December 11, 2025 • 19 mins
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 (00:10):
It's seven five fifty five ker Ced Talks Station Friday Eve.
It is that time a week and I so thoroughly
enjoyed Congressman Warren Davidson joining the program on a regular basis.
Welcome back, Congressman Warren Davidson. It's a distinct pleasure to
have you on the show again.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Yeah, always an honor brand. Nice to talk with you.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
You're not a senator yet, but apparently the Senate's going
to be voting on two proposals as part of the
agreement to open up the government again after the forty
three days that was shut which actually put a smile
a lot of my listeners faces, I have to say,
Congressman Davidson. But data aside, two proposals floating around the
Senate won. The Republican proposal, which is a little more complicated,
a lot different than the Democrats proposal, which is simply
(00:50):
to extend the healthcare supplements for an additional three years,
no other terms of conditions, just a straight three year extension,
which is what they were arguing for in essence when
they got the government down. I guess initially if that
one was to win the day, and they say so
far there is no way either of these proposals got
the votes necessary to pass. But theoretically, if that one
(01:11):
did pass, we're just merely kicking the can down the
road again for another three years, only to have this
argument again in three years, I presume, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I mean Congress is pretty good at the king aim.
But so I couldn't totally bet against that happening because
there are a couple of Republican proposals too that were
introduced as discharged petitions in the House. Brian Fitzpatrick, a
moderate from Philadelphia, wants to get Democrats to back his
proposal to do a two year extension. And then Jen
(01:41):
Keggin's a moderate from Norfolk, Virginia. She's got some other
scheme to basically continued. It's basically the Obamacare bailout Act, right,
I mean, clearly Obamacare failed. It hasn't made the care
more affordable. Let's, as I say, no good ideas in Obamacare.
There were things that did need fixed in our health
care system. But this isn't like all of Obamacare goes away, right,
(02:05):
I mean, this is just a bonus subsidy that affects
about It affects about five percent of the people that
get Obamacare, and generally the five percent of people that
it affects are you know, people if the only income
I had was pay from Congress and the only you know,
no big set of assets. Rying if you're making one
hundred and eighty thousand dollars a year and you have
(02:27):
a family of four, you could still qualify for these
kinds of subsidies. This is crazy. This is bonus round stuff.
And yeah, okay, people that are making one hundred and
eighty two hundred thousand dollars a year, the idea that
the government wouldn't keep subsidizing them shouldn't scare people. Right,
So the traditional Obamacare person who's you know, making you know,
(02:47):
fifty thousand dollars a year, working in a job that
doesn't offer healthcare, say a restaurant or something, they don't
have benefits, and they sent it for Obamacare. Regular Obamacare
is in jeopardy. But that doesn't mean it works. Well.
Ask people, their healthcare is terrible, They get high out
of pocket expenses, their premiums go up double digits every year.
(03:08):
But this isn't the program that affects that, it's just
status quo. Obama care is terrible.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Well, my understanding, and I've said it many times, this
is what I understand the argument to be and why
some Republicans would extend the subsidies in spite of everything.
You just point out that, like the Continuing Resolution that
led up to the government shutdown, the Republicans approved the
twenty twenty four spending levels didn't try to pair it back,
(03:35):
much to the chagrin of folks like you, maybe Thomas Massey,
which would have liked to have seen some cuts. They
wanted to take all arguments away from Democrats as we
approach the expiration of the subsidies. So here we are.
You know, we're shutting down, but we left your funding
levels the same as last year. You have nothing to
complain about. And they really didn't. That pushed the burden
back over them to say, well, wait a minute, no,
these subsidies are going to inspire. We're all going to die,
(03:56):
blah blah blah. But you're the one that put the
expiration date in. The only reason they were sended and
broadened was because of COVID nineteen. Now long over, they
had no argument. Now pivoting over to this, the Republicans
would extend the subsidies because they want to get past
next November. They want to take the win out of
the argument that the Democrats will run around screaming, oh
my god, those evil Republicans took away health care from
(04:18):
millions of Americans. But going to that five percent figure
you just mentioned, if this is only going to impact
five percent of the voters, those who are getting subsidies
in excess of the original cap of sixty one five,
is that really an election influence percentage? Do the Democrats
really have that much traction making that argument going into
(04:38):
next year.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Well, here's what's succeeding in doing is you know, in
twenty seventeen, Republicans campaign on repealing Obama Obamacare. Some said
they campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Either way, it
neither happened, right, So since then, people have had bills
to try to address our healthcare system. But Republicans have
done everything possible to not talk about healthcare since twenty
(05:03):
seventeen because they tried and failed to get rid of Obamacare,
and so they're like scared to even talk about it.
