Unleash American Energy

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Mark Miller on American energy

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
How American common sense will see.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Us through with the common sense of Houston. I'm just
pro common sense for Houston. From Houston dot com. This
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind
dot com.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett. Hey, welcome to the show. I
thought we'd open up just talk about drinks today, not
talking about alcoholic drinks. I guess we are talking about
mixed drinks in a certain sort of way. I'll tell
you what gott be thinking about this. Sprite is introducing
a limited edition flavor, announcing that they're launching a new

(00:51):
summer flavor, Sprite plus tea Sprite plus tea kind of
like the Arnold Palmer. You think Arnold Palmer. Arnold Palmer
was the first sort of a mixed drink where you
took two different, very different things, and you combine the
two things, and you wouldn't necessarily think that they'd go
well together, but you ended up putting them together and

(01:13):
it turns out they went really well together. The Arnold
Palmer was It's called the Arnold Palmer because he's one
evidently who came up with the idea of I think
it's a fifty to fifty split between lemonade and iced tea,
and he put those two things together. He really liked
it as a drink. It caught on, and now you
can buy pre made Arnold Palmer's in the store. I

(01:35):
mean you could. You could always buy lemonade and iced
tea and make it yourself. But you know this world
we live in where we'd like everything to be super
convenient and we don't have to want to do any
of that work ourselves. You know, these companies have found
out they can make a lot of money if they
just make it that way. So there's a viral thing online.
I guess the folks at Sprite saw where people were
combining sprite with iced tea. Actually, what they're doing, they're

(01:58):
putting sprite in a glass and then they would take
a tea bag and dip the tea bag in there
to get the get the tea flavor in with the sprite.
So Sprite decided, hey, we can do that ourselves and
make some money. So that's what they're doing. It said
they originally truly originated from social activity. When viral consumers

(02:20):
actually putting tea bags into sprite and essentially steeping the
tea to create this concoction of bubbles, citrus and tea.
We tried to get under it if people were really
searching for it, and we found out they really, they
really wanted to have it. It elevates the sprite consumption experience. Well,
according to the company, it does. So okay, got me

(02:41):
thinking things that you put together, things that you maybe
you discovered where you took one soda and some other
object that you wouldn't think would go with soda, and
you put the two together and it's really good. Or
you took two different kinds of soda and you combine
those two things together and found out that you really
thought it tasted good, you know, kind of like and

(03:03):
here's what, well, here's what you know. I just thought
of one that's older older than the than the the
Arnold Palmer. How about the Shirley Temple. Now, what's the
Shirley Temple? You'd have Shirley Temple? Right when you were
a kid. Kitty you know, sometimes referred to as the
kitty cocktail and you go to out to eat. Used

(03:24):
to be when I was a kid, it was like
a fancy restaurant, and we'd go to this place called
Hobbs Restaurant, and it was kind of like you know,
when we went out deep when I was a kid.
First of all, when we went out went out to eat,
it was pretty rare that we went out to eat.
And if we did go out to eat, then chances
are good we were going to go to Hamburger joint
or root beer stand or someplace that was relatively inexpensive.

(03:48):
But every now and again we'd go to a place
called Hobbs, which was kind of the big it's a
family restaurant, but it was the more formal, you know,
white nap you know, white tablecloth, cloth napkin kind of place.
And they but they catered to families, so they had
you know, steaks and fish dishes for the adults, and

(04:09):
they had something called chicken in the rough and a
couple of other things that they had for the kids.
And they were always famous for serving up a kittie cocktail,
which is basically a Shirley temple, and they put in
a glass for you, and they had these little plastic animals,
you know, sometimes you'd get a giraffe, sometimes you'd get
a monkey. Sometimes you'd get a horse. They had these

(04:31):
little plastic, little plastic animals that they serve up with
the drink, and it kind of came u a traditional
thing there, but it's basically Shirley temple, and a Shirley
Temple is taking either like a lom and lime drink
like a sprite or ginger ale, and then you combine
it with grenadine, which is I thought it was cherry.

