Tromp, let's lose at the? U N internal base. Shutters republicans make a last last ditch effort on health care and Jimmy Kimmel explodes Robert Mahler squeezes poor man afford and the plot thickens welcome to the editors I'm rich Lowry, I'm joint as always, or as most of the time at least by the right. Honourable Charles, see w cook the effervescent Riots alarm and PETE notorious Envy De Michael Brain endorsing this week's podcast is sponsored by ring dot com and texture will hear more about them in. U course Michael, it's jump in on this. You in speech. I think,

probably you're the most nationalist person round the tree Although we have two sympathisers right right hand and myself- and I would say, as sympathiser. I liked the speech, but I some some where balls and I just think it's very difficult to make sovereignty. Sir, the fine fundamental principle of american foreign policy as it seems as though a trump was trying to do in this speech. a lot of people pointed out its contradictory to say, sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty and then turn around and say. Well then, as whaler has a rotten political and economic system that we should do everything that we can't change, I don't think it's flatly contradictory because there was a standard that trumped set out, for what is true. Nationalism have to respect the interests of your people and respect the sovereignty of the other. Nations. I think those are legitimate.

Androids at our pulled out of thin air. They do represent the Nationalists tradition. But what what did you think of the speech it did it go here? I thought it was an o k speech. I basically agreed with romish poorer. Our colleague wrote in Bloomberg that it was basically a status quo speech in defence of the liberal international order that is american lead, but with a lot of from being rhetoric about sovereignty about the rocket man in North Korea, kind of thrown in on top of it I thought it was ok speech in that it was pretty competently delivered. It had a few headline generating moments in it. I have problems with it: I'm not just a nationalist, my bit more of a dove or a realist, and I thought

His comments on our ran were all true technically, but you know I would actually I'm more of an ran, dove or even said in it he's on a national of your mind today, I'm I'm Morven ran what about IST. But you know. Ok, we can say all this, but any other country in the world could point to us and say well your best friend Saudi Arabia does all of this and worse, and so don't kid us with this moral preening about IRAN's internal politics or take or its external politics. So I thought it was ok. I mean

think it wasn't up to the level of say that the speech in Warsaw aware incense in Warsaw, what Trump was doing was sort of re grounding the idea of the liberal international order into a larger, deeper, more in older concept of the West end and the common interest that last night that was sort of hinting at alike over at frumpy in revolution. in our our political understanding of our place in the world? Where is this? I thought was sort of a mishmash, so one on on IRAN, Saudi Arabia thing it just just seems to me it's just inevitably part of the american Idiot, when criticising other regimes to go to values whether our our allies have have the same shortcomings or not, but just a quick follow up before we get everyone else in

So do you seen nationalism as intention with real ISM, ORD or Dove ism I mean I think you can have a nationalist tenor and be more. Oh, no hawkish injects ionian agenda and I think you could also be a little bit more interesting Durban Jeffersonian, and so I dont see that is as just one one thing, but I think I think it's just out of its related to my nationalism. There might be a little bit different for meat from your view on foreign policy disarmed. Just wanted to besmirch or not. It is varied. The nationals as very its Inco, eight right so that that's. Why it's not strictly contradictory for true to have given a nationalist foreign policy speech a year ago. That wouldn't have sounded like this. On a lotta leadership issues, but then he could still cut it kind of pull it off, as has become a little conventional. What did you think of speech Charlie, and when will you bothered by the emphasis

On sovereignty will talk about some of the north korean rhetoric in a minute now I think, time somebody mentions about sovereignty at EU and they should be given a cookie I wish he had had done more of it. The issue was that the words that he used scenes by the end, to be meaningless. If America first can both support the Marshall Plan and be reflective of a desire to restore sovereignty, a national interest in it means nothing in a sense what America first me. And now is much. What make Amerika great again means witches. Whatever Donald Trump wants it to mean Barack Obama used to do this toward the end of his tenure. He would shots of people in his own party who criticized Elizabeth, worn once criticized him on trade, and he said none. It will she's just a litigation, and if this was bad for America,

I wouldn't do it, which of course is no argument whatsoever. The whole point of politics is we disagree as to how best to proceed Trump in many ways seem to be saying. I put America first because I America. Therefore, whatever I do in whatever I say in America, first policy and the speech ranged I mean in some senses he talked values. In some senses he played up America's history ass, a country that is sacrificed its blood and treasure for others, in other senses. He made it clear that he didn't want the, U N, to become some sort of global government divorced from nation states and that asian states were the best way ultimately to achieve collective aims. I did he say out a coherent policy amidst that, I don't think he did and

I'm not sure either that he ranged too far away from the status quo ass. It existed under the last president yeah at what I think, and also with with Bush clearly when he talked about, and we expect sovereign nations protect the interests of their citizens, You know that they'll say well that rights are caught up in the interest of the citizens, but they, I don't think they do want to and when it explicitly say rights because they fear, if they go too far, rhetorically in the direction of George W Bush they're, giving away too much of what makes trump distinctive than what was his appeal to a lot of people. And then you just you, you end up logically down a path. You don't necessarily want to go but that's where their their headed could seems to me, he just infusing his nationalism, with values and kind of making sovereignty of value laden concept, which isn't that different from just what every american president says about the universe, Iraq, universal universality of our values,

ideal. I think, there's some deep confusion going on with a Trump administrations foreign policy. For this reason, you have this one tendency from, for example, these Goerck. As of the world, which is what you might, as an inversion, it's still there idea that America's go and have a highly ideological, logical foreign policy based on idea of America less as a nation that America as an idea. It just so happens that the neo rules on the NEO conservatives. Have this one idea of America's Cosmopolitan inclusive, etc and then there's other idea of America as a western nation with a capital w that is at war with rapid Islam is terrorism, for example. Now I see this a bit only so if you talk about sex your Ebay in IRAN. I think that this is a very broad consensus in the kind hundred accuracy, just idea the Saudi Arabia's terrible there by the way, they are that's completely true

