Speaker 1: Scott's loan return here seven hundred WLW. Here we go
Speaker 1: back half the week. We all good sew. Here's what
Speaker 1: you need to know. Pharmaceuticals very expensive, especially insulin. If
Speaker 1: you are on insulin, you know how expensive that is.
Speaker 1: And the Federal Trade Commission a number of states and cities,
Speaker 1: and now Hamilton County, Ohio suing three pharmacy benefit managers
Speaker 1: at ECBs, care Mark, Express Scripts and optim Rx, as
Speaker 1: well as Eli, Lilly, Novo, Nordisk, and another manufacture. And
Speaker 1: those comprise about ninety six ninety seven percent of the
Speaker 1: insulin market. And the reason they're suing them is for
Speaker 1: allegedly fixing insulin and diabetes drug prices. So right now,
Speaker 1: if you look at the cost it would have cost
Speaker 1: them because about now less than are around two dollars
Speaker 1: a vile to make that sells for literally hundreds of
Speaker 1: times to that. We're talking one to three hundred times
Speaker 1: what the cost is. And the suit alleges illegal price manipulation.
Speaker 1: On this is County Commissioner Denise Treehouse. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the show, Denise. How are you.
Speaker 2: I'm good, good morning, Scott.
Speaker 1: Good Mark. You seem healthy. I'm healthy In this regard.
Speaker 1: I am not on insulin, and I also don't think
Speaker 1: I have anyone of my immediate family on insulin. But
Speaker 1: I hear the horror stories.
Speaker 2: Oh, there are many, many people that use insulin. It's
Speaker 2: a life saving drugs. And in Hamilton County we've got
Speaker 2: about eighty eight hundred county employees and family members that
Speaker 2: use insulin, and that.
Speaker 1: I believe is the highest drug category for coverage, right, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Fromenty twenty three to twenty twenty five, this diabetes medication
Speaker 2: was the single highest cost prescription drug category for the county.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what triggered the county to jump in this lawsuit?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 1: Was there a particular spiking costs complaints from employees or
Speaker 1: was it because the FTC settled with Express Scripts and said, hey,
Speaker 1: there's an opportunity here to go after the other pharmacy
Speaker 1: benefit managers and certainly the drug manufacturers.
Speaker 2: Well, prosecutor pillage this to our attention, to be fair,
Speaker 2: I didn't. This wasn't my idea, although I love the
Speaker 2: idea because other communities, as you just said, were waging lawsuits.
Speaker 2: They're about five hundred and fifty other entities, whether they're
Speaker 2: state cities, health plans and so they are, you know,
Speaker 2: weighing in on this, and we didn't want to miss
Speaker 2: the boat. It kind of reminds me of the opioid
Speaker 2: settlements where we were chewing and then we joined others
Speaker 2: in that lawsuit to bring some resources down to Hamilton County.
Speaker 1: All right, No, that makes sense. I know that the
Speaker 1: defendants here in this is in case the companies point
Speaker 1: out that previous insulin pricing cases have been dropped or
Speaker 1: lost or settled for no money. What makes you think
Speaker 1: this time is the magic charm, the magic bullet in
Speaker 1: Hamlin County and the other areas of successful days.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, we're not paying anything upfront to
Speaker 2: wage the lawsuit because we only pay if we win,
Speaker 2: and so much like the opioid settlement, right, so we're
Speaker 2: not no money lost to hear. But also what we
Speaker 2: know is that, as you said, the cost of insulin
Speaker 2: is skyrocketed, but the cost to produce insulin has gone down,
Speaker 2: and so we are waging that they are colluding. They
Speaker 2: are it's false price fixing, and so that's what we're
Speaker 2: saying in the lawsuit. And I think we've got a
Speaker 2: really good case in winning, as do five hundred and
Speaker 2: forty nine other jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in the drug manufacturer as they say that the
Speaker 1: out of pocket costs are pretty low. Lily's been claiming listen,
Speaker 1: it's like less than fifteen bucks a month on average.
Speaker 1: So if the math mass there, if employees aren't paying
Speaker 1: hundreds of per mile out of pocket, who's actually bearing
Speaker 1: the inflated costs? That's the big question is taxpayers to
Speaker 1: the county plan And that's why the county's evolved because
Speaker 1: this is taxpayer money.
Speaker 2: Well, we're paying thirteen million dollars for insulin coverage for
Speaker 2: the county. That's a lot of money. And if we
Speaker 2: can reduce that cost because we don't have these folks
Speaker 2: colluding about price fixing, then we reduce the cost to
Speaker 2: the county, and that translates the cost savings for the
Speaker 2: tax payers.
Speaker 1: The PBMs argue that they're actually the counterweight, that they
Speaker 1: balance pharmaceutical the pharmaceutical monopoly with this and that they
Speaker 1: can negotiate down prices. How would you respond to that?
Speaker 1: Why they included in the suit?
Speaker 2: Then well, that's that's a question for the prosecutor. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to be one.
Speaker 2: But the process.
Speaker 1: That's why I like you, Denise, That's why we like you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I only say what I know. But Connie and
Speaker 2: her team have identified the as you say, the drug
Speaker 2: manufacturers and the benefit managers as part of this lawsuit.
Speaker 2: I trust that, and I'm more than happy to pile
Speaker 2: on and say, yes, this sounds like a good idea.
Speaker 2: We need to go after these guys and say the
Speaker 2: taxpayer some money.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm calling you. You were right in the
Speaker 1: coach of Cokannie's doing all the talking. You were standing
Speaker 1: in the background. I like that. I like that. You're
Speaker 1: get a look crowdit for standing back there and ride
Speaker 1: the vape trail. She is Denniy's freehouse Hamlet County commissioner.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the county now jumping on the lawsuit bandwig.
Speaker 1: And no cost to the taxpayers either, because there's a
Speaker 1: contingency basis. They went to the back of the proverbial
Speaker 1: phone book and found lawyers out to think out of
Speaker 1: phillyre somewhere and said, Okay, we're going to try this
Speaker 1: as a class and it's Philadelphia. It's also, as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: other states are getting involved with US as well. I
Speaker 1: think Hamilton in the first county to do this, and
Speaker 1: they're upset about obviously high insulin prices. You need that
Speaker 1: to live, and the costs of production are dwarfed by
Speaker 1: the cost it actually winds up paying by taxpayers and
Speaker 1: those people who need that medicine to live. We're talking
Speaker 1: one hundred two hundred three hundred percent mark up on that,
Speaker 1: and that is the cause for the suit here too.
Speaker 1: But part of this is how much of this is
Speaker 1: should be at the federal government's feet though, you know,
Speaker 1: the opia you mentioned at the onset denise about this
Speaker 1: kind of models the opiate lawsuit. But you know, as
Speaker 1: I recall with opiate, it's one of the big problems,
Speaker 1: was it no one ever addressed was well, you know,
Speaker 1: the FDA mandated, the government mandated that pain be treated
Speaker 1: as a fifth vital sign, and so that encouraged the
Speaker 1: over prescription of these things that later the government said,
Speaker 1: well they're bad for you. Well, you had a hand
Speaker 1: of that, you drove that. I think the same thing
Speaker 1: is here. You know. The one of the big problems
Speaker 1: is patent ever greening. I'm out of here familiar with that,
Speaker 1: but the original patents expired a decade ago, and what
Speaker 1: they do is they just slightly reformulated to keep the
Speaker 1: patent alive to make more money. Is that something you
Speaker 1: can be cleaned up by Congress?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I think we should be tackling this
Speaker 2: at all levels, of course, but this one is you know,
Speaker 2: and by the way, we hope to be part of
Speaker 2: a multi jurisdictional litigation that's coming out of New Jersey.
Speaker 2: So that's what this is about.
Speaker 1: So we are.
Speaker 2: Filing it individually. And if we don't get to be
Speaker 2: part of the multi jurisdiction litification, that's fine, we'll pursue
Speaker 2: it on our own. But the idea here, much like
Speaker 2: the opioids, is to join together with others that are
Speaker 2: doing the same thing to bring down resources to our
Speaker 2: local community. If we don't file suit, we miss out.
Speaker 2: And why would we do that. I mean, you know
Speaker 2: so because so many others are in and yes, we
Speaker 2: should tackle this at all levels, but we don't want
Speaker 2: Hamilton County to be left out of you know, what's
Speaker 2: happened in many other states and jurisdictions.
Speaker 1: I always go on record, God, I always hate what
Speaker 1: politics is doing in this country right now because it's
Speaker 1: so mindless in bottom feeding and my side VI your side,
Speaker 1: And I'm not alleging you doing that, but I'd go
Speaker 1: back and go you know, this has been a problem
Speaker 1: for a long time. Why are we waiting until now
Speaker 1: to address it? Because this has been a problem under
Speaker 1: Republican administrations as well as Democrats. And the lawsuit targets
Speaker 1: PBS and manufactures. But like I said, you know, the
Speaker 1: rebate system we can get into that is the core problem.
Speaker 1: But like I said, you know, whether it's that or
Speaker 1: the patent issue, patent evergreening, or the PBM scheme that
Speaker 1: requires legislation to fix, not litigation, what's forcing Congress to
Speaker 1: actually do their job here other than going after the
Speaker 1: I guess the people are profiting it from which feels
Speaker 1: good and it's very very populous, but again it doesn't
Speaker 1: address the core issue, and that is government helped create
Speaker 1: this whole thing.
Speaker 2: Well, and I you know, I can't speak to why
Speaker 2: the government at the federal level is not acting on this.
Speaker 2: I mean I can't speak for them.
Speaker 1: No money is why they're not acting on it.
Speaker 2: Well, well, you know you have to ask them. And
Speaker 2: again I'm not going to speak for other people. But
Speaker 2: this litigation out of New Jersey is the prompt here.
Speaker 2: That is the reason for the action. Now there's something
Speaker 2: going on, it's got legs. We want to take advantage
Speaker 2: of that. We want to be part of it. And
Speaker 2: so that from my understanding, and again and prosecutor brought
Speaker 2: this to it, But that is a prompt on by
Speaker 2: way of timing, because there's something rolling down the tracks,
Speaker 2: and if we don't jump on and file suit, we
Speaker 2: miss and so we don't want to miss that. So
Speaker 2: the opportunity is now.