(04:52):
Do you know that grenadine is made out of pomegranates?
I had no idea. It makes the drink kind of red.
And then they'd garnish it with Marahana cherries. So that
was that was kind of the cocktail for the kids,
you know, while Mom's over there sipping on her grasshopper.
It just funny. I remember that my mom used to
order this drink, all the grasshopper. You know, it's just

(05:15):
the quintessential sixties seventies mom kind of cocktailed order up,
you know, kind of that Foo food drink. She'd get
a Grasshopper, we'd we'd get the we'd get the Kittie cocktail,
which was a Shirley Temple. So there's that. So I
could challenge the listeners. What are some of the things
that you've either put together yourself or you know your

(05:37):
parents had, or you know, drinks, putting two things together
that you wouldn't normally think would go together and they
ended up making a really good drink.

Speaker 3 (05:46):
Jimmy original answer from Spring. I used to like doing
it when I was a kid, putting a root beer,
cherry cola, and doctor pepper mixed in the one drink,
and it actually tasted pretty good. I don't know that
you could do anything with Mount dude, because that's just
plain nasty. So anyway, have a great day.

Speaker 4 (06:06):
It's Tyler from Huffman, Doctor Pepper and orange Fanta. It
tastes like a dreamsickles gotta be fifty to fifty though,
Have a good morning.

Speaker 5 (06:15):
Uh Coca cola and peanuts.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
Oh lord.

Speaker 6 (06:19):
I used to work with a gentleman who would put
pickled juice in his iced tea.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
He said it helped with leg cramps. You know, I've
heard I've heard that said about pickle juice helping with
leg cramps. And maybe you just combine it with the
iced tea just to disguise the flavor enough so you
can get it down. Because I'm not thinking pickle juice.
He's one of those things that's gonna taste real good

(06:47):
going down. But can somebody explain to me the Coca
cola peanut thing? How does that work? Did you put
the peanuts in hole? Do you crush the peanuts before
you put them in? I'd never heard of that before,
but we had. I had a couple of people who
called in who who either combined coke or spride or
some other drink with peanuts. You know, I could I

(07:10):
could see eating peanuts and then chasing it down with
with the with a drink, but combining it as part
of the drink. How does that work? Anyway? A quick
little break, We're back with more in a moment. Jimmy
Bart show here an in nine fifty KPRC. I'll tell

(07:40):
you what the the the Biden cover up has gotten
to the point now where this thing is really picking
up steam. Details are coming out more and more every day.
Saw a story this morning that James Comer has found
the US House is bound Biden's staffers. They know who

(08:03):
the Biden staffers were that were using the autopen to
sign pieces of executive actions or pardons on behalf of
President Biden and it shows you, I think, what's gonna
end up We're gonna end up finding out is how
few of the things that were dealt with in the
Biden administration that were past during the by administration were

(08:25):
even even dealt with by President Biden, that some other
staffer made the decision and used the Biden autopen in
order to sign the legislation or whatever it was, you know,
the pardon or whatever whatever it was. Uh So they're
gonna be calling some witnesses. Now, these these people could
I would think they some really stiff charges here. I mean,

(08:47):
that's got to be a felony. What they did, you know,
to to to act on behalf of the president when
you're not the president himself. And of course, you know this,
the thing that's really set this off since last week
is the story of Biden's prostate cancer and he has
stage four prostinate cancer. You don't get stage four cancer overnight,

(09:09):
as we were talking about yesterday. This takes some time.
And there's nobody that gets more health tests, I'm thinking
than the president of the United States and the vice
president of the United States of which he was president
for four years, vice president for four years, and you know,
he's getting a routine checkup on a yearly basis, and
you know that they're doing a PSA test, which is

(09:29):
the most common thing to do to try to, you know,
screen for prostate cancer. So you know they're doing the test,
So the question becomes what did they find? When do
they find it? This is this is not new. They
didn't just all of a sudden find that he had
a PSA level of nine in advanced prostate cancer that

(09:51):
had nastatized to his bone. That doesn't happen overnight, not
like that. It doesn't make any sense at all. Anyway,
I saw your Rob speaking out about this. What is
this guy's name, Doctor David Schusterman Here he is talking
about the timing of the announcement, the and sort of

(10:14):
the way this whole thing has come down doesn't make
a whole lot of sense to him either.

