Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.

>> The Joe Rogan Experience.

>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY

NIGHT. All day.

>> I like them. But if it's just me wearing

them, I feel stupid.

>> Why do you wear them?

>> I like it cuz it locks me in. Just locks

me in. The only thing I hear is that

person's voice and I I can't hear

Jaime's chair moving. I I can't hear

anything else. And it just like makes me

really like focused on the conversation

only.

>> I have ADHD. I was at 11 siblings and I

have seven kids. So I can work. I can

focus

>> no matter what.

>> No matter what.

>> It's a skill. It's a thing to learn. You

know, if you if you're the person that

can focus without distraction, you're in

a good

>> You're a good person to be in the job

you're at.

>> Yeah.

>> What is it like? So, since you've been

appointed, I I haven't talked to you uh

on a podcast since

>> I know.

>> Yeah.

>> Um it it's the best job I could ever

have. I I feel like I was designed for

the job and

I just have so much fun. I mean, it's a

it's a target-rich environment. So,

there's so many ways that you can

effective and be effective and improve

people's lives every single day. Part of

that is because the agency was just such

a mess. You know, it was it wasn't doing

health care. It was doing sick care and

just managing the, you know, all of

these perverse incentives.

It have us spending5 trillion dollars a

year, two to three times per capita what

any other nation spends. And we have the

sickest population in the world. We have

the highest chronic disease burden in

the world. and you were the best at

medicine in this country,

but that's when people get sick. You'd

rather get sick here than any place in

the world, but you're more likely to be

sick here than any place in the world.

And you know, and then it was just a big

political patronage

um operation and it still is. And you

know, we're putting an end to that now.

I mean the the amount of fraud that goes

through that place

we lose just in Medicaid and Medicare

hundred billion dollars a year and it's

all just this really you know shocking

blatant fraud where that's become

industrialized. I mean there there is

foreign nations like Russia, everybody's

heard of Somalia, but also Cuba has this

operation in Florida where it's um they

open up these little um they open up um

these these PO boxes for durable medical

equipment is like knee braces

and wheelchairs and then they don't have

any knee braces or wheelchairs but they

have patient and identification numbers.

So, they just claimed to be shipping

them to people. And we found one hotel.

It had like 129 rooms in it. Everyone

was a different company that was selling

durable medical equipment. And we go in

and shut them down and they immediately

go back to Cuba. The whole thing is

apparently run by the Cuban government,

but Russia is doing the same thing with

hospices in

>> Where do they get the patient ID

numbers?

>> They get they can buy those numbers, you

know, they on the black market.

>> Really?

>> Yeah. And Russia does the same thing um

in Los Angeles with hospice care. So

there's there's more hospice care in Los

Angeles than the entire rest of the

country combined. It's all fraudulent.

And we're just pumping hundreds of

millions of dollars into these

fraudulent operations. The same thing

that the Somali did in in Ethiopia. A

lot of that money was going back to

Boang and you know terror groups over

there. But they were it was a lot of it

was based the Medicare and stuff is

different and we're we're able to we're

going to be able to catch almost all of

that now because we're using AI to do

it. It was never used before. There was

no effort at program integrity. In fact,

the Biden administration

deliberately purposely ordered them.

They ended the program integrity office.

So they went from hundreds of people to

six people and they said, "We don't want

you doing program integrity. We just

want you doing enrollments."

And um and so we got all this fraud. It

was most of it came from these waiverss

that the states got, all the states got

them for home care and community care.

So, you know, 30 years ago, Medicaid,

Medicare play, if you got a hernia

operation,

we paid for that. And you could tell

somebody got the hernia operation cuz

they had the scar, they used a licensed

nurse, they used a licensed doctor, was

all documented. Then they some of the

states said, you know, we're sending a

whole lot of people to the hospital and

if and we don't have home care

providers. Oh, if you if we if you let

us pay family members to do home care,

the patient won't have to go to the

hospital. They won't have to go to the

emergency room and we'll save a lot of

money. So, it was well-intentioned, but

then what happened is people immediately

started abusing it. So today, if you um

these are services that are not normally

played by family members, performed by

family members,

buying groceries for your grandmother

and bringing them home, you now get paid

for that, balancing your grandmother's

checkbook, driving her to a to a medical

visit. So um so then you had these you

know organized fraud where and this what

happened in Minnesota

these um these organized crime companies

would come in and say you designate this

family this you designate all your

children have autism now even if they

didn't and we're going to now pay

providers for each of them and we'll

give you a few thousand dollars to do it

but then they would collect all the

money and that's what was happening It's

happening all over the country because

there was no it's very very difficult

there the guard rails on that system

were very pvious and anybody can defraud

it. If you are inclined to do fraud this

was you know this was an irresistible

opportunity.

>> How long was this going on for? Like

when did this fraud begin? Do you

believe

>> it really accelerated during the Biden

administration? We expected to pay for

the the Minnesota program just for

autism care for kids who have autism.

The kids need the care because, you

know, they go to maybe a special school,

but then they come home from school and

the parents aren't there because they're

working. Who's going to take care of

them? Um, so in legitimate

circumstances, you would want to pay for

that. But what happened is they just

started this wholesale fraud. We

expected the cost of that program to be

about $3 million a year in Minnesota in

Minneapolis.

It got up in over a three-year period.

It got up to $400 million a year. So

they, you know, it was all fraudulent

almost.

>> I just don't understand. So this

accelerated during the Biden

administration, but when did it begin?

Like how long has it been going on

program integrity? They told

specifically they told people in my

agency and I've talked to them, we don't

want to do program integrity anymore. We

now just want to focus everything on

enrollments. In other words, enrolling

more people in Obamacare and the and the

programs. And you know, you could say

there was um bad motives there because

one, the states don't pay the states pay

a tiny fraction of it, but it's all goes

to the federal government. So the states

don't really want to do uh fraud uh

detection because all that money is

coming into their estate and then every

time you enroll somebody you're

registering them to vote and so you know

they may have had ulterior motives let

me put it that way. Um but you know

right now what we're doing is we're

saying to the states we have audited

you. We expect that we believe that 50%

of the uh program dollars you're

spending were fraudulent or possibly

fraudulent.

You show us a corrective action that

you're going to take or we're going to

withdraw that money the next time. The

money is not being withdrawn from

individuals. But we're not reimbursing

the state for it until like they told

us. Now the red states have all said,

"Yeah, we'll do it." But Maine,

Minnesota,

California, New York have said, "No,

we're not going to." Basically, they

sent us corrective action. That was

just, you know, it was ridiculous.

So,

is there financial incentive? Is is are

these people that are making all this

money from fraud, are they donating to

any specific groups?

Like is there a direct turn?

>> The the Cubans in Florida and Florida,

you know, they get mad at Trump because

they say, "Oh, all the states you're

designating are blue states." That's

just because the blue states refuse to

cooperate. But Florida is a red state

and we're really going after them. were

shutting down all durable medical

equipment reimbursements for the whole

state because it was all being run it

was probably being run by the Cuban

government cuz this is

>> but I don't understand how no one saw it

no one from the government saw it and

would there be a reason why they weren't

looking for it other than they just

wanted it they were only thinking about

recruitments but were they al was

anybody making money outside of these

crime organizations

>> I would say No, the money was not the

states were making money,

>> right? But there was a lot of talk

online about donations to parties and

donations to NOS's and don't

>> that that is probably true too although

I don't have any evidence of that.

