By popular demand, Sarah, Matt, and Ezra finally address the Trans Pacific Partnership before contemplating the GOP's ongoing self-immolation, and the real consequences of the war on Planned Parenthood.Today’s episode is brought to you by Harry’s razors. Visit Harrys.com and enter WEEDS at checkout to receive $5 off your first order.Today’s episode is also brought to you by The Great Courses Plus. Visit TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/Weeds to stream Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries and hundreds of other courses for free!Today’s episode is also sponsored by CNN’s new original series “Race for the White House.” Uncover the reasons some campaigns became powerful while others failed. The series premieres Sunday, March 6th, at 10pm Eastern on CNN.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This week's episode of the weeds sponsored by Harry's, razors Harry's, will give you
I've dollars off your first order with promo code weeds, stop overpaying for greater
you ve got a hairy stuck on right now, that's each a r r! Why asked dot com and your code weeds at Cieca? Today's episode of the weeds is brought to you by the great courses plus and is for limited time. The great courses plus is offering our listeners a chance to stream this course inexplicable universe. Unsolved mysteries said. Ninety five dollar value and hundreds of other courses offer for good at the great courses plus dot com, slash weeds, the following podcast
contains explicit language
Jack Nicholson. Why you drinking all the lemonade hello programme to another episode of the weeds boxes, policy, Pakistan, we network, Matthew places for my colleagues clear. Let me jumping for once. I can say that on my report has the
we named atropine show I've got bill
this sort of, like the interview about stopping climate change, about how far we are a long way from artificial intelligence about whether the? U S educational system is making people created,
or somehow snatching, not not. He talked to his favorite books. It's a very.
an interview that I think weeds fans will enjoy.
It's raining morning here in Washington DC, and it means it's time for us to finally face up to the topic that I
Personally, I have been dreading everyone's. You don't make Swedes grow that
rain rain and international trade. Those too
people demand that ever since the progress is launched, we have
an email after email, as he has to say something about the transpacific partnership,
in the spirit of the weeds. We really
tackle this. There are a lot of weeds, there's a lot of policy,
I don't know
a great feeling about it. So this
the deal thou there was reached over along an extended period of negotiations between the United States,
and a number of countries in Asia, but also in the western hemisphere. So Japan, along with the United States, is the biggest country
But Canada is also involved, which is a very significant trade partner for the United States, so that changes and in those terms
our important Vietnam is also a large country in terms of its population, although because its poor, the economy is relatively small, but that's eighty million people is also a big deal
for the vietnamese economy. They have some of the larger policy changes there, making Austin,
in New Zealand are also involved, and they are very jazzed up about it, some of the best resources
for reading about this, actually come from the government of New Zealand because they bought speak English and also New Zealand. People seem to give a damn about
International trade and away Americans down. There are good, explain those over there and the government of easy money, yeah it's great anti terror and lying, but sometimes Dearie is like a major industry in recent months, and I think I like really deep. Unlike the milk, I'm not sure, is what everyone cares about. So there was a big
but a political controversy about this. A few months ago, in twenty fifteen, because Congress was taking a decisive vote on which got trade promotion Authority, which.
It is basically a legislative guarantee that the president can sign a deal and then the deal that he signs will come for an upward to help both so technical.
that has nothing to do with the underlying merits of teepee. But I think everyone who has ever spoke into any member of Congress about this. I would say that they were basically basing their decisions on whether they wanted this to happen. If you wanted to happen, you vote for the trade promotion authority and, if you do
you about now on how much a bit for once I am, is a weird tick of why
so now, what would happen is a bill would get sent to Congress or get
sitter by Congress, and they would say why I like this part- and I don't like that parts- we're going to modify this- we're going to send this part back to committee, we're going to add an amendment here and then take the spit out and in you would sort of go through a process of tweaking, but because
this is a deal negotiated with other countries, whereas if Congress makes any
here too it, then you have to go back to all the other countries and the whole sort of edifice of the deal begins to collapse, because they would have to go back and renegotiate parts there
This is the only way to pass trade deals is to have them be considered by Congress, unchanged. Congress can say: no, they can say yes, but they can say yes, but
exactly I mean if you, if you tweak the milk import rules, then New Zealand is gonna, get off the bus and the whole deal collapses after like do it sort of all or nothing, although
it's interesting because the legislative mechanic is that trade promotion authority is not attached to any specific deal. The authority just extends for a certain number of years, so the present good run off and make a deal with Peru tomorrow, as expected.
What is at other might be nice. They have exotic potatoes there that I, for one would enjoy trying
The funds are too high and has exotic potatoes. Well, you know, I honestly, don't know why we don't have them, but you know look into this is an issue that really divided the Obama administration. From congressional Democrats, I think it's been.
Case for a long time now that congressional Democrats have been skeptical of these kind of trade agreements, but proponents had hoped that, with a bomb in the White House that would drive more democratic support than you saw when Georgia we Bush, was in office, casino people wanting
the prisoner winner, who would have the credibility you sell it, and I'm really was in the case of the efficacy. I owe came up very
We strongly against this agreement. Elizabeth WAR
whose, like a big, highly visible figure, came at very strongly against it, and almost every Democrat, when a particular house, when heading for the hills, Obama gotta in full,
of democratic senators, which was all he needed to sort of get it over the line. But now Donald Trump has come out very swinging against this deal and I think, to some extent has called into question whether it would actually pass not notwithstanding that
Tpa Bout, so there's it is a decent chance of the merits of the agreement, will get debated again in a way that I think seem unlikely, went, went EPA first,
and I think that one of the reasons you see congressional Democrats opposing something like tv p is because in effect might have on jobs where you people, who generally in the manufacturing sector who, if we lower
carriers to trade, their jobs could be replaced by people in other countries. Susie
My crab saying you do we want to protect these people and save,
jobs in their journalism. True
that, if you look at the analyses that have been done of teepee peed, those are the places that are going to get hurt.
thing, though, that's really hard about understanding kind of the size of GDP. In one the reasons it was hard to format,
in on it. Just because
it's so giants. If you think I like what say the people losing their jobs
there are also going to have access to cheap goods, pretty
we'll be there
those who still has a salary, their spouses buying power we'll get
our and will be having access to these cheaper goods, because we ve Lord
trade barriers and it's really hard to understand at the end of the day, what exactly
cheap. He would mean for the EU
ass. Another good example is the farmer provisions where there's an provisions that actually no one's really happy with farmer, doesn't think they're good enough advocates. Think they're too much
problem, but they basically allow farmer companies too
and patents on em on drugs.
in other countries
part of tv and
Seen others worry that, for those people are less access to drugs, they will. Even if there's a new HIV drugs comes out I'll, be harder to create a generic and one of these countries
signs on to it. The argument farmer, woman
This is going to bring more money back to us, will be able to invest this and other drugs will start like building these better.