Speaker 7 (10:19):
It's very interesting the way it came out on a Sunday,
where the news drop that he had a biopsy just
a week prior, found on a nodule, and then all
of a sudden has metastatic prostate cancer. And you know,
that's not the typical pattern that I see in my practice.
In my practice, we typically follow a patient yearly with

(10:41):
annual examinations and PSA testing, and then based on the
annual examinations and PSA testing, we either do biopsies or
continue you know, medications. So a lot of a lot
of this just follow you know, just finding it overnight
doesn't make a lot of sense. This this typically starts
off in the pro state and it actually could start

(11:01):
off as a low grade cancer that keeps going up
intermittently to a higher grade cancer. And actually it could
have been even treated, you know, ten years ago, for example,
and then this just came back as a recurrence. But
you know that is you know, without the records. We
don't know that for sure. But if in my professional

(11:22):
opinion to me, it seems like it was probably diagnosed
earlier and then this is just a recurrence of prior
cancer after treatment.

Speaker 1 (11:30):
It could be something else. We don't really know.

Speaker 7 (11:32):
I mean, what we need to find out are the
PSA if he would release them. I think PSA is
a critical aspect of this. PSA is our early detection
warning system for prostate cancer. So when you get prostay
cancer before it typically gets out of control like this,
you would have an PSA elevation and that's really saved
many Americans from prostate cancer over the years.

Speaker 1 (11:55):
Yeah, I've had a PSA test. I'm guessing a lot
of you men who had a PSA test. Once you
get past certainly once you get past the age of fifty,
that becomes a regular occurrence. You know, mine has been fine,
but you know, I'm at the age where I need
to keep an eye on those types of things, and

(12:15):
and and it's smart of all of us to do
that because if it's caught early, then it can be
taken care of and treated before it becomes a major problem.
This is this is a major problem. Not to say
that the former President Biden's prostate cancer can't be treated.
They can, but it's it's been a whole lot better
if it was treated a whole lot earlier, Which begs
the question, of course again, his doctor, his physician, when

(12:39):
did he know he had prostate cancer? And if he
didn't know up until now, why didn't he know before now?
Bill O'Reilly over on Newsmax, you know the O'Reilly factor.
Bill O'Reilly thinks that this doctor could end up facing
some fairly serious charges over this.

Speaker 6 (12:59):
The party has realign new leadership, new philosophy if it
wants to compete going forward. But this is a fascinating
story because it now comes to one man, and that
man is Colonel Kevin O'Donnell.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
O'Connell, sorry, Colonel.

Speaker 6 (13:22):
Kevin O'Connell, who is Biden's personal physician in the White House,
gave him a clean bill of health in February twenty
twenty four. Colonel's retired from the US Army Distinguished Service.
There he needs to be called almost immediately in front
of a House committee. You could do a number of
them under oath about the cancer.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
Why is this important?

Speaker 6 (13:46):
So I don't want to be because if O'Connell, doctor
O'Connell knew the President of the United States had prostate
cancer and did not say that, it's a crime.

Speaker 1 (14:03):
What's the crime?

Speaker 6 (14:03):
Felony? The crime is there are a number of them,
but it's using federal let's say, federal access to mislead
the public. The whole bunch of laws that say, if
you are a civil service servant, you have to report

(14:25):
what you find out. Honestly, now, if O'Connell covered it up,
then he's going to be charged of the felony.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
Well, you know this was released right after this very
damning tape came out of Biden's interview with Robert Hurr.
That's the guy who was looking at potentially prosecuting President
Biden for having classified information in his garage next to
the corvette. And he did a deposition, and that the

(14:58):
deposition finally got released to his entirety, and you see
just what kind of bad shape that Biden was in.
That's another cover up. I mean, you've got you've got
two cover ups potentially now of President Biden and and
and accusations about auto signing from staff members. I mean,
this whole thing, the whole four years of the Biden
administration was completely crooked, a complete cover up, and just

(15:24):
about every single level. And if enough people are paying attention,
then one would think it's gonna be virtually impossible for
the Democrats to get over this until they are willing
to acknowledge it. Yes, it was a cover up. Yes
we participated in a cover up. It was wrong, we
shouldn't have done it. Then this is why we're never

(15:44):
going to do it again. The only way they can
rehabilitate themselves is by coming to that admission, which they're
not willing to do. You know, Van Jones, staunched Democrat
himself and talking head these days on TV, you know,
was pointing that out yesterday that hey, we have to
admit that there was a cover up and we have
to guarantee the American people that something like this will

(16:07):
never ever happen again. So here's what Van Jones had
to say, with some response from Greg Guttfeld on the five.

