Podcast Summary
Regulating Drug Effectiveness through Medical Community: Allowing doctors to determine drug effectiveness instead of FDA could lead to a more competitive market, with potential for lower prices and increased innovation.
The current regulatory process for approving drugs, which requires both safety and effectiveness, is leading to a monopoly of large pharmaceutical companies. Dan Bongino argues that the effectiveness portion should be determined by doctors in the medical community, rather than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), allowing for smaller companies to enter the market and compete. This would lead to more innovation and potentially lower prices for consumers. The FDA's focus on both safety and effectiveness, which can involve lengthy and expensive trials, creates a barrier to entry for smaller companies. Bongino suggests that only requiring safety proof for drugs and letting doctors determine effectiveness would lead to a more competitive market.
Senate Clarifies Healthcare Vote Procedures: The Senate's initial vote is for opening debate on Obamacare, not repeal or replacement. Confusion exists over what's next, but focus is on current vote. 16M, not 22M, may lose insurance if penalty for not having it goes away.
During a discussion about healthcare voting procedures in the Senate, it was clarified that the initial vote today is only about opening debate for Obamacare and does not involve a repeal or replacement bill. There is confusion among some senators about what will be introduced next, but the focus should be on the current vote. Additionally, it was debunked that 22 million Americans will lose insurance if Obamacare is repealed, as stated by some Democrats and even some Republicans. Instead, 16 million of that number may choose not to buy insurance once the penalty for not having it goes away. It's important to understand the context and accuracy of such statements.
Obamacare: Not being 'kicked off' vs. voluntarily dropping coverage: 73% of the estimated 22 million people losing insurance under Obamacare repeal were not being 'kicked off', but rather voluntarily dropping it, and CBO's estimates of Obamacare's coverage have consistently been inaccurate
Being "kicked off" insurance under Obamacare is not the same as not wanting to buy it. According to Ava Groi, if people voluntarily stop buying insurance because they deem it not worth it, that's not being kicked off. Instead, it's a reflection of the insurance being subpar. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report shows that 73% of the 22 million people who were estimated to lose insurance under the repeal of Obamacare were not being "kicked off," but rather choosing not to buy insurance. Furthermore, the CBO's estimates of how many people Obamacare would cover have consistently missed the mark, with actual numbers significantly lower than projections. These facts debunk the liberal talking point that people will be "kicked off" insurance if Obamacare is repealed. Instead, it's a testament to the law's failure to provide affordable and desirable insurance options for Americans.
CBO's Obamacare reports under scrutiny for inaccurate data: The CBO's estimates on the number of people losing insurance under Obamacare have been questioned due to flawed methodology and inaccurate data, leading to concerns about the trustworthiness of their reports.
The accuracy and reliability of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) reports on Obamacare have been questioned due to the garbage data they are given. Specifically, the 22 million people losing insurance under Obamacare is a contentious issue, with some arguing that it's due to the lack of a fine for not having coverage. However, the CBO's methodology for this estimate is flawed, as it assumes 15 million people will drop out of the market due to the fine's removal. The debate between Ezekiel Emanuel and Avik Roy illustrates this, with Roy using Obama's own words and methodology to disprove Emanuel's argument. Despite this, Emanuel accused Roy of attacking the messenger instead of addressing the substance of the argument. This tactic of attacking the messenger rather than the message is a common liberal strategy. Overall, the trustworthiness of CBO reports on Obamacare is a valid concern due to the inaccurate data they receive.
Political Reasons for Penalty vs Tax in Obamacare Debate: The penalty, or tax, in Obamacare was essential for 16M to enroll, but removing it may leave 16M uninsured, creating an inconsistency that cannot be argued both ways.
During the Obamacare debate, the individual mandate was presented as a penalty rather than a tax for political reasons. However, the penalty was essential to get 16 million people to sign up for health insurance, according to advocates. Now, if the tax, or penalty, is removed, those 16 million people might not enroll, leaving a gap of 16 million versus the predicted 22 million uninsured. This inconsistency cannot be argued both ways. Emmanuel, a liberal, focuses on attacking the messenger rather than addressing the issue. Despite political turmoil, the United States remains the most prosperous country, and we have the luxury of debating first-world problems like choosing between a Tahoe and a Chevy. If the current vote fails, the GOP will have to explain their actions. I strongly recommend Brickhouse Nutrition's product, Foundation, a creatine ATP mix, which significantly enhanced my workouts and overall well-being. After using it for a week, take another look in the mirror to see the difference.