Speaker 1: Okay, if you win, though, get what you want in
Speaker 1: your fourth lower prices. What's going to prevent these companies
Speaker 1: from simply exiting the Ohio market.
Speaker 2: I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a third round. I don't know that
Speaker 1: they will, but that's a third round. Like, hey, if
Speaker 1: we can't make money off this, then we're out. We've
Speaker 1: seen that happen elsewhere and I don't know if that
Speaker 1: happened here or not, but that's that's pretty sobering. And
Speaker 1: then where you get your diabetes medication.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not suggesting that these companies shouldn't make money.
Speaker 2: We're saying that they shouldn't be colluding with one another
Speaker 2: to jack up prices on taxpayers. That's what we're saying.
Speaker 2: I mean, I am not used to be a small
Speaker 2: business owner, as I've told you before. So you know,
Speaker 2: businesses make money. That's fine, they've got their nets, they're
Speaker 2: selling insulin, that's great. But to collude and falsely elevate
Speaker 2: prices is something entirely different. And so that's what we're saying.
Speaker 2: We're not saying they shouldn't make money, and they will
Speaker 2: make money, but they shouldn't make as much as they
Speaker 2: are by colluding with one another.
Speaker 1: Gotcha, did you guys have to make going into this
Speaker 1: to Connie share with you what the estimate of potential
Speaker 1: recovery is here? How much money?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: I asked that question.
Speaker 2: So I just told you that we're spending about thirteen
Speaker 2: million for this cost of account. It's a lot of money,
Speaker 2: and so I mean, I don't know the answer to that,
Speaker 2: but if it's a few millions, that's really meaningful in
Speaker 2: a budget that's you know, strained and will be strained
Speaker 2: last year, it'll be strained next year. But any money
Speaker 2: that we can find to help with that is going
Speaker 2: to be to our benefits.
Speaker 1: For sure, who would get the money? Does go back
Speaker 1: in the general fund? Does it? Does it go directly
Speaker 1: towards prescription prices and offset with the county pays? Does
Speaker 1: it go to to the Bengals? Where's the money going somehow?
Speaker 1: Wait there, I think Mike Brown gets a percentage. I
Speaker 1: don't know how this sits. Apparently in the master agreement.
Speaker 2: Is your preoccupation with the bankers? But no, no, it'll
Speaker 2: go into the general fund. And so then we have
Speaker 2: to make a decision commissioners. You know, the general fund
Speaker 2: pays for the deputies for for nine to one one
Speaker 2: call takers. Are all the things that we've always talked about.
Speaker 2: Or is it a benefit to those that are in
Speaker 2: the benefits system the healthcare system of the county. And
Speaker 2: do we offer some relief somewhere else for our employees
Speaker 2: or do we put it more towards the general fund
Speaker 2: for more general purposes. And that's something we'll have to
Speaker 2: decide down the road.
Speaker 1: If this is successful, does that open the door for
Speaker 1: other suits for other things that might be expensive? I mean,
Speaker 1: do you just continue this path? I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: a bad path, but what open mind? Hey, we got
Speaker 1: money we're able to fix this, what's next.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we always should be open to an
Speaker 2: opportunity when there's a big suit going on in multi
Speaker 2: jurisdiction litigation, I think we should always be open to
Speaker 2: piling on it is worthy, right, if it's worthy of
Speaker 2: our attention. Again, we're not paying any money to do
Speaker 2: this right now. It's on a contingent basis, So that's
Speaker 2: the good news for the taxpayers. But yeah, I don't
Speaker 2: know why we wouldn't look for opportunities to write size
Speaker 2: things in Hamilton County. But again, you know, I'm not
Speaker 2: the prosecutor, and so the prosecutor's job literally is to
Speaker 2: file these actions with the support of the Commission, and
Speaker 2: so that's what we're doing here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean this has been a let's face it,
Speaker 1: back to politics. This has been a talking point for
Speaker 1: Democrats for a long long time. I mean, it used
Speaker 1: to be the insulin cost two dollars to make. That's
Speaker 1: been thrown around for a long long time. And now
Speaker 1: we're there's action on this. And you know, obviously Democrats
Speaker 1: get hammered on cost of living issues, and now that's
Speaker 1: starting to turn the other way. But you know, I
Speaker 1: think this is maybe a populist idea here that has
Speaker 1: some legs, and find out exactly if you can get
Speaker 1: some money back from these companies. I just wonder, why
Speaker 1: don't we just address the route. As you said, that's
Speaker 1: outside of your scope as a commissioner. I appreciate and
Speaker 1: understand that. I think we're both frustrated with the system
Speaker 1: the way it is right now, especially with healthcare. I
Speaker 1: don't know if this fixes it, but it does cost
Speaker 1: some of that money back, because you know, if you
Speaker 1: need insulin to live and you can't afford it, that's
Speaker 1: a huge problem. And also that thirteen million dollars that
Speaker 1: the county pays, and these are for people who have
Speaker 1: coverage because they work for the county. There's so many
Speaker 1: people that don't, and that's a scary part well.
Speaker 2: And you know, we don't want these companies taking advantage of,
Speaker 2: you know, providing a drug that's life saving to people
Speaker 2: in our community. I mean it's insulting, I think. And
Speaker 2: so when you particularly when you talk about insulin, because
Speaker 2: it's not like this is some drug that people may
Speaker 2: or may not want to use. This is life saving.
Speaker 2: People need the drug. And to to collude over the
Speaker 2: prices of insulin I think is an insult. I really do.
Speaker 2: And so we're holding the companies accountable.
Speaker 5: I think that's what we should do.
Speaker 2: I think that's what frankly, people expect of their elected officials.
Speaker 2: And so you know what we're doing it the time
Speaker 2: is right. I can't really speak to the timing otherwise,
Speaker 2: but I know that the timing is right here to
Speaker 2: join this suit coming out of New Jersey, and so
Speaker 2: that's what we're doing.
Speaker 1: Do you believe there's a collusion going on or is
Speaker 1: that is that a fact?
Speaker 2: Has it been proven that that is what is being alleged.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a tough one to prove that they're all
Speaker 1: in on this together than saying, hey, it costs what
Speaker 1: a cost? And the way the system is set up
Speaker 1: that that those who regulate the system allowed this to occur.
Speaker 1: I think it'd be more of an indictment of the
Speaker 1: of the politics of those again above us in Washington
Speaker 1: versus the companies themselves. They've they've got to find a
Speaker 1: way to make money, and it's kind of like you know,
Speaker 1: the cries over you know, billionaires paying too few tax
Speaker 1: as well, Okay, then fix the system, close those loopholes
Speaker 1: that you allege are there. That's why are you beating
Speaker 1: down on the people who are smart enough to figure
Speaker 1: that out.
Speaker 2: I agree, But we just talked about the cost of
Speaker 2: producing insulin going down, and yet the cost of buying
Speaker 2: it is going up. So there's something going on here.
Speaker 2: I think that doesn't make sense, and so I agree
Speaker 2: with you that you know.
Speaker 4: These are broader issues.
Speaker 2: We can do what we can do here in Hamilton
Speaker 2: County to protect the taxpayers here. That's my job and
Speaker 2: that's what we're trying to do. And you know, it's
Speaker 2: not as if others don't see what's happening. I mean,
Speaker 2: five hundred and fifty other jurisdictions of files too. So
Speaker 2: this is a big movement and certainly people are paying attention.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's on the heels of tobacco. It's on the
Speaker 1: heels of the opiate issue as well, and this certainly
Speaker 1: fits into that category. Is like, the next thing is
Speaker 1: affordable drugs Insulin for crying outline. I mean, there's other
Speaker 1: drugs out there. I think, like you know, the EpiPen thing.
Speaker 1: Epinephrine is another in that effects far fewer people than
Speaker 1: than insulin. But i'd imagine if this is successful, that
Speaker 1: might be something that would be explored. It's a life
Speaker 1: saving medication that you need. And you know, we heard
Speaker 1: that for a long time. It's like, well they only
Speaker 1: last I forgot what is ninety days or six months
Speaker 1: or something like that, and we've got to throw them
Speaker 1: out and get a new one and it's just simply
Speaker 1: not affordable. We don't heard those crises as much anymore.
Speaker 1: There are some I think there was some regulation that's
Speaker 1: been done, but you know, there are plenty of drugs
Speaker 1: out there that you could wind up going after as
Speaker 1: a result of this.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, and epiethin's are extremely expensive. So I've
Speaker 2: got some personal experience with one of my relatives, right,
Speaker 2: So yeah, I mean, I agree with you. And let's
Speaker 2: not forget though that the benefit and this is a
Speaker 2: little different from the opioid settlement money, but those dollars
Speaker 2: that we are investing now because we were successful and
Speaker 2: that lawsuit, are going directly into Hamilton County to save
Speaker 2: lives and get people into treatment. I mean so, and
Speaker 2: then it's coming through the foundation at the state level,
Speaker 2: but there are direct payments coming to Hamilton County and
Speaker 2: other jurisdictions in Hamilton County to the benefit of our constituents.
Speaker 2: So this is real. The benefits are real. This is
Speaker 2: a little different because it's going to the general fund,
Speaker 2: but those are taxpayer dollars and so you know, I
Speaker 2: just don't want to understate that there's a real benefit
Speaker 2: here if we win and there's no cast involved to
Speaker 2: do it, so you know, again, to me, it's just
Speaker 2: a win win situation. So yeah, but the benefits can
Speaker 2: be real and seen on the ground.
Speaker 1: Has this fir amount in New Jersey? Have the litigators
Speaker 1: giving you a timeline? No?
Speaker 2: I asked that question too, and you know how attorneys are.
Speaker 2: They were, Oh, yeah, not sure, you know we're doing
Speaker 2: like all right, all right, I get it. So yeah, no,
Speaker 2: I'm you know, I'm not an attorney, and I'm not
Speaker 2: I'm not disappointed by it.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, well, I'm Suna. There's plenty attorneys out there,
Speaker 1: some of our good friends of mine, and then there's
Speaker 1: people like yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, get it. Hey, Denise,
Speaker 1: thanks for jumping on this morning. Answer the question certainly
Speaker 1: an interesting perspective. We're going to talk about this a
Speaker 1: little bit behind your back, if you don't mind, we'll
Speaker 1: get some calls and from people affected by this, and
Speaker 1: you have a wonderful day. Thanks again for jumping on.