>> No evidence. Okay. Um so it really just

>> you wouldn't have you know even if you

get those kind of donations it's not the

kind of proof that I would talk about

because you cannot prove that

>> right

>> that that donation you know motivated

the bad behavior

>> but it just it really highlights how

ideologically captured some people are

that because it's the right-wing going

after this Medicaid fraud that somehow

or another that fraud is okay and that

fraud's not that big a deal that there's

who what I mean like what's the all told

number that's been stolen from from this

stuff over the if you had to take a wild

guess I it's at least hundred billion

dollars a year

>> hundred billion a year

>> just from Medicaid and Medicare

>> that that anybody would not want to stop

that kind of crime because it's attached

to the wrong party is it just shows you

how weird this country is right now.

>> Yeah. I mean I listen

I was a Democrat my whole life and you

know one of the thing and then I you

know

>> what are you now

>> now I'm kind of first of all I it's

illegal for me now to vote in any state

so I don't really have a party

affiliation because you know they

challen um I was a New York state

resident but when I was running they

sued me and they said oh you don't

really live in New York you live in

California. I said, "Yeah, but my

driver's license is from New York. My

law license is from New York. I have an

address in New York. My car is

registered in New York. My falconry

license is New York. My hunting licenses

in New York. My fishing license New

York. And I intend to return to New

York." And there were hundreds of cases

just black letter laws saying if the

only measure is if you intend to return

there at some point we got crooked

judges and they said no you're not a New

York resident. I'd already said I'm not

a California resident. I don't intend to

stay there. So now I'm not leg you know

I'm I'm not legally allowed to vote in

any state.

But you know, I saw this with um the

party. My father hated partisanship

because he thought it was dishonest

and he said you should he always had

told us you should vote for the man not

the party or the you know he said the

man because at that time it was

predominantly men. But um I saw this

when Trump um you know I grew up in a

Democratic party that was very

anti-NAFTA.

it was against working people and labor

unions.

Then Trump said that he was anti NAFTA.

All of a sudden the Democratic Party was

pro NAFTA. And that's what turned my

head the first time. And then, you know,

when I was um then I saw how they when

Trump questioned vaccines during the

2016 election, the Democratic party was

it was kind of that skepticism and the

concerns were spread evenly across the

party. My uncle Ted Kennedy was very

much on the side of medical freedom. Um

and it was evenly spread, but as soon as

Trump said that, it became part of the

dogma of that party. And then, you know,

when I ran, we were um you know, it was

I one of the things I ran against was

the Ukraine war. And um and the

Democrats were always the anti-war

party. But as soon as Trump questioned

that war, they became the pro-war party

and they invited the CIA director to

speak at the Democratic convention. And

it just is it's the the ent the party's

only agenda is we hate Trump and

anything he says we're going to do the

opposite of it. And I it makes me very

sad for the party. And I don't think

it's a sustainable way to, you know, to

operate. No, there there there has to be

some sort of an appeal to people in the

middle that left when things went crazy.

Just let us know you're not crazy

anymore. let us know you've abandoned a

lot of this crazy stuff and also like

recognize what's good for everybody,

right? Hundreds of billions of dollars

of fraud is not good for any of us, the

whole country. So, we should all be

together on this one thing. Like, this

is terrible. This is stealing from your

tax money, all of our tax money,

>> us American citizens, we should all be

united on stopping any kind of fraud.

Forget about who who's the [ __ ]

president and what what's the who's

who's going to get responsibility for

it? Who's going to take who's going to

get the accolades? Like, who cares? Stop

fraud. Stop. We're all together. You

shouldn't have criminals from other

countries living here just stealing

money from Medicaid. That seems like

that should be a bipartisan issue in a

rational society.

>> Yeah. And you know on the you know I saw

this the craziness

when we did the uh the Tylenol findings

because you know the science is really

clear that and there were there are

dozens I read 76 studies over a week and

and when you know when we were looking

at this and the the studies that support

Tylenol safety are very weak and they

have huge holes in them. There's

overwhelming science that says you

shouldn't take it particularly, you

know, it's okay normally.

You shouldn't take it during pregnancy

and particularly the last days of

pregnancy or in the parinatal period,

prenat parinatal period which is

immediately after pregnancy. you don't

want to take it because the association

with the Tylenol usage at that point and

neurodedevelopmental disease is very

very high and and uh and pretty clear.

And so we issued a warning. We didn't

ban Tylenol. We just sent a letter out

to all doctors saying be careful about

um we we didn't want to ban it during

pregnancy because as bad as it is, it's

the best thing. It's better than taking

ibuprofen or or aspirin.

>> Why why is aspirin there?

>> They have because of rise syndrome.

It has a clear association with ry

syndrome and they all have problems.

>> What is that word? Ry syndrome.

>> Ry r e r y r y.

>> What is that?

>> It's um

I'm not sure exactly what it does.

>> Put that into our wonderful sponsor

perplexity. And if you put aspirin use

and rise syndrome, you'll you'll see the

>> So, is this just with pregnant women or

with people in general?

>> Pregnant in pregnancy or young children.

>> Oh, well, so baby aspirin. Didn't they

always used to have children?

>> Yeah. I don't know if they do it

anymore.

>> Rise syndrome is a rare but serious

condition causing sudden brain swelling

and liver damage primarily in children

and teens recovering from viral

infections like flu or chickenpox become

very rare due to reduced aspirin use in

kids. Wow. Aspirin.

>> Yes.

>> I always thought of aspirin as like the

most natural and healthy out of all

those things that you take for pain.

>> Oh, I think it is pretty safe. But

>> it's um

>> avoid aspirin. And what's that word?

You say it

>> isn't salicyate containing.

>> Cellocate containing meds in children,

teens with flu, chickenpox, or cold. Use

acetamophen or ibuprofen instead.

vaccinate against flu and chickenpox and

screen newborns for metabolic risks. So,

it's acetaminophen is the issue in

Tylenol, right? Yeah.

>> Because I read this terrible story about

a lady who died during COVID because she

not from CO, from Tylenol. She just kept

taking Tylenol.

>> Well, Tylenol shuts down your liver if

you take enough of it.

>> That's what happened to her.

>> But what I was saying is, you know, when

we issued this warning,

it was immediately condemned by the

Democrats. Oh, you know, here's Trump

and Kennedy doing, you know, weird

science again.

>> And then you had all of these videos,

these viral videos on TikTok of pregnant

women eating out eating Tylenol.

>> Yeah. To say [ __ ] Trump.

>> It's crazy. I hope they didn't really do

it. I hope they were pretending cuz

that's so dumb. It's just so stupid. Why

would you even want to risk that? Like,

how is that not a a thing that you just

abandon all party affiliation and go the

health of my child? This is science.

They're not saying don't take Tylenol.

Like, you could still buy Tylenol.

