« The Weeds

Ask Weeds Anything!

2017-12-22

Matt, Ezra, and Sarah answer your questions.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
You smell good night. That's dispels now. I thought you smells oh that's right. I gave you you're a terrible Hello welcome for another episode of the weeds, some a box media, podcast network. I met, replaces joined today by as required and Sarah Clip, and today we are going to do our long awaited. Ask us anything episode, and ask weeds ask weeds anything. We are gonna brand map, I apologize a w way. They don't anyway, our our hour, but really, instead of wasting a lot of tat, we have, as we gotta find today. Everybody were taken in July to do things in the afternoon.
oh look it. Let's do. Let's start, let's start with something. Really we see, let's, Sir, with Swedish administrative data. Simon asked this question probably format. This from all the way from Sweden from Jessica Eriksson, who asks I have wondered why the? U S seems to have the worst statistics. As a swede, I am always weirded out by that talking about Sweden's statistics, but there seem to be any in the: U S and to policies for her betting. This is actually quite good, English, but what's the deal, but El Swedish Minister to Date- and I read- I- may need ADA in this case- you it's actually Sweden, that's unusual. I mean the reason we repeatedly come to Sweden, for this is that Sweden is unusual in allowing its government statistical agency is to have access to administrative data from taxes it is the Eu S. Pattern is much more typical and for privacy reasons we do not.
Allows statistical agency is to gain access to other kinds of agencies. Direct address this things like the IRA. swipe. It knows exactly how much money people make it. The department of Agriculture knows how much money is handing out in foodstuffs but we rely on surveys to get that kind of information about the american public, even though other arms of the government know all about it. You often get interesting research. We discussed previously rush Teddy's work, which involved gaining access to ire, status and sort of special times specially anonymous heads like a big deal. And you have to be like yet have like a special in with them too. To get it done, it should be possible to set up a system for administrative data to be collected, anonymize and then publicized. As you know, most countries just haven't made it a priority to get good data I'm going. Do a lot sweetie question. Actually
I'm gonna do one that we all have to answer and I will try to find the careless soap. I asked a likely or Sarah Matt and as right, each tell us a book. They found most influential to them for understanding american politics or their policy walk specialization, and it was in that order, Sir, as Ezra. Ok, I'm so I'm gonna. She was along magazine article, which is close to whenever it, because I thought I thought about those I do about this issue, our come out or no it turned into about. If I don't use the book version, even though the article version that's what I've really care about. So I'm choose a bitter pill. They Stephen Braille, which is a basically both link. Article that ran in Time magazine, maybe twenty twelve or so, and picking it for two reasons about wise, influential. In my career. In writing. The first is just the focus on pay Susan Healthcare, is something think is so essential to healthcare that we often dont cover
and I think he did it in a way that was human eyes. That really told the narrative and in story, and it suggested that you did the poor from a lot of times you talk about is unnecessary care and us use too much care and that really wasn't the issue. The problem is the fact that landfill expensive, but the thing- actually was motion? I tried to me about story. Wasn't the finding it- was about how we cover policy. I think there's a bias off. And in policy and in journalism. finding the newest thing and like we find the new study and we write about it and we say about unfair Romans up, because we have new statistics and we read about them. The thing and I think one of them, is really interesting when that Brill article came out is getting a ton of attention and I know a lot of other healthcare beat reporters in some of them are saying: why don't you, story such a big deal. Everyone knows that healthcare prices are high and clearly Everybody knew that healthcare prices were high, because this story was a big deal in a lot of people. Reading about it in a lot of people are caring about it,
story really influence by policy journalism, because it reminded me that things that have been problematic and issues like four year. That doesn't make them bad stories. We often leave those ones and the cutting room floor It really is shaped the way I approached my health care beat. Instead of writing off a lot of things is: oh, that's just tell american Healthcare works. I became more interested in pursuing old dues, which you know that a lot of ways this would be a great pitch for beet bravely something a lot of us overlook. So I think that is how it was really influential in my own policy journalism, who is next on the list I saw it. I mean a pink for this Douglas raise book, titled city urbanism in its end, which is a bit of an odd title, cause it's it's really just a book about New Haven, but it's a it's a fascinating but
could that it is a really good job while being a locally focused history, of really understanding how big structural, economic and policy forces shape the city and in like really basic seems like. Why is there a city there and New Haven and then why did? Haven like most Americans, cities enter appeared of decline in the second half of the twentieth century, and then how does the presence of Veal University there make it different from other small cities in Connecticut? This is not like the single most comprehend if book about urban policy or something, but unlike a lot of really good books about urban policy, is actually a good book to read. That would be it's like enjoyable and- and you would probably finish it if you started it, which I think is a really often lacking virtue in books about our policy is being good to read a plus the you'll learn a lot it its really fast. it influenced my interests enormously from to be a jerk and I'm gonna pick two by, but it's because together their sort of formed of you
what do you mean it out of my choice and you're, not even following the rover. You, you open everything up now its total Calvin bought. So one of them is on deaf ears. The limits of the bully pulpit by George Edwards, his political scientists and the other is beyond any ology by France, ITALY and these two bucks together really shape my understanding of presidential power and how that power, is utilised and also does what political journalism overwhelmingly gets wrong about how the american political system works, so that the quick version is Edwards. book, is a really thoroughgoing look at her. Rare. It is that the president is able to rhetorically persuade the country of anything to the first approximation. Very few people. Listen. the most things the president says, and then the people who Our tuning in are overwhelmingly comments before they tuna, and so people are not like shooting into this the union or even much more to the point at speech on a Tuesday to be pursued. If anybody who is watching is watching on Fox or MSNBC, and their already convinced so