it also. Just so happens that IRAN has been killing Americans, either directly or indirectly, for a very long time under the old Bob registration, the United States- wound up serving as the air force of iranian backed militias people who had quite happily kill Americans now the Saudis either by the way these guys these guys in the Gulf. They ve put money into people who are very serious about killing us that money be disrupted. It needs to be stopped and they need to be punished for it. But IRAN is a different story and I think that a lot of people This is true of people and conservative world. They think about this as theirs. Thing. Called Islam, or even this thing called the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood is different from around the town and city to city this an organism those got round is made. I think it's really right. The real threat is there

is a russian iranian access that is doing very simple, old school, eighteenth and nineteenth century things. Iran wants a drive to the sea, so they can get the Mediterranean, so they can get missiles and other dangerous weapons in the hands of Hezbollah. It it's not rocket science that's what they want in ways that literally road where through so my thing is that a very hard headed nationalist sovereignty, oriented perspective is common, double, in my view, with a sound foreign policy. It's the idea that look, Saudi Arabia, waterway. Think of how they treat and I think it's appalling and despicable, and I have a right to say that I am think that they are a sovereign state. Now IRAN is a sovereign state that is constantly her fearing and undermining the sovereignty of other, more or less peaceable governments. That is unacceptable and the United States has a role to play as the vendor cater of the sovereignty of peace,

I find that that that argument makes complete sense is logically consistent. What do you do with Venezuela? So why Are you saying that it is wise Trump saying it's in our interests to restore democracy and in Venezuela which isn't invading anyone in your right, then you use slide into the kind of you very quickly into the kind of Bush era. Notion that you no kind of you need to have a certain kind of government and look. I just think: that's that as well as government is this. It really is creating instability and it actually actively did full meant instability, an insurrection and revolution throughout the region that much we know it. I think that you know you could say look I mean they need to stop doing that their did. They have a crisis that is undermining the legitimacy, their government that has actually spreading, and so in chaos you dont know Sarah left to be all that prescriptive about what the government there auto look like again. My mobile

is that? It would be much better for them have a representative constitutional government but you're right. That is a attention, and you are also right that that's always what we reach two so yeah, I'm in point now, but I also think the Michael and come back to you on this. Do you accept this argument that it is in our interest at it? level does me you have to invade every country and impose a democratic regime, but it would be in our interests to have more love. Liberal d Craddock regimes around the world rather than So, even if you're a hard hard headed national interest, oriented trompe in you want venezuelan

Venezuela have a liberal democracy yeah I want. I want Venezuela, as I think that argument is very applicable in western nations and I consider Venezuela, western nations. These are nations that have political traditions that reach back into european history, and those nations tend to do better. Has liberal democracies where I would reject the idea of imposing liberal democracies in countries in the islamic world that have super high rates of cousin, marriage and and other social predictors of kind of chaos, clannish, ness or radicalism that when you start saying, ok, we're gonna have elections, then you get. You know Hamas winning a lot since you get, you know Islamists winning elections in Egypt and basically the whole mass of the arab Spring, which blew up in our face, face sort of need like foundation of a liberal society in a sense.

it's a four year it right in a ring about democracy. That's exactly it! I that's that's why that was sort of my big lesson from the Bush years was not just that. This idea of a democratic domino theory in the Middle EAST didn't happen, even during the balmy years, when the arab spring was happening and saying? Oh, let's get on site of people power in the arab world and is in the islamic world while it the people power, is on the side of liberalism in in the arab and islamic world right now, especially when its being funded by when the movements are being funded by Saudi Arabia says. So I just I think, when I basically agree, I would characterize it a little bit differently. I think they're, all kinds of prerequisites, I'm almost saying that it's gonna be a liberal democracy. Liberal is just a word. That's used as a Synaptic II for a bunch of other things that are happening, including a relative degree of affluence. Certain size of the kind of urban Bourgeois work

in all these other things that evolve over a long period of time and expecting that to happen? Is a high bar expecting a state not to fall revolution in chaos is quite another thing, and I also think that it's actually what we did in the Helsinki final ACT. You know back in the midnight in Seventys. We, once certain basic basic standards, like our people allowed to emigrate at all. Do people do we have some basic standards of transparency in what have you so that we can actually- and that is actually what allows those other institutions to grow and emerge. That seems like a more hard headed approach that you can also apply in a way that kind of even handed and look. You know I side. Whether or not I give you aid, I decide whether on I give you military assistance and all those other things you don't have all that others have hey. You know, that's your business, but I have the power and reach and access to my market matters, and those are things where thing it's perfectly responsible for our values to come into play. I think we have a linguistic problem here, especially in our current

bait over foreign policy and is the result of model thinking on the part of the electorate have said this on the portcullis before that Barack Obama was in some part of product that muddle thinking, Donald Trump is a product of that model. Thinking Richie used the phrase hard headed national interest, oriented the poor Blemmyes that both sides of this debate? I believe that they are that the national interest types, well say, I'm an isolationist, because I think we should have looking out for Americans. I think we need to do some nation building at home, look at the military budget, etc. All we do and we go over there is we disrupt and we make it difficult for domestic reforms I can needs to retract, and then David, French and Bell Crystal would say. No, it is a hard nosed national interests question