Speaker 2: Hey can I ask you something?
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: Yes, So, I don't know how much time we have,
Speaker 2: but we did do a big dedication yesterday out at
Speaker 2: in Bonds Hill for the big building, the Mercy Building
Speaker 2: out there.
Speaker 1: Yes, right right right, yeah, yeah, please go ahead, yeah yeah.
Speaker 2: So two days we named the street going up to
Speaker 2: the building, Pat McCollum Way. This is a named after
Speaker 2: a woman that took in many, many kids in our
Speaker 2: community both foster care adoptive care, and was tragically killed
Speaker 2: not so long ago, and so we named the street
Speaker 2: after her because of the nexus with jobs and family services,
Speaker 2: so we wanted to honor her legacy through naming the street.
Speaker 2: But the building itself was owned by Mercy. We now
Speaker 2: have it. It's a consolidation of county services up in
Speaker 2: one site, so lots of efficiencies here for jff d D,
Speaker 2: public health, addiction response, environmental services, and veteran services are
Speaker 2: going to be up there. So it's centrally located in
Speaker 2: the county. And I just want to say there's free parking.
Speaker 2: There's free parking at this facility. There are a thousand
Speaker 2: spots out there, and so you don't I always hear
Speaker 2: about the cost of parking, how terrible it is to
Speaker 2: come downtown. That is no longer the case, and so
Speaker 2: we're very excited about this. It's accessible to people that
Speaker 2: need that kind of access, particularly veterans. So we're really
Speaker 2: excited about the opening of the building and we dedicated
Speaker 2: it yesterday.
Speaker 1: You know, we were texting back and forth. I completely
Speaker 1: forgot because I'm stupid to mention. I'm glad you brought
Speaker 1: that up because I wanted to definitely get a plug
Speaker 1: in for that six I think sixty million dollars is
Speaker 1: the cost. Now you also have this is the other
Speaker 1: hard part here is this huge levey on the ballot
Speaker 1: for children's services. But love to revisit that maybe the
Speaker 1: later date because those two things go together. You got
Speaker 1: the building, but now you got a fund.
Speaker 2: Well, the other thing is that we're getting out of
Speaker 2: a bunch of different buildings because of all those departments.
Speaker 2: We're in different buildings all over the city and so
Speaker 2: as we just like the alms and depky Downtown is
Speaker 2: a good example of it that is now going to
Speaker 2: be converted into housing, as will a property up in
Speaker 2: Walnut Hills, and so it's really great for the communities
Speaker 2: because we're and you see this all over the country,
Speaker 2: we're converting office space into residential and we need residential.
Speaker 2: So it's just really a great move for the county
Speaker 2: and it's going to save money.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm sure we'll talk about that a later
Speaker 1: date with the love come up and Denise all the best.
Speaker 1: Thanks for jumping on. I appreciate you. Yeah, sure, all right,
Speaker 1: got right, let me get a news update in. I
Speaker 1: want to talk if you're on the insulin. I'm just
Speaker 1: curious because I don't have anyone in my family that is.
Speaker 1: And that's a blessing for sure, because I know how
Speaker 1: hard that is being diabetic. But the impact of that,
Speaker 1: I'm your wallet. And also if you think this is
Speaker 1: a good idea ensuing the drug companies to get the
Speaker 1: price of insulin down, we'll talk about that, dex. I'll
Speaker 1: give you some reasons as to why you know this,
Speaker 1: this whole scenario exists. I mentioned the government getting involved
Speaker 1: in regulation that can easily fix on the men easily
Speaker 1: but fixed by Congress. I want to touch on that
Speaker 1: in just minutes and We'll get your phone calls in
Speaker 1: at five one, three, seven four nine, seven thousand, iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: and seven hundred w WIT Cincinnati's on Procter and Gamble.
Speaker 1: If you've got someone there you would like for us
Speaker 1: to recognize on the air, just text us their name
Speaker 1: at five one eight eight one and be listening here
Speaker 1: on seven hundred WWT. Here we go, Sloanly on seven
Speaker 1: hundred WLW thanks to Commission Denise three House jumping on
Speaker 1: the show this morning talking about this lawsuit involving Prescription
Speaker 1: Benefit MATP Pharmacy Benefit Match, I should say, and three
Speaker 1: drug manufacturers for allegedly fixing insulin and diabetes drug prices.
Speaker 1: That there's collusion between the three is the alegation collusion?
Speaker 1: We got collusion because insulin costs two dollars a vile
Speaker 1: to make. That's a manufacturing cost. A mark up on
Speaker 1: this thing costs the county thirteen million dollars for the
Speaker 1: eighty eight hundred employees under its healthcare coverage, by far
Speaker 1: the highest drug category cost and outline for them. And
Speaker 1: so this on the heels of the FDC. The Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission just settled with Express Scripts requiring business practice
Speaker 1: changes and the like, and so they said this kind
Speaker 1: of set the pattern. They settled. They see an opening.
Speaker 1: They also look at the opioid crisis litigation against drug
Speaker 1: distributors and say, there's money to be regained for at
Speaker 1: least the people here in this case, not what they
Speaker 1: do with the money, the commissioners, who knows, but to
Speaker 1: try and cls some of that money back. It is
Speaker 1: a much much deeper issue. However, like anything like this,
Speaker 1: than just going well, there are a bunch of crooks. Look,
Speaker 1: we all pay a lot for prescription medication. Okay. I
Speaker 1: am not a big fan of pharmacy benefit managers, even
Speaker 1: though we have one here at iHeart and I'm lucky
Speaker 1: to have it. Also not a you know, a fan
Speaker 1: of people who are out to, you know, try to
Speaker 1: make as much money as possible where you know, in
Speaker 1: a fact where you're you're it's almost confiscatory. Listen, I'm
Speaker 1: fine with profit, but you here are three hundred percent profit.
Speaker 1: I hear that, and I go, okay, yeah, who wants
Speaker 1: you know, profiteering and exploitation. I get all that, but
Speaker 1: is this something that's being litigated that should be solved
Speaker 1: by legislative needs? So we're litigating instead of legislating. And
Speaker 1: again back to my central gripe here about government that
Speaker 1: we've lost sight of because we're so polarized and entrenched in,
Speaker 1: you know, being ultra progressive and everything that you know,
Speaker 1: the the party or everything that ultra progressive believe it.
Speaker 1: I have to believe so even though I think maybe
Speaker 1: deep inside it's wrong, and I would say in the
Speaker 1: same is true for MAGA, which you'll hear about later on.
Speaker 1: President Trump is proposing a ten percent cap on APR
Speaker 1: credit card rates. We'll get into that eleven oh seven
Speaker 1: on the show, and maybe a five time a little
Speaker 1: bit more. Here is kind of the tease. But and
Speaker 1: you gut to step back and think of that, going, well,
Speaker 1: what is that sound? Well, our guy, our team's champion,
Speaker 1: so it must be right. You know. Sometimes I think
Speaker 1: the problems we've got to step back and think for
Speaker 1: ourselves and go, yeah, isn't this going to cause more problem?
Speaker 1: Or in this case with insulin, okay, is that really
Speaker 1: driving it? Are they really mustache twirling, corporate, greedy Robert
Speaker 1: drug Robert barons that are to fleece us of every
Speaker 1: dime just to keep us alive? I mean, it feels
Speaker 1: that way and it makes a good theater, but there's
Speaker 1: that reality. You know what I mentioned with the denise
Speaker 1: the patient evergreening thing, So what happens is insulin's barrown
Speaker 1: for a long time, so original insulin patients, that patent
Speaker 1: expired decades ago, and so you know, you can get
Speaker 1: a generic human insulin and it's like twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: bucks at like place like Walmart, for example. But what
Speaker 1: they keep doing is tweaking the formulation in order to
Speaker 1: restart the patent. So if you make a little change
Speaker 1: to it, it restarts the patent, and now you're on
Speaker 1: the clock again. Now they say it's new and improved,
Speaker 1: and I know that Lily has improved their product multiple
Speaker 1: times since the nineties, and each tweak extends that patent protection.
Speaker 1: But the drugs themselves are just marginally better than the
Speaker 1: previous version, you know, things like are faster acting, or
Speaker 1: they stabilize your blood sugar more or something like that.
Speaker 1: So you're locked in that version. It's legal, but it
Speaker 1: feels exploitative. The pharmacy benefit scheme through the middleman problem, right,
Speaker 1: and this is where it gets really crazy, is the
Speaker 1: pharmacy benefit managers. These are your care marks, your express
Speaker 1: scripture optims. They are between manufacturers, insurance, and pharmacy. So
Speaker 1: they negotiate these rebates that manufacturers set at a hireless price,
Speaker 1: and that gives the PBM kind of a kickback if
Speaker 1: you'l So, for example, if the price and insulance, like
Speaker 1: I don't know, the tag on it, like a car,
Speaker 1: is three hundred dollars, the pharmacy benefit manager quote unquote
Speaker 1: negotiates one hundred and fifty dollars rebates, so it's one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty dollars net cost. The problem is the
Speaker 1: benefit manager's pocket summer most of that rebate instead of
Speaker 1: passing the savings onto patients or insurers. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: all for making a profit, but what are we doing here.
Speaker 1: You're artificial and fronting the cost here. So the manufacturers
Speaker 1: have to participate because hireless prices mean higher rebates, and
Speaker 1: you could see this whole race to the top, and
Speaker 1: it's kind of like a perverse incentive here for drugs
Speaker 1: that keep you alive right now, And this is another
Speaker 1: problem that the government can solve, because government largely is
Speaker 1: the problem here. There are three companies that are being
Speaker 1: sued those are the three companies controlled like ninety six
Speaker 1: ninety seven percent of the insulin market across the globe
Speaker 1: by the way around the world. Question to be okay
Speaker 1: with there's so much money in this, why is there
Speaker 1: more competition? There's lots kind of be because there are
Speaker 1: higher regulatory barriers, the clinical trials expensive because the testing
Speaker 1: process is very, very thorough and very expensive, and that's
Speaker 1: also driving this whole thing up as well. So in
Speaker 1: my book, and insurance certainly covers Insulnza, patients still see
Speaker 1: the true cost until they hit their deductibles, and there's
Speaker 1: no normal market pressure, so all of these artificial layers
Speaker 1: in the market are what's causing the prices to be
Speaker 1: absolutely outrageous in people who are going without their medication
Speaker 1: to save their lives. It's also a huge regulatory failure.
