« The Weeds

Mueller's investigation is over. Obamacare repeal isn't.

2019-03-26

Sarah, Dara, and Jane discuss the Hill's response to Mueller, the DOJ's siege of Obamacare, and the benefits of IUDs.

National Review article

Zack Beauchamp's article on the reaction to William Barr's Mueller letter

New York Times article on Mueller report

White paper

We are conducting an audience survey to better serve you. It takes no more than five minutes, and it really helps out the show. Please take our survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3X6WMNF

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

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Yeah. This is Marquez Brownie Acre Amphibia hd, and this is Andrew Manga Nellie. We will introduce you to our podcast way, form the new sedition to the Vocs media podcast network, so I've spent ten years reviewing tech products and consumer electronics for millions of people. On the incubation, Youtube Channel and now on the way forward. Cast Andrew and I use that experience to dig even deeper into latest tech for smartphones too. I max to electric cars. So if you're gadget lover or attack head or if you just want to figure out whether the latest gadget is worth your harder and cash give us a lesson say, can find way form the empty beefy pie cast on your favorite Pakistan every Friday see over there. I guess we'll get started, Please hurry hurry.
Hello and welcome to the weeds on the Vocs media podcast network. I am not met Ecclesiastes, although I have stolen his chair in the broadcast studio. I am Sarah Cliff. I'm here with Darrow End and Jane Coastal right think, the first time the three of us have hosted together yet side as well, I was going to say like as of this time yesterday, look like we are going to have the worst timed like. You know not. None of us are resident experts on the Mulder report. Luckily, Luckily, there is some way breaking Obamacare New right. Then the Trump Department of Justice was a g livery, having thorough cliff on the way we ve got some department of Does a voluntary stuff going on. We have got a great white paper about. One of my very topics are you d is end, but first we are going to start with the kind of massive news of the weak and the weak.
And the Mulder Report and kind of where things go. Next, I'm guessing you know, there's a great episode of today explain where you can listen to interpose up interviewed about this about what was actually in it, but here in the weeds, I want to focus on the more weeds each side of where this leaves Congress in their oversight. raw and kind of what happens coming out of this unit is somewhat unexpected version of the The report where you have this week, Window, I got me no ten glued on her right, not very lake. It appears to be the first phase of the congressional responses to demand the entire thing. This was something that you could see. Democrats teaming up even before The report was submitted to attorney general bar that lake. There was kind of a growing sense that you may not necessarily trust the attorney general who Donald Trump appointed to all apparent appearance there it is,
Parents is in order for him to take over them oversight of the hull or investigation with them, but that obviously grew over the weekend and what, by the time the turning general bars actual letter came out, given how infrequently he quoted Mahler and given that his response to be obstruction, site of the investigation was Molly didn't come to a conclusion. Your way, we ve come to a that there was no obstructs which basically kind of wealth is the. U you have now got in the meat of the bar letter. You do not need to read it anymore, but its both an act of oversight, but it's also still kind of like being held. It's it's not like fighting the law asked war per se, but it is in
we're not really in the response to the Mulder Report Fazio right, we're still kind of fighting over the existence of the Mulder Report Yet- and I think also there is both these legal Mahler report and then there's the political mother report and those are two separate things we ve been having this conversation over and over again about how lot of what is in the Mulder report is more is that we have not seen- and I think it's important keep reiterating- that we have not seen it and permits Mcconnell. We might not see it at all, but I think it's important to remember that this is going to be an oversight question. This has no it's no longer such a legal question. I think what Mcconnell blocked on Monday a resolution that would have required the release of the formal report, its worth noting that bar does intend to release at least something else. His line on this is well. First, we need to see what does not interfere with ongoing potential grand jury.
Estimations and then we need to scrub it in accordance with law, department policies and the reason that that's kind of reason, alarms for Democrats and why they don't they're, not necessarily willing to wait and see what gets release publicly is that department policies in general and obviously they have not necessarily done this always and in fact, in twenty sixteen, they very famously violated this. With regard to Hillary Clinton, in theory, you're not supposed to talk in detail and documents about unindicted behaviour. So if the conclusion is the Donald Trump didn't commit obstruction of justice that gives them licence to delete any parts of the Mulder report. The talk about things, the Donald trumpeted that could be considered obstruct, justice before their release to the public. But yes, the idea that metastasized image forty in the time after the bar letter that, like the Mulder report, is somehow more damaging to Trump and that, if only Congress could get its hands on it, then we could be going somewhere has relay think taken.