ass to what role America should play in the world and maintaining unable supremacy and ensuring that a rogue states can't bomb New York and put dirty bombs on the Golden Gate Bridge is also imperative and tromp is interesting in that he moves seamlessly between these two positions, depending on his mood, he did during the campaign one moment he was saying, who's gonna bombed the hell out of ices and everybody clapped, and the next moment is that we cannot continue this foreign adventurism. We can't continue the mistakes that the Bush administration made. and it seems that the american public and suddenly republican primary voters applauded both and until There is some greater grasp of the options on the table at large,

in the country, I think you're going to continue to get President's whose foreign policy is encouraged and is too I mean one question I almost have after this. You and speech is since say: two thousand six, since in a bush got whacked over the seeming failures of the Iraq war, has you, as foreign policy just been kind of on autopilot? For the rest, the Bush presidency, the Obama presidency, and now, How once Trump got in and sort of got his briefings? Did it just go on autopilot enormous changes? Is the rhetoric around it because it seems like there's just so much continuity of okay. Well, where we we pursue the war on terror. We know we keep our Son from losing outright and exactly no one wants an embarrassing, visible defeat right. We we keep ourselves from losing in Afghanistan. We basically oppose raining interests when there's when there's little cost doing so so

farming some rebels in Syria training of rebels, but not going all the way and feeding the Assad regime. It just seems like all these elements, just keep running by themselves and the president, and it is unsatisfactory to the american public as there's no resolution to these conflicts, there's no victory, but there is also no defeat either for the present, sea such as the rhetoric changes around it show, but I think the same action can be sold in two different ways and that wasn't true: for example, after nine eleven, it wasn't true. The first Persian Gulf WAR wasn't trim the nineteen fifty with communism when Trump launch those missiles into Syria. you could see the public going the way ass, it turned out. It was moderately popular in the press liked it. An elite services at eight became president so forth, but had there been a

difference in the way that the move was sold on CNN and in Congress and so forth. I said this is a president who is once again pushing us toward. I could have seen the public going against it and that's an opposition to be innocent it, but it's only a, but all these interventions are always sold on a daily basis as both the interest and advancing are our values, and it just seems to me this is going too far. This is very hard to come up with a principle foreign policy and we can set out these doctrines but the end of the day- just comes down to prudential choices, I think, but this second inaugural stands out as something that I think is zealous. the ideological and was totally on achievable and that that is a. I think something different from like what's been fifteen years of rough can and citizen and continuity, but Bush to May prudential choices Just you know at hammering ran and not Saudi Arabia invading Iraq, and not

in a way his his great failing was that he was excessively coherent. He actually had a formula now it wasn't, it was kind of limitless and boundless. So what Charlie My Michael are both saying. I guess I thread the needle with this United States right now. is a country that is so divided that literally between twenty twelve and twenty sixteen, you went from Republicans believing that Russia's our chief geopolitical adversary and a complete disaster to Democrats, believing that anyone from one faction saying that you know on a certain level I'd rather do business with the Russians than with Republicans to having the flip over vice versa, with Dana Rural Bachar kind of believing had Democrats of this weird fifth column and I'd rather collaborate with Lattimer Putin that is not a world of politics stopping at the water s edge. That is a world in which the United States, in this same Huntington's old language it is no longer an agent in the world that does things. The United States is now an arena as it means now arena, in which you first of all, have an enormous amount of diversity domestically. But you also have foreign powers that are able to

influence and shape our domestic perceptions by exploiting some of our internal divisions. Now that's not to say that we should be completely unified and in lockstep, but admits. tree Amerika, it was a little bit more possible to cobble something together, whereas today you have this dynamic in in order to do anything in foreign policy. You have two so exaggerate the threat you have to make it Mr Wurtz existential to actually do anything to take any kind of action and then, once you taken action. The thing is its very low cost, because you know that share the popular and that's military personnel. It's a little over one percent military families a bit more than that, so these permanent wars, once you start them, it's really hard to reverse, and almost all of these domestic policy sclerosis problems, the things just keep going on forever, because we don't feel them and it would actually be a little bit

higher cost to actually take a decisive stand. Given the divisions in the country first been fastened discussion before we move on this really quickly hit on. What's been driving a lot of the discussion on cable tv, Charlie, worry bothered how bothered by rocket man and the threat to totally destroy North Korea. I study wasn't bothered by the threat to totally destroyed North Korea, because that is the our composition, Barack Obama, said it slightly more delicately bill. Clinton said it in pretty much the same words as Trump used rocket man. That's Trump I can't say I am annoyed by it, especially I wouldn't have said it myself. I do think it was disgusting to watch progressives say how dare he criticise and leader of people that he looked very much on earth. I mean I have to choose between donor from Kim Jong Enough Donald Trump side,

it was classic from Job Bush said that he thought that some of this rhetoric helps that Trump is refreshing in a sense because he's making people aware the consequences. It also seems to me a kind of help, in a way and that that sort of trust, way of saying this is my speech in the this- isn't just some things been completely written for me. Is me a load up in the teleprompter, I'm going to read it's never going to be. The forgotten is going to be forgotten I'm I'm vested in it but I can give us on the second question rate the speech from zero The ten zero

being nationalist, tripe, ten being an inspired synthesis of american leadership and trumps national states. Now I mean to say it's a for I mean it was gay and I'm giving it points, for it was a competently delivered a generated, some news, but it didn't. You know it didn't, have the problems we ve had. Another Trump statements on foreign policy word seems to be out right, contradicting the position of that state departed in our previous statements just recently Charlie's your agenda. I thought it was the six or seven. I dont think it was a great departure. I don't think it was especially offensive. I dont think it was particularly coherent, but he was so. Came to the, U N, which I think is a useless body