For you all, there's so much going on in this outer humming pages, is steadily longer than your father care at home. Yes, and I believe, a technical total David Technical Tunnel, its fifth is, but it's really hard to figure out what exactly, but
I bet you can elevator to a high level and say, like broadly, what's happened here and it's that the United States and Canada are opening their domestic markets to agricultural goods from Australia, New Zealand and manufacture.
Cheap goods from the South EAST asian countries and in exchange those countries are adopting
intellectual property rules that pharmaceutical manufacturers and entertainment content. Hollywood tat companies, like
and they are also
liberalizing their markets for financial services and some other high and professional serves so the vague. The big advocates for this in the United States are intellectual property in financial services export swear. They see. Big new market opportunity
spread the United States in here. The opponents are the sort of standard constellation
of labour unions originally other. They ve been joined by a sort of a very big network of left wing advocacy type groups who
have concerns that are so it s here was saying why you have some people just saying: look these new pharmaceutical rules that are being adopted, its not that they are like bad for american workers and assert that for American. Ah, there is bad for the world that a lot of people feel that the? U S pharmaceutical into
Probably regime is prawn or has certainly wrong. Vietnam right, but I mean
people. Think it's one thing, though I understand I'm just noting that right, like one of the ironies of this, is that one person who thinks the rules are wrong for the United States is Barack Obama, whose administration in its budget calls for shortening the data exclusivity period,
where you from patterns, but in Barack Obama's transpacific partnership. It not only doesn't shorten them. It makes Vietnam extent
that'd be divine. Resolution did pass upon the care which did support even longer versions as yet even a little is ending on days and then the pharmaceutical side of tv, puke, negotiated down to be been not quite as bad began, cost for someone to command, but
is the best high level description I've heard yet of PPP, those. How is really good Matt. I do want to say that,
I think one reason this is a hard discussion have, though, which is embedded in the abstract discussion you laid out is that trade deals
become a real dog's breakfast of things they
to do so much across so many different sectors in so many different ways it isn't like with
I'm a care. Were you really kind of ask yourself? Do I support increasing taxes, mostly on rich people and cutting some Medicare spending too vastly increased health insurance coverage crossing
states. Nor is it like no child left behind, we could say: ok do I think we should have a tougher standards, and
sitting regime on local schools it
he does a lot of different things
hang on which thing you think is most important depending on how much you wait. Pharmaceutical
intellectual property or content intellectual property, depending on how much you wait having cheaper imports from Vietnam. The deal looks very different, and one thing tough thing
t pay and the argument about keeping p. I think one reason certainly IP
like motivated trepidation, about this episode summit, because I dont have a very strong opinion. Anti BP and tepid weak opinions make for bad podcasting. Isn't it
Lot of the arguments made for it by people trying to create a strong through line are garbage, though just bad arguments, teepee isn't about free trade alone.
Of the things that happened in it? If anything, our barriers of a sort of trade, for instance, making
tougher intellectual property laws, and it isn't just about tariffs and in and things we,
traditionally think about a lot about regulations and how regulations gonna work and be harmonised.
cross different countries.
There has been an argument from the Obama administration that this is really about
the Asia, and it is an important part of national security show we can lead an economic,
regime across that region, because if we don't do it, China's
do it instead of us, and I think, if you talk to China experts throughout super impressed by
argument, and I think this has been one the really hard things people keep trying to find a simple way to help people decide if there, for this are there against stupid, commissar so much in here and the things are so different inside of it and the thing has to be considered so much as a whole
then it just becomes very difficult to then you end up going into sort of researching, and here too gets very. Can
using there, is a lot of disagreement and economic literature about what effect this tribute,
have had both what they will have prospectively. We were looking at both
a analysis from that Petersen Institute for International economics. It said this would increase GDP by half percentage point urine. Twenty thirty.
Then I forgot was about what a term yes noticing it. So I don't think that success at other winners from top videos exit lightly, but the nuts
As you know, we're talking. That's a big deal on the air
the numbers are like relatively not giants.
I would say if you pick it up full, have point of GDP like ongoing
twenty thirty, which is what I think
Peters. Was that we really big. I just don't know that it will, and I think a lot of people have very bad feelings about seeing NAFTA, which had a lot of these. Now six can be huge games
and then people. How is, if anything, a little bit negative. I think we're having that so hard is.
Directing how all these actors will react to non tariff barriers. Are tariffs that you can see prices come down. It's a very
easy to analyze what things you look at the tv shows is financed.
Institutions, better access to Asia
how do you measure that benefits are like if your telecom and like you go into Asia how'd, you measure. If we open up our companies gonna go, will it be
billion will be a giant past because they lay all this infrastructure and
for some reason. You know it turns out that really bad at delivering cable in Vietnam or wherever they decide
you go in anything, that's one thing that makes it from me: difficult
wrap my head around is that their so
unknown in trying to forecast that
I can't with these
that are more quality,
then tariffs with these very
is that exists now that we don't really know what happens when they take
I'm down. It's really
to wrap your head around, what the forecasting will mean and we try and like when you look at
economic forecasts, equal Petersen and Tufts? Do they try?
put a number on that kind of like look at trade deals and say
we think of barriers fall. You know, it'll be act, sort of food, but it's all a lot of guesswork
can one examples reminds me of that. I know well in health care is a lot of Republicans
argued that in turn
companies should be able to sell across state lines that account
from Georgia, where insurance is not very regulator to be able to go to New York and sell new Yorkers.
Less regulated, cheaper insurance plans, but turns out, since
its tried this and nobody wanted to sell across state lines it gets, is really hard to build a network.
Negotiate without these hospitals Ios, you don't know like no one,
to enter these markets ends its
it is obviously a very different playing fields, but the example they're kind of struck me as a very concrete
analogy to why Wyatt so hard to think about what this word
I mean why don't you want to do a never sought on that idea makes me so mad. I another thing: that's. How is it that challenge in with this? Is that it's it's difficult to specify exactly what is meant by the no teepee bees scenario, so, for example, that there
the Petersen Institute at impose its up super smart guy, a great economist and deeply knowledgeable that Japan and that the japanese economy and T Bp is probably bigger change for japanese economic policy than for U S, economic policy and in Japan.
In point the country and a lot of people, especially foreign observers of Japan, or very excited about the liberalization of the japanese domestic agriculture market. I think with good reason, Japan, as a lot of fucked up rules about
and such like that and Japan image and the japanese government ministers really feels
were forming these aspects of its domestic market is a really good idea. This is the third arrow
Are. They now makes amides it's important. It's it's really important issue in japanese politics and the japanese economy, but they could do that without. The difficulty is that in the current international trade dynamic having a country stop screwing over its own domestic consumers of agricultural goods, that's considered a court uncooked concession by Japan that it's making quantum quote in exchange for improved access.