yeah. It's also. I want to draw attention that it's not just in resistance twittered having a false leave tat to a Robert mother. That is thinking about this, which is a thing that people did. We I think that is a separate podcast for a separate time. Oh boy, a separate, perhaps bringing on like a host of other, not people to discuss just that, but I think that is worth noting that there's a great peace in national view today by you, ve all Levin, that's talking about how Everyone is responding right now to the bar letter, which is a summary and no one else has seen the actual report night. I know we said that multiple times, but I do think it's worth recognising that, to the extent of what we actually know the people who are dumping on journal send the same journalists or say who are being dumped like no one has seen what Mahler actually concluded, and so I think it is important to note that
There are a lot of people on both sides of Look Lyle who are interested in seeing not just the actual report itself, but the face applications that were used for war wiretapping, which you, if you remember Carter page there just went a host of people. This investigation, who in two years will become really great bar trivia quiz answers which I'm looking forward to, but he Heracles, unlike thus lowborn twenty erudite Susan laterally, had a slot conversation on box lack yesterday. That was basically all of us just naming like people we had
thought about in months that we wanted to get the kind of post credits montage ass, like so I'd invests, does raise, are put in the way that it has been summarize. At this point understanding this is not the Mauro report. This is bar summary of the Molitor report where he says there is no evidence of collusion with Russia and that there is not enough evidence to show any sort, Evans obstruction of justice, but also that he has not exonerating him. That position, I think, is one very confusing. I think, there's a lot. We don't know about why. That is where it landed, and I think it's also kind of a tough position for Democrats right now, but where they want to take their seats. On the one hand, mothers are going to have a lot more powers and Congress gradual, democratically lot of powers. If subpoena hours there's a lot, they can do
but if you look at Mahler did its twenty two month. Investigation can't really this side of theirs obstructive justice or there's something else going on. Could we have not read the report? I think it leaves congressional democrats like a very challenging. political position of deciding like. Where do we want to take this? I think it's kind of telling their took Nancy policy. You know a good long, wild to say anything There is not really a clear next step. You know you could you could keep digging into that? They think they're defiling and request that the report be released, but it's that I think it's interesting question of priorities leading into an election that I dont know if I was Nancy Pelosi like where I would want to take this. What I wanted focus on. I dont know what I think will talk about later in the show the Trump Administration like trying to dismantle Obamacare when I want to keep digging in online undocumented minors, how colleague been treated at the border and like things going on with her like all sorts of things you could keep investigating, or do I want to keep going down this path? I think it's a super challenging
session- and I don't even know look. I think in hindsight your say tabled. This was the right choice. I don't know looking forward, there's like a right choice of what to do that. Yeah. It's really the tricky- and I think it relies a lot on what you think congressional oversight is for re lake. The thing that makes the Miller obstruction question in particular difficult and why? It's not just a point for Democrats. Calling for the release of the whole thing is that there is a theory going around that the real and that Mahler didn't commit one way The other on obstruction was specifically because he thought it was a question only best left to Congress in terms of impeachment proceedings like we know that there is kind of a fraught did, its fraught legal grounds, not only to talk about indicting, a sitting president near prosecuting a sitting president in general, but specifically when it comes to obstruct
justice. William bar has and gave to the White House unsolicited and twenty eighteen, a very let's say, robust theory of presidential power. That basically says you can't. Can you can't tartar, president of obstruction of justice, if he's just directing and federal investigation? That's part of his job. So, given that that's not exactly legal consensus, it is totally possible that either because he knew he was gonna disagree with bar or because he just thought you know. Maybe this isn't something for the Department of Justice to determine its something that is best considered by a separate branch. The mother thought the purpose of his or was to lay out the evidence for Congress on obstruction and let Congress decide. We don't know that. That's the case, like the you know, the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam chef and various other committees, are planning to have bar and Mahler in to talk witches.
Definitely a thing. Congress can do very easily, and you know maybe it'll figure this out, but like. I think that that that's kind of the threshold question that has to be answer, because that's a definite thing Congress can do if it turns out that that wasn't the reason ores can't find out one way or the other, then we get into this total morass and it's so what easier on the committee level, because Adam ship is not going to be the alternative, doing intelligence hearings on Obamacare there's a certain Ino committee staff. Are there not a totally renewable lakes infinite resource? But if there is a general, we'll house of things that they're going to be kind of dedicated on one of the other, the exception years has judiciary, which is doing freaking due to syrian oversight or both doing a lot a lot of things, and so those are real questions as to where they want to go. But, like you can expect Adam shift to keep doing what. I am sure you do
It's definitely a bigger question in terms of lake top line. What is Nancy Pelosi spending her time on and the more that some democrats keep talking about Miller report we ve mean the more other Democrats get asked by the media, all the damn time, Molly Report and impeachment mother, important impeachment and leg there's been a little, not so. Stifled relief among the latter dynamic,
in the few times since the bar letter was released, that, like people who weren't necessarily super interested in talking about Russia, all the time now feel that they have the opportunity to talk about the issues which, if you think of congressional oversight, as mostly away to set the talking points in the agenda for the next election. That's a very, very careful consideration, and I think that that raises an important point. Just move backing up a little bit. Is that, contrary to what people who watch a great deal of cable news might think congressional Democrats were not discussing the rush investigation, as often as I think, a lot of people might think it was not a major issue on the ground in twenty eight teen. You did not see congressional democrats making adds that were focused on the russian masturbation, because