Speaker 1: I mentioned the opioid crisis. No one mentions it's driven
Speaker 1: was driven entirely by the FDA. It's like, why did
Speaker 1: so many physicians start writing it? Is it because of
Speaker 1: the evil people that are creating the drug? And they're
Speaker 1: looking the other way somewhat because you know, there's greed
Speaker 1: there and government is supposed to check that, not encourage it.
Speaker 1: What happened though, was the government said, oh, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know what, pain is a fifth vital sign, let's just okay. Well,
Speaker 1: then if that's the case and we can't allow people
Speaker 1: to be in pain, what the hell do you think
Speaker 1: doctors are going to do if it's being kind of
Speaker 1: up to some degree by the manufacturer, like the addictive
Speaker 1: nature of it, and the government's going, yeah, let's go
Speaker 1: all in. Isn't the FDA's job to make sure this
Speaker 1: stuff is safe before we put in our bodies. And
Speaker 1: it happens all the time, you know, the drug comes
Speaker 1: out and oh, everybody take it, and then wait a minute,
Speaker 1: I'm growing a third nipple on my forehead. Well then
Speaker 1: they turn around and go The FDA goes, we're going
Speaker 1: after the manufacturer. We're stopping them from gouging consumers and
Speaker 1: creating third nipples. You guys are supposed to be the
Speaker 1: police here. You're supposed to be responsible making sure that
Speaker 1: didn't happen. Where's your liability in this, not us or
Speaker 1: the government. We're here to help. So the regulatory failure,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, the FDA approval, it's expensive, it's slow,
Speaker 1: there's no price controls, that starts driving this whole thing.
Speaker 1: So it's yeah, I get it, there's greed involved. We
Speaker 1: know that business people are greedy, they want more market share.
Speaker 1: I understand that we know that that is a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 1: But how about it demanding our government be more referee
Speaker 1: and less encouraging that kind of behavior. A lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff could be cleaned up if Congress actually showed
Speaker 1: up and did their job. I know that's that's unique,
Speaker 1: considering they shut down for a little bit on Monday
Speaker 1: Tuesday over whatever it is this week. Maybe you see
Speaker 1: these people are running for Congress. Maybe i'd just say,
Speaker 1: you know, what, are you gonna keep the government open?
Speaker 1: Are you actually gonna do something besides campaign? Because that's
Speaker 1: all I see. I see ads all the time. I'm
Speaker 1: getting my phone blown up all the John Housteed's texting
Speaker 1: me twenty four to seven about voting. Okay, great, but
Speaker 1: what for what what are you guys doing? Are you
Speaker 1: actually getting your asses and like doing anything legislatively or
Speaker 1: just letting Trump signed executive orders and you're sitting back
Speaker 1: at in the check five three, seven, four, nine, seven,
Speaker 1: eight hundred the Big One talk back iHeartRadio app So
Speaker 1: maybe you're on insulin. A loved one is how how
Speaker 1: hard is it? So I said, I don't have experience
Speaker 1: in this myself. I'm blessed. Families blessed. We don't have
Speaker 1: people with the sugar. Have some few online friends it
Speaker 1: might have that issue, but we don't really talk about
Speaker 1: insulin prices. And like, I'm curious how this is impacting
Speaker 1: you and your take on this whole lawsuit. Let's go
Speaker 1: to Rick and Clean. You searched up this morning on
Speaker 1: the Scot Salon show. Rick welcome, How are you brother?
Speaker 1: Big Ricky with me?
Speaker 5: Rick?
Speaker 4: Quick?
Speaker 1: Quick?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 6: Rick?
Speaker 1: What's going on?
Speaker 3: Not much? But I'm not from Cleaves?
Speaker 1: Okay, duly noted. I'll put that on the record. Dave
Speaker 1: put that on the official record. Rick is not from Cleaves.
Speaker 1: But are you on insulin?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Sir, all right, so we're one for two. That'll get
Speaker 1: you in the Hall of Fame. What's your how how
Speaker 1: much is it costume? Is it the point where you
Speaker 1: can't afford it?
Speaker 3: H No, I'm actually pretty lucky. I got a good
Speaker 3: retirement ood, but it cost me thirty five dollars a
Speaker 3: month and that went down about three or four years ago.
Speaker 3: Gotcha under Biden. Now, last year, my needles that I
Speaker 3: need to use to get the insulin out of the
Speaker 3: pens rocketed. They went from being free for twenty years.
Speaker 3: As soon as I'd order insulin, I'd get the box
Speaker 3: of pens, right, and I went last year and they
Speaker 3: for one hundred pitner needles. I'm sorry for under needles.
Speaker 3: It was costing me, are gonna cost me eighty dollars
Speaker 3: until I complained, and then they quickly brought it down.
Speaker 1: No h.
Speaker 3: Card like h R X card. They just brought it
Speaker 3: down to like seven dollars.
Speaker 1: And now and now it's almost like it's almost like damn,
Speaker 1: you know, damn close to one thousand dollars just for
Speaker 1: the just for the syringes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's it's more expense like the it's like the printer
Speaker 1: and turner cartridge scheme.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that that has since come down. I just I
Speaker 3: just got needles probably a month ago, and they're like
Speaker 3: ten bucks. But like I say, uh, I used to
Speaker 3: get them for free as soon as I order the insulent,
Speaker 3: that needles would come with it. Yeah, I had no charge.
Speaker 3: And also on my oral uh By beds medicine, and
Speaker 3: it actually went up too, so the insulin came down
Speaker 3: and everything else.
Speaker 1: But those companies that did do these syringes for they're
Speaker 1: not the same ones that may make the drugs, so
Speaker 1: as I can never really go, well, they're just you know,
Speaker 1: they're switching profit one profit for the other. They're taking
Speaker 1: a hit here on the insulin, but we'll charge you
Speaker 1: more for the syringes, but it's a different company makes host.
Speaker 3: That is true.
Speaker 1: I wonder if that's the pharmacy benefit people though, figuring, hey,
Speaker 1: we got to make our money up. We'll just gouge
Speaker 1: on the on the on the uh, you know, on
Speaker 1: the supplies to administer the drugs. It could very well
Speaker 1: be rick thanks to the call. That's I mean, that's
Speaker 1: something to think about. Okay, we'll cut this up. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's like if they said, hey, you're only
Speaker 1: allowed to sell a gun for I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't know why they would do this, but yeah, five
Speaker 1: hundred dollars, okay, one hundred dollars okay, great, Well, now
Speaker 1: the bullet's gonna cost ten times there because we got
Speaker 1: to make up the difference. I guess if if guns
Speaker 1: were indeed covered by your health insurance, I'm not quite
Speaker 1: sure if there are any plans out there that got
Speaker 1: that one. I have to look that one up. I
Speaker 1: mean guess probably not, probably not bad bad analogy, but
Speaker 1: you get the idea. You get the idea where we're going. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mentioned him complaining about, you know, complaining about the
Speaker 1: government not doing their job. And of course today the
Speaker 1: Senate has a test vote. I don't know any to
Speaker 1: test vote on the partial shutdown. Maybe it's a test
Speaker 1: boat to go. You know, we've been in competent for
Speaker 1: so long we forgot how to do this. Well, you
Speaker 1: had all the ads vote for me. Well wait, the
Speaker 1: last guys said vote for me or re eluct me.
Speaker 1: Why you haven't done anything? You guys are off half
Speaker 1: the year and then when you're supposed to be there,
Speaker 1: you're shutting the government down over different causes. On the
Speaker 1: left hand the right side, what are you guys, what
Speaker 1: are we hiring you to do? Exactly? Maybe we got
Speaker 1: to start examining that on a lawsuit. Maybe we Denise
Speaker 1: get together on that one. It's five three, seven, four, nine,
Speaker 1: seven thousand, the big one talk back iHeartRadio app And
Speaker 1: that is the problem, of course, is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: drug prices are just they're insane for everybody in healthcare
Speaker 1: and that Johnny, I know I talk often about that,
Speaker 1: but that is such a core critical issue in my
Speaker 1: opinion because it affects everybody. Like previous caller Rick there
Speaker 1: for not from Cleaves was you know, he's retired, I'm working,
Speaker 1: I got healthcare. Maybe you are on Obamacare or maybe
Speaker 1: you don't have insurance right now. You know, if you
Speaker 1: are someone who is part of this gig economy, and
Speaker 1: it just blows me away just how steadfast around the
Speaker 1: way we've always done things and how slow things are
Speaker 1: to change, despite younger people coming into power seemingly more
Speaker 1: and more every year, how much stays the same in
Speaker 1: that regard is that, you know, we have this untapped
Speaker 1: potential in America when it comes to healthcare. And you've
Speaker 1: heard me drawn on and on about this, but a
Speaker 1: great example is the gig economy. You know, so many
Speaker 1: people are working side hustles and the side hustle became
Speaker 1: main hustles and the side hustles have side hustles, and
Speaker 1: it's it's it's kind of frightening in a way, how
Speaker 1: quickly it's all changed from Hey, I have an employer.
Speaker 1: I got my healthcare too, all right. I can go
Speaker 1: out and door dash, or I can go out and
Speaker 1: whatever it is I'm doing on the side to make
Speaker 1: a little extra cash because I need it. Or how
Speaker 1: many people cobble together a bunch of those kind of
Speaker 1: things because they have severe ADHD like me and go, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm just not married to one job.
Speaker 1: I got do a bunch of different things. It'd be
Speaker 1: great if you could take your health care with you.
Speaker 1: It'd be great if you didn't have to rely on
Speaker 1: an employer for that, or you know, a bloated government
Speaker 1: where I have to have subsidies because it's not affordable.