Bills don't even come up for hearings in the committee's
of jurisdiction. So I've been pushing to say, well, then
just create a healthcare committee. Because here's the reality is,
Obamacare didn't fix healthcare. It fixed a couple problems, like
people that had pre existing conditions and had hard times enrolling,
(05:26):
and adverse selection where you know you already get sick
and you can't even get insurance. So things like that
were better, but none of the Republican plans really wanted
to get rid of that they were out there. But
because of that, Democrats have kind of claimed some ground
on healthcare. It's one policy area where they generally get
(05:49):
feedback because they're united behind a plan. Republicans haven't done
the debate to say we're united behind one plan. We've
got dozens, frankly, that are just languishing in the hopper
waiting to have a debate. So I think the Democrats
are going to force a debate here. Because people love
their doctor, they like their hospitals, they like the technology,
(06:11):
but when the billing time comes, they're baffled. They're like, wait, wait,
so my premiums are going up, you know, fifteen to
twenty percent every year. My out of pockets crept up
from four thousand to six thousand to now ten thousand.
You're still denying claims. You're still saying this is out
of network. I was in the same building the whole time.
How's it out of network? All these kinds of things
(06:32):
about paying for health care are still terrible. And what
Democrats are wanting to do is hang that entire problem
around Republicans and if Republicans don't do anything about it
and just try to avoid the problem, stick your head
in the sand. Well it's gonna work. Right. So, like,
I think the challenge for the Speaker, and this is
a meeting I was in with him this week, is
(06:52):
you're gonna have to do something about healthcare? Why not
create a select committee? Why not go in ahead and
roll out here are ways to address some of the problems,
because that's what people want. They're dealing with this problem.
And you know, not necessarily everybody. I mean a lot
of the folks that work at Proctor and Gambo or
Kroger or something have great plans, they love them, and
the company kind of eats a lot of that cost.
(07:12):
But most of America doesn't work in a place that
has that kind of benefits. Most Americans get their insurance
through work, and that is way better than Obamacare on balance,
but it still has these kinds of problems, and Congress
isn't addressing them.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Well, Congressman David Sentem, isn't the elephant in the room
the fact that nobody wants to go back to pre
existing conditions. I mean, if you don't. The analogy I
draw all the time is you can't get fire insurance
for your home if your house is already on fire.
The incentive is to get it ahead of time, so
you're covered if the catastrophe happens. That was the incentive
behind pre existing conditions. Look, if you get sick and
(07:49):
you don't have medical insurance, you're going to be on
the hook for that. They're not going to cover a
pre existing condition. You can't actually account for what that
cost is going to be across an entire population. And
yet out the door went pre exclusions. Welcome to a
flood of houses on fire that are now required to
be covered by the insurance company or Obamacare is the
case maybe, which is the American taxpayer. That's why premiums
(08:10):
have gone up.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yeah, that's a big factor. I mean, you know there
are things like that, and you know there are tons
of programs like that. In the federal government where you're
creating incentives to do to wait dysfunctional bad things, and
so the government says, well, let's create a government program
for it. And for a lot of people that say,
well we have free xyz. Now there's no free there's
(08:33):
a chance transfer of who the payer is. And sometimes
the reality is, oh, well we're going to soak the rich. Okay,
Well that's briefs okay, and they are on balance paying
most of the taxes. But the reality is they're not
paying all the taxes. We have massive depth CITs every
year and this causes inflation. People are like, well, gee,
(08:53):
why is a five dollars foot long twelve dollars? Well,
because the federal government spends seven trillion every year and
only collects five trillion in revenue, and they keep subsidizing
thing and the things they subsidize healthcare, housing, education, The
rate of inflation there is way bigger than the rest
of the economy. But okay, yeah, if you get the subsidy,
(09:13):
it feels a little better. So that's kind of the race.
Now it's like, well, we need more free stuff for
more people. Well, it's because it's not free. So there's
a cost and that's what's happening, and the inflation, in
frankly is going to keep going because the free stuff
for people is popular.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
It is, indeed, and that's why once you start a
government program, even if it has an expiration date, it
tends to go on forever, much like the Bombacare subsidies.