as a numerous people have pointed out with respect to twenty twenty Democrats, when Amy Clover, char or a list with warrant have been having town hall meetings. No one is asking about the mother investigation. Obviously there are people who have been deeply deeply interested in smaller investigation evaluated twit. Town Hall? This was a very different thing, but I think someone raised the point that for people who watch cable news, they tend to be of like a higher age bracket. That remembers Watergate. So if you can either tight to Watergate or the White Water investigation that what turned into the Lewinsky investigate people know those storylines are alike. I understand this is for members. This reminds me of something that happened in next an identity or nineteen? Seventy three nineteen. Seventy four there's an understand. like I said yes, I understand the threads of this investigation. Now, there's gonna be a lot of off spins offshoots of this investigation. They're gonna be a lot of different people to talk about it, but it made sense in a cable news perspective, but I agree that for a congressional
Democrats, especially with the Asia NEWS, which was the focus of our lot of twenty eight ten democrats messaging on the ground. Yo, that's what abigails Bamberger we're talking about! That's what a lot of folks were: talking about in races, they want in red or reddish or bluing states, I'm gonna turn bluing into a term. Means. Gyro even mean we talk about purple, yes, but I like bluing, I kind of like getting back to the kind of opportunity cost question here of what other things Democrats could be doing. Neither of us has the congressional alike reporting experience that you have their own specific, limping about, like the twenty tended twenty sixteen period, when Republicans were running you know one or both members at the chambers of Congress enter the Obama administration like it seems to me that, in the kind of a couple of months that we ve seen House Democrats in charge under Trump
there's been a lot of swarming to a few really Marquis issues. There's been a lot of swarming too, like Mahler and assorted corruption stuff nearly calling in Michael Conduct has defied. There's been a lot of swarming two families operation. There's been like a lot of swarming to obey my care and, to a certain extent, like two out of three of those have been in a book there. The kind of from perception stuff in the family of nations have been mostly. Since investigations, which raises questions of what is it the Congress is trying to do with right. I'm wondering in inured experiences that something that tends to be useful for house the members of the opposition party warrior, who have control of one chamber Congress, or is it just kind of a matter of just swarming, to where the media coverage already is instead of Troy
to uncover newer ongoing things, are shaped the direction of policy going forward yeah. I think it's interesting to think of what could you not be accomplished in the link to your session of Congress that we are in right now and when you look back to like two thousand nine trade had reached a superpower, this time? The reason was productive was that democratic super majority in the Senate and that there were such big opportunity was not going last very long. You know they lost it in the middle of the Asia Fights and just barely got the law passed, but there you know there is big costs to doing things that warrant making policy. it with this rare little moment where you had all the stars aligned you and your party uncontrolled everything. Now you know the cost of like not rolling out new policies just aren't as high you note, because you you're just not going to see much past see some like tinkering around the edges. Like it looks like our knows, I'm some surprise billing
Inflation will likely pass in the healthcare space and she says extremely minor that I may have had something to do with, but even in those are like some small bipartisan things like might move forward and then so you think about ok, we're in this election contacts are what can, if you are in control, one body of the Us Congress to control the house like what can you do and really like. One of the things are left with. Is this oversight role of looking backwards and trying to expose things verses, going forwards and creating? policies because any to say I will say you know, Democrats are doing some policymaking. Outta there doing Medicare for all hearings a seer, so they are exploring some policy but kind of the power you have in the opposition in the minority is not one of making policy, and I think that leads to a greater focus on some
thing like the mauler investigation and an into investigating trump and hearings like the Kohen hearing like I think you will definitely see more things like like that with you know, folks, like bar and Mahler, been called up to testify cause there I mean such made for tv moments right leg is so so different to have these page letters verses like ours of testimony. You know in front of a cam ride is just so much more impact fall and do you think from like the Democrats Buick unit, sometimes a big impact you can have as by passing a massive policy, sometimes by having really high profile oversight hearings. That's one of the few powers. They have you no controlling just one chamber of government right now. You know in seeing this the hearings that Democrats have had on the really
high profile stuff so far, it seemed like there are kind of a few competing. You know at the individual member level. There are a lot of members and in both parties who, like want to be on camera, being extremely passion. Ray Lake. There are a lot of members of Congress who do not use their fur minute allotted question time to maximize the number of questions there asked much less lake surface new information, but that goes to what you're saying they're, like one of the purposes of those hearings, is too kind of have people state on the record what they believe in what they believe happened. That was wrong. It gets a little bit trickier. I think, when you're talking about ok, what do you want to have happened as a result of this other than getting you on camera? I think pretty Additionally, there's been innocent assumption that if you can get somebody, if you can pin blame on somebody, you can embarrassed them enough that they can resign right leg. I definitely no that there's been interest in getting people to resign overfishing
separation. That kind of thing we haven't exactly seen anybody resign over policy implementation under the front administration, people have resigned over corruption concerns, but lake. It does not appear obvious to me that that isn't just another Washington norm, that's dissolves, you do have occasion that the administration walking things back when they get super merit like family separation, so that's kind of one. I'm thinking about you know, oversight there's oversight, that's dine of things that are going on now and then there's oversight of things were like. The purpose is to say this thing that you guys have walked back already that you have acknowledged, tacitly shouldn't have happened, you're the person who is going to be held accountable for the US. Yes, I think I kind of like comes back first question: where we're due democratic potential, I already yeah yeah less like what do they want to have their hearings on what is some
like you mentioned, like Adam ship, like his public, and we working on this no matter what book? What is Nancy Pelosi going to be spending her time talking about, and I think, with this report coming out you, I think, they're still because her report to come out, but with no collusion in EV finding it takes a little bit out of the wind out of the sails of house Democrats where you don't seem like for the twenty This is going on. This is an open question and that they could say you know, there's this investigation going on. You know, and we need to be part of that. We need to be looking into it with the finding. I think it makes it a little harder to sell their version of