To the South EAST asian markets, but that's not actually why the japanese government thinks this is good idea. They think the domestic agricultural projections are bad. They think it would improve the japanese economy to dismantle them. Bringing cheaper far
agricultural stop continue moving Japan shrinking population into the city is that they are actually running out of. Workers in Japan is very bad for the japanese economy to be essentially wasting people doing work that can be outsourced to people in Vietnam. Like growing rice is not the eminent trailing, though it is that the comparative advance
judge of Japan, which is the global centre of the world politics into right. So TB is good for Japan in that sense, but also, if he be falls apart, Japan can fix its own power
see that and you see some of the same stuff in in the United States white. So the United States is going to get more imported dairy goods from New Zealand. If
was the only provision in it. We would have a political fight, that's easy to understand right american dairy farmers. Bernie Sanders would be up there saying this is gonna cost my constituents jobs and then other people like Superman.
get lobby would be like a we'll get cheaper milk to sell the people, and we could like fight it out right and indeed a reasonable people can agree in and disagree, but that would be was at stake, but the way the current multilateral trade process works is not like that. It's instead american.
Sport companies which, in the modern day and age that means largely software companies, Hollywood banks, pharmaceuticals and bowing those are like the big American
export industries, they get around the table and there like. But what do we want foreign countries to do for us
and then they look at a lessons. I will. What can we give those countries in exchange and one of the things we can give away is more access to our domestic dairy market
but this is sort of backwards way of thinking about the the policy issues like the average American is not going to benefit from giant Multinational Wall Street banks gaining more access to vietnamese enemies,
but they might actually benefit from the things we caught him quote. Give up the
strange for securing that win, ancient history, but like trade politics and that in the United States used to be. The Democrats were largely for free trade because on the theory that that would be good for, like farmers and poor people and Republicans represented like factory interests and said
Wanted tariffs to protect them, and it was a pretty straightforward- was in arguing about unilateral free trade. Should we bring the two
down, so we can get cheap goods should give the tariffs up. So we can protect manufacturing jobs,
but since world war? Two it's been turn told.
inside out into this sea
ease of international negotiations. Were each country is like strong domestic export lobby is try to work out. Deals
each other and then like strong arm the national legislature, and I think,
We're seeing in BP is funding,
The logic of that paradigm is like it's running out. You know that the export industries have become so weird and what they want from particularly from advanced countries like the United States is so unrelated
What people think of is even being trade that is becoming really really difficult to defend. These deals in like a public facing normal way and is why the arguments that your hearing seem
so so wrong. Random, even members of Congress tell me Barack Obama in his seventh year as president
somehow suddenly send someone down the hill and is like. Oh hey guys, is the centrepiece of my national security agenda and they like. No, no, it isn't
This is the seventh year, your president's right so to me, like that's the biggest take away from this, that
whether this deal gets done or not, whether it's good or not. If people want to reduce international trade barrier substantially in the future, they're gonna have to come up with something
I want to pick up on a couple things you said there met, gives every couple really important things embedded there one.
will it which you I think mentioned a little bit- is that America exports
fewer and fewer alleys. As a percentage of our exports things, we export more more services, selling
financial services or Holly
intellectual property around the globe is not like selling cars or it's not like selling rice and requires very different questions,
and things that you're worried about
you're worried, among other things, within such a by people, just copying things
places right, you're worried about you know that you're gonna go to Vietnam and they're gonna have a bunch of generic drug manufacturers, making your extremely expense.
If to research and and and come up with pharmaceutical for no money at all, and of course you can
any money in that market, any more answers, understanding
so a alot of people just feel will look pharmaceutical companies
fuck enrich already be clearly have enough incense
the innovative. If they had more great blockbuster drugs would be doing that them even without better intellectual property. Pretty
in Vietnam and
so like the Vietnamese are very poor and they should get really cheap drugs with it, which is of a position I'm more or less on the side of, and then the
I think, though, and if it has been really important to this debate- and it's been important in ways had been very hard for people to discuss in clear ways, because that the process is meant to be secret, but but the process behind these trade deals is very complex. It is very esoteric and people have very different views, indissolubly quite
interested explanations of how that process works. So, on the one hand, the process has certain
globally necessary conditions in it that make it very opaque
so you're doing these very delicate negotiations between many many many many different countries, and if things
week in America about the dairy negotiations that are picked up by the New Zealand Press, then it could blow everything up. Induce zeal.
That is something the disease on government would have let out so the negotiations.
In under extreme secrecy across many different nations, because it so hard for me to predict what can and cannot be said public
and you have so many moving parts in moving players were or accountable to different box. So then you have this
documents made now for many many years it is trade negotiations are very secret. So then what happens? Is that the amount
government, at least I don't know how this is done in other countries, sets up a very baroque process in which
are these large advisory councils and they
are advising on every chapter, the PPP everything from sovereign wealth funds and other countries to agricultural tariffs, to intellectual property. And if you talk to the Obama administration, they are furious at the idea of keeping
he's done in secret. They know that unions are on a lot of these councils. It advocates run a bunch of these councils, but they can't go
and say what they ve seen in public
so their view as it they get this kind of a little bit of transparency into the process, but they're they're not
until that their feedback isn't really taken to heart and that also there
they're not allowed to do so. They know so the fact that they can know privately that they don't like us, trade deals going is not actually have helped to them in making this a more transparent
process inactivated we're membership. And meanwhile, I do think just really looking at this process. It is one of these processes and you get this in Washington, Fairmount there's a lot
this and the regulatory system. Currently too, we have a process. It is this
I end to elicit certain kinds of feedback, and the intention of that process was to make something that was very opaque, more transparent, but the problem is that it is such a complex process. Imperfect
good reasons that the only people who have the time and energy to figure it out or very self interested. So on the one hand you have organised labour who dared is big enough and they care about the stuff in other than they do jump into it, but other that you have a ton of lobbying Morlocks,
right, you ve done a people who are in there are sometimes fourth sometimes against it, but because they want something from the process, and so you have this world where
on the one hand, there doing all these things and we things are cumbersome actually to try to make it possible for folks to weigh end in sight
they think in what they want the agricultural chapter ppp, but in practice that creates a system in which,
you get a lot more input from lobbyists and you do front from other people, and you have,
this world, where the up
one of the Lando enough that they don't like it, but nothing can actually be said publicly. So it's very hard to have an open
honest debate now we have. The actual text of the debate is gonna better, but I think a lot of the anger over it and a lot of the sort of bitterness
it happened around the PPP debate came during this process,
the very weird incentives on it
What I think you're right. You see that a lot in Washington and just took a pick up on what, as you were, saying,
when things of you actually look at teepee p. I think we did it. We did a series of explain, honours and this wasn't even actually Anti BP. It was on summaries of summary.