Speaker 1: The affordable character is anything, but it's extremely expensive. It's
Speaker 1: just like you're getting a subsidy. You're getting a coupon
Speaker 1: paid five paid before by the American taxpayer to get
Speaker 1: that healthcare doesn't really address the issue. You know, we
Speaker 1: gave you the medicine, but we have the cure and
Speaker 1: we refuse to use the cure. That's really what's driving
Speaker 1: this whole thing. We're going to time out in coming
Speaker 1: up next on the show on seven hundred WLW and
Speaker 1: interesting A lighter case here by the way out of
Speaker 1: a Newark, Ohio. And it involves a man who, speaking
Speaker 1: of government intervention, simply wants to enjoy his life and
Speaker 1: make his own bourbon. You know there's a law against
Speaker 1: that that he might go to federal prison. I really
Speaker 1: visit the story a few times. I like just keeping
Speaker 1: on top of these to revisit these stories like this,
Speaker 1: and I will in just a second of Bob Alt
Speaker 1: from Buckeye Institute in Columbus. But you know, it's on
Speaker 1: the heels of the whole CBD beverage band, Like why
Speaker 1: are we doing that? So many people enjoy it, they
Speaker 1: like it. It seems to be a better alternative to
Speaker 1: alcohol for a lot of people. It's the fastest growing
Speaker 1: segment as far as beverages go, and craft beer is
Speaker 1: fading and THHG and fuse beverages are exploding. And yet
Speaker 1: the federal government and the state government don't want any
Speaker 1: part of it because well, it's a vice and we
Speaker 1: can't have that. And no, Ohio, that's problematic. But the
Speaker 1: idea that like, Okay, I can make my own beer.
Speaker 1: I could make my own my grandfather, you grandpa used
Speaker 1: to make dandelion wine. Uh, And as I recall it
Speaker 1: was awful and I didn't live because I was a
Speaker 1: little kid then, but I remember my dad going, it's
Speaker 1: just as awful. It's an acquired taste from the home country,
Speaker 1: from Italy, the Paizon making his dandelion wine or whatever
Speaker 1: it was. You can do that. You can't make your
Speaker 1: on Burt, Why why not? It gets back to you
Speaker 1: don't big government doing what they do, and that has
Speaker 1: overshadow everything we do. If you just opened it up,
Speaker 1: let it roll, I think we'd be much better off. Really,
Speaker 1: that is a central theme here on The Scots Loan
Speaker 1: Show and the Home of the Red seven hundred WW.
Speaker 7: Since then you want to be Americ?
Speaker 1: Good morning, Scott Floon Show on seven hundred wallswts question,
Speaker 1: will you be willing to go to prison for your hobby?
Speaker 1: Guy's name is James Reem, and mister Reem lives in Newark, Ohio,
Speaker 1: dress up the road from us and he wants to
Speaker 1: distill small qualities of alcohol. He likes bourbon, he likes rye,
Speaker 1: he likes whiskey, and uh yes, fascination with brewing. Owns
Speaker 1: a Burrow Mini Broad micro burw as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: and I wants to make some alcohol own home for
Speaker 1: his personal consumption. If he decides he's going to do that,
Speaker 1: he is subject to felony conviction ten thousand dollars in fines.
Speaker 1: We're talking about five years in prison, longer than a
Speaker 1: murderer might get simply because he is making his own
Speaker 1: distilling his own alcohol in his own home for his
Speaker 1: own use, not giving it away, certainly, not selling it,
Speaker 1: but of his own use. That is a crime in America,
Speaker 1: and I think that is a crime overall. Robert Alt
Speaker 1: is President and chief executive officer of the Buckeye Institute
Speaker 1: in Columbus. Let's talk about John Reems case here. He
Speaker 1: lives in Newark, Ohio, retired engineer, I think, and he
Speaker 1: owns a micro brewer. And his wife said, hey, you
Speaker 1: know what, here, here you go. Here's a home brewing kid.
Speaker 1: He does that making money. It's great. It's called trek brewing,
Speaker 1: by the way, and now wants to get into home distilling.
Speaker 1: Why is that illegal?
Speaker 4: That's a darn good question. And the answer is, there's
Speaker 4: a there is a law on the book. This is
Speaker 4: a federal law. This isn't the state law which prohibits
Speaker 4: you from distilling any alcohol. For for consumption in your
Speaker 4: own home, even if you don't sell it, even if
Speaker 4: you're just doing it as a hobby. So you can.
Speaker 1: You can make beer in your own home.
Speaker 4: That's perfectly legal. You commit find in your own home.
Speaker 4: I don't necessarily advise it. I don't know if I've
Speaker 4: ever had good homemade one, but you can do it.
Speaker 4: But if you make any amount of whiskey, it's a felony.
Speaker 4: And not only you listed off these penalties on the
Speaker 4: website for the enforcement agency, they they make clear not
Speaker 4: only can you get fined, not only can you get
Speaker 4: imprisonment imprisonment, but they'll go after your house. They'll go
Speaker 4: after wherever it is that you were engaging in this
Speaker 4: unlawful conduct and potentially try and seize that as well.
Speaker 4: The penalties here are absolutely draconian. But the real issue
Speaker 4: here is how is it that the federal government has
Speaker 4: the authority to go ahead and regulate what you do
Speaker 4: in your your own home as a hobby. If they
Speaker 4: can regulate this, there's literally nothing that the federal government
Speaker 4: can't regulate.
Speaker 1: It's a victim of crime. Now, if you sell it
Speaker 1: distributed to get maybe there's something there. But if you
Speaker 1: make something, whether it's alcohol, whether it's bread, whether it's
Speaker 1: a pie, then the only person you're gonna harm is
Speaker 1: yourself if you get it wrong. Does this law let's
Speaker 1: go back in history, is this Does this stem from
Speaker 1: prohibition when people were literally poisoning others but with things
Speaker 1: like best of gin.
Speaker 4: This actually the law I believe actually predates prohibition. But
Speaker 4: you know, if we're concerned about regulating the production of
Speaker 4: alcohol for public safety, you know who's actually really good
Speaker 4: at do it at handling these sorts of regulations are
Speaker 4: the states, and in fact the Constitution of the under
Speaker 4: the twenty first Amendment, the states have you know, special
Speaker 4: authority to regulate in this space. Uh. And if you
Speaker 4: take a look, I mean Ohio regulates in this space.
Speaker 4: But I'll Hio actually doesn't have any.
Speaker 1: Prohibition on home distilling.
Speaker 4: There are some states that do in addition to the
Speaker 4: federal government, but Ohio doesn't. And so there's really just
Speaker 4: no purpose for this law.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe there was a time where people get
Speaker 1: sick in poison and maybe that stems from this, but
Speaker 1: now it just reaks it protection. Because we have science,
Speaker 1: you know, you could learn how to do anything really
Speaker 1: in the comfort of your own home, if you're going
Speaker 1: to use it for your own consumption, or if you're
Speaker 1: you know, if you're a neighbor like, hey, I'd like
Speaker 1: to try some of your whiskey. As long as money's
Speaker 1: not changing hands, there's no violation. But if he wanted
Speaker 1: to do this, would he then have to go through
Speaker 1: the process of getting a federal license? And what does
Speaker 1: that look like?
Speaker 4: So he would have to get a federal license, he's
Speaker 4: actually lawfully prohibited under the statute. It is not permissible
Speaker 4: to distill in your own home, and the statue is
Speaker 4: written in a very bizarre fashion. If you happen to
Speaker 4: have a large piece of property and potentially had a
Speaker 4: shanty way out in the woods, perhaps that would be lawful.
Speaker 4: But if you're trying to do so where most people
Speaker 4: are going to actually try and engage in this, if
Speaker 4: they're doing as a hobby, you know, in your own home,
Speaker 4: say in your basement or in your garage, that you
Speaker 4: can't get a permit to do that. And if you
Speaker 4: if you engage in distilling without a permit, that will
Speaker 4: rack you up felony felony charges.
Speaker 1: I go to this.
Speaker 4: The big question here is, you know you take a look,
Speaker 4: and you would ask the question, how is it that Congress.
Speaker 1: Has the authority to regulate this?
Speaker 4: To begin with, Congress only has limited and enumerated powers
Speaker 4: on the Constitution. They can't just regulate anything willy nilly.
Speaker 4: And so the big claim that they make here is
Speaker 4: that they're regulating interstate commerce. But this is a situation
Speaker 4: in which they're regulating something which is neither commerce nor
Speaker 4: interstate I mean, literally, what's happening in the confines of
Speaker 4: your own home. If they can regulate this, they could
Speaker 4: regulate bread baking, they could regulate your having a home garden.
Speaker 4: It really doesn't matter how local, how non commercial it is.
Speaker 4: It would be within the ambit of congressional regulation. And
Speaker 4: that's just not what the Constitution says. Yeah, not at all.
Speaker 1: And if you're selling it different stories, there's no commerce
Speaker 1: going on here. So you said interstate commerce, but there's
Speaker 1: no commercial enterprise. Doesn't it fail that?
Speaker 4: Tesk absolutely? And to the extent, and the interesting thing
Speaker 4: here is to the extent that there are some court
Speaker 4: decisions that have had more expansive interpretations of what that means.
Speaker 4: Congress still has to be regulating the interstate market. It
Speaker 4: has to be necessary and proper to regulate the non
Speaker 4: commercial market. In this particular case, the home distilling prohibition,
Speaker 4: it's not regulating an interstate market. This really is getting
Speaker 4: to non commercial activity.
Speaker 1: Okay. The argument from the government on this one basically
Speaker 1: is it's the reason why this is prohibited. It's uniquely dangerous.
Speaker 1: Unlike home bread baking or vegetable gardening or whatever it
Speaker 1: might be. No, no one's die. People may die if
Speaker 1: you don't do this right. It probably could say the
Speaker 1: same thing about beer or wine. I suppose it may
Speaker 1: not taste good and it's why, But someone can get
Speaker 1: sick and die from a poorly made homemade whiskey. However,
Speaker 1: I would say, if you grow vegetables and you have
Speaker 1: a surplus of vegetables, a lot of people like to
Speaker 1: can My mom used to do that, make your own
Speaker 1: pickles and put up tomatoes and stuff like that as well.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's very rare. But what about food born botulism?
Speaker 1: What about food borne illnesses from poor canning techniques? If
Speaker 1: I gave my neighbor a can of I don't know,
Speaker 1: pickled beets or something like that, and it turns out
Speaker 1: that I didn't do it right, they got sick and died,
Speaker 1: how much? How is that any more dangerous than we're
Speaker 1: talking about here.
Speaker 4: Well, and here's the other thing. Ultimately, that doesn't give
Speaker 4: the federal government anymore authority. The fact that they may
Speaker 4: come up with, you know, and they really haven't pressed
Speaker 4: too hard on the health rational But even if they do,
Speaker 4: there isn't a general protection health clause in the US Constitution.