But real quick here, one of the proposals over in
the Senate is to provide individuals with between one thousand
and fifteen hundred dollars to help pay for the premium,
put them in accounts like a health savings account. You
can use that money to pay for insurance premiums. That
(09:49):
would create a market force because very few people are
aware even that there is a whole world of private
insurance companies out there that provide medical insurance policies that
can cost a lot less us this flexibility with the money,
if you're not bound to spend that HSA funding on Obamacare,
you can go out into the open insurance market and
(10:09):
find a much better plan of coverage for less money
and use that money, and the market forces could then
drive the cost down.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah. I mean, this is one of the bills that
Republicans of United behind for a long time, some not
so much because of the subsidy part. But if you
are going to spend federal dollars and subsidize something, it
would make sense to send the money to the doctors
or hospitals because they're the ones incurring the cost, and
then they wouldn't pass it on to consumers. Would be
agreement there, or you would give it to the consumers.
(10:40):
But the worst idea of all would give it to
the insurance company. Yes, because I mean and the evidence
is in. It's not debatable whether the insurance companies have
done a good job with the money that you give them.
They've been terrible. So I think the dumbest play call
possible would be to do the three year status quo
reform plan. But if you go out to the betting markets,
(11:04):
I would say it's probably considered the more likely option.
But look, Chuck Schumer has pushed for that in the Senate.
He got Thune to agree to call the vote as
part of opening up the government. I don't know whether
it'll pass the Senate or not. The reality is it
doesn't have the votes to pass in the House. Right
the Speaker doesn't have to put any of this on
(11:25):
the floor. But that's what discharge petitions do. It takes
the power away from the speaker. It gives the power
really to the minority party. And then a handful of
Republicans that would sign on with the discharge petition. And
so that's the concern. You got like six Republicans that
are pretty public about wanting to do this, maybe a
dozen or so they want to do this, and you know,
(11:49):
if the alternative is that Republicans are going to do nothing,
it's hard to peel those Republicans that feel like, well,
we better do something on healthcare. I got a lot
of constituents that are getting hit by this, and that's
I think part of the pressure is, like the speaker
a man, you're going to have to call a player.
You're going to have to do something. And if you
give them a viable alternative to say, Okay, we are
(12:10):
going to do something, let's talk about that, then I
think we have a chance to do something smarter on
healthcare that really will help solve problems for the whole
population instead of this stupid play to keep pretending Obamacare works.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Well, one might be dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse upfront.
At least the Republican proposal over in the Senate that
provides this cash payment to deal with premiums also requires
states of valor verify citizenship immigration status before coverage will
even be issued. One small, but could be potentially effective
measure in keeping fraud, waste, and abuse out of the system,
(12:43):
not notably in a wealthy small population in Minnesota. We'll
continue with Congress Warren Davidson find out out a bombing
smugglers after a brief break, beginning with Susette lows Acamp.
She's fantastic if for a mortgage related issue. Friday Eve
to you, Congress from Warren Davidson on the phone, talking
about some of the issues flowing around healthcare. The real
quick here, Congressman davisoncause I want to find out your
position on bombing the smugglers off the coast of Venezuela.
(13:06):
Have we got a moment of clarity or moment of
awakening yet? In government? Can we please please pay focus
primarily and upfront on ferreting out and following up on fraud,
waste and abuse. Shouldn't it be job one making sure
the American taxpayer dollar isn't being ripped off because every
damn program that the government comes out with turns out
to be some great opportunity for someone to rip off
(13:26):
the American taxpayer. Let's start with COVID funds. Let's look
at the NGOs receiving money and not following through with
what they promised it. And we could go on ad nauseum. Please,
Dear God, can't we make that a focus and make
it a bipartisan focus.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
By partisan I don't know about that, but for Republicans, yes,
And this was the whole point of DOGE. The rumors
of its demise are inaccurate. They're still cranking away at DOGE.
It's going to have been normalized. It's kind of running
within regular departments. It's officially called the US Digital Service,
(14:00):
which is something Barack Obama created, right, So they're they're
still doging out there, and that's part of how you're
finding some of these problems where you know Medicaid, they're
like doing tests and frankly, the Government Accountability Office is
an ongoing operation like that where they provide this kind
of oversight, they are exposing it. The question is what
(14:20):
are you doing about it? And a lot of this
comes to states, and I'll give a shout out to
you know, our auditor, you know, done very good. Keith
Favors rooted out a lot of this when he was
auditor in Ohio. But some states, when it comes to
you know, welfare fraud, say food stamps, they don't really
have an incentive structurally to get rid of it. That's
why states like California are like, you know, giving it
(14:43):
to illegals, because all this federal money comes into the
state and it gets spent in the local economy, so
they don't even really want to turn it off. They're
wanting the cash to flow, and they want it to
flow even bigger. They want more checks from DC there.