The government put out? No, we were. We are to be for us to be fair, to sell those folks, they were doing the actual text. Ok, we're and giant
cumbersome in some parts of it are legs so hard to navigate
like I was just reading through, like the farmer provisions in that you really need, like a team of like
Five lawyers to understand what exactly they mean
drugs are affected and who gets the five year, data
passivity and who gets the eight year. Data exclusivity are like. If you look,
they're big part as the rules of origin kind of regulation, where these are regulations about. If something is going to be eligible for these reduced tariffs, how much of it has to come from a teepee p?
country and those are incredibly com.
two in the very difficult to read. If you are not reading,
with the assistance of again, some lawyers are lobbyists that you ve hired suits, I mean,
firstly about having influence and being able to talk to someone, but literally just the
things, knowing things I mean, this happens, allied in Washington,
One of the things that worries me a little.
about this is going to be an aside, but
Why not fond of the weeds of this code of conduct?
both of em
trade, media and trade publications in Washington, where you have these very expensive trip up.
nations and I used to work for one of them and they do great news quickly say what a trade publication publication is something that covers a specific industry. There,
closely. You gave a health care trade
occasion, that is looking at new regulations coming out of age ass in getting the latest
about the FDA and they really giving you up to the minutes inside the
dilatory congressional system, so you
really these kind of eyes on the process, their great
I think a lot of really important granular reporting. I use to the thing I used to cover with state elimination of health care so
I knew what every state was doing on health care and if you paid
of money. You could know that as well and really
it's kind of a two tier system of access where, if you're not able to pay for you know in the case of tcp these,
friends of lawyers or in the case of other regulatory issues in Washington, these expensive,
locations essentially locked out of that
a little bed where other people in our buying access into these expensive. Now,
sources and creates kind of a two tier track
where some people are getting a lot of access and it really revolves around money and fight.
huge divergent over the television, a tremendous amount of information, asymmetry in Washington and between people who can pay for the people to collect the information,
experts to interpret the information and an folks who can't it's a real bad.
the great want. I think in the washing of monthly a couple months ago that the rise of
Hey Wong verses, free that that the web has obvious
undermined a lot of like traditional subscription model and creates this like bifurcation until like free publications that need to focus on things that are very broad general interest and it's very expensive, and you should publications that are like know everything about what's happening, but so that means normal people
Don't have access to what's happening, but I also think particularly on international trade negotiations that the United
states and I'm not sure how many of foreign countries replicate this, but I think it's not. All that comment has a dedicated federal bureaucracy called the. U S, trade representatives
This, whose only mission is to negotiate trade deals. If I got to sit down and deliver some some honest talk,
brok about. I would tell him that like that is where this has gone awry for him is that, since he has a bunch of guys whose only job is to negotiate complicated international trade deals, they went and did that
and it like, took them years, unlike so now at the end of his administration. They have this thing that, like does not advance his political coalition. All objectives is not that big of a deal economically.
divides. His party advances certain domestic interests and harm certain other ones,
the way that seems a little unrelated to any of his like big picture policy objectives and its
it's it's his administration. Did it because, like this was the deal to be done, anything had done in some other way right, a different bureaucratic process. If TIM gardener had you not just like flown off to Asia at some point and come back and willingness
then we could probably negotiate a deal. That would be great for banks and pharmaceutical company is by possibly bad for manufacturers and dairy farmers.
and it would be like a lot of work and a big political life to get it done. I think that what I said
you don't, even because of all the things in the world that would be a big political life to get done like why this body,
it seems like a small political left when you have a dedicated federal agency that doesn't do anything except all this work,
they literally have nothing better to do, and then their cooking up, like an even bigger, even more complicated, even weirder deal with what the European Union at the moment, because again they have nothing better to do
and the EU has the same thing. They have a dedicated international trade deal, making bureaucracy and what they ve been
in the EU. There were
running, a mock has been
could. She aiding deals with like random small,
trees around the world, so I'll be like
Free Trade agreement between the European Union, which is enormous and like some small south american among its because
You know it's like when you give a bureaucracy, a mission they carry out the mission and like one of your goals as like an big picture, executive leader, is to think strategically about, like what do you want to have
the purpose built organizations off doing like for good reason. Right, like we have people who are out there trying to catch bank robbers, I do they want
listing thing about that? It is about the political dynamics here. Isn't it there
is a strong incentive in all presidencies. I think, but I think this is very disposition. I true for Obama that he wants to get things done. He wants accomplishments.
and, as you mentioned, the PPP Authority, the authority to passes did not get many democratic what's, but it actually did pass in the recent past. Is it
publicans are actually at least have been until now pro this kind of trivial and this amount suggesting as it is important that the political and economic
Here is that this is something Obama could get done, potentially with a house controlled by Paul
Ryan and a Senate controlled by MID Mcconnell. They got been one of the reasons it. It has generated so much force right now, because it isn't like their choosing between what should we do
public option to Obama care, or should we get it out
do something they love and an end. Advances are close. It's kind of its candidature, nothing right. This sort of total gridlock
that doesn't already international business tax reform
next time. We insist nothing that makes it a good your body, I, as I said like I,
really think this deal. It is complex, and I also think somebody the broader arguments about our comments. What they are really wish people do and wishes
Labour, I wish is for more economists. I would love to see some these folks produce like what they think a trivial should look like
when you evaluate healthcare plans, there are a lot of you
oh, who have put forward their ideal healthcare plan like you, can read the heritage?
spanish healthcare plan and the american enterprises to tell your planet caps, healthcare plan and physicians for
single by our men, all these different things and then set of
decide where this diverges were converges in and how important those things already here, these things just drop and there's just like nothing to look at, and you just dealing with these
esoteric analyses and this million different moving parts and adjust this is
well? I'm not sure that it is good to keep the two.
the machinery on a path here, but
is very hard for me to look around at the evidence here. Look round at the arguments- and just say this is an obvious, easy complete when in one direction,
what are the hard things about making like an analogous my perfect trade proposal? Sort of
with healthcare, you generally have like a thing you are trying to do so generally, the two things are: either one expand coverage or reduce costs that those are the kind of big picture is
was met with saying is we started the trade deals having just become about liberalizing trait the cure? You're? Not talking about this like her
then using this at the beginning, but here's the thing we wanted to do.
I don't know that there's even consensus. I'd like
the reason we want to do.