Speaker 4: They're protecting health and welfare. That is traditionally a set
Speaker 4: of powers which belongs to the states. And so if
Speaker 4: we're concerned about that, the states have the ability, they
Speaker 4: have the authority, and they do regulate actively in that space.
Speaker 4: And so if that's our concern, there are other governmental
Speaker 4: eneities that can do that. The fact that the federal
Speaker 4: government might be able to point to some justification that
Speaker 4: doesn't create a fount of new power for them.
Speaker 1: He is a Robert Oll President CEO of the Buckeye Institute.
Speaker 1: Interesting story about your hobbies. Guy named James Reem and
Speaker 1: New York, New not New York, Newark, Ohio. He wants
Speaker 1: to sell small quantities alcohols on home, make his own whiskey,
Speaker 1: basically for his own personal consumption, not for distribution, not
Speaker 1: for given away just because he's into it. That's his hobby.
Speaker 1: If he does that, though, he's looking at five years
Speaker 1: in prison. He's looking at a felony conviction and up
Speaker 1: to ten thousand dollars in fines just for creating alcohol
Speaker 1: for his own use. We allow home brewing with a
Speaker 1: home wine making and a whole bunch of other things
Speaker 1: you can do in your house. Why is alcohol so
Speaker 1: dangerous that you need a federal exxemption and a license
Speaker 1: in order to do it? That is the argument before
Speaker 1: the court, and the Buckeye Institute is leaning into that
Speaker 1: as a friend of the Court and a friend of
Speaker 1: mister Reem, and he's on the show this morning to
Speaker 1: discuss here on seven hundred WLW. You know you mentioned
Speaker 1: earlier about Article one and the authority to criminalize home distilling.
Speaker 1: If you go back to prohibition, the federal government needed
Speaker 1: the eighteenth Amendment to ban alcohol production and consumption. Does
Speaker 1: that show that Congress lacks the authority to criminalize home distilling?
Speaker 4: I think this goes to, yes, the limitations on government power,
Speaker 4: the fact that you couldn't just simply have Congress go
Speaker 4: ahead and restrict it across the board, you needed a
Speaker 4: constitutional amendment to actually get to a flat prohibition broadly
Speaker 4: on this if you take a look in this particular case.
Speaker 4: I mean, the other argument they meant that they make
Speaker 4: in this case is that it's somehow necessary to the
Speaker 4: taxing power. But it's it's interesting in this case, producing
Speaker 4: alcohol is potentially subject to an excise tax, but the
Speaker 4: prohibition actually prevents the federal government from collecting any tax.
Speaker 4: As we've said in this case. Uh, and we actually
Speaker 4: not just a friend of the court, we directly represent
Speaker 4: mister Reim in this particular case. Mister Reim would be
Speaker 4: willing to pay a tax on producing the alcohol, uh,
Speaker 4: if they would just let him actually produce the alcohol
Speaker 4: for his own consumption. So the interly, the oddly, the
Speaker 4: federal government is preventing itself from getting the tax revenue.
Speaker 1: I mean, what would cost for a like I'd imagine
Speaker 1: it's a lot of mind. It's like a federal firearms
Speaker 1: later to distribute firearms or something like that. It's it's
Speaker 1: exceptionally expensive to do that. Yeah, I I I look
Speaker 1: at this and it's like the same thing. And this
Speaker 1: guy's willing to do it to pay the tax, and
Speaker 1: they still won't let them. There's no, there's no, that's unreasonable.
Speaker 1: I guess that's a great exist I think that's a
Speaker 1: helpful illustration for your cake Stone.
Speaker 5: You.
Speaker 4: Oh absolutely, uh. Well, and you know, we we just
Speaker 4: had oral arguments down there in Cincinnati last week before
Speaker 4: the Sixth Circuit Quarter Appeals and I'll tell you it
Speaker 4: was I felt like it was it was a bad
Speaker 4: day to be the federal government's attorney. The the the
Speaker 4: the government actually had tried to just argue a very
Speaker 4: narrow set of issues in the briefs. The court asked
Speaker 4: the government to be ready to discuss the constitutional arguments
Speaker 4: beyond the narrow standing arguments. Uh, and the government essentially
Speaker 4: refused to do so, so the the court. The court
Speaker 4: was none too please. There was some test the exchanges,
Speaker 4: and the court actually went ahead and sent an additional
Speaker 4: order to the government to provide additional briefing responding to
Speaker 4: the Back Eye Institute and mister Eam's constitutional clients.
Speaker 1: I'm not an attorney. I'm a simple layperson with a
Speaker 1: simple mind. But I would read that is they don't
Speaker 1: even have an argument as to why this is the law.
Speaker 1: That's what it sounds like.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, we'll we'll, we'll, we'll see what We'll
Speaker 4: see what they come up with. But suffice it to
Speaker 4: say it was, it was. It was a better day
Speaker 4: to be representing mister Reeve. I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess the question would be is if their
Speaker 1: job is to enforce the law and fight for the
Speaker 1: law in this case and they can't even come with
Speaker 1: a reason why making your own alcohol for your own
Speaker 1: consumption and your home is illegal, is that indicator that
Speaker 1: the state should just give up?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: Yeah, again, as someone who's arguing on behalf of mister Reem,
Speaker 4: I will say, I don't think that the government should
Speaker 4: be regulating in this space. I don't think they've been
Speaker 4: able to articulate a good reason. You've actually articulated stronger
Speaker 4: reasons for why it is that they might be able
Speaker 4: to regulate in this space I think than the government has.
Speaker 1: That's frightening. Either I'm in the wrong place or the
Speaker 1: government's really stupid. Anyway, Bob altis here, President, Robert Hall, president,
Speaker 1: chief executive for the Buckeye Institute. So what's next here?
Speaker 1: Before the sixth Circuit? It sounds to me like and
Speaker 1: you never can read the tea leaves when it comes
Speaker 1: to a court and a judge obviously, or judges obviously,
Speaker 1: but it sounds like they're they're going to side with you.
Speaker 1: What happens if that's the case, and moving forward?
Speaker 4: Well, right now, the government actually has a brief due
Speaker 4: next month. The court has given us a very short
Speaker 4: one week time to respond to that brief. If the
Speaker 4: Sixth Circuit were to rule in our favor, as we
Speaker 4: hope that it does, presumably at that point the government
Speaker 4: might appeal the case to the US Supreme Court. So
Speaker 4: we will see. But I have a feeling that whoever
Speaker 4: loses this case, it's it's likely to keep on going
Speaker 4: up through the courts, and the next stop would be
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You recall, there's an argument, in all your years as
Speaker 1: an attorney and studying the law, Robert, that there's been
Speaker 1: an instance where the government has no solid reason as
Speaker 1: to watch something is banned or is the law, and
Speaker 1: yet they continue to fight for keeping the status quoe.
Speaker 1: Why is that if they represent the people and it's
Speaker 1: in the people's best interest, Going, yeah, I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: there's a time in America where we needed that, but
Speaker 1: clearly that time has passed, especially when you look at
Speaker 1: the deregulation of things like marijuana for example, and guess what,
Speaker 1: you know, gay marriage, whatever it might be. You know,
Speaker 1: the earth is still spinning and we're just fine despite
Speaker 1: all of these horrible things going to destroy the fabric
Speaker 1: of our country and our makeup, and yet we continue
Speaker 1: to march on forward. Alcohol home distilling of alcohol seems
Speaker 1: to fit into that category as well. So if they
Speaker 1: represent the people and they are fighting for the people,
Speaker 1: because that's the state the people versus in this particular case,
Speaker 1: why they continue to fight.
Speaker 4: For this, you know, that is an excellent question, and
Speaker 4: it's one that you know, at times, I do think
Speaker 4: sometimes the government just you know.
Speaker 1: There there is this.
Speaker 4: There is a practice within the Justice Department to defend
Speaker 4: any statute that's on the book so long as there's
Speaker 4: any conceivable legal justification for doing so, you know, and
Speaker 4: and I this is this is the policy, regardless of
Speaker 4: who the administration is. But this is one of those
Speaker 4: cases of that I think really makes you scratch your
Speaker 4: head as to why is it that we're spending government
Speaker 4: resources to defend a statute that really doesn't serve any
Speaker 4: good purpose and for which the government really, you know,
Speaker 4: lacks the authority to have regulated here to begin with.
Speaker 4: If you start distributing this stuff and selling it, we
Speaker 4: know that, you know there will be federal agents. It'll
Speaker 4: be breathing down and re acting.
Speaker 1: You're facing rightly, so stiff finds penalties, jail time if
Speaker 1: you're selling and distributing your alcohol. We have a law
Speaker 1: in Ohio that says I can grow up to twelve
Speaker 1: pot plants and do with it what I believe. And
Speaker 1: yet somehow home distilling is is something worth fighting for.
Speaker 1: It makes this argument makes no sense whatsoever, which tells
Speaker 1: me this argument will continue to go on for years
Speaker 1: to come.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, sometimes it seems like the things that are the
Speaker 4: most common sensical those are the things that are the
Speaker 4: hardest to actually succeed on in government.
Speaker 1: This is what we're fighting for. Robert All, President CEO
Speaker 1: of the Buckeye Institute, representing James reim out of Newark, Ohio.
Speaker 1: And I'm definitely on team Alt and Tim Reen. Thanks
Speaker 1: again for the time, Robert, thanks for having me the
Speaker 1: latest on the Nancy Guthrie disappearance. I found a clue yesterday.
Speaker 1: I will say how much closer they are to maybe
Speaker 1: catching the caps in the subject or the subjects. I guess,
Speaker 1: as the case may be, and your full forecast just ahead.
Speaker 1: Scott Sloan returns after noon seven hundred WLW Sloany, seven
Speaker 1: hundred wl W Cotton throw it back half the week.
Speaker 1: We're good, were good, were good, and in studio as usual,
Speaker 1: Shavor Cremani's here are a resident physician and health and
Speaker 1: fitness and food expert at dine Wall. Doc Sanjay, good morning,
Speaker 1: how are you brother? I'm doing well? Slowey, how are you?
Speaker 1: I'm doing well. Valentine's Day? You have a fiance? What
Speaker 1: are you doing? What's the deal?