and what he said makes little difference. America will do with America will do and by the looks of it, America's gonna keep doing what America's bending ryan- and please coupled Decimal points I'll give. It is Seven point one to I: now during her gets home when territory just one little thing to follow up on the rocket men thing. So if Kim Jong on actually cares about what people have to say and actually responds rationally to what people have to say. We can all breathe a lot easier, like that's the one that I dont get The theory that how dare you enraged? That's a dude like if he actually getting raged and then thinks about how the world works, and things like that than he is not going to like me-

he'd his country to be completely vaporized and himself to be completely paper ass. How would he lashed out shooting missiles of Japan or try my she'd Eddie? I'm just that, and I shall sum up with his own nickname for Trump that'll. Get it right, Sir Naturally, I save six six or seven eyes comforted by the embrace of nutritional american leadership role, which I think is much better than the alternative when seem possible during the campaign that he turned his back on. NATO and the whole world order, because it was a rip off in a bad deal for America. I It's also use for a to emphasise sovereignty in front of the the: U N in front of a bunch of people who think the nation state is good. It disappear, but I dont think it was in the class of of the Warsaw speech, which remains speech of his presidency. So before we move on, let's hear a little bit more about texture, dot, com,

our sponsors today, right now, texture is offering editors listeners of fourteen day free trial. When you go to texture dot com, slash editors through the texture ass, you can get access to all favoured magazines. It's gone beyond just delivering the magazine itself, they may say either define enjoy articles. You want to read with daily recommendations. Exclusive interactive features, videos and more textures Emily nine ninety nine a month and you get over to hundred magazines. But if you sign up right now, right now at textured dot com, slash editors, you get a fourteen day, free trial wide subscribe, just a couple of magazines when you can have all your favorite on your smartphone or tablet all the time for away at last, a subscription to texture is only nine. Ninety nine a month, that's loss less than the cost of many magazines. You can get access to people better homes and Gardens Esquire time real, simple

fine magazines, maybe not quite as excellent as some other publications we but certainly worthy of red, so once again, right now, textures offering rakish sorry editors, listeners of fourteen day free trial. When you go to texture, dot, com, slash editors, that's fourteen days to try texture for free when you go to texture, dot, com, slash editors so right hand. Washington is all flutter with the latest republican effort to do something that trade is repealing and replacing Obama CARE and, as the so called Gram Cassidy Bill. Twould, largely ascend, Obamacare back to the states. What do you think of this effort this? is truly one of the most misunderstood legislative proposals. I've seen in a long time, even over the course of this Obamacare repeal and replace debate. We had,

it's just something that it's been a real struggle to find a straight forward. Objective neutral description of what is good on the legislation. The way that I'd characterize it is that Cassidy Engram want too of a much more decentralized system built chastity you're from Louisiana. Former Democrat by the way is someone who sought earlier on to work with Democrats on a more centralized approach that the earlier iteration of this Cassidy Collins would have said. Okay, states that want to keep Obamacare can states that don't will have more flexibility will go from there, but basically became clear that that was not going to unify Republicans. The Senate, that was not the most vile proposal. So you basically have a version of the proposal that takes quite a bit too the right it takes up into the right by saying: ok, let's take. Money under the affordable care act through the medical. expansion and also through the premium subsidies, and let's put that in a pot and let's give it to stay

it's now. It's actually not doing so in such a way where there is completely no federal oversight. The rules are somewhat similar. The rules of the chip programme so as to ensure that the money is spent in more or less appropriate ways it does. however, a wind of being a lot less prescriptive and the Obamacare status Quo, and it also does take down spending relative to what c you imagine, spending is going to be in the future under Obamacare, when we're making those projections about what future spending is, gonna look like we're making a law out of assumptions about future costs growth, leading assumptions about whether or not states that don't currently accept the medicate expansion will, in fact except the medicate expansion. So, when you're looking at these, ending trajectory under this legislation from today in absolute terms, doesn't look that crazy. It's not like your having deep cuts when you look at it relative to this alternate universe in which women

this very different politics. Then it certainly does like were spending less, and I think that It's been a real struggle for people to understand, and there are a lot of you, were torn about it and one of the big reason set. These processes moved so quickly that there are a lot of people, including people who might otherwise be. Ripley disposed to a solution along these lines of more decentralized solution to the healthcare challenge, who just don't feel confident that they need exactly what's in here. They feel like there could be all kinds of bombs like what the heck is going on and when that happens, guess what the mainstream media and also the advocates on the other side of this issue? They are a hundred percent certain that anything, whether it's the skinny bill, whether that big rock or whatever it is, is always gonna, be the worst thing that ever happened in the universe, so that this huge asymmetry that's shape. This debate- and I think it's really unfortunate. The process is completely atrocious and indefensible that, just

there's? No more, no question about that. But I think you're overgrown has been very persuasive about the lack of credibility of Serbia, which scores every Republican Build, no matter how much it spends the same way because all the bills repealed. the end of its mandate and that's really the driver the sea be out of these covers losses. Young european electoral mandate and they scipios mine ethics. Subject, fifty million people drop off health insurers never come back, which seem too hard to believe. But Charlie, do you have a grasp on the Kimmel TEST and their Jimmy Kimmel is out of this, his death in depth and misrepresenting the bill or this porters of the bill are lying about they the camel test as everyone on the loves us? Why should say the beginning? There is Jimmy Kimmel doesn't know. For example, he said that he doesn't know anybody who spent by Obamacare also suggested, I think, last night that the health insurance companies would love this bell and the Republicans