What is even the scope right network?
this rate Mega healthcare bill is meant to address healthcare,
You know we can disagree around them origins about like what is really really not healthcare issue, but I think we have a sense right. If I go,
Yeah stages when they trade deal. It's like some time.
about twenty years ago. Drug company is just like hopped.
And we're like. Oh hey, do you know it's a trade issue
length Billig. I dont, know why that's a trading like it. It isn't. If you read out like a textbook chapter about trade, you won't find anything by foreign countries. Pat nice, that's a form of protection
well, but it's become actually central
to do right. Now. I understand I, so you could say label, but with an ideal you know trade treaty do and it's like any one could say anything just like any power.
see that the government of Japan has that you would like a changed in theory could have been on the tv docket, which I personally, I think normal people don't have opinions about this, but like any big multinational company as an infinite list of possible complain,
about foreign countries regulations so that there is a ton here and it's like, I feel bad. I think we should cut this conversation here by feel bad, because we have not talked about
argument about how companies learn from each other. In these trade deals, we ve talked about investor state dispute settlement predictions, but I do want to say: if you do, you want
Deepening we ve done a lot of
get boxed our com. You can go search for on site the dives ray
deep into a lot of the individual chapters. Here is so if you, if you feel like going deep, we can we can up yet allotted
for being shown us we'll get it in their yeah. Let's take a break and
maybe maybe maybe we have to revisit the cheap.
we bet you're just like us in any love to learn new things and that's why we're so excited about the great courses plus video learning service gives you unlimited access to a huge library of the great courses, lecture series in tons of fastening subjects: history, science, cooking, you name it and they're, giving our listeners an incredible opportunity right now what one of their most popular courses, the inexplicable universe, unsolved
streets absolutely free, explicable, universes presented by the well known astrophysicist, Neil digress, Thyssen, his expert
Some of the universe is biggest mysteries. He takes his eye complicated big physics topics and make some understandable Yolanda black holes string theory. Quantum foam sends a weird wild, but really fascinating stuff, and just for a limited time, the great courses plus is offering our listeners a chance to stream this course inexplicable universe. Unsolved mysteries said. Ninety five dollar value and hundreds of other courses offer free, but this free offers only available for a limited time, so hurry Couldn T go
courses plus dot com, slash weeds, that's the great courses plus that calm, slash weeds, so we're we're talking to each other the day after Donald Trump one. Another stunning victory in Nevada, huge, huge victory, huge victory, and this one was pretty big and, I think is big for copper reasons. I don't we know quite or met you may know if we do what the exact tone
but it was in the neighborhood of forty five, forty six forty six band, I think Rubio got twenty four,
Hers was a little. Our companies,
his big one, as is trumps. Third, when in a row he one big in New Hampshire, he one big its alkaline as one big in Nevada too.
about. It was supposed to be a really good state from AKA Rubio, both demographically and because
Ruby hours, passed association with the church wandered saints, which is a big deal, Nevada, also in association that he formed. While he lived it about right.
traditionally, it's a little odd. But traditionally you expect Canada to do well. In those states that therefrom, so this
was another or not
sort of example of microbial declaring he had won a stunning victory in second place, but this time it came in here
we're at other points in the primary. His staff has talked about
bought it being a really good place from ARC Rubio to begin his winning,
It, a copyists state, its greatest potential carcasses are supposed to advantage profession.
We organised campaign, which Donald Trump was thought to not have it shows in part trumps campaign. I would say learning and
prove why did in Iowa? They had appallingly aid that they then underperform pretty badly. I think due to bad organization,
in advance they had a big Pauling lead, but I think a lot of people have thought he might underperform it again, but this time he did about what he was Paulie that or people's love him. So much that there was no organisation
May I just ran out to caucus anyway. Let me bring up one big point here. If I can, because I do think it's interesting, I would a piece
now the Nevada results, it's called, the Republican Party is broken and
has been. An interesting debate needs to be to some degree that has played out at the weeds too about whether public and party
We should have stopped Donald Trump earlier, and I am sure that this debate is important because we are you following it. I think
real bearing on whether you think that can stop Donald Trump now and what I think is interesting.
There's been a discussion that is sort of gone on that the problem of the Republicans
Haiti? Is it they didn't coalesce around an anti trump fast enough that they they should have very early in the process really thrown a lot of indoor
meant a lot of money behind marker Rubio. They should go to other people out of the race. There's just been this ongoing could take it. They just haven't done the work of a party and I've really come to think that's wrong. I think that the Republican Party did tried to veto Donald Trump, which is another thing. Apart
Do this sort of constellation of actors associated with the party? Had
in every way they could, of and in a lot of different venues tried to signal to devote a trump is unavoidable.
the boy. Did somebody's other guys would be more public in a better fit the first boxing
debate with really dedicated to destroying Donald Trump, I created a feud between him and Fox NEWS and pretty him in making Kelly the kiddies to this day.
In our view, which is a real sort of enforcer of what
Logical conservatism is meant to be had this,
issue, where they pulled people from every part of the party to write about her Donald Trump. Isn't real conservative there ve been
moments where Republicans thought Donald Trump had finally said something that wasn't just politically incorrect but incorrect to Republicans like,
ginning John Mccain WAR, heroism and every republican of any note really
I've done him in the press, runabout trumpet gone too far, and then it just did it didn't matter and its US talk with Mark Sandford who
governor of South Carolina, now accomplishment from South Carolina, and he made this could point to me. He said
coalesce run, whoever we want
coalescing around someone means that person is seen as established, establishment or establishment like that's. Actually gonna hurt them this year. That's not the direction the party is going in
and so to speak and interesting thing that has happened. Yes, I got the formal function of a party. Is it helps voters make choices more easily in a complicated decisionmaking landscape by giving them a sense of who they
trust and right now the party has, as far as I can tell lost its ability to tell its voters who they can trust the voters. Take that as almost like, an
die endorsement and I just made them very weak and if you think I, like the aquaculture
things like throwing alive money towards one candidate. We obviously saw that with the job, but where he had
absurd amount of money that didn't
by him many votes, there's a great Huffington posts chart
I think, there's some photos of Donald Trump looking at at at making some sites comments. That just shows how
to job Bush spends provoked. I think a new Hampshire Iowa, let's face. It, is true that there's this guy
jam push line and you did
some coalescing there. Obviously this is a candidate that perhaps because of a sister
This meant five. Perhaps against other factors was just summarily does.
missed from the,
station. Where were you had this person? A year ago we set up this is kind of whom were
signalling who we want were giving a money we're talking about,
the candidate and is very fast aside
of the re. So I disagree with a slightly to me.