investigation, I think you know you could keep working on the like obstruction of justice side of things, but it makes it a little bit harder for them to justify an ape. You know, there's a really interesting peach. Sam's act be champ, wrote fur box that I'd recommend day everyone reading kind of looking at the partisan lens through which this has received. Where you what you thought of the Mulder Report, really depended a lot on your politics and that really it makes a really hard for this institute. in a special investigator to even exist and serve the role that it was supposed to serve the de. I was having this non partisan off that is going to be able to you. Don't work without fear of reprisals and has no allegiance as to anything but the truth. And if you look at the reception of this room ports, it is just the opposite of that. You know what you believe about. The report seems to large. We have to do with You thought already about politics and Donald Trump and Unite could have
there is almost a bit of backfire fact that Democrats are at risk of here of unit mobilizing republic, anything like what are they doing investigating this. The mauler investigation is done. You know, let's move fine. He found no collusion. It said everything you know even this report. That comes of an institution that was set up to be so set aside from politics like even that isn't really set aside at this point that the amount of polarization and kind of deep entrenchment we have a vision of two political sides. At this point you I mean, I think it's not it's worth noting that while Democrats have already flagged a couple of people involved with this, that they want to and four hearings. You know Senator Linsey Gram of the Senate. Judiciary committee is like saying: yes, we want to call Mahler in and ask him. Why is not doing more to investigate Hillary Clinton? Yet that is not our only opportunity. The daisy Republicans
like now it's time to investigate uranium one. It's interesting south of the risk that the young men, me and a couple of other folks in Congress have been kind of using the like. Let's all move on line, which you I pointed out yesterday is slightly different from say, knew how Kevin Mccarthy responded to the end of the Big Bang Gaza hearings, which you might remember the argument that no no, we shouldn't move on now, it's time to go back further and just start investigating Hillary Clinton in detail again, because that's what the american people are calling for when the American, but in general, are kind of like no no moving on to something else might be of interest, but also you. I would like information on these specific things or we could just investigate uranium on again in the interests of serving the american people. We should move on to something else, that being lake the apparent late night Bundy Friendly, affordable care, gaslights, let's take a break and we will come back to that.
If you like. Basically anyone listening to this right now, I'm willing to bet that you are you're dealing with stress, maybe there's it. Of it like an overwhelming amount, or maybe it's more like a low but steady drumbeat background stress. Remember how you are experiencing stress. It's likely fucking mood. You energy in so many other areas of your life, you feel, like stress, is starting to take over straining relationships and shorten your temper. It's probably tend to unload and better help is perfect, for that better help is customized online therapy that offers videophone LIVE chat sessions with your therapists. You don't see any one on camera. If you don't want you it's much more affordable than in person therapy and you could start communicating with a therapist none forty,
hours on the distress using its unbiased feedback. You be pretty surprise when you can gain for it see if it's for you, the weeds, sponsored by better help and listeners get ten percent off the first month, better help dot com such weeds, that's, B, e, T, T, R, H, e L, a p d come slash weeds. This episode is brought to you by Fender Foot ball is back and the best bet you can make is downloading the fan Dual Sports Bookshop. It doesn't matter if you new to gambling or an old pro fan. Dual has something for everyone and as an official sports betting partner of the NFL, you know you're, better, safe, there's, also never been a better time to use fan do because right now you'll get up to one thousand dollars back if your first bet doesn't when you can even too the small wager into a big payday with the same game, parlay that just sign up with a promo code spy
fi to place your first bad risk free on fan, dual sports book Download Vanderpool today, twenty one, and present in Pennsylvania. First, online real money wager only refund who does not withdrawal side, credit that expires in fourteen days, restrictions apply, see terms at sports booked out fan. Dual dotcom. Gambling problem call one eight hundred gambler so in separate news in the Department of Justice, which is having an incredibly this week this week very late last night, you know. Actually I was, I will admit already asleep when this happened. The department of Justice filed this brief in the latest lawsuit against Obamacare. This is Texas verses. Is arts sue trying to overturn the integrity of a bomb care that is going before the fifth court of appeals soon and the Department of Justice did something can kind of surprising they filed a brief word? They said they think the courts should overturn all of opium care, and this is supposing, because its
a different and more sweeping position. I Exocet surprising for two reasons: one. It is a much more sweeping has legal position than the Trump Administration previously held. The Trump administration has been involved in this lawsuit for a number of months. At this point, they have declined to defend the affordable care act, so some democratic attorney general stepped in to defend the federal law and they argued for a while. Their their stance was that you only part of this lawsuit should be. Successful there are certain things we think should fall if these two end, just to back up a little that actually that's probably helpful, is that This is a lawsuit brought by a number of conservative attorney general, who argue that Obamacare individual mandate is now. illegal due to some changes that were passed in the tax bill and because the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The rest of Obamacare needs to be invalidated. The Tribune menstruation didn't initial endorse that
They said we think the individual mandate is unconstitutional and we think just a few other things would fall with that now they're going further now they're saying you know the medicate expansion, which covers fifteen million people. That should be invalidated. I think this is surprising on two levels. One is a much more sweeping position for the Trump Administration to hold to It strikes me as quite the twenty twenty strategy to come out of, like the Russia like to come out of the Mulder report, the no collusion finding and the first thing the Department of Justice does this, as we want to fill this brief, that fifteen million people should lose health insurance the commitment to Obama care reveal it is so so real. like overpowering, and it seems like a bad. I don't know like I'm, no I'm nor above and bolster, but it strikes me as a bad. It's
for them, which is why they haven't been discussing it like there's even at a great piece a couple weeks ago, in the rush to examine our day, I think I brought up earlier and another podcast that compared Obamacare appeal to breaks it of some that people kept saying they wanted to do, but they had no actual plan for and now no one wants to talk about, like theirs Reason why Trump coming in with quota quote health care for everyone which went undefined. Largely TED crews was the one who is like, let's repeal of alma care, he shut down the government over this particular issue. He did not win the presidency as you'll notice. This is a bad issue.