taking care of the insurers who pay them when, in fact, the health insurance lobby has been against it. I would, of course, not criticise Jimmy Camel for feeling a certain way. Given what happened to his son, we should all be wherever that, but we do not make policy by anecdote and there is nothing within the american constitutional order that gives Jimmy Camel a veto. Now, one of the problems I think in deciding whether Jimmy Camel is right or wrong, is that the complaint to the bill that he is voicing is a is a philosophical one route and what I mean by that is democratic and progressive, generally speaking, want a healthcare system that is highly prescriptive, and that sets a floor. That is the same in Texas as it is in Massachusetts. Some of them want to do that through single pair. Others want to do that through regular

and of the insurance industry ass, we ve seen in Obama, can be legit nation. As I understand it, that has been put forward by Graham and Cassidy, although they would. they'll, be a floor because many of the Obama cat regulation stay in place, allows for certain experiments to be conducted by all of the fifty states Therefore, you are like t going to have more regulation in California, for example than you well. in why arming or in Texas and joy Kimmel is assuming that the moment that Any waiver is granted to Texas, for example, that the state say: no healthcare spending is and is coming from, Austin regulations will becoming from Austin it's the wild you're on your own. If your poor, you will die now that, firstly, is inaccurate because it and, in my view, unfortunately written

in the light of the above. I care infrastructure, but it also fails to understand how politics works in the United States. There is almost nobody that I can see within elected american politics, who would get away with taking the Charles Cook Approach to health care policy, so much ass, conservatives have a different view on, say markets than progressive. Do I think that Jimmy came all has a different expectation of what will happen when states are freed up to pursue their own healthcare policies within certain God rails. then conservatives do- and so he is assuming that the the case of his son in states that wasn't California family that wasn't as wealthy as his would have ended differently. I don't think that's going to happen. I am also not convinced that he's right on the facts and Ben Shapiro.

Whose child was born in the same hospital has argued that nobody is denied the treatment his son got regardless of their ability. to pay either way. The reason that the attack has been so effective is that concern You see a lack of regulations or a lack of mandates as being freedom. Freedom that, can accommodate a variety of different options and I think the gray if I see a lack of mandates and regulations as an excuse for the people, they don't like to get rid of all help whatsoever, which is not what I see being proposed. Yet they also regard the states, as a friend of mine is putting us. Justice is garbage pails unit, you send, might the state- and it just goes down the drain and spent on nothing worthy. I mean that

That's basically the at the rooted their critique of this bill, but Michael you ve been skeptical of every republican health bell. I you more or less skeptical of this one on british skeptical of this one. I I worry, what the you know the political basis, others, as you know it in a sense Republicans used to talk about a one of their dream. Healthcare reforms was to erase all the state lines and allow this market, and this, in a sense, reinforces them. My own previous experience with state baino individual states managing their healthcare matters being on cobra there's something in New York in the past was is not at all a persuasive experience for giving states more authority. I think I think I I very little face.

In the ability of politicians in states to carry off, really interesting experiments and we ve seen experiments kind of fail in Vermont with a really you know, progressive single pair idea in the past, and I dont think that this bill empowers those experiments to really succeed. I also take over grower Roy Rota, opposing it Washington, Post, saying that ITALY's does the way this bill is structured. Now it favours. It will favour states to take more statist approaches. Rather than marketer based approaches to health care, because if you want to take a more market based approach to health care, you'd have to seek waivers from the federal government was waivers. My commentary

public and presidents they might not come under democratic president's, so in general, is going to favour more and more state involvement in the market, and I just don't see I mean maybe round you can correct me. I don't see where is the cost coming down and where is the simplicity of access coming down, because those are the two things that are driving Americans nuts about healthcare is that their insurance is very costly. The procedures that, when their charge to the third party payer or two you individually, are very costly and it's just such a pain in the bud. get insurance, and I just don't see this reform ultimately addressing the two things that bother people. This is our longer conversation. I do think it striking that employer based health insurance is by I think, in the view of many people, many Americans, the most successful component of our health system. Of course, there's some books on the left, who might disagree, but it's really pay

pillar. It's really pervasive, and one of the big reasons for that is that these us ensured large employers are basically exempt from a whole host of state based regulations. and the states are really in charge of this little piece of it, but I still the fundamental Reason I M drawn to this, even though like rich, I am appalled by the process that got us here. Is this Charley was TAT but the idea of a floor, but there's also this idea of whether or not there ought to be a ceiling. The way them medicate system works right now it basically matching program right and then, when you had, the medicate expansion was a different matching programmes of normal matches that poorer states get more and was matched and richer states, but then under the meadow, expansion. Everybody gets the same match whether you're, rich or poor. Now, when you have matching system. The thing that happens is that states that have more fiscal capacity are actually able to get more out of federal tax payers. Now wondering I found really shocking. Is that, as a lot of you guys, know Gram Cassidy

is a bit more generous to some poor states, particularly to poor states, that did not accept medicate expansion, then a rich states that did accept the medicate expansion now. You think that, if your mean agenda is I care about poor people, including poor people in red states? Well, that would actually be a feature rather than a bug. But would you hear from people is what I like to call the new sectional is of which is that, while those are anti Obamacare states will hold on slow down there. There are poor people whom I actually need some help to get healthcare in these anti Obama CARE states that you're describing so it's kind of a funny ethic bill Buckley in his book for reforms, posed a very simple idea. He said states with below the average per capita income. Fair enough. The federal we should give them extra money, but states that are tourism that they should not get a dime for the federal government for welfare programmes and the basic ideas. It seems crazy to have this Rube Goldberg contraption