>> It's It's a good thing to know that if

you take too much of something, it's

bad. There's a lot of things that are

fine if you take one or two pills, but

if you're that poor lady with COVID, you

just keep taking it over and over and

over again, you'll die. We should know

that. It doesn't mean you shouldn't take

aspirin or you shouldn't take Tylenol,

but it just means know when to take it

and when not to take it and know how

much to take. Like that's all

information that everybody should want

to be out there. The fact that people

want to connect that to Trump and I'm

going to take as I'm going to take

Tylenol while I'm pregnant. Like is this

what like imagine the aliens watching us

and going this they're not ready.

They're not ready for sophisticated time

traveling technology. These [ __ ]

dopes like what are they doing? They're

fighting over nonsense, you know, and

it's like it's all heavily accelerated

by social media.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the algorithms

um just amplify that polarization. Yes.

They're just telling you what you want

to hear and and validating your

worldview all the time.

>> And also just outraging you. Just

outraging you all the time. I've been

off it for a while now. It's like it

frees your brain.

It's like

all the the weirdness of thinking about

nonsense in the world just kind you're

aware of it peripherilally, but it it's

not in your face all day, which I think

most people are dealing with a lot more

even than I was. And they're just

bombarded by sensation, bombarded by

anger and frustration and angst. And

it kind of liberates

the darkest impulses of the human

spirit. I mean, I don't I don't use it

either, but I got, you know, I post

stuff, but you know, if I started

reading my comments and take them

seriously.

>> No, it's terrible. I genuinely thought

when you uh joined forces with Trump and

then Tulsi did as well, I was like,

"Okay, maybe this will unite us more and

make more people realize that there's a

lot of people that are being left out

that are in the center of all this and

we can all come together and work

together." That's what I thought

naively.

You know, obviously once you guys got in

there, it was you guys were MAGA and

like health is bad and don't don't stop

the dyes. Like no matter what it was,

people like were ideologically opposed

to you being correct about anything

because now you're connected with Trump.

So, it's like I was watching liberals

the the people that are always worried

about food ingredients just dismissing

all of this talk about preservatives and

glyphosate and red dye and all these

different things and it is just an

ideological thing.

>> Yeah.

Um I mean it's uh it's like it's dogma

and it's part of it's tribalism. It's

these, you know, these uh these

connectors in our brain that evolved

over millions of years living in these

little tribal communities and you know,

and now you've got um

>> now you've got machines that can

activate those parts of the brain and

you know, they're being manipulated all

the time.

>> Yeah.

>> And then there's a bunch of people that

are commenting that aren't even real

people. There's that too. There's a lot

of manipulation that's going on on

social media where who knows who's doing

it. There's a bunch of different groups

doing it, but they they're not real

people that are outraged. They're not

real human beings that are saying these

things and they can kind of shift a

narrative into a certain direction

sometimes. It's a fascinating time to be

alive, you know. Um, as far as uh what

you thought this job was going to be

before you get in, before you got in and

what it became, what what was your

expectations when you got in? Like, did

did anything really surprise you?

Um, I mean, you know, I try to go into

every part of my life without

expectations

and uh and just focus on really narrowly

on what I'm doing day by day. And that

actually makes me a lot more resilient

because if you don't have expectations,

you never get disappointments and so you

can never get crushed. And um uh but I

would say that um

you know I had not spent a lot of my

life hanging out with Republicans

and what I imagine that they were

talking about um is exactly the opposite

of you know now I'm in an administration

that surrounded by immensely talented

people and um and They're immensely

idealistic and you know nobody I always

imagine the Republicans would get

together and they'd be thinking about

how do we screw the poor and how do we

you know reduce tax on the rich

>> and all they're just narrowly focused on

how do we solve these big problems and

how do we make our country work

>> and the level of idealism that I see at

every level in the white house and you

know in my agency is uh is uh is

inspiring and then the level of of the

capabilities just the you know the

competence of the people who I'm

surrounded with the I think the thing

that shocked me most was how bad the

agency was how

um you know just how inefficient how

nobody seemed to care that people were

getting sicker and sicker nobody was

taking accountability of the fact we're

the health agency and yet we have the

worst health of And we're the richest

health agency in the world. You know, I

I think HHS is the is the sixth biggest

country in the world. If you look at it,

at its budget, it's got the biggest

budget in the federal government, bigger

than the defense budget. And yet we are

absolutely miserable at what we did. I

mean they, you know, we're literally

presiding over this cliff

>> where every American is getting we're

people are just 77% of American kids

can't qualify for military service and

nobody's asking why is that happening.

We've gone when I was a kid, the um

the the typical pediatrician would see

one case of of juvenile diabetes over a

40 or 50 year career. Today, 38% of

teens are diabetic or pre-diabetic. So,

one out of every three kids who walks

through this office door. Why isn't

anybody noticing as the autism rates

have gone from one in 10,000 in 1970?

And people knew what autism was. They

knew what it looked like in 1970.

They did the biggest epidemiological

study in history to answer the question,

what is the percentage? And they came up

with 0.8 per 10,000.

So less than 1 in 10,000. And today it's

1 in 31. In California, it's one in 19

and one in 12.5 boys.

>> That's crazy.

>> We are, you know,

>> that's so crazy. One in 12.5 boys is

crazy.

>> And when my uncle was president, you

know, I was a 10-year-old boy.

>> We spent zero on chronic disease. Zero.

And today we spend $4.3 trillion a year.

And uh it's the fastest growing item in

the federal budget.

And it's existential. We we can't

sustain it. And the Republicans and

Democrats have been arguing for years

about whether we do singlepayer,

Obamacare, this or that. It's all about

throwing money. How who gets to keep the

money and we're throwing a system that's

completely broken. It's not health

system getting sicker and sicker.

>> It's like changing deck chairs on the

Titanic.

Why is nobody focusing

on how do we get people healthy? because

that's how you solve the health care

cost problem. Right now,

40 cents out of every dollar that you

spend in federal taxes is going to mo to

healthcare and about 90% of that is

chronic disease.

So, you know, it it's clear and

Americans don't want to be sick. You

know, they're being made sick. they're

being the obesity rates have gone from

5% in kids when I was a kid to now close

to 20% and in adults uh 70% of adults

are obese or overweight that was not

true when we were kids and it's not

because Americans got indolent or lazy

or hungry it's because they were being

mass poisoned

and um you know the the the vested

interests that are making money on

keeping. Everybody makes money on

keeping us sick. The food companies make

money on getting us sick, but pharma

makes money on keeping us sick. The

insurance you would think insurance

would want to keep you well, but it

doesn't. It actually makes more money if

more people are sick. The hospitals.

>> Why? How does the insurance company make

more money if people are sick?

>> Well, I mean, think of it this way.

If you're Lloyds of London,

do you want one ship to and you're

you're ensuring all the ships in the

ocean,

do you want one ship to sink a year or

do you want a thousand to sink? If a

thousand sink, everybody's going to be

paying you premiums to ensure themselves

against that eventuality. And you're

making money on the friction. So, you're

making the money that comes into this.

You're making your money on the money

that comes to the system. So the more

that you pump up that volume of money,

the more you make. So you know, nobody

is interested, nobody is economically

incentivized

to make people well. And we are not

going to get well until we align those

economic incentives with the health

outcomes that we want, which is nobody

gets sick. We end the chronic disease

epidemic. And that's what we're doing

now. We're trying to realign all those

perverse incentives that reward you. I

mean, for example, the medical system

pays out on feebased service. That means

that the more tests the doctor orders

for you, the more drugs he prescribes

you, um the more contact he has with

you, the the richer he gets.