That the lesson here when you designing any kind of structure you you want to make a strong, but
certain point you have to recognise the United Mean mobile subjection
who is? Do we want to make something? That's gonna bend?
risk that is gonna, break, em or publicans have done is say they want to break right that, after it became clear
not just from down from long before Donald Trump. It was clear that elements of the party base were a little concerned about immigration. A little sceptical about elite lead,
globalization and possibly not so high on the nation building. Idealistic aspects of George W Bush is foreign policy that those were the areas of concern that you'd seen RON Paul pop up that you'd seen MIKE Huckabee pop up that you'd seen
what's his name, David Brat beat our counter with no money right that, like this, was where the base was worried about where the establishment was going and then what the establishment did in twenty twelve was a unified around George W,
She is little brought many. Sixteen twenty sixty George W Bush is little brother, who was fuelled by
hundreds of millions of dollars specifically in Wall Street contributions and who
written a big book about how the theme of the Republican Party need to do was betray its base, specifically
immigration. Then, when jib started to falter, they were like no, no. No. What we need to do is give it you
whose super duper ideologically orthodox on everything, particularly about.
The nation building, idealistic aspects of Georgia. We bushes foreign policy, but you did deviate massively one time on immigration that they can
Insisting right that, like ideological deviation, is unacceptable right. That John K Sick, because he accepted
The federal money to give healthcare to poor people is like anathema.
giant deviation. Immigration is fine with them, because Wink wink trust us
Arcos learned his lesson say it's like an establishment that it's not that like the base now refuses to trust the establishment is the establishment in like grotesque,
obvious stupid ways is being untrustworthy. There are plenty of republican politicians who have a solid record of opposing amnesty for unauthorized immigrants. They refuse to put one of them up as their contender, so like
course they don't trust them whenever ones like. Oh yeah Marco's, solid man. He totally changed his mind about that. It's just at the pre
sky. We liked best was also deviating on that issue and also the speaker of the house used a favorite read like it's. It's like a joke,
it could have if they had wanted to found somebody else
in like we're, gonna show a little ideological flexibility on, for example, the regulation of giant banks, but now they said flexibility on nothing except immigration and like this is how they're getting steam world. Would you look at Hillary Clinton right faced with an insurgents,
Hillary Clinton. Yes, she's counted on the whole party coming around her she's Canada. Money she's kind of endorsement is Canada that liberal media establishment
she's also just been like. You know what, if people want me to oppose Keystone, if you want me to oppose teepee, I'm gonna. Do that
as its not linked by magic, that the parties to help wishing controls things and is
John Vain or used to talk about this Nancy policy used to talk about this like leading, is great but
can only lead people where they want to follow and Republicans
trying to lead their party into this direction that they
you really don't want to follow up on and like. I don't know why they won't just change their minds
I agree with a lot of that. It doesnt actually seem to me. We disagreed
much. I think my view is that the Republican Party has failed as a party because
It is done things it has that have
to lose its credibility with it
voters and I think iraqi flushing at that story more. I do think this is
places where one of the problems and the reason it's a hard think they're pulling party get over is the disagreement is genuine. I don't think the issue here is that
immigration is an ideological deviation for republican Party elites. I think it's the opposite. I think going hard core against
creation reform is the ideological deviation for a publican leads. I think that if you actually like got them in
whom rejected them with sodium Pentothal, if in fact, sodium pentothal work and have them except
like how they feel about immigration, they would be much
loser. Immigration system than even the gang of eight bill was that I think the gang of
It was not. I etiquette usual thought of his Democrats, compromising Republicans, but somebody's Republicans trying to find a compromise with their own. Much more restrictions must base, and I think this is part of the
problem, but I do think it gets to this interesting underlying dynamic of the rest of the primary, which is it if it is true that republican voters, don't trust them
ace, then you have a real problem potentially because
There's one version of the argument that is Republicans didn't coalesce quickly enough, but they can still coalesce may be because the party will still was
onto them coalescing, there's another version which is republics, could never have coalesced effectively, in fact
insofar as they could have been more or less did. They did all the things he could have tried not to make Marco Rubio specifically win, but to make Donald Trump lose and it failed. If anything, it appeared to strengthen trump and so
be strengthened, had crews, and so now there in a space where one of their coordination problems is
Do you not coordinate in a way that makes Rubio toxic? If Ruby
easier, your candidate. How do you not support him in a way that makes him look like a tool? The establishment, but Donald Trump, has been so effective at running against. How do you not make him a week or candidate by virtue
Horsemen there was a tweet by I'm just like an unambiguous news, enrolled political reporter who,
out in Nevada, and he was saying that the people
find him a line for the Caucasus were saying that they are going to vote.
against marker Rubio B,
they really like. Like always establishment endorsements, he was getting it made them think he was told establishment and they want.
Send the establishment, a message, and I think the idea
you're, saying Republicans does need to call us around someone. The idea
often be like a little bit.
in terms of what that means. What that? What are the actual steps? One of the things I ran into a lot covering healthcare alot of people would say
oh the Obama administration, to the terrible job selling Obama, currently didn't talk about it enough. They didn't do exe virus.
when you actually, they asked people like
What is it you know? Actually, Obama was out there talking about it when you turn it into a more. What are the tangible step,
one takes to sell this massive law.
what are the actual things you
due to sell law that actually does an effect that many people and you're trying to get
people that actually healthcare isn't really going to change. We need to worry about this, the
level version of coal as a highly available version of selling
mercury. It's a little confused like what actually
I think this is speaking to confessors points about what could Republicans do or is there just like
an option here is the divides
significance that it's just going to play out
where it is and remains Eve Obamacare in that way, where I think about,
there's going to be popular, no matter what the administration
that I don't think it was a messaging problem,
like a lack of action, and it strikes me that,
Cecil analogy there to their public and party? What place where I would? I would take that an end and agree with the pressure is that I think,
often times, people don't want to recognize
structural problems and liked to pretend that technical problems on a bomb.
you say a lot of things, people thought Obama should have to sell Obamacare. He did and those things just didn't work. As we witnessed
yelling that he should do things because the other explanation, maybe this gigantic bill- that increases government
the health care system is not going to be popular was it was an exploration I really didn't like they didn't want to do
by into that, and similarly, I think every Republican right now and for the everybody everywhere is
green. This is an anti establishment year that their Willingham Mouth, that and say it allowed, but they don't really believe it yet. So we keep coming back
So I did if only we establishment, with tactically more effective that
would still be able to get back control of the primary. But if you re
We believe that was happened is people lost faith in the establishment of you really believe the strong version of it is an anti establishment year. Then
implications are much more damaging and they become more towards the direction mats going, which is it's not the establishment hasn't changed tactic. It has to change itself,
in ways that would allow us to sort of regain its credibility with space and saw a hundred percent clear how to do that. I mean the one thing I will
it is also an odd thing about how much Republicans appear to hate their party, is it in the
their public party did block immigration in the end it did absorbed the tea party and really let the tea party come into leadership of their public and party. There's been a lot their properties done to move pretty far too, though,
right in recent years and I think
is away here too, when I talk to elected Republican, something they say about this their basis,
We angry because her base gave report
the House and the Senate, but they should get
by Obama. You know
the base feels like there. The promises have been broken that, if only they won Congress, they can control the control everything which do it,
as for us, it was never. The promise actually republics have gotten a lot done into a larger. We really delivered on stopping Obama. Did the degree that one can stop the president. It's just that
the base also can want to believe things. It just aren't true and can take the opinion. Like nothing,
Oh actually, we need to win the presidency, but of
these guys, weren't such jerks and and and tactically week. We would have already somehow completely destroyed the budget. Yet here's a structural point that I think is is relevant here is that the idea of a Republican, Quantico Establishment
republican peace, can often leave out unimportant third set of actors right, which is that someone like, like rush Limbaugh, he's not a rank and file.