which we tax, rich people in Europe, that we give the money back to rich people in your work Would you be fighting for this unless it actually allowed you to super charger spending without actually taxing your voters more, so they get pissed off at you rather than a government in Dc. Andrew Cuomo is the guy who has the most to lose from Gram Cassidy. I don't actually think its poor people in America, who have the most to lose. And if you're looking for Andrew Cuomo over poor people in red states, you need to check yourself created under appreciated Buckley Book for reform, Bavaria, Jerry shows how walkie he could get like unmaking of mayors, also very walkie has His server form a con before before I have salon known fact that try you have been here before we exit sure. I must say the point that you just made is one that occurred to me as well, and the army that I saw from the left yesterday was superficially convincing, and that was look. If red states

more medicate, money of Mississippi and Texas want to help the poor residents. Then they should just expand Medicaid within the Obamacare structure. When I first heard that I thought that's fair enough, and then I thought but hold of a moment. The left has wanted to force Texas and Mississippi to expand medicate for a long time. In fact, had the Supreme Court not stepped in that's effectively, what about Mackay would have done? That's what this bill does. It does take some money away from Massachusetts. It does take some money away from California, but it essentially forces Mississippi and exist to expand the medicate programme. It gives the money whether they want it or not. I am surprised that some of the more honest brokers on the left haven't at least said. I like that bit. sir. I have double barrelled exit question here. No decimal point fashion, yes or no questions will Graham chastity pass yes or no, and if it does, will it be awesome? Yes or no?

killing. Will it pass? No, if it did pass, would it be on balance, a better thing, If it did not yes, Michael, no, it's not going to pass will be killed by the same combination of purists pragmatists that are killing in the house or in the sun in the Senate that are killing every healthcare bill by Republicans and if it pass, you know, So the pragmatists, an appearance at Susan columns, ran Paul and one other from some camp either camper some became makes me laugh because he always have some arbitrary personal principle, and this is just one of my governor says I'll. Do ok, fairness, Willoughby Awesome,

and I thought that it will not be awesome. It makes him good fiscal impact, but I think it could actually be good for people. I mean I think that actually putting Medicaid on a budget having there be some Clare in transparency could yield a meaningfully better outcome. But the thing is that man like Thing works nor politics right now and the fact that aid maybe decent thing in my view would come out of this terrible process. Just means it would be permanently tainted. That's the thing that scares me most about this Charlie. I don't think he's going to pass and I've. I thought they were going to pass something for a long time. So perhaps, if I say it's not going to pass than it will, I think it will be better. the status quo, and for that reason I hope it passes. The one thing that worries me, though, is that the way in which the waivers seem to be structured is almost a guarantee, four yo YO in health care policy, depending on who in the White House, and so, although I do

think it will be an improvement. It seems likely that the election of twenty twenty will be over which wave, as you would give an election of twenty twenty four b, which waivers take away and so on and so forth, so it's not going to fix the route problem of our politics. Nor is it going to make a politics more stable, but I think it will marginally improve the prospects for conservative health care policy, so we ve had a second question on so many different public healthcare bills, and I think we switch sides and on various bells I generally been a yes, though, on these bills cause I thought back to the wall they just be to embarrass. Not. has anything. So I stick with out and say yes without a great deal of of confidence has once again just the public case through just getting destroyed and the public argument energy there is some significant chance that will shake loose. You know, a third no vote

would it be awesome? No it it might be better. I I do not have a good grasp on this bill. I don't think really anyone does or fully thought through what the consequences would be, which is probably pretty good sign that it wouldn't be awesome. But, speaking of awesome, Charlie, we have another sponsor for this podcast dear and that sponsor is ring which companies is to make neighbourhood safer. Today, over a million people use the amazing ring video doorbell to help protect their homes. I am one of them. Ring knows how I'm security, begins as every single one of our sponsors. You use pretty much absolutely absolute, but this is especially coke being a smart home guy. I installed that might of an and early ring knows home security begins at the front door, but it doesnt end there so now they're extending that same level of security to the rest of your home, with the ring floodlight come just like rings. Amazing, doorbell floodlight

come is emotion, activated, camera and floodlight that connects right to your phone with hd video and two way order that lets. You know the moment. Anyone steps on your property c and speak visitors even set off in alarm right from your phone. In fact, you can be in another country when somebody steps onto your property and you can speak to them through the phone as if you upstairs, with rings like come when things go bump in the night. You immediately know what it is, whether your home or away the ring floodlight come. Let's you keep an eye on your home from anywhere ring. Floodlight offers the Two met in home security with high visibility, floodlights and a powerful hd camera that put security in your hands with ring. You are always home You can save up to one hundred and fifty dollars off a ring of security kit when you

the ring dot com, slash editors, that's ring dot com, slash editors, render come slash, editors sell it set. None of us are legal, Bert's or really following, I think that the Russia stance, a scandal in great details, but we'll just briefly head on a man for story, has been big. week so Michael at its emerge. That man afford to was Savell twice once beginning in twenty fourteen Pfizer warrant and then actually during the campaign, Pfizer warrant and is also in criminal jeopardy. There This no knock predawn raid. I think, there's a story yesterday that they actually searched his wife weapons, so agencies that everything has is being done to intimidate and squeeze. A man of war which doesn't seem great news for you.