So he is not incentive incentivized to

get you well. We ought to be paying them

a flat fee at the beginning of the year

and saying anything any cause from this

patient the rest of the year come out of

your pocket and then he's like okay how

do I get this guy from getting sick and

he starts studying nutrition books and

you know that's actually an interesting

idea. It seems so captured at this

point. It's going to be difficult to

unravel all that. It it's difficult but

it's not impossible and we're doing it.

>> You know, three years from now, you're

going to see a different health care

model in our country.

>> Talking about it has a big impact

because most people are just not aware

of how the whole system works and what

is actually wrong with it. You know,

most people just hear about it. Health

care, people are sick, they need health

care. Why would they cut healthare?

Cutting healthcare is bad. That's what

they would just immediately think. And I

think most people they they think of the

fraud stuff and they want to dismiss it.

Like they I've heard all these people

dismiss this Nick Shirley kid and what

he exposed in in Minneapolis. But the

the reason why is because it's the wrong

party. If this was a Democrat that was

exposing Republican fraud, then they

would be all into it. They would be it

would be on every newspaper. But

instead, they're trying to dismiss it as

not, you know, not relevant.

>> Yeah. And it to me it's weird because I

know Democrats are human beings and they

care about the same things that I do.

I've known all of these guys, almost all

of them for many of them for 40 years.

Bernie Sanders I've known for 40 years.

>> Their only solution is more money to the

system. A system that is broken, that is

making us sicker and sicker. And what

President Trump wants to do is he wants

to fix the system. Stop. Most of that

money is not going to the patient. It's

going to the insurance companies and the

PBMs and all of these middlemen that

are, you know, are milking the system.

And that's why President Trump says, you

know, the answer is to not pay the

insurance company. It's to pay the the

the consumer directly and put him make

him the CEO of his own healthcare so

that he can spend money. he's now

incentivized to do prevention and to

maybe do holistic medicine or take

vitamins or, you know, take vitamin D,

which, you know, is, as you know, is

kind of miraculous.

Um, or to um or to do alternatives, you

know, to do preventative care.

And he wants to say he's going to want

to save money right now. you nobody

nobody is in that position of

accountability. We we need to make them

the CEO of their own health so that they

have responsibility and they're going to

pay the cause if they get sick.

Government pays

but they then decide to allocate that

how to allocate that money and then we

need to make the system transparent and

that's you know one of the things that

we're doing. where during his first

term, Trump passed a transparency bill,

but because Trump had passed, everybody

wanted transparency.

If you if you're a woman, you're

pregnant,

you want to know how much it's going to

cost you to to have that baby. There's

no way you can find that out for most of

them. You can go nine months on a phone

every day, how much it's going to cost,

and you'll never get a straight answer.

And so, you know, in New York, uh, for

example, what we're doing now is we're

going to make all of the hospitals and

all the providers post a menu of their

prices

so that are available to everybody and

that are available on a website that

we're creating. So, if you want an MRI

and you there's 40 places around your

home that offer MRIs, you can't right

now figure out what they cost. Now,

you're going to be able to go and look

at them all in a single page and figure

out what the cheapest one is. If you go

to a restaurant, the price are on the

menu. If you go to buy a car and the guy

said to you, "Yeah, you can buy the car,

but I'm not going to tell you how much

it costs till after you bought it."

Nobody would operate that way, but

that's how our medical system operates.

So, I looked at we have a mockup of the

of this website. We're right now during

the Biden administration because Trump

had passed that law, the Biden

administration just refused to enforce

it. So we're in the same position now

where there's no transparency.

We're changing that now. We sent out

we've sent out over a thousand letters

to hospitals, you know, warning letters.

These you got to post them right now.

And we're going to and we just u

finalized

new regulations. If they don't do that,

they're going to pay a huge fine. So, I

saw the mockup of the um of the website

and I said I asked the question

um how much does it cost in the

hospitals within a mile of Manhattan

of a baby? One of them was there were

about 30 hospitals that you I could

visualize on one page. One of them was

$1,300. That was the lowest. The highest

was 22,000.

In Detroit,

it is the cheapest place to have a baby

is about uh $5,000

and the most expensive is 60,000. And

it's the same service, the same quality

care. Nothing changes except that price.

Why do we have that information chaos?

We have it because the industry wants to

hide what it's doing. And so there's no

market, there's no ability for people to

make good choices. And when you know the

um I met I was staying with Dr. Oz

during the transition at his house in

Florida. And one day uh Prime Minister

Rudd who was the former prime minister

of Australia came by and he had after he

was prime minister he had been appointed

to run a commission to reduce healthcare

costs and improve quality and they were

very successful but he said the number

one thing that they did at change

everything was price transparency was

showing people the price of what they're

going to pay. So, we're now going to do

that and um and people will be able to

shop and you know now we also have to we

also have to shift all of those that

money away from the insurance companies

and put it in the hands of you know of

the public so that they have are

incentivized maximum incentivized to

make good choices.

>> So, as far as making good choices with

like food, I I like what you guys did. I

love what you guys did with the food

pyramid. Essentially flipped it on its

head, which is kind of crazy that for

the longest time we were being told that

the most important things, the primary

diet should be grains and rice and wheat

and and now it's things that we've known

for a long time. It's whole food, actual

real food. That's what you're supposed

to be eating. The the problem is getting

people to change their habits and change

their ways. And if people don't start

eating good food and if people don't

start taking care of their body, how

what other things can you even imagine

would shift this trend?

>> Well, here's what's going to happen.

First of all, the food pyramid. I

inherited a food pyramid from the the

first week I was I came into office one

year and two weeks ago.

A week after I got in, I was handed the

food pyramid that the Biden

administration had. It wasn't even the

food pyramid. They gotten rid of that.

They just were doing the dietary

guidelines. So, it was the

recommendations that would go be

reflected in the food pyramid.

It was hundreds of pages long and it was

incomprehensible

and it was driven by all the merkantile

impulses that had corrupted the food

pyramid for 50 years. And it was it was

written by lobbyists. It was written by

the food industry lobbyists in the same

impulse that put Froot Loops at the top

of the food pyramid which isn't even a

food.

>> Froot Loops were at the top of the

>> were at the top recommendation of the

food pyramid. You can ask them to look

up the old food pyramid.

>> I need to see where Froot Loops stand.

Don't they throw some vitamins on Froot

Loops? Is it like vitamin rich?

>> Oh yeah. As if that's good for you. It's

good for you.

>> They add vitamins. Do they even addit

the cyanide and you know it wasn't going

to make it any better for you?

>> No. No, I'm joking obviously.

>> But um

>> but um

>> it was a ridiculous. So

>> the law so how did

>> so then what we did is we got the best

nutritionists in the country. You know

we got Mark Heyman and we got the

nutritionists from the best universities

in the country and we put them all in a

room and I thought it was going to take

a month. It took 11 months because they

fought over every recommendation and

everything is cited in source so that we

know we have good science. But you know

some of the stuff was ra because of

regulatory malpractice all these years.