It has a lot of doubt on this boat, but president's this whole idea. Public leadership, if only the present gave a better speech, everything would be. And its tolable shit, France's Lee by car. I think, shows really clearly the president's act as party leaders and got all this data showing that even some things that you wouldn't think people to any disagreement about it all like should the. Should we try to go to Mars as a society or she she's all these examples of things that are non political or non polarized, but she shows that the present just pay in a position on them, makes a prospect of a party line vote more likely. So basic president, because our party leader, because of the parties fortunes, are associated with them. Anything. The present endorses becomes not just about that sure, but also, if that goes away, the president wants it to go. Then it's like that's a good reason for people to vote for the press and the president is being successful
because the minority Party wants to win back power and win back the presidency, and if there are in the minority in Congress when by Congress, that gives them into a reason to oppose it. So I think that the mix of these two for me is it. The president is overrated, is a public leader. Their ability to convince people through rhetoric and and speeches is way over did but privately and in terms of how they lead Congress there much more polarizing than people realise and what they say things really really matters and public leadership. There can actually become very counterproductive. Big is a present going out on uninitiated. Maybe it's not that controversial, taking a big position on it is what people think they should do to pass something, but part of youth in need, most from the other part in Congress. That often makes it harder, because the factors of coming associated with their success, makes it literally irrational for the opposing parties to support them on it. That's about a book somehow, ok, so have been asked if
Republicans move to social security, slash Medicare reform after tax reform presumably passes I can they do it through reconciliation and what they need to wait for fiscal year. Twenty nineteen right before the midterms, or is it some other way? You see them trying to pass it so they're couple things worth looking at here, and I dont want to fully do the calendar for memory because they do have to create new reconciliation instructions. To do this I don't know exactly when those who had expired, but my senses they can form Medicare, what's real port here is that the bird rule governs when you can organise budget reconciliation has just one has a number of unusual provisions, but one unusual provision because you can't do social security, You do anything else: Medicare medicate, food, stamps taxes, all kinds of things, but you cannot touch social security using the budget reconciliation process so they are not going to be able to do big social security costs or even the benefit increases. They chose to do that through reconciliation on but Medic
perform definitely could be, Medicaid could be all kinds of other. Things are related to budget and spending could be whether they will, I think, will be question, my God isn't it Republicans might wanna. be caught trying here right and the social It will give them a reason to do that. They may not actually want to cut, and he and Medicare or and social security, but might one, although we succeed for their own people like they were trying to be fiscal, sponsible, but even that seems like a bad idea. I just have a lot of trouble, believing they're going to come out with it. package about having any cut programmes for old people before turn when their literal, only chance of survival is like old people are mobile through culture, war rhetoric. I ask this one. This is where each of us, but although last cause I'm asking it and the broader question, so I'm Alex waste men who probably Windsor word for submitting the most question. So thank you Alex. He asked what do each of you wish. You knew more about I wish I knew more math
it's so my dad is actually mathematicians. I come from a family that has a lot of math in it and pulse. For that reason of also for others. I was very bad in math at school, and it's like I, I think people think I know legal like I know a lot about math for somebody who does that journey and we d, but like budget mouth really easy. Like our say you don't. We need one that, like the scientific calculators like you, really only be like additions, attraction in Africa has really like a conventional budget office tables. It's like the simplest Matthew. Possibly imagine I would really like to be better at manipulate models. I would like to be better following the middle of complicated economics papers. I would just like to people to think in math more clearly than I can and is voicing the. If I had time, I feel like I'd like to go back into some continuing education. But as yet, I have not had not cleared the space to do so so math, I wish I knew more about China. Spit country seems important. I
That's a centre I wish I knew more about programming data manipulation, as I got into a lot of reporting projects, would benefit from having it better. standing of Excel, and I guess it's a more technical skill cuz as there is talking about with math that go back and a time machine and like take those classes in college, I probably would have bad gotten around doing them in some sort of continuing occasion sort of way that may one day, enough screwing around here and utterly softball questions. It's time for the question on everybody's mind: can
Finally, learn what mats position on canadian softwood lumber Paris is. This question was submitted, not lose. The only question submitted twice the only question too. I was the only so specific question on the question of academic heads off of hovered. Terrorists have enjoyed guys if her first event that came up now. Can this dispute has been going on for decades and for an intractable dispute. the policy is? She was, actually, surprisingly, click cod What's going on here is that Canadian saw would lumber mostly comes from British Columbia, mostly comes from publicly on land, and what's called these dumping fee like what you have to pay the government is to cut the trees down it set in minutes natively rather than set to market mechanisms, this guy whose canadian softwood lumber experts a de facto subsidy relative to american softwood lumber. We have to pay a market rate to cut the trees down.