So it's essentially another way for Californi to steal money
from Ohio.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Amen, Congressman Davidson, your thoughts on blowing up boats off
the coast of Venezuela. I had massy on yesterday, Congressom Massie,
Judge and Polatana. When Polton has been on a tear
on this one of late. He believes it to be unconstitutional.
We don't have an authorization for you some military force.
There is no declaration of war. If this was a
country that could defend itself, if it had nukes, I
don't think this will be happening. But you know, no
(15:23):
sympathy for Venezuela. But we can pick on someone with
no military and they are indeed sending drugs to our country.
But can we definitively say the boat that was floating
off the coast fifteen hundred miles away was coming here?
Did they represent an imminent threat? What's your take on
all of this, Congressman.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, look, generally I agree with all that cast of characters.
I do think these are legitimate targets. I do think
they're operating as part of the enemies of our country.
Whether they're terrorists or not, they're clearly enemies of our country,
and their activities are clearly killing Americans. People aren't intentionally
taking xanax's laced with Sentinel in dying right. My friend's
(16:00):
daughter did you know, not smart to take his anex
at a party, But it's not supposed to kill you, right,
And that's the thing. You've got tens of thousands of
Americans dying from this. You need to take out the
organizations that are doing it and these boats. Frankly, when
it comes to targeting, these aren't like Venezuela and flagged boats,
so this isn't an act of war against Venezuela. They're
(16:22):
essentially pirates. They're running unflagged. They want to go undetected,
and they want to get the drugs out of you know,
Central South America into the United States market, which is big.
I mean, there's a lot of demand from drugs. It's
a fair point, that's part of the problem, but that
doesn't mean it's okay. So I think they're legitimate targets.
(16:43):
I do agree that if you want to do a
regime change war in Venezuela with traditional military forces, that
would require a declaration of war. But there are a
lot of reasons why you would want to go to Venezuela.
People say, oh, it's about the oil. It's really a
big nexus for the whole operation. So with the cover
of a nation state, you can do the money laundering easier,
(17:05):
and when you've got oil flowing, you can attach laundered
money to that transaction. And a lot of this is
flowing to China, just like the fentanyl's coming from China.
You know, it used to be that to launder money,
you know, it would cost the cartels ten to twenty percent,
So they had to say, a million dollar drug sale,
they would get eight eight hundred thousand, and you know,
(17:25):
a couple of hundred thousand would go to the guys
that launder the money. China's eating that cost because there's
so much demand for dollars out of Asia that they're
working in operation to launder the money there. So these
are things and I think, you know, look the economists,
which I wouldn't count on them being a reliable source,
you know, for all kinds of information, but they had
(17:45):
a good write up on this recently. It's you know,
so this is the kind of thing that's going on.
Does that mean we should go to war with Venezuela.
I don't know, but I do think we should take
we shouldn't tolerate this to continue happening.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Couldn't it work so into an authorization, use the military force,
which would set forth the parameters, like the back of
the one back from two thousand and one, which allowed
us to go after terrorists, Islamic terrorists in the aftermath
of nine to eleven. I mean, isn't that compressional stamp
of approval with parameters the appropriate thing to work under.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I think it's a great way to do it. I
have such a bill whether I've worked on for years. Rightly,
I've wanted to go after the cartels in this way
for a long time. They should be treated as enemies
of our country. And I've got the legislation to do it.
But you know, the administration isn't interested in the legislation.
They say, we have the executive authority, we don't really
(18:37):
want to have the debate. Yeah, and I think, look,
the reality is you've got colleagues who don't believe that
they should do it in the first place. So I
think they're right. They may not be able to pass.
There are Democrats who generally has supported but if it
allowed announce the discretion for Trump, they're like, oh, I can't,
I can't support that. You know, Trump in syndrome, it's
(18:59):
in play every time. Ever, I think, look, they're finally
going after these guys, and I think that needs to
be done.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Conreor some more and Davidson. Appreciate your thoughts and comments.
As always, I look forward to having another conversation with you,
hopefully next Thursday, and between now and then, best of
health you and your loved ones, and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Thanks Brian, God bless shore and all your listeners and.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
You, sir, thank you seven twenty eight right now. But
if I've care se the talks
It's seven five fifty five ker Ced Talks Station Friday Eve.