Endorsing gym supplement and friend's experience: Speaker endorses 'Foundation' supplement for gym performance improvement and shares a friend's success story after using it for a week. Also, discusses constitutional questions about a sitting president's indictment and their ability to pardon themselves.
The speaker strongly endorses the use of a supplement called "Foundation" which contains creatine, a naturally occurring substance that can improve vascularity, tone, and gym performance. He shares a personal experience of a friend who was able to increase his gym performance after using the supplement for seven days. The speaker also discusses the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, citing an article by Andy McCarthy who argues that the constitution does not explicitly state that a president cannot be indicted while in office. Lastly, the speaker asserts that a president does have the power to pardon themselves, but in his opinion, there is nothing for President Trump to pardon regarding the ongoing Russia investigation.
President's Self-Pardon: Interpretation and Implications: The President may not be able to pardon himself for state crimes or impeachment, but self-pardons for federal offenses have room for interpretation. Some argue ongoing investigations target individuals for their political stances and undermine presidency legitimacy.
According to legal expert Andy McCarthy, the President of the United States cannot pardon himself for state crimes or impeachment, but there is room for interpretation regarding self-pardons for federal offenses. The discussion also touched upon a theory that the ongoing investigations against the Trump administration are not solely about Russia, but rather an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency and target individuals like Jeff Sessions, who hold strong stances on certain issues, such as immigration. The speaker emphasized the importance of reliable sources and factual reporting, and the potential consequences of spreading unsubstantiated information.
Proposed solution to end Trump Russia investigation: To prove investigation is not a 'witch hunt', propose keeping Sessions as AG, having Cruz as deputy AG, releasing info, and potentially removing Rosenstein.
According to the discussion, to resolve the ongoing investigation into the Trump Russia conspiracy theory, the speaker suggests keeping Attorney General Sessions in his position, asking Ted Cruz to take the deputy attorney general spot to oversee the investigation, and on the same day, engaging in a radical transparency effort by releasing all relevant information. The speaker believes this approach is necessary to prove the investigation is a "witch hunt" and to end it. Additionally, they suggest removing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein from his position.
Dan Bongino discusses the end of the special counsel investigation and his conservative platform: Despite ongoing probes, Bongino believes the special counsel investigation is finished. He advocates for transparency and promotes his CRTV.com platform, while sharing a controversial theory about possible sabotage at Chipotle for financial gain.
The special counsel investigation into the matter at hand is considered over by Dan Bongino, despite ongoing FBI and Congressional investigations. He suggests releasing all relevant information publicly to move on from the situation. Additionally, Bongino promotes his conservative content platform, CRTV.com, and shares an intriguing theory about potential sabotage at Chipotle, which could be economically beneficial due to the significant financial stakes involved. This theory, proposed by a statistician, suggests that recent food scares at Chipotle could be intentional based on the substantial financial gains from shorting the stock.
Shorting stocks and food safety scares: Shorting stocks can lead to big profits if stock prices decrease, but requires accurate information. Foodborne illness outbreaks can become national news due to social media. The government's use of civil proceedings to seize property raises concerns about fairness and potential misuse of power.
Shorting a stock, or buying the right to sell it at a certain price in the future, can be a profitable strategy if you have information that the stock's price will decrease. This strategy allows you to leverage yourself and potentially make significant profits without having to put up the full amount of money to buy the stock. Another intriguing topic discussed was the possibility of foodborne illness sabotage at Chipotle, based on the unusual timing and large number of people affected. In the news world, such incidents can easily become national stories due to social media. Lastly, a concerning issue was brought up regarding the government's use of civil proceedings to seize property, which can bypass the high standard of evidence required for criminal convictions. This policy led to the government seizing more assets in 2014 than burglars did, raising questions about the fairness and potential misuse of this power.
Ending Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse: Government should only seize ill-gotten gains after a criminal conviction, and those funds should go to crime victims. This keeps money out of government hands and prevents misuse of asset forfeiture power.
The practice of civil asset forfeiture, where the government seizes property without a criminal conviction, is a mistake and should be abolished. Instead, the government should only be allowed to seize ill-gotten gains after a criminal conviction, and those funds should go into a restitution fund for victims of crime. This approach keeps the money out of government hands and discourages the government from using the power of asset forfeiture for its own gain. The speaker, a former federal agent, believes that being tough on crime should not come at the expense of individual property rights and the potential abuse of government power.