it clear that this is a subsidy from the enormous market share the canadian southward lumber obtained in the United States, is much much cheaper. The the interesting disputes there is one is there is a legal dispute Endless rounds of legal dispute, where am I in lumber interest say that this is an unfair trade subsidy and the Canadians counter with a bunch of arguments pertaining to the of rules that has to do with this sector. Specificity of the subsidy is very complicated. I'm not a trade lawyer. I don't really understand whose legally correct here, but the important thing is that the who is issue doesn't hinge on the question of whether or not the software lumber is actually subsidized Another interesting question for the United States is right. If Canada wants to take its publicly owned forests, and then send us a lumber at a discount leg that really so bad for America is clearly bad for american lumbering interests who drive the politics of this. But I like me,
to view. I think I'm not a forestry entrepreneur, I'd at our own any trees. I do, however, oftentimes that live in houses and inhabit buildings that are made out of Would, I think, I'm cheap housing but housing is, is a good thing, so you know that's a perennial trade prick. Shouldn't type it. Are you taking the pro Canada position? I mean, I think, if the Canadians want to send us subsidize discount, softwood lumber like more power to them. They should maybe reconsider why they want to cut down their forests and to send them for us to build cheap houses. But on the technical question it is definitely a subsidy to canadian softwood lumber interests, a Some Stephen Bank wrote that I have mentioned that. I worry about the supply of health care, rather than our ability to pay for health care.
and he wants to know if, if Aaron Ezra share, my worries at this particular is a single payer type system and how hard would it be to increase that supply? I also wonder why that's think about this, so I can actually take the back half of the question. First, I dont think very hard to increase supply. So I think that is, there are plenty of talented people out there and I think, actually a lot of the supply you need are not. The most specialised am proud no medicine but a lot of physician assistance. Nurse practitioners- I don't think it's that hard to increase supply. I think the question is is how you pay for all of us. So I think it's very easy if you give people a higher salaries, if you offer these training programmes, medical education, as a little bit. We heard in the United States in that its heavily financed by me care are program that covers older Americans finances are residency programmes for doctors. There actually is a artificial cap.
now and how many doctors we train every year there is a product of federal policy in every year. The medical school lobby for more residences- and sometimes they get a view, and sometimes they don't so don't think increasing supplies that hard it's a question of what you're paying if you wanna like mess with the residency system, in terms of its like the context of single pair. This is just about the policy decisions you make like. If you will to pay for more supply. You're going to have higher taxes into gets back to this conversation about prices is how much you want to pay people, I think that's the context for maybe supply is given, but to generate when you're running up against. How much do you want to pay these people versus how much want your healthcare system to cause. That's the equilibrium that I think can get a bit challenging I would just add that that I think this is one of these things where increasing supply is pretty easy, fury and pretty difficult in practice, which are not sure differently,
and what Sarah saying, but just there it would be a very separate set, a fight to have like every state that is not currently letting nurse. Practitioners are physicians. Assistance do heavy primary care with doktor present to get them to do that right. My it's not that their impossible to win necessarily instantly. The federal government even may be tied for cancer funding to it, but but that that would be thou be the gold another one you could do as you could make it much easier for doctors from other countries to emigrate. here. Right thou be another way you could increase supply of factual, skilled doctors very very quickly, but the war thing where this would get really tricky is if you are imagining a single pair system that has some this pricing power and is bringing costs downright to your listening to a single pair advocate, say about single pair now you're trying to increase supply at the same moment that you're, probably making like the war, of being a doctor. Less renew motive, which would to a certain number of dockers. It it's a profession that can skew older and they're perfectly areas where there's not that much supply.
A bunch of doctors are older and they may leave the profession or you may see hospitals good out. So I, It's a possible thing to do, but I think there will be a transition period can be difficult. The other thing I would note is that a really big supply problem- even now not so much like overall national supply, but geographical spread of civil I- and so if you are in Miami their allotted doctors and if you're in their world areas. Were you really have to go quite far to see certain kinds of specialists are needed? question. There is over time. Do things like telemedicine begin to to make out at least a little bit easier, but one thing that we do need to think about, as were very big country. We have a lot of very rural areas and The bottleneck is really a single pair problem. I do think that we have a lot of issues with sort of world distribution of healthcare resources and we have a great way solving them. Next it and one of their supply issue. I worry about the most now
The system is the supply of pretty low wage home health AIDS, which is not a very desirable positioning of this, involves often taken care, someone who can take care of themselves a lot of washing and bathing and daily tasks of life and It is a position with really high turn over. That has some sometimes to fill- and I don't see that seems like a harder one to deal with there- isn't a desire to pay these people of money, but their skills are are pretty needed and that that seems like a space where there is a challenge and getting enough supply. I've got a question, is very relevant. Our show for Rachel P How do you find good papers and be our data? I taken recently- and this have not would not use a ton of these on the show. But I've been just asking people on Twitter Absurd just be like what are some good political science papers. Lately I find that the difficulty of following