Republicans racketeers a bad issue in Europe, while the twenty eighteen mid term again those for thousands of years ago. But this is not a terrific issue, especially because if you are attempting to make the case in twenty twenty, that single Para means you lose your doctor and then your chair attempting to repeal the affordable care act, which would also mean guess what you'd lose your doctor. I just I mean I understand the conservative argument against the affordable, correct. I get that I do. I've had these conversations before many times on this particular issue, but power that translates into politics and how that translates into how Republicans are able to talk too, not just the base, but independent conservative leaning voters about this particular issue are two very different things and I just
I don't get it. This is interesting to me because at a very top line analysis, the federal government is under unified republican control. Not just like you know, not only is it true that Republicans have one of two houses of Congress, but like the number of federal judges who have been appointed to the bench by the Trump Administration and its first, two and change years has just been tremendous. The argument the federal judiciary, a substantially more conservative and has substantially more in particular republican appointees than it did under previous president's, is pretty strong and, furthermore, encouraged in part by that wave and in part by the president's own rhetoric, you're beginning to see a little bit more explicit partisanship coming out of some parts of the federal bench. There was a federal judge, an Ethic North Carolina this week, who openly said that the only reason that the appeals panel has ruled in favour of one side in the case was because it was a quitting
majority minority panel, by which they meant to Democrats in one Republican, which is generally not the way one talks about judges once their point it it's you know it's something. You see the state level but federally as John Robber, said, last fall, there are no Obama, but judges are trumpeted reserves they're not supposed to be, despite being republican appointed. Those judges are coming from a particular strain of ideological conservatism. Of Lake Federalist Society, the servant of them in which the individual mandates unconstitutionality is such a central tenet restraining Congress from just being able to legislate. Every avenue of life is so important that it makes sense that federal judges aren't necessarily taking thee. You know, what's going to be good for a Publicans and twenty twenty line into consideration like it is action I wouldn't say reassuring, but it's definitely an indicator that their operating on ideological grounds, rather than political ones with surprising is. The prompt department of Justice is doing that rightly
yeah. The executive branch is a little more insulated from politics, then the legislative branches, but like trumps, going into real action they in have an interest in keeping anyone in retaining or consolidating republican control of Congress like it does appear to be a genuine idiot, logical, thing. It I mean. Maybe they have secret pulling numbers showing that this is actually gonna, be really good for them all of a sudden, but the other possibility is that they just now I can buy their way out of it yeah it just said. So. We don't have a ton of information on the arguments are going to make. So the reason this happened yesterday is because there was some filing deadlines in the court. So it's not like the trumpet came out of. The Mueller report was like a hive. Is our next thing on the to do list? There were some reasons has happened and they haven't filed their arguments yet on you know why they now believe this they basically. What would they basically said? Is that a few months ago a judge in Texas
agreed with the challengers. It agreed that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional because there's no fine associated with it, making it no longer attacks and the judge agreed that the mandate is so keen to affordable care, correct that everything else to fall and their member, which is literally one page, you can read it and you know much much shorter time, then listen then I'll. Take you to listen to those podcast segment basically says we have the Justice Department now agree with that we'll find more details later is like maybe four lines typed, So you don't really know right now, like what arguments they're going to make. We don't know if they're gonna get into like why they now believe differently about how the mandate works in Rome the Affordable CARE act, but I think now that the trumpet ministration is endorsing this position, its worth just talking about like house. Sweeping of changes would be what it clusterfuck it would be if this supposition really were endorsed by the Supreme Court. So our talk
about ending the medicate expansion, which you know covered about. Fifteen million low income Americans or talking about bringing back preexisting conditions to the individual market were talking. Out all these units and things a team so unrelated to the individual Mandy like, for example, Obamacare required contraceptives to be you know, no cost to patients will talk more about that later. That would be rolled back. It required lactation rooms in bigger companies that would be rolled it required calorie count sign on menu. The chain- restaurants like those, would no longer be required. There is now an it literally turn nine years old on Saturday. It is just so baked into so many things that the actual work of rolling back would be such a big, be such a huge, difficult undertaking. Others role these payments to how Medicare pays for healthcare like having a little higher generation of kids, who assume that they can see on their hands held them
its integrity. Gay, I wonder, is popular parts of Obama care. You know, staying on your parents, insurance till you're, twenty six that would be rolled back under the Republican. Under the argument, the Justice Department is now making, and I can't tell if you most legal scholars, don't think this lawsuit will be successful agenda of the Justice Department. Has just kind of like leaning on the hope that, like they want to keep up the Obama care, repeal fight and show that there still fighting it but kind of, like leaning on this hope that, like it'll, get shut down the courts in they won't have to deal with as agreed on winding and the great unpopularity of kicking twenty million people off insurance. So too, that's one eye. One option is that they feel like they can make these arguments, but they warn of the deal the consequences, rare and you think of that in light of this like this could all be happening in twenty twenty, and maybe that is there been desire, but it just seems like I don't. I don't know what kind of mass they feel like they're like walking into
we're not walking into, but it just seems I mean it is quite the feat till I come out of this like to like Stand by your like no collusion headlines with this legal brief of lake, let's and Olive Obamacare? Can I ask a stupid legal costs yeah. I like. Oh. I understand that. I understand the argument of yes: okay, the Supreme Court has already review the constitutionality of the individual mandate. However, that analysis has been changed by the fact that there is now different legislation on the books. Vit makes it harder to neither the individual mandate as tax like that, I get the rest of it essentially the rest of the of the affordable care. It hasn't changed. So this approval hasn't US room. Where are your viewed the like several ability stuff? Like isn't? What is what the actual argument that the even though parts of the Asia got struck down, you know and the like in the last around like medic, you know that letter had expansion that limited that somehow now there's