On the other hand, there Trump supporters that claimed indication on trumped wire clapping. Why tapping claim, because metaphor was under five surveillance. At the same time, he was in contact with tromp and had an apartment, a Trump tower yeah, I think, on the ladder, and, although I don't think it's very important too little gate terms claim here, I should do think people have appoint the trump now knew. This was kind going on and it was unmade afford himself he's he's deftly being squeezed and he comes across and eat. I came across this way be even before he was hired by the Trump campaign as extremely shaky and extremely opened taking money from actors in Ukraine and Russia for political advice or political skulduggery, and that is bad, and it is bad that Trump hired him even when he had this reputation

in for doing this sort of thing. The big question is: does man to have any goods on tromp himself so that if squeeze him something like this will fall out. I don't think he does. I think he is my into. Wish in here and that's all it is. Is that he's a pure opportunist- and you know, is willing to take the money on the table and you know isn't, but you know, isn't dastardly enough to necessarily implicate his boss in in doing it, so that that's kind of words where it stands right now I mean ice. I think the these headlines had been kind

bad for the Trump administration, but again Trump is not implicated directly that these stories keep coming along with stories of Russia. Buying making small buys of Facebook adds during the campaign, which is troubling, but that trouble seems too be falling on Facebook itself more than any one. So I'm not sure I see anything new, that's bad for tromp other, then it makes the judgment higher manifold look worse, but also the judgment of firing him look. You know Nepal on ok so Charlie, how much credit gi of Trump for being indicated so called on the wire tackling? I dont think that he's been vindicated because the whites hat was not of him. It seems to have been of manner fought and therefore any role he played was incidental. I do think that it has damaged

Rated that those who cast his words ass, a conspiracy from the ground up number, who did were too hasty in doing so. This ass So many of the stories are to come out of this Russia saga seems perfectly calibrated to permit both sides to say they were right. I said this before his part. Costume This is just how the russian investigation seems to go the die hard from fans will say he was right that point too how he phrased his tweet. He didn't say. I was directly why tat for what it's worth, though? That was the implication and, of course those who think that he is wrong. I will say not only that, but that is hyperbole, but, as Michael said, that ultimate story here is the lapse in judgment that was hiring poor manafort In this case, I think trumps. Critics have the better of the argument you do.

Not surround yourself with people like poor manifold, because this is the sort of thing that happens to aspire when you are running for president to me. If any conclusion be drawn from this story. It's that you're gonna feel embarrassed when you discover my connections to various ukrainian russian backed nickel magnates people ask you by your association with China, but I told you that we were recording this before we start Yes, so metaphor is just as very important Nobody has ever clinical volunteering in any true sense for the Trump campaign without having some means of getting caught but stated by some one and just what that someone who that someone was and what the terms were. What will be fascinating to see, and this was just always likeliest way. The trumpet be vindicated cortical

on the march. I claim is through Carter, page or Michael Flynn or Paul man of work, being survey also Royalist gotta ex a question for you tie Cobb Chumps lawyer called porter today and you said, would be shocking shocking if Poland for it was any way trying to benefit himself monetarily from association with the Trump campaign. Raising the exit question. Do you think that poor man effort will be thrown under the boss by the Trump people, or will be held up as a martyr of an out of control deep state boot wow? That actually is so. I think that parliament, before is soon going to become what, if America's foremost experts on bus under

the fact that I think he's gonna make a study of them in and paint these beautiful, frescoes and murals out loud enough. Various unearthly Massachusetts could always in your great interest in urban out. I got you out. You have anywhere else, must undercarriage some butter, honour, carriages and other. I have not been, grown under a bus. Yet, but I'm thinking it's gonna come any day now from from Charlie Cook, I can, I can feel it live. You have the ukrainian ties. You'd prefer not throw you unaware. Those of uniform red, double decker that would run by bus enjoys the fit you in the basement. Compartment of some like all under the bus or martyr for the Trump administration will be thrown under the bus.

He will be seen as a martyr by just stop hardest core populist. Contrary ends on twitter, right, like that that'll be the story that they they put out. But I mean at common effort, has almost no defenders in mainstream Republican Party concerned movement. That is just not many people going to bat for this guy, so yeah Ike nickel magnates, and you know, people at or selling, in a well a mindset juice me about him, but that's about it, Charlie, the bus martyr, I was going to say exactly what Michael said and the justification from the hard core mega types on twitter will be, of course, Trump had to get rid of him. He's got a job to do, but he's going to clear out the people who did this to me. For in the remainder of his term. Not so, I think the transaction Why did you a little of both, but all love mostly be funded under the boss,

oh right hand said a few other items before we go. You you ve, been thinking deep thought about homer innovation, television. I So this is something that is new to me old hat to most Americans I'd say, but watching the show called flipper flop. Reruns of the show it to show a featuring this couple. They basically do these kind of home renovation flips, but what I find striking about it is that here too, can do stick to it. Agnes filled people who, just looking to make a quick profit on houses, often bought in these sort of troubled fringy, gentrifying neighborhoods in southern California, and what I mean buys how you could make this whole other show about what happened in the house before the Amu says, bought it to fly for example, some of these houses very clear, those. Oh, what went on here, gosh they're, all these things not built up the code and hung it looks like there were a d

and people living in here under really terrible insect? Yes, some coyote was using this as part of their scam. There were people who are living here, essentially, as indentured servants is really dark. But of course, there's no discussion of that anymore. He's never. So there was this active vandalism, national regional TV will arrive, late, wasn't gonna, get this vandalism and say yes, because this house a dangerous place and you're gonna sell it to a nice, lovely family and their veto. The families gonna be plagued by gang violence. Is it spray painted on the house? There is all the stuff and maybe was a bunch upon kids, and maybe I have two dark and our perspective on the universe. I can't sleep it's. This was really dark stuff, but they're just got there so sunny and their smiling there like well or regular gosh that hope that kitchen runners gonna cost eight grand rather like you

the world is falling apart. Around with this is the real home radio show so anyway, that could be a whole separate, podcast, really so, Michael while right hand has been consumed with hd. If not you you ve, been thinking about english history. You know I was so aware at the Beautiful Jersey Shore last week in Seattle City, which, by the way, a sub light item recommendation is if your kids aren't in school. Yet it is just great to go to the beach after Labour day, because it still warm enough

