because at that point
he had no probable cause. He had some suspicious behavior,
but he didn't really have probable cause. And the exception
to needing a warrant is the plane view idea, which
(25:41):
is if you if a cop, if you're legally where
you can see it, and you see it and what
it is is obviously illegal, and.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
You also are legally allowed to.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Access it, then you can take something and you don't
need a warrant. And this guy's lawyer says, this was
just a black bundle.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
He felt it.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
He could not have deduced anything about it by looking
at it. He felt it up, and that's a bridge
too far. That's a search. Feeling a bundle is a search.
And he had no probable cause and he didn't have
a warrant, so he shouldn't have searched and he shouldn't
even have arrested the guy. What do you think the
(26:35):
circuit court said.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
I think that the fellow had the argument of no
probable cause from the minute the cop started and argued
putting a backpack underneath the seat. I don't think that's
enough unless he acted furtively and he acted light, there
(27:00):
was a problem there where a cop, a reasonable pop
cop would say, oh, yeah, he was really suspicious.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
I think that would fly as opposed to my opinion.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Then the issue is as far as feeling the crinkly
I think that works in favor of the dea because
if he is if he has given the pack by
the defendant, I think that's the case, right, it was
handed to him, or he went into the backpacking.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
The agent went and got it, but the guy did consent.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Okay with that, I think feeling the package where it
is crinkly and it is hard and that's typically how
drugs are packed, I think that is enough for his search.
So if it turns out that, I think I would
attack it at the very beginning and say there was
(27:56):
no probable cause and that stopped everything and everything else,
no matter how legal it appeared, it's it's all tainted
and the suppression works.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
That's what I would say. So the guy wins.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Yes, I say, the guy wins, Andy wins with the
ten circuit.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
And they said it was it was feeling the bundle
was an illegal search.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You can look at it, okay, but you can't. You
can't be touching it.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
And and the standard is this, if a cop touches
your stuff in a way that you would never expect
an ordinary person to do, then that's a search. So
you would not expect another passenger on the bus to
come over and start feeling your bundle.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
But he felt the bundle, Okay, I would okay that part.
That part I would disagree.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
But if they ruled on that issue and not on
the initial issue of he put the he put the backpack.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Under the seat, did the court even discuss that issue.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Well, the weird thing is it doesn't matter because once
they found that it was an illegal search, the thing
is suppressed. Now they would have to try try him
again on a drug charge with no drugs.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Fair enough, all right, So I didn't do too badly today.
Two for two, Wayne, Thank you. We'll catch you again
next Monday. In the meantime, we're over we're done. We
come back again tomorrow five am with Amy and wake
Up Call.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Neil and I join.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
From six to nine and show that's cleverly entitled The
Bill Handle Show. And then kno and and of course
are always with us. This is KFI AM six forty
Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.