It is that time a week and I so thoroughly
enjoyed Congressman Warren Davidson joining the program on a regular basis.
Welcome back, Congressman Warren Davidson. It's a distinct pleasure to
have you on the show again.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Yeah, always an honor brand. Nice to talk with you.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
You're not a senator yet, but apparently the Senate's going
to be voting on two proposals as part of the
agreement to open up the government again after the forty
three days that was shut which actually put a smile
a lot of my listeners faces, I have to say,
Congressman Davidson. But data aside, two proposals floating around the
Senate won. The Republican proposal, which is a little more complicated,
a lot different than the Democrats proposal, which is simply
(00:50):
to extend the healthcare supplements for an additional three years,
no other terms of conditions, just a straight three year extension,
which is what they were arguing for in essence when
they got the government down. I guess initially if that
one was to win the day, and they say so
far there is no way either of these proposals got
the votes necessary to pass. But theoretically, if that one
(01:11):
did pass, we're just merely kicking the can down the
road again for another three years, only to have this
argument again in three years, I presume, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I mean Congress is pretty good at the king aim.
But so I couldn't totally bet against that happening because
there are a couple of Republican proposals too that were
introduced as discharged petitions in the House. Brian Fitzpatrick, a
moderate from Philadelphia, wants to get Democrats to back his
proposal to do a two year extension. And then Jen
(01:41):
Keggin's a moderate from Norfolk, Virginia. She's got some other
scheme to basically continued. It's basically the Obamacare bailout Act, right,
I mean, clearly Obamacare failed. It hasn't made the care
more affordable. Let's, as I say, no good ideas in Obamacare.
There were things that did need fixed in our health
care system. But this isn't like all of Obamacare goes away, right,
(02:05):
I mean, this is just a bonus subsidy that affects
about It affects about five percent of the people that
get Obamacare, and generally the five percent of people that
it affects are you know, people if the only income
I had was pay from Congress and the only you know,
no big set of assets. Rying if you're making one
hundred and eighty thousand dollars a year and you have
(02:27):
a family of four, you could still qualify for these
kinds of subsidies. This is crazy. This is bonus round stuff.
And yeah, okay, people that are making one hundred and
eighty two hundred thousand dollars a year, the idea that
the government wouldn't keep subsidizing them shouldn't scare people. Right,
So the traditional Obamacare person who's you know, making you know,
(02:47):
fifty thousand dollars a year, working in a job that
doesn't offer healthcare, say a restaurant or something, they don't
have benefits, and they sent it for Obamacare. Regular Obamacare
is in jeopardy. But that doesn't mean it works. Well.
Ask people, their healthcare is terrible, They get high out
of pocket expenses, their premiums go up double digits every year.
(03:08):
But this isn't the program that affects that, it's just
status quo. Obama care is terrible.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Well, my understanding, and I've said it many times, this
is what I understand the argument to be and why
some Republicans would extend the subsidies in spite of everything.
You just point out that, like the Continuing Resolution that
led up to the government shutdown, the Republicans approved the
twenty twenty four spending levels didn't try to pair it back,
(03:35):
much to the chagrin of folks like you, maybe Thomas Massey,
which would have liked to have seen some cuts. They
wanted to take all arguments away from Democrats as we
approach the expiration of the subsidies. So here we are.
You know, we're shutting down, but we left your funding
levels the same as last year. You have nothing to
complain about. And they really didn't. That pushed the burden
back over them to say, well, wait a minute, no,
these subsidies are going to inspire. We're all going to die,
(03:56):
blah blah blah. But you're the one that put the
expiration date in. The only reason they were sended and
broadened was because of COVID nineteen. Now long over, they
had no argument. Now pivoting over to this, the Republicans
would extend the subsidies because they want to get past
next November. They want to take the win out of
the argument that the Democrats will run around screaming, oh
my god, those evil Republicans took away health care from
(04:18):
millions of Americans. But going to that five percent figure
you just mentioned, if this is only going to impact
five percent of the voters, those who are getting subsidies
in excess of the original cap of sixty one five,
is that really an election influence percentage? Do the Democrats
really have that much traction making that argument going into
(04:38):
next year.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Well, here's what's succeeding in doing is you know, in
twenty seventeen, Republicans campaign on repealing Obama Obamacare. Some said
they campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Either way, it
neither happened, right, So since then, people have had bills
to try to address our healthcare system. But Republicans have
done everything possible to not talk about healthcare since twenty
(05:03):
seventeen because they tried and failed to get rid of Obamacare,
and so they're like scared to even talk about it.