Speaker 8 (16:13):
And that is a crime against this republic. And I
think the Democrats are going to pay for a long
time for being a part of what is now being
revealed to be a massive cover up. I mean to
apologize the American people that we were part of something
that wasn't on the up and up.

Speaker 4 (16:28):
A lot of people are speculating whether this was medical
malpractice or whether this was a medical cover up, and
we have every right to speculate because they've been caught
in so many lives now. So the medical cover up
is not being said by Jesse Waters.

Speaker 1 (16:45):
It's being said.

Speaker 4 (16:46):
All over the media by Democrats and by physicians. They're
saying that this was caught possibly earlier, and then nothing
was released and then possibly exposed as a way to
blunt the impact of the her report audio release and
the book. Now, I don't think that's possible, but at

(17:06):
this point anything's possible. The other one is the medical malpractice.
How are you not going to give a guy a
PSA test? How are you not going to give someone
a test and then not release the results. Did they
not give this test to Joe Biden? Because they gave
it to the last three presidents and then they released
the PSA numbers, So who knows if he even got tested.

(17:28):
He was supposed to have had a full test a
year ago and they said there was no cancer detected. Well,
we need to know exactly what tests they did. And
since two thousand, Joe Biden has broken his foot, He's
had skin cancer, he has had two horrible bouts with
COVID nineteen, and then he was living as president with

(17:50):
prostate cancer, and the entire media said he was healthy
as an ox.

Speaker 1 (17:57):
Yeah, nowhere near the truth on that, right, I think,
I said Greg gut Field. Obviously that was Jesse Waterers.
Nowhere near the truth on that. All right, coming up,
and just a moment here, we're going to talk to
a guy by the name of Mark Miller. Mark Miller
is at the Pacific Legal Foundation. He is all about
unleashing America's energy. But there's one problem, one major problem

(18:21):
that might stand in the way unless we do something
about it, and is called the Endangered Species Act. We'll
talk to him about that coming up next Jimmy Barrett
Show here on AM nine to fifty KPRC. Hey, I

(18:51):
think one thing we all agree on, right, folks, we
want to unleash American energy. President Trump wants to unleash
American energy. He wants to do whatever it fracking, whatever
it takes, and to a great extent, we're doing that.
But there are some areas that may be difficult for
us to tap into, not because of regulations created by

(19:13):
the President, but maybe some other regulations that are out there.
I know, for example, there's a little something called the
Endangered Species Act. You may remember the Endangered Species Act
in dealing with getting water to the folks in California
because they're worried about some sort of trout that would
be endangered if they release the water. That kind of stuff.

(19:34):
Mark Miller joins us. He's with the Pacific Legal Foundation. Mark,
Welcome to the show. Is that the kind of thing
we're talking about here, as far as the Endangered Species Act.

Speaker 5 (19:43):
Yes, that's exactly thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (19:45):
On you bet. So, what kind of endangered species stand
in the way between us and energy?

Speaker 5 (19:52):
Well, I mean that's you know, the bottom line is
it's dager Species Act itself too often stands in the
way of trying to niche American energy in the way
President Trump is advocating for. The Native Species Deck allows
federal government to a Fish and Wildlife Service in the
National Marine Fishery Service, to regulate the waters and the

(20:15):
land of America as if it was some sort of
super regulator, some sort of super local government that can
tell you what you can and can't do on your
property and can also delay projects, especially energy projects, for years,
if not decades.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Yeah, I'm remembering back to when when the pipeline got
killed that was going to be running all the way
here into Texas, and this is the most efficient and
maybe the safest way to move Canadian crude all the
way down to Texas. Was the endangered species active part
of that is part of the rationale for not doing
the pipeline.

Speaker 5 (20:53):
Well, what happened with the Keystone pipeline, which is what
I think you're talking about, is Theministration just made it
so difficult to Biden administration that there was no way
for the owner of the pipeline to make the project
pen fall out and it was just home for years
and years. The Trump administration had tried to fast track

(21:13):
it and unfortunately the Bid administration just put a stop
to it and the owners of the pipeline just trying
to move Canadian we know, from Canada into the country.
She said, no, you know, we can't make this project work.
And you know, because the minor administration emphasized clean energy

(21:37):
not so much inner spacey deck, that's what ended up
killing the project at the end of the day.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Yeah, but I'm guessing the strategy is pretty much the same, right,
regardless of what you're going to deploy to try to
delay or derail something, is that you put it into court,
you sue, you put it into court, and you waited
out hoping that you can wait long enough for another
administration to come in and completely kill it.