public and he's an extraordinarily influential republic. He is much more influential than the average republican member has representatives more influential than the apple
Republican, Senator he's not the single most important person and republican party politics, but I'd, say his top ten and has been for decades in a way that isn't true of any current Republican elected official. So over the past generation. He is maybe after Georgia
wash your time delay that one of the most significant figures and republican party politics, but he is also the promoter of this construction- that there's a republican establishment that constantly betrays the base so like the establishment is defined, as do not include him not include Michael Savage, and I include these other extremely popular conservative media figures, and they are, I think, the swing constituency in that trunk phenomena and that's the trouble for Trump would have come. Not if republican back a bench. Senators who nobody has ever heard of like Tom. Tell us saying I gag over from our
Rubia. Nobody knows who he is and even, if they do, nobody cares. Lots of people know who wrestling buyers and care a lot. What what he thinks and talk? Radio has been fairly sympathetic to trump that they have been really
cited a body. The trump is not politically correct. They have led the charge to basically whip the party on immigration or form several times and are glad that Trump is putting a scare into them. They never like John Mccain as a person, and you know why I think they would not
the specific content of what Trump said about Mccain. They like the idea of taking them on since these these
radio figures there also commercial entities who just have an interest.
In ratings and advertising, that separate from eighty ology and and partisan politics, and a David from wrote, a good essay about this. I think back into doesn't nine about just like that. The power of talk rate,
when in the Republican Party, is used in a sort of irresponsible way, was his thesis and I think that's a lot of what you're seeing with Trump is it. These people play an important role and partisan politics and they play an important role in it.
Logical framing, but where is like when, when which Lowery National View put together that against Trump Cover, I feel
I don't know those guys well, but I feel really certain that they were like not thinking about leg. Well, this is really gonna, get it to increase our subscription.
Sweet like they are in that game. You know, of course they want people to read the magazine. They they loss or Billy, to sponsor debate over the rights that they want the magazine to thrive and flourish, but they care more about conservatism and like that's what they are thinking about, went when they do that stuff and an answer, and I you know, I used to work at a small publication of that sort where
the american prospect were ideological move
two considerations are like the primary thing that that the founders care about
and what we are seeing is it the talk. Radio guys are not really like that they known
They lake in sort of the way that I like, just like the republican primary, getting like as finding goofy,
unlike fascinating and amazing as possible, and have now
been that disturbed by the fact that Donald Trump does not seem like deeply committed to conserve the principles. So that strikes me as like, where the coalescing hasn't happened. But it's not something like. I don't know that, like Paul Ryan could fix that problem. The guts right. One thing that could fix our problems is more discussion of white paper.
Yes, but you will do after this commercial break. This week's episode of the weeds sponsored by Harry's razors
using Harry's razors for a little while Now- and it's just like it's really great the raises- are cheap there easy to get they come to my house. You don't have to deal with this sort of nonsense at the store words behind lock and key in this, the guy whose office was fixing the auto check out machine. You know it's a nice great, close, comfortable shave.
but convenient saving. A bunch of money. Does German engineered five blade cartridges gives you a nice close, comfortable shave? No cuts are burns, they give you a full refund if you're not happy, they ve got great prices, factory direct prices, cuts at the middle man, ships directly to your house.
Half the price of a leading brand over one million guys have already made the switch thousands more switch every day. Why pay thirty two dollars for an aid package blades when you get them for half the price at Harry's
and Harry Starter Set is a particularly amazing deal for just fifteen bucks. You get a razor moisturising shave, cream and three razor blades
so hairs. Prices are already really low, but they ve got a special offer for you. Perish will give you five dollars off your first order with promo code, weeds, stop overpaying for great shave, gotta Harry's, dotcom right now, that's each a r r! Why asked
come and your code weeds at check so leader next week the Supreme Court is going to take up its biggest abortion case in eight years minute centres on this Texas law that led to a lot of plan parenthood clinics in other important clinics, they're closing.