Bills don't even come up for hearings in the committee's
of jurisdiction. So I've been pushing to say, well, then
just create a healthcare committee. Because here's the reality is,
Obamacare didn't fix healthcare. It fixed a couple problems, like
people that had pre existing conditions and had hard times enrolling,
(05:26):
and adverse selection where you know you already get sick
and you can't even get insurance. So things like that
were better, but none of the Republican plans really wanted
to get rid of that they were out there. But
because of that, Democrats have kind of claimed some ground
on healthcare. It's one policy area where they generally get
(05:49):
feedback because they're united behind a plan. Republicans haven't done
the debate to say we're united behind one plan. We've
got dozens, frankly, that are just languishing in the hopper
waiting to have a debate. So I think the Democrats
are going to force a debate here. Because people love
their doctor, they like their hospitals, they like the technology,
(06:11):
but when the billing time comes, they're baffled. They're like, wait, wait,
so my premiums are going up, you know, fifteen to
twenty percent every year. My out of pockets crept up
from four thousand to six thousand to now ten thousand.
You're still denying claims. You're still saying this is out
of network. I was in the same building the whole time.
How's it out of network? All these kinds of things
(06:32):
about paying for health care are still terrible. And what
Democrats are wanting to do is hang that entire problem
around Republicans and if Republicans don't do anything about it
and just try to avoid the problem, stick your head
in the sand. Well it's gonna work. Right. So, like,
I think the challenge for the Speaker, and this is
a meeting I was in with him this week, is
(06:52):
you're gonna have to do something about healthcare? Why not
create a select committee? Why not go in ahead and
roll out here are ways to address some of the problems,
because that's what people want. They're dealing with this problem.
And you know, not necessarily everybody. I mean a lot
of the folks that work at Proctor and Gambo or
Kroger or something have great plans, they love them, and
the company kind of eats a lot of that cost.
(07:12):
But most of America doesn't work in a place that
has that kind of benefits. Most Americans get their insurance
through work, and that is way better than Obamacare on balance,
but it still has these kinds of problems, and Congress
isn't addressing them.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Well, Congressman David Sentem, isn't the elephant in the room
the fact that nobody wants to go back to pre
existing conditions. I mean, if you don't. The analogy I
draw all the time is you can't get fire insurance
for your home if your house is already on fire.
The incentive is to get it ahead of time, so
you're covered if the catastrophe happens. That was the incentive
behind pre existing conditions. Look, if you get sick and
(07:49):
you don't have medical insurance, you're going to be on
the hook for that. They're not going to cover a
pre existing condition. You can't actually account for what that
cost is going to be across an entire population. And
yet out the door went pre exclusions. Welcome to a
flood of houses on fire that are now required to
be covered by the insurance company or Obamacare is the
case maybe, which is the American taxpayer. That's why premiums
(08:10):
have gone up.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yeah, that's a big factor. I mean, you know there
are things like that, and you know there are tons
of programs like that. In the federal government where you're
creating incentives to do to wait dysfunctional bad things, and
so the government says, well, let's create a government program
for it. And for a lot of people that say,
well we have free xyz. Now there's no free there's
(08:33):
a chance transfer of who the payer is. And sometimes
the reality is, oh, well we're going to soak the rich. Okay,
Well that's briefs okay, and they are on balance paying
most of the taxes. But the reality is they're not
paying all the taxes. We have massive depth CITs every
year and this causes inflation. People are like, well, gee,
(08:53):
why is a five dollars foot long twelve dollars? Well,
because the federal government spends seven trillion every year and
only collects five trillion in revenue, and they keep subsidizing
thing and the things they subsidize healthcare, housing, education, The
rate of inflation there is way bigger than the rest
of the economy. But okay, yeah, if you get the subsidy,
(09:13):
it feels a little better. So that's kind of the race.
Now it's like, well, we need more free stuff for
more people. Well, it's because it's not free. So there's
a cost and that's what's happening, and the inflation, in
frankly is going to keep going because the free stuff
for people is popular.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
It is, indeed, and that's why once you start a
government program, even if it has an expiration date, it
tends to go on forever, much like the Bombacare subsidies.