Speaker 8: We're actually going to keep it low key, so we're
Speaker 8: actually having some people over close friends and we're just
Speaker 8: gonna have a dinner at home and all the mess
Speaker 8: of restaurants, but uh, it's the mess just being because
Speaker 8: it's hard to get a reservation, so just keep it
Speaker 8: at home.
Speaker 1: Are you a chocolate dip strawberry gar or not?
Speaker 8: I do like them, yes, just on those days though.
Speaker 8: And yeah, Matt and Parrett with a champagne.
Speaker 1: Okay, got you? Because Dorothy Lane market up and Mason
Speaker 1: dropped off. I'm not a big strawberry chocolate kindic. I
Speaker 1: like strawberries like chocolate for some reason. It's not my jam.
Speaker 1: But I watched women and some men davorro the They
Speaker 1: have chocolate cover strawberries there that are as big as
Speaker 1: an onion. I mean, they're ridiculous. I don't know what
Speaker 1: kind of superhuman chocolate strawberries they brought in. All the food.
Speaker 1: This is the this is the opposite.
Speaker 2: Luck.
Speaker 1: I think in the back I had their their bougie
Speaker 1: orange juices fresh squeze, the best orang juice you have
Speaker 1: ever in your life. But they dropped off kish this morning.
Speaker 1: Some uncured bacon. Oh no, nitrates are night nitrotes night nitrogens.
Speaker 1: Uh and it's delicious. So I ate all that and stuff. Well,
Speaker 1: thanks for saving me. No, you can smell my burp
Speaker 1: later on.
Speaker 6: Uh no.
Speaker 1: So thanks again to a door lit the Dorothy Lane Market.
Speaker 1: So if you're like sounding, maybe cook at home or something.
Speaker 1: You can go there and get some stuff pre made,
Speaker 1: which is fantastic, or get your ingredients it's all fresh,
Speaker 1: and cook something nice and special. You're giving me good
Speaker 1: ideas because I know you love there.
Speaker 8: You haven't hather pecan pile yet, not yet I'm saving
Speaker 8: it for a special day, and that might be the Saturday.
Speaker 1: I'll do it. Yeah, I'm telling you it's the best
Speaker 1: in the world, thanks to our friends at the Dorothy
Speaker 1: Lane Market. All right, h we'll talk this morning. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna throw a curveball at as I usually do, because
Speaker 1: I know you like to prep for the segment. But
Speaker 1: you're the smartest guy in the room. You should know
Speaker 1: the answer to this stuff. Doctor's physicians, especially eedy doctors
Speaker 1: like yourself. Your physicians will go, oh, doctor Google, because
Speaker 1: you know my daughter does that. I think I have
Speaker 1: I think I think I've got ebola, Like you don't
Speaker 1: have a bolo. It's what it says. So now it's
Speaker 1: a chat. It's chat ebt or clawed or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: Here's an interesting story though. So this woman goes to
Speaker 1: present to the EAD and the nurse says, well, you
Speaker 1: got gout. Okay. She goes home, she's like, I don't
Speaker 1: know if that. She takes a picture of it, puts
Speaker 1: it in an AI client and it comes back and
Speaker 1: it diagnosed her correctly with something far more serious than gout.
Speaker 1: So it was a misdiagnosis. So now you're confirming the
Speaker 1: biases of the people before going see I don't trust doctors.
Speaker 1: I'll just do it. I'll just google it, I'll just
Speaker 1: put it into AI. How do you respond to a doctor.
Speaker 8: That it's tough. I mean, you know, we're still human
Speaker 8: as physicians, and we have to be humble about that.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 8: Will our computer is better than we are right now
Speaker 8: in certain things, for sure, but they will also be
Speaker 8: wrong a lot of the times too, and we can't
Speaker 8: have that. They don't have the same interaction that we
Speaker 8: can with a patient. And so I understand it for
Speaker 8: people that are already mistrustful of doctors or healthcare in general. Sure,
Speaker 8: like you might see this one story and say, there
Speaker 8: it is, I can't trust it. But overall, by and large,
Speaker 8: we still encourage you to see someone.
Speaker 1: In real life.
Speaker 8: I understand the you know, the appeal one you don't
Speaker 8: have to pay a copay to log on to chat GPT,
Speaker 8: and too, you don't have to divulge anything to another
Speaker 8: human and so yeah, I get it. But at the
Speaker 8: same time, be careful of completely relying on AI to
Speaker 8: to be your physician.
Speaker 1: If you suspect something I can you could probably do
Speaker 1: it and get a second dig but you still need
Speaker 1: to see someone because you know it's it's certainly imperfect.
Speaker 1: At this point, I wouldn't put all my trust in AI.
Speaker 8: No, and it's it's tough with the whole doctor Google
Speaker 8: thing that that took a lot of change for myself
Speaker 8: to you know, increase my humility to say, all right,
Speaker 8: there is thing. There are things that a patient may
Speaker 8: bring to me that I know nothing about or that
Speaker 8: I haven't thought about, and it's blending that with my expertise.
Speaker 8: That that's how I've been able to navigate it and
Speaker 8: just say, you know, there's I know a lot of things,
Speaker 8: but I don't know everything, and you know, the Internet
Speaker 8: can help me with certain things. I mean, there's more
Speaker 8: and more to learn every day as a physician, and
Speaker 8: so if I just say I know more than everybody else,
Speaker 8: I'm going to be in trouble. And so just having
Speaker 8: a little bit of humility is the way I navigate it.
Speaker 8: And I encourage patients to read up on their illnesses
Speaker 8: or what they might have its just to eventually have
Speaker 8: a conversation as opposed to me telling them exactly what's
Speaker 8: wrong and them telling me what's wrong.
Speaker 1: Instead, let's talk about it. Yeah, okay, Yeah, it's a
Speaker 1: concern too, because any other element of that too would
Speaker 1: be I would I'd run from a place where I
Speaker 1: went to and go, yeah, I don't know what this is,
Speaker 1: and you look at it and go, holy crap, I
Speaker 1: gotta google that. I like, I'm probably gonna go see
Speaker 1: another doctor and I get to get a picture of
Speaker 1: me with this hold on.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 8: I think that's going to evolve too, I think, you know,
Speaker 8: I remember fifteen years ago, I had a patient who
Speaker 8: had a sore throat and the light was off in
Speaker 8: the room or the you know, the tomoscope, so I
Speaker 8: couldn't look in their throat, and I took out my
Speaker 8: phone and I was like, I'm just going to show
Speaker 8: this flashlight back there. And the patient's like, you're going
Speaker 8: to use your phone to look at my throat. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 8: it's got a flashlight, and like today, that's how I
Speaker 8: do it most of the time, because that light is
Speaker 8: more powerful than anything on the wall, and a patient
Speaker 8: doesn't blink twice, you know. And so I think the
Speaker 8: same thing's going to happen with patients understanding that, like
Speaker 8: we're we still have to fill in some blanks, especially
Speaker 8: as an emergency position where I have to I'm expected
Speaker 8: to understand and diagnose everything.
Speaker 1: It's hard to do alone.
Speaker 8: Yeah, And the more that I can lean into my
Speaker 8: own humility and the patient can understand it, the better
Speaker 8: I think.
Speaker 1: For truth, I don't know everything. I think that's good,
Speaker 1: all right. I want to pivot to this thing because
Speaker 1: I've seen it around before, and I don't know how
Speaker 1: many people are doing this or not, but the cold
Speaker 1: plunges in cryo thing right now, where people are freezing,
Speaker 1: the freezing themselves. It's like the hot cold new trend,
Speaker 1: if you will. And I've done it before. I've done
Speaker 1: the ice bath before after you know when when they
Speaker 1: used to do more physical workouts and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and after that first five to ten seconds as a man,
Speaker 1: it's very you don't look forward to it, but after
Speaker 1: five ten seconds it does have therapeutic effects. I know
Speaker 1: this is a very small segment of the population that
Speaker 1: it's even interested in doing this, but it's one of
Speaker 1: those new grottes of people go, well, it's an ice bath.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you could get a tub or
Speaker 1: you get something on Amazon for like fifty bucks where
Speaker 1: you fill it with ice water and you jump in it,
Speaker 1: and I've done them after like a boxing workout before,
Speaker 1: and it feels really really good. But it's not for
Speaker 1: everybody for sure. Why Why is this thing taken off now?
Speaker 1: And it's it also claims to heal and cure a
Speaker 1: lot of things, a lot of things outside of muscle
Speaker 1: sort of.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and then you said the magic word. There is
Speaker 8: claims and there is not a ton of evidence on
Speaker 8: this stuff. Now I'm not saying it's not beneficial, but
Speaker 8: at the same time, there's there's mixed evidence and there's evidence,
Speaker 8: but it doesn't show a huge benefit in a lot
Speaker 8: of cases. So, yeah, you've nailed it as far as
Speaker 8: what it is. You know, this is submerging yourself or
Speaker 8: cold water immersion, so submerging your body in colder water.
Speaker 8: You know, some people go to extremes. If you've seen
Speaker 8: a lot of influencers, you know, it's just all ice
Speaker 8: in there and then they just submerge themselves.
Speaker 1: The Swedes, yeah exactly.
Speaker 8: But they're doing something right up there because they're like
Speaker 8: the happiest nations out there. You know that the happiest
Speaker 8: or the Scandinavians, and that's where it's cold and dark
Speaker 8: all the time, although.
Speaker 1: I think it's the threat of if you don't you
Speaker 1: don't quit be depressing, I'm gonna throw an ice water. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: they forced it.
Speaker 8: It's not really happy to assign you you will be happy,
Speaker 8: whether you like it or not.
Speaker 1: It's all in act. They're visible. They're cutting themselves and
Speaker 1: drinking themselves silly.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so the you know, the the optimal temperature for
Speaker 8: a bath is fifty to fifty nine degrees, So we're
Speaker 8: not talking thirty two degrees, not forties. It's fifty to
Speaker 8: fifty nine, so kind of pretty cold, but not to
Speaker 8: a point where you're like you think you're gonna die.
Speaker 8: There's certainly not where you want to get to. But
Speaker 8: there are benefits and you've mentioned them already, which is
Speaker 8: the physical ones. You know, your body kind of after
Speaker 8: a workout of some sort and just recovery, and it's
Speaker 8: not to help due to decrease inflammation, but also you know,
Speaker 8: kind of numbing your body a little bit by making
Speaker 8: it cool. That being said, you don't really want to
Speaker 8: do this for more than ten minutes at a time
Speaker 8: because that's when that's when the second round of dangers come.