on and be are released vapours in various disciplines. Relief personally frustratingly political science does not have a good centralize way to follow the region. and it's even worse, because a lot of the papers are working papers. So, even if you're watching the journals, a lot of the stuff that people are talking about now, it will be published in a final form, an internal four years to think it's, a hugely informal network of how people are finding out what casting researches and suchlike. I've asked people to send me stop what do they do? Sometimes I ask on Twitter, but I really wish policy sociology etc would make us but easier on us. Poor struggling journalists, one to six plain for people who are not lake and be are aficionados so the day then be hours every Monday they post this list of economics Working papers. They come from very highly respect economists allow them goin to be very interesting studies, So you know every Monday you can. can be are for the latest economics research and its really helpful repository that
I follow journals like Gemma, New England, Journal, medicine and health affairs is another journal that I like and I also use social media to find them, but the nice thing about enviers, it's just its reliance- Every Monday, you're gonna get a bunch of economics working papers. This tell me you're a lot of people want to give back. I bet always obvious to choose: where do you want you? Don't the mighty friends posting online about They are supporting or or get a call from somebody who's looking raised money, but that's not the best way. To actually add to side was a useful cause to support with your money and give well is the answer to that. They recommend a shortlist of top rated evidence base charities that help your charitable dollar from the first It's really important understand that the methods that they use a lot of charity waiting organizations producing very superficial thou like look at how much of the money goes to over or so, but that what is really important is, and how is the money spent, is the money spent on things that actually help? That's what makes
He was unique. They look for charities that do the most good in terms of lives saved on poop, with every dollar d. the workmen nine top charities that matter exacting standards used. Highly evidence back. They help the poorest people, and so one of the top charities is the against Malaria foundation. distributes five dollar nets to prevent malaria and avert child deaths. Another give autopsy. We give directly it just eat, gives cash directly to very poor people to buy the things that they need not withstand. This rigorous studies that strongly support these programmes having a large impact on the people there. sir, you don't to you just take their word for all the details of give us work available for free on its website is really like exhaustive research documentation into why they think these are the most cost effective charities out there, but If you, if you do, want to take their word for it, you can just look at the quick Lestat find the people to give to see W W W that give well dot org and you can level thousands of ours, that their staff is putting defining exceptional charities.
then you'll give money to one of those charities. You will feel good about yourself, and rightly so. So I, I am interested in a question here, which is mats, twenty fifteen article, american democracies, doomed and The question asks given at least one in come a party is, I could resist any given reform bill or amendment so multi member districts. For your house terms, a new voting rights ACT exhorted any you can imagine it would substantially change the way the system works is probably going to be blocked, given how the system is. How do Norway is there an MR case or more like Post imperial Britain than the collapsing. empire what I want couple distinctions here, but when I say that american democracy is doomed, I'm not trying to say that, like the american nation State or american society, Eddie is necessarily doomed. France, for example, right has this did as up as a state for several hundred years, but during that time they ve
You know some revolutions. They ve had some episodes of being conquered by Germany, a lot of changes in the fundamental political regime and, as in my view, is that the regime is doomed, not american society. I agree with him, though, that, like we are not going to enact the fundamental reforms that we need. I did not like a hyper balikh take on my part. I I think that the american constitutional system will collapse, and my hope is that when it does collapse enough, people of good will understand that regardless of the specific bad act surrounding that collapse? The larger issue is that the system is unworkable and we should replace it with a different one when the time I rather than doing what they ve often done in Argentina, which is have the constitutional order collapse and then just words,
to the old one rather than actually fixing it. I think a collapse will probably come some day and I think there will be some kind of return to democratic wall cause. There's fundamental reasons for that, but will we ought to do is come up with a with a dick system to put into place nothing to do with like collapse of Rome, type scenarios in which, like epidemic diseases, wiped out a third of the population and the country was overrun. by barbed Arians. I don't. I don't mean that could happen, but I don't really Why would happen and has nothing to do with the constitution? TIM Dang asks. What's a policy that you think needs to be changed that no one is talking about all answers in two chunks, one one of the principal level. We are just bad revisiting policy for them, what people want to do like new, exciting things not go and make technical modifications to old things, and also, as a lack of political power problem
things that are around, have developed constituencies even for weird parts of of how they work, whereas like new things do not know so they have constituencies behind them, and so we are just bad at doing modernization for foremost of Darbar Palo. architecture? We a lot of things that are very outdated. I mean I would Four heavily revisit the american healthcare system. I think the american healthcare system is very talk about that land. No one's at cop out is that a cop out you think I will then you answer and I'll come on. I have a very specific health care policy. All hollow had no dogs, you ok, I find out you can do your aunt Kate, around with similar. So I think we visit the meat will you standards of the high tech act which no illegal who's talking about that there's some trade public. sense, but this actually relates to a story. I worked on earlier this year about fax machines in medicine and