Some of the studies simply haven't been

done. So there are knowledge gaps which

we should not have. So um so now we have

a food pyramid where and because of the

old food pyramid people didn't like the

food on it and they were going to

ultrarocessed food which was okay on the

food pyramid. So now 70% of the food

that our kids eat is ultrarocessed food.

70% of the calories they got and it's

just poisoning them. And they took off

the good stuff like a whole milk which

is nutrientdense which is feeding their

brain. We have two generations of kids

that grew up without milk, without the

proper nutrients for their brain. We

have the first country in the face of

the earth that has chronic obesity and

in the same people malnutrition. So you

have immensely obese people and they're

malnourished. They're medically

malnourished. It's because the food

pyramid was so messed up. So,

so what's going to happen now, Joe, is

that we are going to be able to drive

that. We're going to be able to change

dietary culture. Just the food pyramid

is going to change dietary culture. And

here's how. um Brooke Rollins, who's an

incredible USDA secretary,

she um had she administers $45 million a

day that she gives out to food subsidies

or school lunches, the Wix program, the

SNAP program, uh Indian Health Services,

and all of these other programs.

And and so those programs now are going

to get good food because the dietary

guidelines dictate what they can and

cannot feed kids.

Military and the VA also are changing.

Now I, you know, this week I met with a

guy, Chef Robert Irvine, who is a

television chef. He's been hired by Pete

Hess to come in and change all the

military meals. military and he's on

already on f five bases. By the end of

this month, he'll be on 20. What he's

done is the food that we give our

military is so bad, they won't eat it.

So, they're going out and they're

spending their money on um fast food.

And fast food is not cheap. A Big Mac

meal cost 12 to$14.

It's not a cheap meal. You can get a

really good food for that price. You

could feed yourself the whole day for

that price.

with good food. Mark Heyman's new book

has a diet, $10 a day diet, three meals,

great food. Anyway, Robert Irvine has

gone into these places and he gives them

all fresh food, almost all all of it

locally sourced. As it turns out, it's

cheaper. The military is spending $18 a

day for three meals for each soldier.

He's spending $10 a day and giving them

real food, good food. and the lines now

are allowed around the block and

nobody's going to fast food. Everybody's

fighting to get in. And what he says is

it doesn't cost more. We don't need any

more money. We just need to buy smarter

and to be smarter about how we do it.

And you know, um we're going to be able

to do that. One of the things that we're

doing with the dietary guidelines is the

SNAP program. SNAP, we have 20 states

now that have applied for SNAP waiverss

and have been granted. So they you can

no longer get candy on SNAP. You can no

longer get um soda. That was 18% of SNAP

purchases. So we were taking the 63

million poorest kids in our country,

giving them taxpayer funded diabetes.

And then 78% of them end up on Medicaid.

Many of them being treated for diabetes.

So we're paying to give them the disease

and then we're paying to treat it for

the rest of their lives. And we're

changing that. And one of the things

that Brooke is doing is she's going to

require that any retailer that accepts

food stamps has to double the amount of

real food in their establishment.

We're working with farmers. We're

working with entrepreneurs to make sure

every American get high quality food

that is affordable.

>> I don't know how anybody would be

opposed to that. That all sounds

fantastic.

>> It's weird that they are.

>> How How could you? The way you just laid

it out, how could anybody be opposed to

that? That all sounds great.

>> I mean, what the for the soldiers that

the the fact that they were getting

terrible food that they didn't want to

eat is just that's

>> that's really offensive. You know, you

think about what you're asking of them

and then you're giving them garbage that

they don't even want to eat. Like what

do they how do they feel that you care

about them?

>> Well, and you know, one of the things

that

>> um uh Robert Irvine, the chef, told me,

he said, you know, it cost $9 to get a

frozen salmon. It cost $6 to get a fresh

salmon. So you know food food good food

is actually if you cook yourself at home

the good food is much much less

expensive. The problem is Americans have

forgotten how to cook and so and cooking

is really important because it's not a

it's important for family cohesion for a

sense of community. It's a daily almost

sacred ritual and and you know taking

that away from our lives has has

amplified the spiritual meal that we're

in. And one of the things we're going to

do is to start sending federal workers

out to teach people how to cook. They

don't have the implements. They don't

have the cutting boards. They don't

have, you know, they don't know how to

buy groceries,

>> right?

>> And you know, you can go into any any

big grocery store in this country. If

you go and buy a steak, it's still

pretty expensive.

But if you buy the cheaper cuts, it's

great meat and it is very very

affordable or liver or you know all

these alternatives.

>> Chuck Rose,

>> now you said, you know, how can you be

against that?

>> Well, I I told you 20 states have

applied for the SNAP program and we've

granted them SNAP waiverss. Why would

you want taxpayer? If you want to drink

a Coke, you ought to be able to. We live

in the United States. We're not going to

take anything away from anybody.

But the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for

it. Particularly when we're paying for

it on the other end in diabetes.

So this just makes sense to anybody. But

20 states have applied. Only two of them

are blue states. Why? The the Bernie

Sanders has been fighting for this for

years, but Vermont won't apply for one.

And it's all partisanship. and they're

putting their hatred

of Donald Trump ahead of their love for

their own children. And until we learn

to stop doing that, this, you know, the

healthcare in this country is not going

to improve, at least in those states. So

what strategies, if any, could you ever

imagine that could be implemented that

would kind of unite people on these

things and get them to stop being so

partisan about

one of the most important aspects of

being a human being is staying healthy.

It's it's a, you know, it's like love

and health. They're all those are the

the the top ones that we all want. That

it just seems insane that we would

choose this as a battleground. And it it

seems insane that it's connected to one

party or another. It shouldn't be. It's

a it should just we should all be united

on at least this. And I think if people

were a little healthier and they were a

little more fit, they'd probably have a

lot less anxiety, probably a lot less

conflict when it comes to political

disagreements. Things could probably be

worked out more amicably, especially

among friends. It's like having good

health improves virtually every aspect

of your life.

>> Yeah. I mean I would say

>> for everybody

>> I would say two things. The food ties

directly into your mental health. Yes.

And we now know this is so well

documented that there's a gut brain

connection and that you know depression,

ADHD.

Chris Palmer up at Harvard

is dramatically reducing the symptoms of

schizophrenia simply by changing

people's diets. He's using a keto diet.

>> Um there are

>> dramatically like what what kind of

percent

>> they're losing 30% of their symptoms

>> really. uh um

>> just from ketones

>> from keto.

>> What about have they done anything with

>> the same thing is true? I mean you know

there there are now there's a big paper

about to come out on losing a bipolar

diagnosis

kids who lose bipolar diagnosis simply

by changing their diet. We know that

ADHD is driven by all these food dies

and stuff and that's very well

documented.

There's all of these um you go on the

internet and um you look for

uh uh studies that show what happens

when you change the food in prisons and

juvenile detention facilities

and they you know the the they'll put it

in one wing of the prison. They'll put

good food and then they'll put the

standard food in the in the other and

the level of violence goes down by 40 45

50%. the use of restraints in juvenile

detention facilities goes down 75%.

The the number of incidents dramatically

drops and so it's a public safety issue

in the prisons and you know I've been

meeting now with all the prisons they

prisons have a real problem because

they're allocated the state prisons are

allocated to 60 cents a day to feed the

prisoners and it's and they're it's all

>> for them it's all about shelf life. So

they're just feeding them the worst kind

of poison that you could possibly It's

all just chemicals.