Speaker 5 (22:00):
That is exactly right, and that's what we have to
get away from. It's very much the nineteen seventies mentality
that the Firth is going to collapse because there's human impact,
and so we put these regulations theoretically to protect the environment,
but in reality it does not protect the environment and

(22:21):
the unintended consequence, at least unintended consequence from Congress's perspective,
I think leftist virols want this consequence is to bottle
up and stop good projects that would allow us to
use America's abundant natural resources to make life cheaper and

(22:41):
less expensive for the average Americans. We need to see
the use of natural resources. We need to get you know,
we can. We have technologies that can allow us to
use those natural resources in a way that's environmentally friendly.
But instead we have had these left the envirls. We've
captured a number legislatures who there's nineteen seventies mentalent and

(23:03):
that's what we're going to break free from it. I
have polland President Trump when it comes to you know,
Ancian American energy exactly right.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
Does the Endangered Species Act have anything to do with
the Environmental Protection Agency or is it a completely separate deal.

Speaker 5 (23:17):
So the epau's the EESA. Then a Species Act called
the e SA is handled by Auditionware Life Service in interior,
whereas the ETA is usually where we're interrupting projects and
stopping products over the Kenning Water Act, and so they
both work put a hand in the hand to bottle
up American individuals, the American companies who are trying to

(23:41):
productively use land, whether it be because of waters the
United States, which is where the EPA comes in, and
the Army Corps of Engineers where they say, your property
has had rain jops fall on it, and those rain
drops have to ultimately work their way to the Mississippi
River or to the Atlantic cific oceans. And so we
as a central government can regulate your property using water,

(24:04):
or use animals and plants to regulate your property, and
we do that in the Endangered Species Act. Either way,
since the seventies, which both of those statues were written
in the seventies, we've been in this position where the
central government is stopping people from using their property. And
that's just simply un American, anesthetical to, you know, the

(24:25):
American concept of using yourself off from your bookstraps, seeing
opportunities and expanding upon them. Instead, the federal government gets
in the way, and then on top of that you
that state and local governments that also get in the way.
But the federal government is perhaps the hardest to deal
with it's the furthest away there in Washington, DC, interferre

(24:45):
with products all across the country.

Speaker 1 (24:47):
Yeah, you know, I'm noticing a theme here, and the
theme is really about taking the control of your property
away from you and giving it to the federal government.

Speaker 5 (24:58):
That's the bottom line. It's all about. That's the word
that for the last fifty years we get based. I
do think I'm an internal optimist, and I don't know
as I can over however, imin optimist, but I am,
and I do think there is a change in the
national tenor that there is some bipartisan defenses that that

(25:18):
seventies mentality. It needs to be just discarded. And to
give concrete examples of what I mean. As Recline, whose
nose idea of a conservative, has written a book called Abundance,
where he specifically says and he's on the left side
of the aisle, so he's presided the Democrats should do it.
His point is, we've got natural resources, but the government

(25:39):
has gotten in the way of using those natural resources,
and it's why we have crumbling infrastructure, why we've got
power grids that are going down, and we need to
turn around our mentality into an abundance mentality instead of
a scarcity is the idea that that resources are going
to dry up. To the contrary, our earth is incredibly resilient.

(26:00):
We've got credible resources in the United States. We should
stop looking to other countries who both resources. We should
instead use our own resources. So when you see someone
like Ezra Klein on the left advocating what those of
us on the right of an advocating for years, really
since the seventies, it gives you reason to be optimistic.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, well, you're bringing up a sensitive subject here in
Texas because as you're talking about all this, I'm imagining
and I know you're very well aware that obviously Texas
is a wash in oil. We've got more oil than
we could ever hope to know what to do with.
Yet we have incentivized, in the case of power companies,
we've incentivized solar and wind to the point where we

(26:40):
have not built a brand new natural gas power plant,
or a clean burning coal power plant, or even a
nuclear power plant, and instead we just keep putting up
windmills and solar panels.