if we add new. No, this is not a dumb question. This is the question most legal scholars have, unlike will poke at the greatest holes. In answer your actually likes kitten on the exact right thing off, so the human being made here is that at the end of toys, seventeen Congress past that's big tax bill. One of things it did was it in repeal the individual mandate, but a change. The individual man, instead of carrying a seven hundred dollar fine for not having health insurance. zero dollar fine, essentially like in practice the same thing as repeal some. You know, Conover conservative attorneys general, so and set a high like this puts a hole in a care, because, if you over call, you know the first Supreme Court ruling, John Roberts wrote an opinion where he said the mandates constitutional, because it is a tax and now that there, A within rural mandate is no longer a tax, and you know some other legal dollars might say. Like yeah, maybe that's that's right, but it feels like a little knew right, like
hey throughout the individual mandate and court like there's, no fine anymore, so what the challengers do the can. Of attorney general. As they say, the individual mandate is so keen to Obama care that it is not several ball and if com meant to knock out the individual mandate Congress view no clearly in the Congo knows how key the inutile mandate is to the rest of Obamacare Congress really meant to take down the rest of Obamacare yeah. No, that's a darling This, basically like what an area where I I have so much to the court's, never got to the ever western and twenty eight twelve because they ruled the mandate constitution also is kind of like a moot question at that point. They never really had to deal with that and what you saw. Actually, someone The things that I am the calendar is the conservative attorney general's are actually leaning quite heavily on are some ratings of the Obama Justice Department in twenty ten and twenty eleven. This
before the expansion and rolled out the Obama administration was arguing. The mandate is so keen to Obamacare you courts. If knock down the mandate you ve gotta, take you know, pre existing conditions in requirement to sell everybody with it, because we can't implemented without the mandates. Nothing has been set up yet and we so there getting back to those things written by the Obama, administration and making these aren't of sound like legal briefs written for policy arguments like it will be hard, not oh, it would be illegal. Yet so that's what's going on there and you know the face DORA made at me in this I've castle loony is the face that many legal sky- there's make when they read this argument, that's being made Israel, still even with you know the Justice Department during its weight behind it. It still like a longshot challenge, but oh no our challenges have made it to the Supreme Court before and I think the way
arguments weak but like I'm, not a Supreme Court justice and I dont know what they think about. The legal argument in court has noted talent for taking weak legal arguments and delivering stronger versions of them if they think that their right on the merits, guess so we have the Justice Department Wing and on this I dont blue, will of a appeals court hearing in the next few months. And then we will all we'll talk about. What Were they rule on the weeds stairway paper? If I think it's time for we're let's take a break and re gonna wait paper, however, priorities. This episode is: are you by own up? Every bank says they ve got great mortgage rates, so why are people paying billions of dollars and extra interest every year, because it's too hard to know what a great deal looks like for? You are unique scenario owner makes it easy to get the personalized data to help you make a smarter home financing decision, learn when a great
looks like for your mortgage, so you never over pay bills. Your profile today, at owner, dotcom, equal housing, opportunity, M L, s idea number one. Four five await o five people. Often ask me of prosecuting the mob is like the movies well, There is violence, he cracks disguise over their head and pop. Just like a melon. There are heads, so wasn't just permission to take a map of permission to take out his own Natalie. But after taking down over one hundred mobsters, I can tell you this. The The thing is much more interesting. I'm barely holding former mob prosecutor and host of the new podcast up against a mom up against the mob, the bail on the world's most secretive criminal organization, La Cosa, Nostra, we'll talk to profit,
Peters, former mobsters, an undercover agents and Like Hollywood. All these stories are true: new episodes dry, every Wednesday starting September. Eighth, listen and follow up, hence the mob on Apple podcast, Spotify or your favorite podcast. App. Ok, is this, I believe, is they were. The title is paper really was was written with me in mind? I'd like to thank Uprightly was at the time Is the power of the Eu Treaty effects of expanding access to contraception through title ten clinics by Andrea, Kelly, Jason Window and Annalisa Peckham, and they look at this really great expense. And that was running in Colorado where what they did was they made a really effective versions. Verse control things like our duties and implants available for free to low income women. This was before the Obamacare expansion so before,
became affordable to a lot of women. They were experimenting with this in Colorado and they just some really massive effects, so you know what they specifically find, which is that among women in zip codes within seven miles of these clinics, where they could get the birth control it reduced births by approximately twenty percent for fifteen to seventeen year olds in eighteen to nineteen year olds. They also find that when there is more media coverage of this, you saw greater effects in terms of their impact and births you saw women opting for using. You know these more effective types of birth controls. There call them long. Acting reversible contraceptives are larks in the birth controlling
Oh, you saw them choosing those over birth control powers which are generally less effective, because you have to remember to take them every single day. What things that's pretty interesting to me is that the effects were largely concentrated among people who are closer to the clinics that if you lived within seven miles of a clinic, you saw these bigger facts and reductions of birth for those women, but if you're more than twelve miles from a clinic- and you know we're talking- eight five thousand- a decent distance- I know we're not talking about like five miles versus fifty. miles, we're document a difference of five miles. You see some of the effects disappear, and I thought that was pretty interesting and kind of interesting for policymakers and thinking through like how do you make a birth control? More accessible because it seems like when it is easy to get to, This paper says to me that women will use it, but you really have to take down like all the barriers like the distance and the cost, and
you know that the knowing about it there so many barriers that are standing between women and high quality birth control, and if you leave any of them up, it seems like there will still be ineffective barrier to getting to them. Yet the distance thing was wild for me is because it's not like this isn't kind of one of the one of those like bad p value studies where they just decided that set until I use seven miles as the cut off, because that's where they would show things like that. Literally tested everything from five six seven eight like all the way through, and they found that there was a strong difference between closer and further. When the cut off his five miles. There was a bigger difference when the cut off a six miles, and there is a big difference in the cut off a seven miles and then it decreased and lake.