This law that basically put these new regulations around apportion clinics in Texas. It says that they have to become
the Tories, surgical centres, which means, for example, the have to foot
I'd hallways, if you are a clinic that was built with three foot white hallways, is very, very difficult to upgrade to eight foot wide. Always so,
them end up closing, so this case will be
heard oil arguments on March second next Wednesday, so without it
in two can look at a really interesting paper about what this law that the Supreme Court we ruling on has actually done in Texas
ever is from the New England Journal of Medicine and its from this Texas public
I see evaluation project, which is a group based at the University of taxes, which has really been doing a lot of grapes
research on these new laws that are happening there, and they just
basically want to know which is a question. I've had as reproductive health. Reporters, oh for awhile. What
happens when you restrict abortion access. What happens when clinics like plan parent
closing their essentially two theories of this that have been going
and Washington, one of them is
just patients go elsewhere that if you used to get your birth control at a plan, parenthood plan parenthood goes on business. You go to it
place, you gotta primary care provider. The same number women get care, the other theory
that women don't get care that there's fewer clinic, save less places to go so they just
I'm not getting the care that they use to end this new
England Journal Paper. It point swords the latter theory. It suggests that
when abortion clinics lay plan parenthood disappear, places that provide contraceptives that women just get less
birth control and they have more babies. Some of the numbers from this paper there are pretty stunning was
he showed there was a thirty five percent decline in women getting long term, reversible contraceptives. These are things like ideas and implants. Once you have them, they prevent
I can see for about five years or so the same
where women kept getting birth control pelles. We can talk about it later about why there
what of worry about those long, acting contraceptives,
and you saw that fur birth control shots, but you have to get about every three months. Women just stopped coming back from them. All of this perhaps spray
unsurprisingly, led to an increase in births among the population, and it turns out when women of us access to birth control that they have more babies and its do. We know what happened to the number of
since we do not. This actually does not have a number
abortions? The thought is: there were less abortions because there was less access to abortion. It's just you! You can actually imagine that going either way where, because you reduce the
just to abortion. Measures are increasing in number. Pregnancy is so the ocean rate
could decline is our eyes. Are they want eyes the size of the birth control drop? So the steady it's a little bit complex the design, but basically the people there
studying when they're looking at births were just the people who are getting birth control, shots the size of the
Klein and birth control shots and the rise in
child, bearing is pretty similar, which makes it seem like
abortion didn't increase that there's just lead to people having more babies, not terminating more pregnancies, but it's not
off actual numbers of abortion in the paper it's going off the decline and
control an increase in child bearing so we suggest that there is
sorry, that's been in Washington that when you close abortion clinics, new clothes places giving up birth control, women will go
swear this paper suggests that it's not the case that if you have
less places giving out birth control. You end up with less women
especially lower income women having access to some of the best methods of birth control, ivy, newspapers,
they fascinating, actually an and one thing. So I think it just speaks to is it is something I think that has been a big theme in the argument over planned parenthood, they plan parenthood is not so
An abortion provided that they are a provider of a tremendous number of different kinds of reproductive health care to women and
You know one of the debates of it's funny, because speaking of Donald Trump, he's actually been saying into
clever, does a lot of good health care for women. I think this is something that has often frustrates pro life folks, because beyond
I think you oftentimes is all that stuff is fine and it doesn't need to be wrapped up in the providing fortune services, but in practice it actually is and so
these tactics that are being done to close down providers who who can offer these services are also closing down his providers, who offer these other reproductive health services as matters it might lead to more
abortions in net, because people having more unplanned part
these overall, but it certainly probably do more
in pregnancy. Certainly Molitor to Timor:
I again unplanned pregnancy and it it just speaks to
a way in which this kind of strategy, this kind of like trench war
there over this issue that it is pathetic,
at its ideological philosophical on its value based. It has a lot of you on the ground victims. It has a lot of people who are not part of the big fight but are getting pretty badly hurt by it. Why something that's interesting here is that if you go back,
you know few years, I think there was a lot of tentative optimism
about some kind of Asia, a bipartisan move to
like an abortion reduction strategy there.
basically, an unplanned pregnancy production safely
rare way did that one of the striking things about the United or magazine very large number of unplanned pregnancy in the United States and
it is possible with modern medical technology for there,
really be quite a unplanned pregnancies.
caitive listeners to our team pregnancy episode a couple months back:
what will remember that? You know in the United States theirs
a decent number of people who don't use birth control and there's a lot of people who are the main form of birth controls that that people are relying on is is oral contraceptives which are relatively difficult to comply
with the regime and there's a lot of failures around that, and so,
well there's been some very
medical debate about plant parenthood, there's been a lot of elite excitement about long acting reversible contraceptives, but the
come together, because these long acting contraceptives have a ton of advantages in terms of actually working
but the disadvantage is that you tend to needs like go into it. A doctor's office right
That's where these clinics, right, which exactly
text was getting rid of rapid like it's. A clinic is focused on women is focused on reproductive issues. They have trained medical staff, but it isn't a hospital. Its is expensive to operate. You can set them up a relatively low cost, like that's what you need for people to be getting
Implants getting ideas were entered, the devices are just expensive. I think most of them cost about five hundred dollars or so, and we
active health clinics. They kind of got used to the fact that will keep a few these in stock, because we know people come here for them: Obama, caring
the reimbursement, for these said that anyone who had insurance could have access to these with no cost sharing, but most most
Hospitals, don't want to go through the work of figuring out. Am I going to actually give someone this five hundred dollar device data its expensive to keep these around and
actually need someone train
then inserting we got a difficult procedure, but it's not like it's emigrating.
corruption, and it's not like saying Harrison, birth control pills. You actually
someone who's going to be able to,
give someone does and does it,
what's your mission in folk, like that's, would like plan parenthood, like that's that
in the name. Is it right yeah and you need and a lot of its just information? One of things you see is
a lot of old ideas about long acting contraceptives, whether things that women
appearing lot at the doctor. That, I was actually told is: oh, you can't have an hour. You d, if you ve, never debated before, which is a really out data.
View of ideas, it's not, you can actually have them just by
but there was this idea in the Eightys and Ninetys that it only go to women who have had babies before. So
I go to a hospital and talk to someone you know their who a primary care doktor whose focus isn't report.
Health is doing a lot of other things. I might say: oh you have another baby. You should have an eye you d,
employees are confronted with a kind of specialised in these things. They really know all that
technologies then thoroughgoing.
be a lot more informed about the idea that the group-
represents gynecologist obstetricians as actually they should
first line approach for for everyone for teenagers, brandy, women of childbearing age, so there's a knowledge gap that gets lost. When you
from specialities centres to other places, women might sick, birth control
Also at Sea Texas, for example, is, is a state which has not been expanding, Medicaid
So it's there's a certain amount of like in principle. You could maybe do
things to make up for the loss in service provision. But, like everything that's happening in Texas, politics is like going in the other direction of creating,
alternate centres? So I mean I I do think like one thing to be said about this, I know like pro: lifers are frustrated that liberals are like, but we have to hold all of, like women's health issues, hostage to play pandered, promoting abortion,
but the other hand is like if you could find me one example anywhere of a state where what happened was was at the conservative movement gained a lot of political power and what they then did was invested a lot of time and energy in creating alternatives to plant parenthood, for women to get contraceptives and comprehensive women's health control, like I'm happy to stand corrected but like what I have seen is across fifty states. Bitter political struggles over show to poor people get health care.
And the more conservative position is always know the hook. This was always yes, and sometimes you ve had like a minority faction of Republicans in the state legislature going along with a republican governor to say, like ok, but Texas, very conservative state their approach to this shouts of clinics down, and it someone else problem
I think that's when I presented the weeds. Do yes? Well, yes, but another
Great upset that takes a producer. I see that as things to be hypocritical, future window guy, who will fix a studio up somewhere, not interrupted by ambulances and was seen to today's episode of weeds, sponsor bites
men's race for the White House from executive producers, Kevin Spacey and Dana Burnett. He comes a new CNN original series, waste for the White House, citizens riveting six part doc. You series, wasteful of the White House, digs deep to reveal the most controversial tactics and game changing strategies used throughout presidential elections in american history, from Andrew Jackson to Bill Clinton, fellow twelve presidential hopefuls through six cuthah races that change the way we vote and how campaigns are web uncover the real reason some became powerful while others failed with disastrous debates, PR miss
scribes schemes. Waste for the White House will challenge the way you think about american politics: waste for the White House Series Premier, Sunday March Sixth, at ten p M eastern on CNN
Transcript generated on 2021-09-14.