Speaker 5 (26:53):
Yeah. The nuclear energy specifically is again a nineteen seventies
relic that because of the three Island accidents, maybe the
early mid eighties sharing Nobles, but really more about Three
Mile Island. We're afraid of nuclear energy, even the nuclear
energy could give the less what it wants as well
as the right, which is you know, inexpensive power. And

(27:14):
to be sure, there's a risk, but risks to everything.
And for sure you know you're pulling about fossil fuels
as well. Taken. I don't have any objections because foundation
has no objection to alternative power, whether it be wind
or solar. But let those power opportunities stand on their
own feet instead the BUYD administration funding and then administration

(27:35):
funding that alternative energy, that news for energy two are
billions of dollars. So investors would invest there because they're
getting free minds from the government. No stop with the
government subsidies. Let these power opportunities, the different fossil fuels,
wind energy, solar, stand on our own concrete and let's
see what succeeds. Let's not run away from fossil fuels

(27:57):
to the terrible idea of that.

Speaker 1 (27:59):
And I have no problem. I have no problem marked
with the with renewable energy either. I just don't want
to rely on renewable energy. As is our is our
you know, the majority source of where we get our energy,
because some days the wind doesn't blow in Texas, some
days the sun doesn't shine. And the batteries, although the
batteries have improved for storage purposes, they're they're never going

(28:22):
to be limitless. We're we're we could you run into
a week of cloudy, windless days and before you know it,
you've got an energy crisis on your hand.

Speaker 5 (28:32):
Yeah, that's exactly right. I know you better be what
happened in Texas with the towers and failures. But there's
It's absolutely true. You want to use solar, you want
your wind, have at it, but you can't undermine fossil
pubils at a minimum because fossil fuels are reliable in
a way that solar and wind are not reliable for
the reasons you said. And this idea again scarcity, that

(28:54):
somehow we're going to run on of fossil tubels is nonsense.
I've been hearing that the mistricities. I've been hearing the seventies.
It's not true. And you know we specifically we're hearing
it fifteen years ago. It's a renewed bush. Somehow we're
going to run out of fossil fields. There's little to
no evidence of that. We need to, you know, use
all of our resources to be tastful in the future,

(29:15):
and that's what we need to see to stop the
powagriph failures like you had baron Texas.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
All Right, Mark Miller, Hey, thanks for being on the
show today. It was good to talk to you. I
appreciate it.

Speaker 5 (29:23):
Always a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Thank you you met Mark Miller from the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Back with more in a moment. Jimmy Bird Show. Here
a name nine fifty KPRC. All right, final segment for

(29:48):
today's show. I'd like to talk to you about insurance. No,
don't go sleep, don't go sleep. I'm not going to
try to sell you insurance. I'm not going to try
to really explain insure ssurance. I'm going to try to
I don't know, just ring the alarm bell. I'm very
worried right now about homeowner's insurance. And I think the

(30:09):
reason why I'm so worried about it, well, I know
i'm so worried about it. I'm worried about it because
June first is hurricane season, the beginning of hurricane season.
Although we could get it at any time. At this point,
I have no idea how severe it's going to be.
I have no idea if Texas will be involved in
any of these hurricanes, and I don't know if the

(30:32):
Houston area will be involved, even more specifically, any of
these hurricanes, or in my particular case, if Freeport takes
a hit from a hurricane, Freeport or Galveston. Because I
have a home that's on the beach, and therefore I
have to worry about such things. Now, I have insurance,

(30:54):
and I pay through the nose. Is we all do
for insurance, I mean for the beach house. For example,
between a wind and hailed policy, a flood insurance policy,
and just a normal homeotors policy, roughly seven thousand dollars
a year is paid in insurance, which is a lot

(31:17):
of money to spend on insurance. Now, I suppose I
would feel better about spending seven thousand dollars on insurance
if I had confidence that if something were to happen
in my beach house, were to be destroyed in a hurricane,
then I would be made whole again by one of

(31:38):
these insurance anyone or all of these insurance policies. Now
the regular homemoders policy for a thousand, that's not going
to do me any good because they don't cover for
any storm damage. The flood insurance is only good because
the house is on peers, So the flood insurance is
only good if the flood from the tide coming in

(32:00):
and the hurricane knocks the house off its peers and
it ends up floating away or getting damaged that way.
The real one is the kale and wind policy, which
would cover me for anything that happens in the way
of a storm, provided, of course, the money is there
at the end of a disaster, or that they don't

(32:20):
jack me around and try to lowball me as far
as some sort of settlement goes. And there's no guarantee
that any of those things won't happen, because that's just
how insurance companies are. They don't want to pay you
any more than they have to pay you. In fact,
it came it was the topic in front of Congress