There is less crowds it's great, but I was reading on the beach might be treating reading. Was english history made brief irreverent and pleasurable by Lacy Baldwin Psmith? I needed a light. History read to get my history fix, and this was just perfect. The book is a very quick overview of british history. I thought, like the whole thing, print yeah pretty much from the mid middle ages. I would say when you get instinctively english kingdom emerging and then all the way up to basically Dianas death twenty years ago, and it just anytime ends with very amusing kind of overview of just the royal family as the

end of chapter going through all the applications, usurpations divorces and deaths and die. It's just a fun right and if there is a lot to learn for students of american history in it as well seen the kind of the pre debates of our history in the english seventeenth century that become american debates a century later and Charlie, you been thing about the other football I have soccer, as I'm now forced to call it there s a tournament in Britain could delete CUP, which is not the same thing as the league, and the early cup is great because it throws up Fixed as you would never otherwise see in soccer, for example, Manchester United Yesterday, Paid Burton Albion. Birth now be, and is a couple of divisions below Manchester United, which means it was for one and the players

go for that now been bore a member for the rest of his life playing at all traffic, which is mentioned United, massive stadium and said wearing. I was trying to think the equivalent. I would be a sieve. say the New York Yankees played, I don't know the division below AAA is but played. One of those teams mean that that's the disparity and, like a Hartford yard, goats yeah. Have I not tat. It was just refreshing to war, because a lot of the lot of the players who end up in these teams that make it against an awesome or liver, Polar Manchester United. They have other jobs that they work as a welder, and then they also play on a Saturday for this team and I'm not an of the way in which suckers become dominated by money. I think it's made the game more entertaining. I think it's a lot more people to watch it but it's nice occasion need to remember that most people experience the game in the way that these smaller teams play it rob then ass? It is on television with with dramatic music, and

Delirious made may be explained is beginning, and I found out for second, but why were they playing is a psycho? season game or or is this like a college football team arose couple games in the season night they play Patsy's. I didn't expect to be the way in which the league works. Obviously, is you play teams that are broadly the same issue? The way in which the cup works is your drawn random out of a hat and it's a knockout tournament So you can get these fixtures where a team at the bottom of the third division that has a stadium that holds eleven hundred people plays Manchester United Stadium holds the eight thousand people and, of course, the other great thing for these small teams. When that does happen, which is rare, is that they split the television rights part which can be fifteen two thirty million pounds a cane at us, and so suddenly, this little team is, is rich, data provided me with your with your home story of this time. I was at EPCOT with my family and were watching the fireworks and it's all dead

That's all I said to my mom: I'm really great. Isn't it I've action is guides. My left said it lacks the dark underbelly of the real world Lord on holiday, to citizens the right hand Salaam illiterate, so is there a soccer? Matched is generally considered. The biggest upset and british soccer history of that's that's a big question. I think, probably the most. Surprising run in british history was when Wimbledon one the FDA Cup. It was nineteen. Ninety, maybe. eighteen, eighty nine that was at that. I'm a small London team. They weren't rich. They want especially famous they were quite thuggish too. honest with you. There were left like Milwaukee one of those of the opt out,

I gave you the fact that they made it all the way to Wembley and at the time, this capture the nations imagination. So I am speaking of the Yankees express my annoyance, the Boston Red Sox who have now one. I believe it's fourteen out of seventeen actual in games. There is one a week or two ago where the Yankees were winning six to one against the Orioles. The red Sox were Lou. to do nothing going into the night thinning tied the name and then wanted in the nineteenth inning and and these are still three games behind the Red Sox there. Their reason to believe that the Red Sox are really just this good in one any extra earning gains cause they're bullpen has been superb. several months, but I still believe it's kind of lucky and of the season lasted another two months. The Yankees would inevitably run down the Red Sox and the Red Sox will be ready.

Get it to the lowly disreputable wildcard slot that they are so richly deserve. Ok, Charlie time for our editors picks. What's your pick, my pick is peace by Theodore CUP fur on Lou Barletta, who is from Pennsylvania. He is from a part of Pennsylvania that fear, of course, Alabama p. After the famous line by James Carville, it's a fascinating profile of a man who would be senator and it is a fascinating look into Pennsylvania Politic, it's a state. I think that isn't disgust enough, especially given its new role, perhaps is the key to the electoral college. It's a state that is both

a politician and modern, but also rural? It's a state that has coal interests, but also technology and teddy captures this ass. Well, ass, the story of Lou by letter, this obviously italian american candidate, extremely well MIKE off. I'm picking David French hasn't piece on a national review on line today. Talking about how how can servers experience, liberal identity, politics, which is basically like they experiencing, they are experiencing it as a threat- and I think this is an important part underlining some her recent electoral results in this country- is that more and more conservative Americans look at mainstream media at internet media and see the left, identity, politics side,

as basically imagining an american future with out conservatives or Christians in it at all, and they find this very threatening and it does galvanise them and if liberals continue to have their debate about the value of identity politics. Without acknowledging this, they will come to some pretty disastrous conclusions for themselves. My take is once again and Andy Mccarthy, peace, the peace for an hour row about man afford is just highly instructive. And, if you want to understand with what what's going on with the surveillance and investigation of him. You really must read that peace. That's it for us Charlie. Thank you right hand. Thank you Michael thank you too texture and ring, and thanks to all of you for listening

are the editors, and we will see you next.