>> Oh my god.

>> But you know um

>> well we've kind of given up on the idea

of rehabilitation. It's just all about

punishment. And then

>> but this is also public safety. It's

guard safe everything else. And the

other thing in the answer to your first

question about how do you sort of you

know mitigate the polarization I I would

say the only way that you do that is by

getting people to start talking to each

other.

>> Yeah.

>> Because that you got to be able to find

common ground with other people and if

you don't talk to them you don't see

their humanity.

>> Right. And you know that's one of the

things that you do that is so great

which is you bring a lot of people on

here who you disagree with and you have

a civil conversation about them and you

you show your curiosity about them and

you you know you you get to hear their

rationale and a lot of times I'll listen

to somebody on this show I I'll say I

don't like this guy and then I'll listen

to his rationale and I'll think oh

actually he's making a lot of sense and

we have to uh hating people because of

the label on them.

>> Yeah.

>> And start, you know, listening. And it's

really important we do that now because

these algorithms are designed to drive

us all apart. Yeah.

>> And you know, we've always had political

polarization in this country. I mean, I

grew up during the 60s and, you know,

there were bombs going off and people

being shot and, you know, all it was

very, very violent and vitriolic when my

dad was running and the polarization

probably was the worst since the

American Civil War. Um, but um but today

when it is amplified by the algorithms,

it's hard to see where it's going to end

up in a good place unless we start

learning to talk to each other. It's not

just the algorithm. It's just the It's

also the method of communication. When

you're you're only talking to people

through like angry tweets back and forth

with each other. You were saying like

sit down and talk to people. That's no

one's doing that anymore. Very few

people. There's a few FaceTime

conversations going on. You see your

friends if you go out with them. People

are not talking that much anymore and

they're not sitting down and talking.

And when you do, everyone's distracted.

Everyone has their phones out.

Everyone's checking text messages. I

I'll tell you one of the most important

things that we're doing right now as

part of the MA

legislation from my agency. We're going

state by state and we're asking them to

do bell-to-bell legislation so that um

and 26 states have now already done it.

So more than half the states so that

kids can't use cell phones in schools. I

went to a school in Lowden County the

other day and the states love them. Um I

went to Lowden County and you know they

had the students had fought and fought

against this this uh against getting

their cell phone. So they the way they

do it all of the schools school

districts and states do it differently.

But in that state

they can bring their cell phone to

school but they have to leave it in

their backpack and and if the parent

calls and needs to talk to them they can

do it. Uh, but I walked into the

cafeteria, 600 kids in that cafeteria

and they're all talking to each other.

They're sitting across the table.

Nobody's looking at their laps.

>> The parents, the parents came, you know,

that day. I pulled the students and I

said, "How many do you think this is a

good idea?" And they all put their hands

up and they said, "We all hated it for

the first two weeks and now we love it."

>> The um the parents said, "Uh, it's the

best thing that ever happened. my kid is

not driving with their cell phone in the

car anymore because they know they can

live without it or eating dinner with

the family and we're actually having

conversations

and then the the teachers in the schools

love it because the disciplinary

problems go down and the the test scores

go through the roof, you know, because

they're focusing of course

>> on work. So, it's just like a

no-brainer. But again, it's that the

blue states that, you know, are the

hardest to convince to do it because

they see it as as uh, you know, as a a

Trump part of the, you know, the

demonization of, you know, Trump being

the tyrant or whatever.

>> It's just so stupid to to not recognize

the kids are distracted. Like, what why

it's just one of those things like why

does that have to be a right or a left

issue? It's stupid. This is a United

States issue. The best way to have a

group of people that succeed in this

world is make it as clear a path for

them as possible. And as soon as you

allow them to use their phone all day,

it's too addictive.

>> No one can put them down. You're going

to lose 30% of your concentration or

more easily, I would imagine.

>> The the fact that that would be a

partisan thing is just nuts. It just

shows how goofy we are. I don't I don't

know how you get people to talk, though.

I mean, other than

I mean,

I do it on a podcast, but that's my job.

I don't know how many conversations I'd

be having with people who I was

politically opposed to or ideologically

opposed to or just didn't see eye to eye

with them and wanted to know how they

think. I I don't know how many

opportunities I would ever even get to

do that.

>> What you're doing is so important. And

now you know there's a thousand people

imitating you many really good podcasts

but

um it's teaching people to have

conversations. I mean you are the best

>> teacher mentor on that and people admire

you so they oh and my I have seven kids

and they grew up with with devices and

stuff and I would look you know I slap

them out of their hand and I I and also

they couldn't concentrate on long you

know long points long conversations

they're like get to the point you know

like I only got five seconds you got to

make your point

>> and then I see um sitting for three and

a half hours and listening to a Rogan

podcast. That was a cultural phenomena.

That was a cultural change. This

generation of kids I have so much hope

for because they grew up with that and

you know they want it. So I do have a

lot of a hope that we're going to be

able to do this. And then you know I

think Charlie Kirk did that too was an

example to a lot of those kids because

whether you agree with him or not and he

had very strong opinions that people you

know considered terrible but the one

thing that he really did is he talked to

people he didn't agree with and he

always gave them the microphone and

allowed them to amplify their voice. And

then he had a civility and he talked to

them and he used logic a lot of times

destructively

but not in an angry way.

>> And so I think you know he was teaching

people uh to how to have conversations

again. You're teaching people how to

have conversations again. And it's, you

know, I think that's

uh, you know, one of the big hopes that

I have for the future that people learn

to talk to each other with whom they

with with people who with whom they

disagree.

>> It would be nice. But there's also a a

real genuine problem today in the

marketplace of outrage that a a lot of

people um a lot of their podcasts are

just focused almost entirely on on

outrage and of uh like having arguments

and screaming matches with people, you

know, putting people down and not having

civil discourse but trying to win,

trying to dominate someone in an

argument, you know, trying to squash

people and I guess in a sense some of

that is really good because it exposes

bad ideas but it just encourages that

kind of discourse where if someone's

ideologically opposed to you they are

the enemy and you want to destroy them

and I'm I'm like okay they're just a

human being like find out why they got

to where they are that is a different

perspective than you have and why you

got to where you are and try to figure

out if there's some middle ground in

there like what what do you believe like

why do you believe that and find out why

and and ask them and don't don't cut

them off. Let them talk. Let them

express themselves. Help them if you

can. Try to figure out what makes

someone actually think instead of just

thinking that your ideas are a part of

you. They're just ideas. Like they're

not you. Like some ideas you can hold in

your mind and they're bad for you.

They're bad. You haven't examined them.