But real quick here, one of the proposals over in
the Senate is to provide individuals with between one thousand
and fifteen hundred dollars to help pay for the premium,
put them in accounts like a health savings account. You
can use that money to pay for insurance premiums. That
(09:49):
would create a market force because very few people are
aware even that there is a whole world of private
insurance companies out there that provide medical insurance policies that
can cost a lot less us this flexibility with the money,
if you're not bound to spend that HSA funding on Obamacare,
you can go out into the open insurance market and
(10:09):
find a much better plan of coverage for less money
and use that money, and the market forces could then
drive the cost down.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah. I mean, this is one of the bills that
Republicans of United behind for a long time, some not
so much because of the subsidy part. But if you
are going to spend federal dollars and subsidize something, it
would make sense to send the money to the doctors
or hospitals because they're the ones incurring the cost, and
then they wouldn't pass it on to consumers. Would be
agreement there, or you would give it to the consumers.
(10:40):
But the worst idea of all would give it to
the insurance company. Yes, because I mean and the evidence
is in. It's not debatable whether the insurance companies have
done a good job with the money that you give them.
They've been terrible. So I think the dumbest play call
possible would be to do the three year status quo
reform plan. But if you go out to the betting markets,
(11:04):
I would say it's probably considered the more likely option.
But look, Chuck Schumer has pushed for that in the Senate.
He got Thune to agree to call the vote as
part of opening up the government. I don't know whether
it'll pass the Senate or not. The reality is it
doesn't have the votes to pass in the House. Right
the Speaker doesn't have to put any of this on
(11:25):
the floor. But that's what discharge petitions do. It takes
the power away from the speaker. It gives the power
really to the minority party. And then a handful of
Republicans that would sign on with the discharge petition. And
so that's the concern. You got like six Republicans that
are pretty public about wanting to do this, maybe a
dozen or so they want to do this, and you know,
(11:49):
if the alternative is that Republicans are going to do nothing,
it's hard to peel those Republicans that feel like, well,
we better do something on healthcare. I got a lot
of constituents that are getting hit by this, and that's
I think part of the pressure is, like the speaker
a man, you're going to have to call a player.
You're going to have to do something. And if you
give them a viable alternative to say, Okay, we are
(12:10):
going to do something, let's talk about that, then I
think we have a chance to do something smarter on
healthcare that really will help solve problems for the whole
population instead of this stupid play to keep pretending Obamacare works.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Well, one might be dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse upfront.
At least the Republican proposal over in the Senate that
provides this cash payment to deal with premiums also requires
states of valor verify citizenship immigration status before coverage will
even be issued. One small, but could be potentially effective
measure in keeping fraud, waste, and abuse out of the system,
(12:43):
not notably in a wealthy small population in Minnesota. We'll
continue with Congress Warren Davidson find out out a bombing
smugglers after a brief break, beginning with Susette lows Acamp.
She's fantastic if for a mortgage related issue. Friday Eve
to you, Congress from Warren Davidson on the phone, talking
about some of the issues flowing around healthcare. The real
quick here, Congressman davisoncause I want to find out your
position on bombing the smugglers off the coast of Venezuela.
(13:06):
Have we got a moment of clarity or moment of
awakening yet? In government? Can we please please pay focus
primarily and upfront on ferreting out and following up on fraud,
waste and abuse. Shouldn't it be job one making sure
the American taxpayer dollar isn't being ripped off because every
damn program that the government comes out with turns out
to be some great opportunity for someone to rip off
(13:26):
the American taxpayer. Let's start with COVID funds. Let's look
at the NGOs receiving money and not following through with
what they promised it. And we could go on ad nauseum. Please,
Dear God, can't we make that a focus and make
it a bipartisan focus.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
By partisan I don't know about that, but for Republicans, yes,
And this was the whole point of DOGE. The rumors
of its demise are inaccurate. They're still cranking away at DOGE.
It's going to have been normalized. It's kind of running
within regular departments. It's officially called the US Digital Service,
(14:00):
which is something Barack Obama created, right, So they're they're
still doging out there, and that's part of how you're
finding some of these problems where you know Medicaid, they're
like doing tests and frankly, the Government Accountability Office is
an ongoing operation like that where they provide this kind
of oversight, they are exposing it. The question is what
(14:20):
are you doing about it? And a lot of this
comes to states, and I'll give a shout out to
you know, our auditor, you know, done very good. Keith
Favors rooted out a lot of this when he was
auditor in Ohio. But some states, when it comes to
you know, welfare fraud, say food stamps, they don't really
have an incentive structurally to get rid of it. That's
why states like California are like, you know, giving it
(14:43):
to illegals, because all this federal money comes into the
state and it gets spent in the local economy, so
they don't even really want to turn it off. They're
wanting the cash to flow, and they want it to
flow even bigger. They want more checks from DC there.