(32:40):
Josh Holly. Yeah, Senator Hawley had a member of some
insurance people, actually, more specifically not really insurance executives. He
had He had a woman whose home had been hit
during a big storm, big, huge, honking tree fell through
a house, and she had a multi million dollar home,

(33:03):
and she was told by an insurance adjuster trying to
help her that she had about four hundred thousand dollars
worth of damage. All State Insurance, which is who the
policy was with, I think it was all State, said
that now we'll give you forty seven thousand dollars, which
obviously doesn't begin to cover the damage that occurred. So

(33:26):
Josh Holly has this insurance adjuster who's worked for a
variety of different insurance companies as an independent insurance adjuster
testify as to what happened in this particular case. In
the conversation was a little bit scary for those of
us who are maybe counting on having to have an
insurance claim someday and hoping the insurance company will do

(33:47):
the right thing.

Speaker 9 (33:48):
You spent several hours, Miss Miguel said in her testimony
a moment ago, you spent several hours doing a very
thorough inspection.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
Is that your memory also? Yeah, that's correct?

Speaker 9 (33:56):
And how serious would you say the damage was in
your own personal recollection?

Speaker 1 (34:01):
Extremely?

Speaker 10 (34:01):
Probably the most serious that I saw on this deployment.

Speaker 9 (34:05):
Wow, the most serious that you saw on the deployment,
which makes sense given these photos. So you start, if
I understand correctly, you start to prepare an estimate for
a full replacement of this breezeway right here. Does that
sound right?

Speaker 1 (34:17):
Yeah, that's correct.

Speaker 9 (34:18):
But then you were instructed, you were told by the
higher ups no, no, no, no, no, we're not going to do
a full replacement of the breezeway, so only do an
assessment for a partial replacement of the breezeway. Is that correct? Yes,
that's okay. So then you start working on that, and
you're working to get as big of a of a
damage claim as you can for Miss Miguel in line
with the facts, after you've already been told no, we're

(34:39):
not going to do the full thing, and then before
you can even complete your work, you're taking off the case.

Speaker 5 (34:45):
Is that right?

Speaker 1 (34:46):
Yes? Why do you think that happened?

Speaker 10 (34:50):
I was told it was due to time. I was
taking too long, But I don't believe that is the case.
I think that all states saw from this and my
recently prior estimates of being very thorough and complete and

(35:11):
going back and forth with reviewers on coverage, that it
was going to be a higher estimate and it would
be more cost effective to reassign it to an adjuster
that would listen better.

Speaker 9 (35:24):
Yeah, an adjuster who would lowball the low ball the
policy holder. Really, I mean that's what we're talking about.
You're removed from the case. They tell you it took
three weeks to send you out to begin with, and
then all of a sudden boom, you're removed once it
looks like you're actually going to do some justice for
miss Migal. Let me just ask you more broadly, mister Schroeder,
have you ever been told to change estimates to reduce payouts?

Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yeah, frequently.

Speaker 9 (35:47):
And when you pushed back on this, if you've ever
said no, what happens?

Speaker 5 (35:52):
Then?

Speaker 10 (35:54):
If I say no, then the claims typically get reassigned
due to they say, either lack of compliance or other
reasons like I'm taking too long.

Speaker 1 (36:08):
Yeah, well there's always a reason, right, Yeah. And it's
not just all state I think pretty much all insurance
companies are this way. I mean, you don't make money
by consistently, you know, paying out huge sums of money.
You you This is why there's an entire industry of

(36:31):
attorneys who sue insurance companies because this is the way
it is for virtually every insurance company. Now, i'd like
to think there's some that that do teap people the
right way. That, after all, nobody allows you to negotiate
your insurance premiums right if you don't pay on those,
then they're going to drop you like a hot potato.

(36:54):
So you know, I would like to think there's some justice,
But you don't really know how good your insurance company
is until you have a claim. And of course I
spend most of my time keeping my fingers crossed that
I don't have to have a claim because who wants
to go through this process waiting weeks for an adjuster
and then you know, haggling and arguing with the insurance
people over getting payment so you can get the problem fixed.

(37:16):
All right, Listen, y'all have a great day. I will
see you tomorrow morning bright nearly five am over on
news Radio seven forty ktr H. We are back here
at four on AM nine fifty KTRC.