You're acting on them like they're

doctrine and then you're stuck with that

idea because you've already espoused it

so many times. s you don't want to be a

flip-flopper and so people get mad and

you you get this weird cycle of shitty

communication and nobody ever breaks out

of it and nothing ever gets done and

there's no common ground is ever

achieved and the only way you're going

to ever break that is to stop talking to

people like that. You got to just talk

to them. Just instead of talk to them

like they're the enemy, just talk to

them like they're a fellow human being

about some ideas and just treat them

with respect. Talk to them like a person

that you know in any other circumstance

maybe even could be your friend. Just

talk to them. People can do that. It's

possible. It just takes discipline. You

have to learn how to do it. Took me a

while. Took me a long time to learn how

to talk to people better, but it can be

done. And

>> yeah, but it's technique. But as

prevalent as you know that kind of

vitriol is on in the podcast world

>> right

>> it's it is incomparable to what's

happening on television because there

are no conversations on television

>> right that's more of what I was getting

at honestly is there's some shows that

do that but like some of these CNN shows

it's just these crazy ideological

battles and yeah also guys pro tip you

can't have [ __ ] six people at a table

all yelling out for seven minutes, you

don't have enough time to get a real

point across and it becomes a battle of

like who's got the best prepared sound

bites or who's got the best uh snarky

quip. It's stupid. It's a stupid way to

talk about things, you know?

>> I mean, Cheryl went on uh

>> the view.

>> Yeah, the view. And it was and it was

that it wasn't like uh um like you say,

you know, like let's have a congenial

conversation with people and

>> you know, allow them to to express

themselves and to be fun and funny and

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. Well, just have a conversation

with someone. if you disagree with them

about certain things like they disagree

with her. It would have been far more

productive to have a one-on-one

conversation instead of this gaggle of

hands squawking all at her. It's just

like you you see it over and over again

when they oppose somebody. It's like

they're all chiming in and it's just not

the way you could ever like thoroughly

cover a subject and they're limited by

their format. That format is very

limiting. It's a shitty format where you

you you go to a commercial at

predetermined times, period. No matter

what. Like maybe you got a little leeway

here or there, but you've got to get

that commercial in. And that's crazy

because if you're in the middle of

talking, a lot of points take a long

time to flesh out. Like just think about

all the stuff you just explained about

Medicaid. Imagine if you try to do that

and

>> you can you can't you can't do it. And

it would they would try to stop you.

You're too in the weeds. No one's going

to pay attention to this. It's like I

don't think that's true. And I think

we've learned that because of podcast

because there was no production. There

was no executives. There was no one

there. People were just putting on a

webcam and talking. And so we realized

like, well, people actually do like

conversations still. They just don't get

a lot of them, not real ones. You know,

you get interviews where someone has

like a sheet of questions. You know, you

get where someone is uh, you know,

playing a role. you're playing a role of

a a person who interviews people. You

don't really give a [ __ ] about what this

person has to say. But people do want

connection. They still do. And the fact

that we don't get it from social media,

but most of our time is in social media

is just accelerating this detachment we

have from each other. And that's what

people have to get past. I don't know

how to do it to tell everybody start

their own podcast.

>> That you know, you and I were talking

before we came in here about Larry King.

>> Yes.

>> He did that. There were a lot of people

in the 70s and 80s um David Suskind and

you know all of these other people who

were who were actually having

conversations.

>> Yeah, Larry King was great.

>> Cavitt

>> I love when he asked Jay Khaled how

how'd you gain all the weight? I was

like what did he say?

>> He said I ate too much. What do you want

me to say? That's such a crazy question.

How did you gain all the weight? Like

what Larry? What are you talking about?

That's crazy. That's a wild question to

ask someone. But, you know, he would

just have a conversation with you, you

know, and I think uh people have a

hunger for that. And uh a lot of this uh

infighting comes from no face to face

communication. I think when people get a

chance, especially if it's not

performative, that's part of the problem

like the Charlie Kirk stuff or some of

the other things that people do in front

of a crowd, things become very

performative when there's a bunch of

people watching and cheering and and

then you know how the audience feels and

you play to them a little bit like h

that's probably not the best way to talk

about stuff. And I think human beings

naturally understand one-on-one

conversations. We've had them for all of

human history. So when you get a a

chance to hear people talk one-on-one

for hours at a time, it expands your

understanding of the world. Like I now I

know how you feel about things. I I know

at least for this brief three-hour

conversation, I get a more of a sense of

how you approach things. And then people

put that into their own mind and go,

"Maybe I should approach things a little

bit differently. Maybe I should think

about things a little bit differently."

And we miss that. You know, we're

missing that. And social media robs you

of that. It gives you the exact opposite

of that.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean, you know what Charlie Kirk was

doing? You're right. You know, it was

it was less of a conversation and more

of a uh sometimes it was like in in the

ring. You know, it was like being in

the, you know, the ring. But it's a lot

better than what's happening elsewhere,

which is just blanket censorship of

people and not any willingness to just

shutting people down and cancelling

them.

>> Yeah. 100%. Well, that

>> that's another weird thing that that's a

Democratic party impulse because

>> it was the opposite of the Democratic

party I grew up with, you know, which

was unafraid of any debate. My uncle, my

father said, "We should be able to

debate. We should be able to win these

debates in the marketplace of ideas. If

we can't, then we need to examine

ourselves.

>> It was a core tenant of the Democratic

party.

>> Yeah. And you know, the unfortunate

shift in that, it's just like, you know,

I remember during the Bush

administration when the FCC was going

after Howard Stern, it was it was this

huge thing. They were trying to close

down Howard Stern because Howard Stern

was very critical of Bush

>> and it was like he was the guy out there

fighting for free speech and they were

getting fined like enormous fines

enormous fines for things that he had

said you know they deemed to be obscene

>> you know and um that was a right-wing

thing and we always thought of it as a

right-wing thing and when you uh see

what's happening today just like any the

the wanting silence of your political

opponents is the dumbest way to cut off

your own hand. It's so dumb because if

you can't see that this could be used

against you if someone else gets into a

position of power. If all of a sudden

some enormous right-wing corporation

buys these social media platforms and

only pushes right-wing agendas and

silences all left-wing agendas. Like, do

you know how [ __ ] crazy that is to

just give that kind of power willingly

to an anonymous group of people that you

supposedly align to cuz you're in the

same tribe? It's the dumbest thing ever.

And the fact that people on the left

weren't outraged when they read the

Twitter files and found out how much

involvement there was in silencing real

information and removing people who from

the White House ordered me to be removed

from Instagram. I lost a million

followers. insane.

>> 37 hours after he got after he took the

oath of office

swearing to uphold the Constitution,

they were ordering Mark Zuckerberg to

take me down. And then you look at

what's happening in England now, you

know, with people going to jail for

Twitter posts.

>> 12,000 people this year.

>> Yeah.

>> 12,000 in the last year. And then this

where the Magna Carta was, you know,

written and now there's now it's just a

it's just a dictatorship. Well, they got

rid of trial by jury except for murder

and rape and a couple other things. Now

it's just a judge. So, you know,

whatever it is, if it's a social media

infraction, if it's there's no

reasonable, you know, judge by a jury of

your peers. No, you're you're you're

getting judged by a judge.

>> It's the Soviet system. It's like Kafka.

I just can't believe how quick it

happened when you know when you look at

the social media arrests they were they

were always disturbing like uh if you go

back even four or five years they had

quite a few of them a year but it really

ramped up really ramped up over the last

year or so and it's just insane to watch

and a lot of it is criticism of

immigration like legitimate criticism of

immigration and legitimate critic uh

criticism of crimes that have been

committed and people outraged which is

completely normal, but instead of like

doing anything about that, they want to

arrest people from complaining. And it's

just really weird to watch.

Yeah.