So it's essentially another way for Californi to steal money
from Ohio.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Amen, Congressman Davidson, your thoughts on blowing up boats off
the coast of Venezuela. I had massy on yesterday, Congressom Massie,
Judge and Polatana. When Polton has been on a tear
on this one of late. He believes it to be unconstitutional.
We don't have an authorization for you some military force.
There is no declaration of war. If this was a
country that could defend itself, if it had nukes, I
don't think this will be happening. But you know, no
(15:23):
sympathy for Venezuela. But we can pick on someone with
no military and they are indeed sending drugs to our country.
But can we definitively say the boat that was floating
off the coast fifteen hundred miles away was coming here?
Did they represent an imminent threat? What's your take on
all of this, Congressman.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, look, generally I agree with all that cast of characters.
I do think these are legitimate targets. I do think
they're operating as part of the enemies of our country.
Whether they're terrorists or not, they're clearly enemies of our country,
and their activities are clearly killing Americans. People aren't intentionally
taking xanax's laced with Sentinel in dying right. My friend's
(16:00):
daughter did you know, not smart to take his anex
at a party, But it's not supposed to kill you, right,
And that's the thing. You've got tens of thousands of
Americans dying from this. You need to take out the
organizations that are doing it and these boats. Frankly, when
it comes to targeting, these aren't like Venezuela and flagged boats,
so this isn't an act of war against Venezuela. They're
(16:22):
essentially pirates. They're running unflagged. They want to go undetected,
and they want to get the drugs out of you know,
Central South America into the United States market, which is big.
I mean, there's a lot of demand from drugs. It's
a fair point, that's part of the problem, but that
doesn't mean it's okay. So I think they're legitimate targets.
(16:43):
I do agree that if you want to do a
regime change war in Venezuela with traditional military forces, that
would require a declaration of war. But there are a
lot of reasons why you would want to go to Venezuela.
People say, oh, it's about the oil. It's really a
big nexus for the whole operation. So with the cover
of a nation state, you can do the money laundering easier,
(17:05):
and when you've got oil flowing, you can attach laundered
money to that transaction. And a lot of this is
flowing to China, just like the fentanyl's coming from China.
You know, it used to be that to launder money,
you know, it would cost the cartels ten to twenty percent,
So they had to say, a million dollar drug sale,
they would get eight eight hundred thousand, and you know,
(17:25):
a couple of hundred thousand would go to the guys
that launder the money. China's eating that cost because there's
so much demand for dollars out of Asia that they're
working in operation to launder the money there. So these
are things and I think, you know, look the economists,
which I wouldn't count on them being a reliable source,
you know, for all kinds of information, but they had
(17:45):
a good write up on this recently. It's you know,
so this is the kind of thing that's going on.
Does that mean we should go to war with Venezuela.
I don't know, but I do think we should take
we shouldn't tolerate this to continue happening.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Couldn't it work so into an authorization, use the military force,
which would set forth the parameters, like the back of
the one back from two thousand and one, which allowed
us to go after terrorists, Islamic terrorists in the aftermath
of nine to eleven. I mean, isn't that compressional stamp
of approval with parameters the appropriate thing to work under.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I think it's a great way to do it. I
have such a bill whether I've worked on for years. Rightly,
I've wanted to go after the cartels in this way
for a long time. They should be treated as enemies
of our country. And I've got the legislation to do it.
But you know, the administration isn't interested in the legislation.
They say, we have the executive authority, we don't really
(18:37):
want to have the debate. Yeah, and I think, look,
the reality is you've got colleagues who don't believe that
they should do it in the first place. So I
think they're right. They may not be able to pass.
There are Democrats who generally has supported but if it
allowed announce the discretion for Trump, they're like, oh, I can't,
I can't support that. You know, Trump in syndrome, it's
(18:59):
in play every time. Ever, I think, look, they're finally
going after these guys, and I think that needs to
be done.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Conreor some more and Davidson. Appreciate your thoughts and comments.
As always, I look forward to having another conversation with you,
hopefully next Thursday, and between now and then, best of
health you and your loved ones, and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Thanks Brian, God bless shore and all your listeners and.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
You, sir, thank you seven twenty eight right now. But
if I've care se the talks
Brian Thomas News
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.