We actually comes back to a policy when you talk to the Obama people who implemented at Daisy, yeah. We didn't get this policy right and would they trying to do with the high tech they were trying to create a healthcare system were Oliver doctors to each other and like you're, orthopedic near primary care. It up they could like share an x ray. I got everyone to adopt digital records, but they didn't get people to share physically unit orthopedic of their digital x, Ray you're primary care doctor digital record that doesn't of x ray and most of it. And things around by fax machines. Still in a lot of that is actually a policy failure where there was no firm pushed to say you have digitize and you have to talk to each other. They just kind of assumed will once single, digitize digitizing, of course, they're going to talk to each other. Nobody really talks about it, because it's pretty in the weeds and like a two thousand nine chunk of the stimuli. Since not even in the stimulus. It's like rules promulgated after the stimulus but I don't think it's working and I think it's actually creating a lot of problems
so I will. I will also try to give a more specific one on Sarah's request, which is, I think, that one, We would do a lot of good bye, revisiting we do that copyright and Patten and broader intellectual property system. I don't they get, it works well for them, or an era. I know a lot of places. We should be looking at alternative, so in the pharmaceutical space I think, would be good to have a parallel system that worked off of prizes. Where say the government could say You invent a molecule or treatment of some kind that does ex thing for Why disease? We will give you a billion dollars, but after that, it's completely fino there is it open on the market, any generic minute manufacture, can make it I've. Just there is a lot of gains to be made in easing the way forward for innovation. I think a lot of economic drag is happening from sculpture. and trolling and from companies are buying each other and ordered like arm themselves. A Google bought Motorola Shell of Motorola till I take on
all Motorola patent prefer LEO, not because they wanted the intellectual power de necessarily, but because it allowed them more effectively to sue or counter sue. People were coming after them with weird patent litigation. I do think that system is fucked up and we would be wise revisit it. I think the practice in the United States that we take for and with a federal government, state governments and local governments actually levy different kinds of taxes seems like a mistake to me. I think there should be one tax system, there could be some option. Allergy where it's like states can decide how much can an extra tax they want to collect versus having low tax, and then they could delegate further authority to till apologies. But having this, this is a more like property taxes, just like owned by low. Government and then income taxes are owned by the federal government and in sales. Taxes are typically owned by state governments is:
Weird, it doesnt really make sense. It arose for very sort, a contingent historical reasons. Many foreign countries dont do it that way they do a single system with piggybacking and it's like even in the most blue sky type tax reform conversations. Nobody wants to revisit this idea. I ever question: I think it's for Ezra from Edward Maroni, who wants to know what policy change could see, the problem of tribal epistemological, the age of the internet, cable news without doing damage to the first amendment or due to human nature, are we doomed to forever live in a world of people on both sides choosing their own facts? I think you do so good to bracing, to answer a policy question missing? There is no answer. I do not think goes policy change it could be made that would substantially change this. I mean there's blood things you do on the margin to tread the old, fake news, but keeping people from China. seeing information sources in a competitive information market that they prefer. I should think it useful to think about this
in any other context, re like think about. Other things that are not like news have the civic dimension doom, but our entertainment, and but is there a way to choose, did keeping all it there's a lot of entertainment choices. From watching a sick, combat you think, stupid, rather than like, like up steam drama that you think, is a good answers. Now people people go through preferences. I think of us who are interested in using politics. Often to imagine that interest as very high minded by, but in the way the brain works and in the way we operate it attends to operate more as a hobby and preference and an interest like any other. Some people love reading about sports and some people, love reading about politics- and those have psychologically is laudable- imitation on this very similar pathways in the brain, very similar emotional response- is really related to them, and so people going to choose things they like. I think that the place you have to go is to try to create more accountability,
ah on politicians, so to the extent you can people are they. They have better reasons to try to get things right because even with people choosing lot of news like if you crush the economy, people get upset about that, and one thing is a theme in my writing. In my coverage of how we structure political systems is, We have a lot of dimensions of the american system where we make the accountability hard to levy. elections are happening at all different kinds for all different groups of filibuster makes it hard to say like did something happen, because somebody did or did not happen because their stop other minority partying. If so, who do you blame? I think we can be it easier for people to hold voters, politicians cannibal based on real outcomes, but in terms of what kinds of things people are going to see? to believe? I don't think it's a lot. We can do, and certainly not on policy level finger up to a question. I thought this was. interesting from Robert or how do the weeds hosts think through what appears to be a trade off
between more immigration and welfare. That a trade off appears to exist seems to explain the U S is idiosyncratic, small welfare state, but maybe that's worth having more immigrants, and I also want to note it is added into this question- is broader diversity right to be the more multi ethnic state is more Rachel where city than most developed competitors I think a lot of the immigration research through similar search on mad and together they do speak too. Why- we have less social solidarity and and and that that's been impediment for social welfare state for its expansion. I don't think that its clear that the immigration welfare state tradeoff exists. I mean, I think, that if you look at the sort of start of anglophone, freeze. They systematically have more immigration, then Continental Europe, and also systematically have smaller welfare states but I don't think you need to say that the immigration explains that these are our high immigration countries, because this sort of settlers state swayed and if you compare them to each other