When, when they made that does that division, they were talking about really short drives on the closer side, like the average distance to the clinic for people who are living within seven miles of a clinic, was like a less than nine minute drive. The average distance for people who are living and are more miles from a clinic was like a fifteen minute drive like I think. Some of this is probably Colorado, which has like a few cities and then some some people who are living in rural areas areas but there's definitely a pretty big difference there, but also lake for all. We think about a kind of o. The internet is getting rid of distance, and you know you don't need to physically see something in your. neighbourhood to be reminded to do it anymore or like there are you? U can use apps for that. Are that kind of thing it really does seem lake and they have their building on other researchers showing that being physically located close to something is very important, and I do wonder if this is probably especially true for teenagers, who are more
if we do not have time to just like, take off work and who are more likely to be at v whim of where other people can drive them or whether they can use public transportation rather than having their own cars. I think also, why things I'm curious about this from the reading. I've done of this space of research is the network of facts. That happens. I think one of things I've notice with them contraceptives, is up for something like an eye. You d, which actually like, requires a procedure to get done. It's a procedure that, like as someone who has gone through it, is a low but painful but you know we, it gives you a great birth control for four five to ten years, and I think sometimes you I've seen as just in my own experience that you need someone else to tell you. Oh no used really worth that Yad hurt like a little bit, but here's what the procedure was like, and I think you know one things that may happening in these areas, the part of its about distance and actually gang the clinic, but part of it.
like knowing people who have got in that type of birth control and can tell you you know here's what the procedures like one things. You actually see: asthma teens, their gravitating more towards implants the little lamb device that goes in Europe. I'm more than iuds ideas tend to be like more women in their twenties and thirties and teens tend to gravitate towards implants. But I have a hunch and like it is not in the paper, but you know what I say to my own experience. Whatever in the research the port of what's going on in areas near the clinics, as you have like more teens telling other teens like. Oh, I got implant here either. Poke at it like? This is what it feels like. This is what the procedure was like could deny actually hurt that much and that may Another thing you know if you have less people further out who can like have those conversations that might stifle you know the spreading of a certain type of contraceptive in a community, especially because I think a lot of these issues both and the implant, I think, is especially something that young women would be able to talk to them about without having
necessarily talk to their partners, about which I think is something a important area for this because forms of contraception. That young women can take on for themselves. I think you are really effective with teens for reasons. I think we can all Figure out rate, which is widely there's a little bit of there's a moment in here. They kind of our disappointed that most of the teens who who got larks as a result of this policy, where switching from birth control pills, northern switching from condoms, gooseberry control pills, are more effective than condoms, but it This makes sense that these are like young women who have taken through or who have decided that contract contraception is, if not their responsibility, certainly something that they're going to take on energy. Switching to the most effective means of that
but why you were just sayings. Are I now? I really hope that one of the many many public health researchers who listens to the weeds takes this out, because one of the big unanswered questions of this paper for me is why was pick up so much higher among teens, then, and women in their twenties before the mass media campaign has one of the things they talk about here. Is that when there was a threat from the republican legislature to kill this programme, it got a lot of national media coverage, including a citation of a Herman Lopez article from Box which, unfortunately, is attributed not to her mom Lopez, but to it and an pop of Ich so we're not gonna, be calling Herman Netherlands pop of sweeping aside it bad that kind of national weave of big media did appear to have, and obviously like it's not just vocs and other national publications. It's also a lot of local tv coverage, local news outlets covered, but that did appear to have increased the distance where it was a useful for for teenagers and it appeared to increase-
number of women in their twenties. Getting I M getting larks, but like the big boost for women in their teens, was when it just went into effect at all. It wasn't this big media push, and so I was I was wondering why was it free media push some more effective in catching on among teenagers, and I think you might have hit on it that it's not that naughty mediated thing, it's appeared appear thing yeah and I mean if you think I like teenagers right, there's money all day with other teenagers like they're in school, one other channel which they don't get into, but I could see being pretty plausible. Is you know if there's some kind of connection to local high schools? You know where it's either worked into the sex curriculum or, like you know, there's a nurse who knows about at teenager,
maybe a little easier reached for this, because their constantly like spending all this time and like institutions where there are like certain gutless government is involved. I think I said that their spending all day, like sitting next to other teenagers gosh, I'm just I'm flashing back to my native great health class. Where are we spent one day contraception and the only thing we learned about our duties was that they would terrier uterus apart. What are you? I went to Catholic School, and so we did not learn about contraception, but I did learn many many many many many many many many ways sex will kill you right right, yeah, we'll kill you data definitely want to know about these cool school nurses of calling me. I don't think. That's also one thing you're, seeing at this like a resurgence of the eye, you d, which got very bad rap. You know- and rightly so. You know when you had the dichotomy shield, which was a earlier you d? That was not good and quite a lot of side effects and you know a lot of women and really negative stories, and that its