And it's going to get worse with the AI.

Um,

it's scary. Well, it's just strange that

they couldn't do anything to stop that

from happening and that anybody with

anybody that's reasonable would be

willing to let that happen because their

side is imposing it. That that seems

like an existential threat to all

critical thinking, all communication and

debate. All as soon as you start

arresting people for opinions, that's

crazy. You now you're getting nuts. Like

anything that you deem might incite

violence or like outrage, people are

outraged. They have a right to be

outraged. If you can put them in a cage

because they're outraged, that's nuts.

That's really nut. Now they have a pub

law. Do you know this one?

>> No.

>> Oh, find that Jamie. They're trying to

pass this thing. I don't know if they

passed it. Where uh someone's I don't

want to speak out of turn. I don't want

to [ __ ] this up because it was

disturbing enough without me uh

misinterpreting it, but the idea was to

stop people from saying things on social

media that you get arrest for. Stop them

from saying those kind of things in

pubs.

And

>> where is this in England?

>> Yes. See if you can find it. I know I

saved it, but it'll take me too long to

pull it up.

>> Did you find anything like that? I'm

>> trying to make sure it's

>> legit. Yeah.

>> I mean, I wouldn't imagine it's not I

mean, it's not outside the realm of what

they're poss they they're capable of

doing if they're arresting 12,000 people

a year for social media posts. I mean,

if that was happening in America and

they were only arresting Republicans, I

don't think you'd hear a peep out of the

Democrats. I think they think it's

important. We have to stop

misinformation.

>> Yeah.

>> It passed.

>> No, I don't think it passed. You don't

think it passed? Find out if it passed

or not.

Okay. So, what is the act? What were

they

>> legislation aimed blah blah blah, but it

says you're still free to converse. Know

the law. I don't know.

>> What was the what were they trying to

Okay point free speech in UK pubs.

Employer responsibilities requires

employers to take reasonable steps to

prevent staff from experiencing

harassment by third parties such as

customers. Well, that's normal, right?

You don't want to be harassed by a cop.

Concerns have been raised that debates

on, for instance, gender, identity, or

political matters could lead to staff

complaints resulting in patrons being

asked to leave if the behavior is deemed

aggressive or harassing.

It should not be misinterpreted as a ban

on lawful, polite, or controversial

speech. Who's to decide what's

controversial, though? um third-party

harassment legislation focuses on

addressing harassment rather than

banning specific topics of conversation

entirely. Just any regulation of

conversation is nuts. If it's one thing

you're harassing the staff owner, I've

never known a pub owner who would allow

people to come in and harass his staff.

He already has an economic and

management incentive to not allow that.

You know, it's not the kind of thing you

need to legislate. But to say that

someone doesn't feel safe if people are

having a civil conversation about gender

identity, you don't feel safe if you

work there and that you're getting

harassed by people's opinions that you

don't agree with. Well, that's where

things get weird because then you, as

we've seen, there's a lot of people that

get they get really triggered about a

lot of things that are pretty normal for

most folks. You know, microaggressions,

dumb [ __ ] There's a lot of people that

just want to be offended. And if this is

a law,

that could lead to a lot more problem.

It's just a slippery slope and they're

not going in the right direction. And I

don't know how they course correct if

they've fallen this far that quickly.

12,000 arrests is crazy. That's a crazy

amount of people go to jail for social

media posts.

>> Yeah.

>> And it encourages self-censorship so you

don't get a real sense of what people

want or don't want because people don't

want to be involved. They don't want to

go to jail. They don't want to get take

a chance.

the the framers of the constitution put

free speech was everything to them and

they put it in the first amendment

because they knew all the other

um rights and guarantees were dependent

on it. If you have a if you have a

government that can silence its

opponents. It has a license for any any

kind of atrocity.

>> It's just shocking that all other

Western nations haven't adopted that.

Well, most of them don't have

constitutions.

So crazy. It's just so ridiculous. It's

so ridiculous that free speech, which is

like we all agree, especially in

America, it's one of the most important

things. The only way to find out what's

real and what's not.

Got to let people talk it out. You know,

I mean, when you're living in a world

where the government has the power to

dictate what's real and what's not real,

and they don't have an obligation to be

correct, you got a real problem. And if

there's no consequences for them being

incorrect, and they've silenced correct

speech, they've gotten away with

something that's real slippery and real

dangerous. And when there's a lot of

money involved and a lot of businesses

involved,

>> I've typed it into perplexity and it

this gives a little context on it

because the pubs were being

>> the same the pub thing reverses a 2013

removal of third party harassment

liability making pubs liable if staffs

overhear comments deemed harassing based

on protected characteristics like sex or

race. Critics call it a banter ban,

fearing landlords landlords will police

conversations to avoid lawsuits,

chilling speech in social venues.

>> That makes it sound like if someone was

doing that, the the business would be

was getting in trouble versus the person

who was saying it,

>> right? So, uh, they removed a third

party harassment liability. So, they

removed the pub owner being in trouble.

>> They removed that.

because it says it passed. When I was

looking it up, it said it passed a

couple months ago. December.

>> So that makes pub owners liable again.

>> Uh,

>> so removed 2013 removal of third party

harassment liability.

>> Made them liable. I don't think I think

it's back to reverses that reverses

making them liable.

>> No, no, no, no. It reverses the removal

of the third party harassment liability.

So they removed the liability now making

pubs liable. So it now makes them liable

if they overhear comments. So what this

does is it encourages the pub itself to

censor people, which makes sense. I

mean, if you all of a sudden can now sue

a pub that you went into and you didn't

like this conversation about gender

identity that was taking place next to

you, you have the basis of a lawsuit

now.

>> Yeah. So now the incentive is

the pub owner to go out and police all

the conversations so that if anybody if

anybody crosses the guard rail, you

know, the pub owner now has to go in and

interrupt them, which is not a good

thing.

>> If you weren't a charitable person, you

could imagine that there are certain

groups that would have people go to

places, have conversations, and set up a

lawsuit.

>> Yeah. You could just you could commit

fraud if the pub is liable until you pay

some cook to go in there and start

yelling about transsexuals and then next

thing you know you collect the lawsuit.

Like that's not outside of what I think

a shady person would do. If you think

about what you've just talking about

with all the Medicare fraud and all the

other fraud that we know has happened in

the world, like this is this is a giant

loophole. This is a giant loophole for

people to come in and sue people and

silence everybody's speech. And the fact

that this is uh not being recognized is

it's very disturbing that people don't

understand human behavior. It's very

weird. They're willing to accept this

kind of stuff.

when you um look at the challenges of

getting things done, what has been the

most frustrating in terms of what you

wanted to get done and what you were

actually able to get done or in the

process of getting done? I mean, I've

been surprised by how much President

Trump has supported me on this stuff

because I, you know, I'm going after the

the biggest, you know, big pharma,

>> big insurance, um the big food,

>> big food,

>> and um and these have all been, you

know, those were all taboos for every

administration, Democratic, Republican.

There was little incremental things that

you could do under democratic

administrations, but nothing like this

ever happened. You know, I mean, the the

the agreement we made with the

pharmaceutical industry could not have

happened any under any other president,

the MFN agreement, the most favorite

nation. And the way that that worked is,

you know, we've been paying for the last