Canada has more immigration than the United States and a more robust welfare state and the United States Australia has even more immigration and Canada, but it's better. in the? U S in Canada, in terms of the size of its welfare state, Ireland, which partakes of a similar english speaking civic culture, has the least immigration and also the smallest. Well, first, of all those countries you over to the nordic right. Sweden has way more immigrants than Finland, but like very similar sized welfare states. So I dont think I mean I think, there's these sort of like a broad cultural blocks that have very different wealth. States and also have sort of different attitudes towards immigration. But that's like up that's it. sociological observation right Then the question is is like is is a variable that you can tweak right? Could the United States by clamping down on immigration somehow become Finland, and I don't think that that makes sense. You see
Sweden has dialed up immigration and it still fundamentally a nordic society. Canada has dial up immigration, but it's Well, basically, an anglophone society with its small segment of french people living there, who make it more left wing than Australia. So yeah I know this is like a widespread pot, take that immigration and the welfare state or a sharp products, but I I think it's worth the effort I've. Seen this my reporting in a slightly different angle that I dont think our welfare state as a particularly as it relates to our programmes and we know the best. Especially, hospitable are spending a lot of money on immigrants at this point. If you look at the actual policies, for example, reported a story, about refugees from the Middle EAST to am who it is. Berkeley did not convey for Medicaid you actually to be here for five years. You have to think of emergency Medicaid. That kind of kick in is something really catastrophic happened
even for a lot of federal programs. You need to be in the United States for five years before you actually qualify for them. So for things like Medicaid, for example, here is the other way. I see this coming up as less like up policy, trade off and more in shaping the policy. caution, so we ve talked allied- or at least at some length on the show about this. You have who deserves help, and I think that really shaped our politics. A lot this year in terms of the debate around the affordable care, acts and I think immigration plays into that debate and a pretty major way when we think of who deserves Thank you know something like health care which the United States we haven't really decided as a right and the way another a lot of other countries have. We debating will who should get this? Who is worthy of this, and I think there is a strain of thinking powerful United States if you're here working in that those are the people who really deserve benefits, and I think it comes up
That way when people think about how big our welfare should state should be, how welcoming it should be to other people, news about immigration, maybe not as much the exact amount shapes it is, passion about what the welfare state should look like quit. or to hear asks to what extent had as a bomb in care watch me implementation watching it all on fold, influenced you're thinking about the role of government and in health care, and I'm I'm really is, and what, but both as ran Sarah think about this, because you, your big Obamacare people from big around care brains, so it has made me- is made me believe more strongly in the role of government and healthcare markets. Essentially, I see the affordable care act as really to separate coverage. Expansions one that was Medicaid basically socialized medicine. and if you go that far, those busily a single pair sort of system at the state level and one that was this really tightly regulated government market place and
we ve seen the medicate expansion has been much more successful, less problematic people, fear in those plans and they are in the marketplace: plans where's, the marketplace. Then a lot of tumult, alot of Raising premiums lot of insurance companies dropping out end there are government run markets that are more tightly regulated than ours, like Germany, for example, has sickness funds that compete in this much regulated environment even more than the healthcare talk of environments, but I think the affordable care act in these kind, experiments have been running in parallel. They have We believe more strongly. In in federal role or in some government role in managing healthcare system, and this is due and then, where I was like six ago, when the health marketplaces, really this bright, shiny object. They seem like this cool, exciting policy experiment. I think the results of this merriment are relying on these private partners came with a lot of a lot of downside,
that are being exposed right now. So I how to save- as I was saying- I think at this point like unpopular view on this, which is, I think that there is nothing about Obama care. They couldn't have worked. But its fury, its political, there was wrong, and so it is not gonna work, which is to say that resale rights carry you mean, like the I mean, I'm on your played off there, but I recognise your point about separating attitude batches, but let us take the marketplace. For a minute, which is that. One lesson of Obamacare, which I was not surprised by really at the time, but but I think I've been surprised by how vociferous this was vociferously. This was true is common this policy is not in any way led to compromise politics or policy stability to and shock the new Republicans voted with affordable care. Even though, is very based on ideas. Republicans
Had been interested in and in the previous years, but I was surprised by how intense the hatred of it was given that it was a policy designed to like be not that offensive. If you can imagine a world where, like Republicans liked I'm a care the way they liked it. Massachusetts met Romney's proposal as like in Massachusetts. I think messages care went pretty well and like you, could very much it imagine, a political system that was more technocratic, like em is interested in dialogue the different policies in a bomb up and down to get it right and so, like? Maybe dial the individual mandate up a little bit and need all the subsidies up a little bed and new dial. You know some regulations down a little bed, unlike you know, whatever those like you could try to a lot of things here, but that wasn't the politics worked out. Democrats didn't have power publishers, wanted to destroy the whole thing to see it burn, and so it's not gonna work and
so one thing I do think Obama CARE has suggested it in a world where we have pretty harshly partisan politics in a world where policy compromise is not going to be very likely. You want simple, straightforward proposals and you want them to have pretty odd, attic ways in which they adjust their spending or or they please don't. that much fine tuning going forward. So I think Sarah Obamacare move me more towards thinking that you know just expand public programmes and be done with it, although again, one thing I think is interesting. Is that of bankers really changed where the Democratic Party is on this? I think people a little bit it. Is it forget how much about there was a compromise with indifferent factions of the Democratic Party, like the votes are really hard to get like Ben Nelson from Nebraska.