can a while for you that these new versions of idea, which are quite effective and of many fewer side effects to really catch and then I think it really interesting that you're seeing the implant catch on is kind of new wave of contraceptive that more and more younger women are using from. I have not had an implant from what I understand. It is less painful to get it inserted. You know, especially if you're, what you haven't had a baby add, and I will say you see a lot more states am doing things like what Colorado's Wing, if you're interested in learning more about this, we did an episode of the first season of other podcast. The impact we looked at just trying to a very similar programme. They saw the great success Colorado is having they decide, implemented, something similar. You can hear me and try and in certain Eu D, into a robot version of a woman. This poor robot named Joan, who would have ended up with
some serious injuries. But luckily I do not enter the Euro zone has encountered worse in her long career as a robot pelvic slightly. I do not insert diabetes and for a living. I just Dupont, guess about them, given that some of some of our podcast listeners are not women of reproductive age. It's important to be clear that, like this, isn't just a speculating about what the teens talk about. Yet we are kind of speculating insofar as we're not teens, but it is real that women it will ask each other hey. I have heard that this medical procedure might be painful. I have heard that there might be side effect. Can you talk about Europe means what that's like there was for a while a joke. It, like I think, rightly, twenty fifteen like so many women at vocs right are getting. Our duties are having the Indus Lake there. There really is a when you have a critical
women who can talk to about these things to each other? It serves some of this de purpose that, like having an institutional, centralized thing are having a mass media campaign would serve, and you know it's important to recognise that when we talk about things that are essentially friends in contraception that people, this only happens because people are willing to talk to each other, because women trust each other. At this point, more than a lot of women trust medical establishment right, and I also think that having those conversations is extremely useful, as especially within each groups, because there has been some really interesting in research on eligibility, youth and specifically queer and bisexual youth
experiencing higher rates, then I think a lot of older people would expect of unintended pregnancies, ill eligibility people can get pregnant too. It has been known to happen stunning, if true and it is- but I think that being able to have this conversation within an age group of people who are understanding that, because you are queer, does not mean that you are incapable of bearing child, and so I think that a fortnight, because you are queer, does not mean that, like the hormonal effects of some birth control might not be a good or particularly bad idea, for you run right that there are other reasons too
thinking about your reproductive health. In general is true, then, through, and I remember, being a young, clear person and believing that this is a whole thing that I dont know never need to know about. I can just wander blithely through the fields, eagerness out its untrue centre, that I am also sure that the reproductive health of queer people is also a thing that matters, and it is important that I think is such an important point. We bring up Derek as EU I'm a healthcare rapporteur whose a lot about reproductive technology, and I remember you know: I'd try to get you d, maybe like seven or eight years ago. My doctors that that's not a good type of birth control for you cause. You haven't had a baby and would be very painful to get at, and I only got one because one of my best I've got one kind of hurt, but, like it's great out of take pills every day, I was turned off from it on the first
and even as someone who knows, a lot about this stuff kind of the doktor told me not to- and I said, ok like that person's doctor- and it took me about four or five years to actually you do decide to change my method of contraception. I because effects are really big and powerful and are now through the public health researchers at the world if you listening but this week. This is our study. Eighty of Rio, yeah yeah, let's yeah I mean- and this is of course gets to the particular way that, like women of color, have reason to distress the medical establishment right leg, everything from Serena Williams of all people, newly having very, very, very serious health outcomes in having her life potential in danger when she delivered her baby, to you know the effects on women of some of their studies about doctors, not receiving black people, is feeling pay a strong. We have other people like these same extent to which we're talking about
women as a marginalized groups, not necessarily feeling like the medical establishment gets them or trust them are, is putting their needs. First, that, like maybe a couple of outlier studies or the fact that EU these have traditionally had a bad rap, is the only thing that the doctor is thinking about. Not what is going to be the most convenient thing for my patient, but that that is when we're talking about laid low income. Women were discovered only likely to be women of color. That's like another factor that I think we have to talk about here is like these are clinics. There are supposed to be catering to people who have every reason not to want to step into a clinic and how you reduce those barriers, whether its distance, whether its by utilizing peer to peer networks and how those clinics can remain a float in the face of you, no threats to federal funding. If they offer title not the settled and clinics that provide abortions like these are very live questions going forward and a few thoughts on these questions. You can discuss them in our Facebook group, I'm always
for more exciting conversations about birth control. Research. Thank you dare Jane for hosting today, thank you to engineer, Jeff Gulled and a small small request, for you are listen We are running a survey right now to figure out what sort of ads you guys want to hear. We sometimes get messages from people about how can they support the podcast? And here this is an answer just take. This survey. It'll only take five minutes box, media dot, com, Slash pod survey, that's vocs media dot com, such p, o D, as you are the key. Why thank you, Sir was so much in advance and we will be back in your feeds on Friday.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-11.