Joe Liebermann from Connecticut, and these were players who were were not willing to do things that I think I should have been willing to do, but I think next time of Democrats do this, they would be wise to not play a game with sixty and instead Jesse's reconciliation and try to expand some public programmes. So policy compromises a is a full scale. That's my that's my bottom line, but I dont really I think that the Vienna line policies have been as discredited in theory, but not being discredited. Theory isn't worth that much. We can't make it work in political practice. I Matt what explains your sharp reverse on corporate taxation in the last few years and we have some citations views it is have had an idea this has occurred. Is a scimitar Weimar aim that the weeds was
Robert or is mounting, gets me what I say in that slate article is that it would make sense to eliminate the corporate income tax entirely, but the problem is, you would have to make up the revenue, and I suggest that we could make up the revenue with higher dividend and capital. taxes? Our Republicans are doing is partially not making up the revenue at all and partially making up the revenue with higher taxes and sort of middle class taxpayers. That is a poor, swap I continue to think so. Here's an important technical issue, which is that the corporate income tax sort of passes through shareholders, but it hits you no matter how you on your share, so if you, when your shares to a far one k on Irae other kinds of tax preferred accounts. You still sort of pay. The corporate income tax, whereas dividend and capital gains tax, is actually spare the sort of typical middle class, talk owner who owns it through special retirement plans. So I think there is a specific distributional region
You prefer them as well as the various administrative reasons that I outlined in the sleigh peace. It's true that concrete partisan politics and wind of being different from some abstract discussions, but I think that there is a concern Can we appoint here. I've got another offered here, not thanked. Thank you for it. For your question I'm a little adversary here that image today because I think this is something that you begin here Republicans say and in a way that was unthinkable a decade ago. What is I swear to respond to somebody says: Obamacare is too make insurance companies richer, but they're not have kept. rights? Are they getting richer? I well I mean the insurance companies jump dropping out of up on my care and Ngos are getting richer. For other reasons there getting my part by drugstores. Yes, oh yes, exactly seven here. If you're Edna here hinting required by a drugstore gentle, embarrassing, is there then turns company unity,
way I would risk. I guess it is kind of my response is that the market places haven't really. Been a desirable placed, so coverage of seem like the biggest players, and you know the ones that are publicly traded. United. signal at night you pull out of the marketplace says it was such it's such a rare, Do you to make money on the market places the Bloomberg dead. There's big splashing profile of this one health insurance company. You haven't heard of Constantine that actually being quite successful on the market places, but I guess You know I weighed. Oh, I I think that this question is coming from a different angle like about like this is run, like your liberal relative rule are asking about But so anybody can. I connect this though I only right fatal, isn't you're saying like you're the the criticism is oh, this was a big give away to insurance companies and your defence is like will act. Insurance companies are making money, but then how
that relate to like, like lessons learned from the affordable care act, because it it seems, I get it, isn't that the policies economic work. Unless insurance companies make much I'd one one, additional Mcgovern, harder, I now see a lot of folks and I ve been retreated, assume eleven and others being like Obamacare, stabilizing and I'll be like a chart of insurance company like profits and Obamacare, which is a weird position for liberals to be it by getting used to like insurance company profits. Bonanza look good! ok. If I make money off of Ababa colonel, I will say that after a bunch of companies lost of Lillian exited the marketplace, so I think, like those charts right- yes, it's totally disregarded implies in about a good, be even better if his shirts companies like by making tonnes more my ass, so it True, I mean the private market places they depend on insurance companies saying it is a good business decision to enter these marketplaces unusual. they say it's a good business decision when they think they can have some level of profit margin, so it is
certainly true having these private market places. There are people who, are making money. Out of that, I would. Though, I think the and I've had been clearly that a shelf it insurance industry for those and that's fine, but I think they focus on insurance profits is somewhat misplaced mode. Insurance companies are running like a three to four percent margin. The big margins and by far and health care are in the farmers. Suitable industry are in the drug space where they are making a lot of money, and so I think this focus on. Oh, this is just to give away to the insurance companies. I don't think that's quite right in Companies are turning all that money over to dry, companies that are creating these expensive new pelles to emerge zero homes that I've been writing about, that are charging some pretty high fees. Waiting are things like like it. Usually. Outraged about the amount that we spend on health care. I dont know that all the outrage
he's dead insurance plans is especially well placed. You know, as I reporting on this, I think a lot more goes to the people who actually make the units of healthcare. Here's here's a fund, who's. Gonna lose their position of power. First Nepal, Ryan Majority leader Mitch, Mcconnell Present Donald Trump so I think those is there are none of the above her vision, but what, he's got. This is why there is thinking and, like your resignation, shameful sort of way, our just one way or the other already called they'll go. At the same time, a jump together haven't gates. I get one interesting question about. This is coming leader of the minority if you're not out of leadership is account, is losing your position of power. Where I'd like to go for like the oh, like you can't be leader any more at all yea. I agree with that. I mean if, if your view is that much Mcconnell could hang on
minority leader, then he still hanging up. I think Paul Ryan Outs, devil ok, they ran so couple thing so poorer and to me, has the weakest grip on power or of all them within their Publican party he's got the weakest. Space was a most mistrust of him within the body he controls like if it were just Who's gonna, win republican presidential primaries forever does Mcdonalds Would you fine the foreseeable future Mitch? Mcconnell does have a fair amount of loyalty from a public and members of the Senate they're not these challenges to his authority, but Paul Ryan is continuously on thin ice, particularly because, like loose the house, which seems totally possible me in in twenty eighteen. He could go and even even if they don't, but it just gets closer in he's ineffective, either get toppled, the one reason that now I'm down in this is a as actually run out. The theory is that, unlike Paul Ryan or Mitch, Mcconnell Donald Trump Coolies power, not because republics
lose faith in him, but because the brought our country does- and I think that could happen. I think that will happen actually think done. I am of the view that Belgium is unlikely to win reelection assuming he runs changing my view. Actually I think it's gonna be rump. That's hard between children. I don't. I would not been a lot of money other way. I mean we also have. The rush. Investigation is a big wildcard in in this as Well I just think their house european carcasses like untilled in like a weird way like they voted for a tax bill that, like his taxes on orphans and my crew Z, stuff when they do, it was gonna have to get sent back by the Senate. For some reason, Rhine has been a. We had this question by Medicare earlier and we all agree that cannot actually gonna take on better care next year, because that would be crazy, but why sport saying they're going to like it's. I don't know, I don't know: what's happened
there are better, the count of went on Ryan is, I think, he's hold off the insurgency fur like how long We then leader at this point a year and a half. Oh, it's live longer than that, but I guess banner went down in twenty four. You might be rather think better. Only you thousands of years like a lifetime precisely of a number of insurgents. He is it is surprising, is gonna be able to vote for the shoddy bills is putting together. I me like a he's: got a lotta people walk a lotta planks? Ah, then, the Iranian, like those not really been, there's been a lot of grumbling, but there's this guy. Who takes him? That's the hard thing they like. What is the path towards, as will the path of Hague Poor and go down as easy? It's the same is one with bain or which I value added. I, who is running exam like Ben, I bet you don't get em gives rise. You didn't end up with like tea party right wing leader. right. So I don't know I don't know. Duff stuff is Rihanna wins
So our last question: it's not very hard guys what blogs and podcast two of us listen to breed Argo. First, That's cool, so I'm gonna go with some some new or ones have been into. I shall we say, vocs media Pike, S ROV limits here I can, but I do listen to those. So I love death sex in money. On a scale which is just like a really cool show about death, sex and money and the struggles people have among listings, really human show, and I find it to be a very pretty nice into watch in this era, I like more perfect for media lab, I think, is really good. I like on being by Christa Tippit Do not my like super political ones, because on an a lot of politics out there right now, Alex still processing a lot with us here,
listen and Jenna worth them from the New York Times, like, I think, they'd you're, really great culture podcasting and I'm really excited every time it pops up in my feet us into the editors in national view, which I think is a good progress to get things from from another perspective, and I will end this within our time. The BBC radio for podcast, just like like area discussions about weird things I think, is pretty fun. really. I don't really was in the past like in our in our area here, but I really am the accidental tech podcast, which is about technology and MIKE Duncans various passes history of Rome and his his series on different revolutions are, I think, there's a great and a sort of refreshing break from politics. Guess I mostly don't listen to politics, vodka, so I'll tell you my tap ones and looking at my library, provide fever podcast of recent years, is the uncertain our from market place, particularly the first season, which was all about welfare reform. I
It fascinating and the stories are told in a super Human way, and I never really knew I wanted a six hour- explain or and welfare of warm until they produce dead, but whose just really really interesting- and I thought really well done I am also a big fan of you. This is where our politics at this point, but a home coming from gimlet, which is essentially radio drama sorts of fictional podcast that Syria lized over weeks David. replace one of the main characters in it is founded a really nice break from reality? I listen to it. When I read my bike and I really enjoy that I ve, got a really really internal astronauts. Everyone superinduced lately is the Heavens Gate Podcast, which is a ten part. I think piece. It still go away series iron. What happened with the Heavens gate calls in the ninety nineties and something
kind of like an age when I was a kid I like vaguely, knew about it like I could get a joke in like a cultural reference to it, but this part cast it is from sticker and pineapple. media. There just digging like super super deep into this again. This is not something I knew I wanted to listen to a pot guest about, but now that I've been listening, I am comply, hooked on it and that's my my dog working but guest. six questions, you thank you so much and they can every participates in the weeds Facebook Group, which is where we got. These end, has just like been really delighted little corner of the internet. yet absolutely and You know if you, if you still have, burning desire for more audio content and check out the rest of the box The package are really you understand you. That's actually one reason that Lazard, yet there's this guy ones out there also as Russia, which is so k so came back,
Now, I'm kidding, I'm fine, that's it we're very mass cranking. We're only unworldly has been really great. Lately there has actually a lot of crazy staff has been happy. International I've been reading that Pica Sarvant to give them like, like all the partners agree. I think your interesting has been really great. I loved his interview, cousin with bustle brand, but I feel like we ve had a of intense foreign policy news recently I really needed somebody tell me going on and worldly has been there for me, although I will give a shadow Todd's Pat cast. I really liked is adjusted it now. I wonder and other episode they think people like ass. He talked all the people involved with the big SEC, which has won my favorite movies, the euro, and I thought that I pursued was another one that is worth checking out Without thanks, everyone is listening thanks to thank everybody who asked questions and who participates in Facebook Group Especial thanks to June again, who helped to organise this whole thing. Orchestrated thanks are produced.
Their Peter Leonard and we were less easy.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-12.