Speaker 8: Because there are dangers in the early phase of a
Speaker 8: cold lunge and then later on too.
Speaker 1: Hypothermia is right, Yeah.
Speaker 8: The hypothermy of the frost bite, more circulation, the whole
Speaker 8: bit that can happen with either you know, really cold
Speaker 8: temperatures are really prolonged times underneath and again it could
Speaker 8: be more than just ten minutes that can actually do
Speaker 8: some damage.
Speaker 1: Okay, so on the cold thing, but the other side,
Speaker 1: the hot So how come you can sit in a
Speaker 1: hot tub for like two hours drinking.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so hot, you know, it's not going to burn
Speaker 8: your skin necessarily unless you've done something whatever degrees. Yeah,
Speaker 8: and and what that will do? You know, the main
Speaker 8: risks at hotter temperatures or you know, all your blood
Speaker 8: is going to your skin, so it's not going to
Speaker 8: your head, and then you can feel lightheaded and pass
Speaker 8: out right, and you could also become dehydrated because you're
Speaker 8: losing a lot of extra sweat that way. So those
Speaker 8: are the two Those are the main risks of hot
Speaker 8: but it's not as dangerous as cold. And so what
Speaker 8: happens with cold You initially get in you've you've referred
Speaker 8: to it men and women alike. On the initial hit,
Speaker 8: which is a burst and heart rate and blood pressure,
Speaker 8: so both of those will go up because of the
Speaker 8: stress to the your body's like what is going on
Speaker 8: and it freaks out and your heart rate and blood
Speaker 8: pressure go up, which aren't necessarily bad things, but they
Speaker 8: can be bad things for patients with heart disease, any
Speaker 8: any type of heart disease, high blood pressure, history of stroke,
Speaker 8: a lot of things that can kind of go haywire
Speaker 8: in the very first few seconds of doing a cold plunge.
Speaker 1: Okay, what are the therapeutic benefits of that cold bath
Speaker 1: or cold plunges that were in that? I mean, is
Speaker 1: it more of a placebo effect? It does it? What
Speaker 1: does it do to your muscles? I guess to alleviate
Speaker 1: the pain or the joint pain, whatever you have. Is
Speaker 1: it just throwing your mind off, going hey, now it's cold,
Speaker 1: you got to worry about this as opposed to the
Speaker 1: chronic pain. There's probably something to that.
Speaker 8: It's also yeah, it's physical decreased inflammation, and so they've
Speaker 8: done some research with markers, but it's hard to reproduce
Speaker 8: a lot of the studies, so it's not very conclusive
Speaker 8: as far as the evidence, But overall it looks to
Speaker 8: be helpful. That being said, a lot of a lot
Speaker 8: of the things, a lot of the benefits are to
Speaker 8: do with mental resilience and how it's affecting your mind. So,
Speaker 8: you know, starting off the day with a cold plunge,
Speaker 8: or what I prefer to do, which is the easy,
Speaker 8: accessible and cheap thing, is have my warm shower and
Speaker 8: then turn the dial to complete cold. For the final
Speaker 8: thirty to sixty seconds, I'll just take five deep breaths
Speaker 8: in and out, so ten total breaths under the cold,
Speaker 8: and then it just starts my day. And what they've
Speaker 8: actually have found is that that will actually increase your
Speaker 8: mental clarity. It helps you overall deal with things through
Speaker 8: the rest of the day, and it actually gives you
Speaker 8: a boost. Your neurotransmitters go up, your brain functions a
Speaker 8: little bit better, and it really wakes you up.
Speaker 1: Some people are doing the cryo therapy, which is the
Speaker 1: extreme of that too, that's really really.
Speaker 8: Cold, really really cold, and that's where you know, is
Speaker 8: the juice worth the squeeze?
Speaker 1: And then what are the risks of that too? Cost
Speaker 1: for that matter, it's not cheap.
Speaker 8: No, it's not cheap. Every you know, every session does
Speaker 8: cost money. There are some benefits there, but again the
Speaker 8: shower version is cheap and free, and that's why I
Speaker 8: prefer to do it. And it's you know, you don't
Speaker 8: get as cold temperature, just.
Speaker 1: Take a cold shower, is what you're saying. It's the
Speaker 1: same thing essentially.
Speaker 8: So there was a study done a couple of years
Speaker 8: ago in the Netherlands where they took people and they said, okay,
Speaker 8: we're gonna have a control group that's take a normal shower,
Speaker 8: and then people take finish off their warm shower with
Speaker 8: a cold shower thirty seconds, sixty seconds, ninety seconds, so
Speaker 8: not a ten of time under the cold after their
Speaker 8: initial warm shower. And what they found was that there
Speaker 8: were less sick days taken for the people that did
Speaker 8: a cold shower. So if you did a cold shower
Speaker 8: after your hot one, you reported less, you called into
Speaker 8: work sick less often, which makes you think, what, oh,
Speaker 8: you're helping the immune.
Speaker 1: System, which is the that's one of the claims right
Speaker 1: to make.
Speaker 8: Ok Yeah, However, everyone reported the same incidents of being sick,
Speaker 8: and so every whether you took a warm shower only
Speaker 8: or followed up with cold, you got sick just as often. However,
Speaker 8: you called into work less often if you were doing
Speaker 8: the cold plunge call off of work. So the question is,
Speaker 8: well why, and then what they think is.
Speaker 1: Go, yeah, I want to hear your answer.
Speaker 8: So they're thinking it builds up your mental resilience. Okay,
Speaker 8: I'm sick. I can deal with this. And that's what
Speaker 8: I kind of like about the cold thing. I start
Speaker 8: off the day being like, man, I just I just
Speaker 8: took that on. I was cold, and I stuck with
Speaker 8: it for one extra breath, and I thought I could.
Speaker 8: I'm a I'm a beast. I can start the day.
Speaker 8: I can take on anything. And and they think that's
Speaker 8: part of it. Yeah, you have fortitude, like, okay, it's
Speaker 8: it's the sniffles. Of course, I'm going to be safe
Speaker 8: around my colleagues and everything. And you wash my hands.
Speaker 8: But I think I can work today. I got it
Speaker 8: at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you spend a long more time, the more time
Speaker 1: in the shower, less exposure to germs and other people.
Speaker 1: Yet you just wash it in the shower all day.
Speaker 1: You're not going to get sick.
Speaker 8: Well, why don't you bring your shower with you? I
Speaker 8: expect you to expected to see a.
Speaker 1: Tug and just carrying around that shower cloud following me
Speaker 1: around side. Shave A Kramatis series are Resident Physician and
Speaker 1: also Health and Fitness. We're talking about the new trend
Speaker 1: and well maybe not new trend, but the cold bath thing,
Speaker 1: and and also cryo therapy, and it claims it to
Speaker 1: boosts your immune system, which doesn't look like it's true. Also,
Speaker 1: weight loss is one too. I mean, it's kind of
Speaker 1: like drinking cold cold water, drinking ice water stimulate your
Speaker 1: your but how much like a couple calories? It can't be.
Speaker 1: There's no prolonged you're pretty close to, right, a couple
Speaker 1: of calories.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So the thought is it activates your brown fat,
Speaker 8: which we all have, and if that brown fat is activated,
Speaker 8: it melts away. So the thought is with prolonged exposure,
Speaker 8: that will burn away more.
Speaker 1: Because it's activated.
Speaker 8: Really, what it amounts to is like one hundred to
Speaker 8: two hundred calories probably, but not a ton. And you know,
Speaker 8: there's other things we could be doing, and in fact,
Speaker 8: like taking a walk that could do the exact same right,
Speaker 8: with less danger.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're actually gonna walk as supposed if I
Speaker 1: just take a cold bath.
Speaker 8: We love a good hack, you know, and we as
Speaker 8: a society love a good hack, but at the end
Speaker 8: of the day, it's the basics.
Speaker 1: Just take a shower, eat a pizza at the same time.
Speaker 1: But like cancels. Have you ever tried it? Cancels it out? No,
Speaker 1: but they're encouraged have beer shower, but pizza shower. Different story. Also,
Speaker 1: I would imagine the anti aging thing is probably a
Speaker 1: little overdone that people tend to use cold showers. Is
Speaker 1: that more of the fact that like, well, if you're
Speaker 1: doing this in the first place, you're probably living a
Speaker 1: fairly healthy lifestyle.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean we talk about confounders all the time.
Speaker 8: You know, the people are cold showering are probably doing
Speaker 8: other things to make sure they stay alive. And it's
Speaker 8: just one more thing that being said in the in
Speaker 8: that Norwegians or Netherlands study, the people who did the
Speaker 8: cold plunge or did a cold shower after their warm
Speaker 8: shower and exercise regularly, they had fifty percent less sick
Speaker 8: days called in And so, you know, as opposed to
Speaker 8: just exercise or just cold plunge, this is actually the
Speaker 8: group with the most So the more things you can
Speaker 8: do to stay healthy, uh, the better. And that seems
Speaker 8: like basic stuff but the evidence show what was it
Speaker 8: that being said? Again, you know, if you're not exercising
Speaker 8: this the cold plunge thing. You know, if you're not
Speaker 8: if you're not eating healthy, if you're not sleeping well,
Speaker 8: if you're not reducing your stress, the cold plunge stuff
Speaker 8: is like peanuts. Yeah, you really want to focus still
Speaker 8: on on the core stuff and then this is extra
Speaker 8: stuff if you have the time and ability. But again,
Speaker 8: just adding it to the end of your shower is
Speaker 8: probably the easiest way to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why is it we would go, oh, man, a
Speaker 1: nice hot tup is great, but getting in cold water
Speaker 1: very few people want to do that. What is it
Speaker 1: about the way humans are built that wou'd rather be
Speaker 1: warm and warm water than cold water?
Speaker 8: Well, I think you know the thing is getting into
Speaker 8: cold water. It's a true shock to the system. It's
Speaker 8: a stress to the system where all of a sudden,
Speaker 8: again your heart rain and blood pressure go up, your
Speaker 8: flight or flight goes crazy as opposed to warm water,
Speaker 8: which is soothing, relaxing, and that does the same thing
Speaker 8: to your muscles. You know, your muscles tense up in
Speaker 8: the cold, whereas in heat they're just going to relax.
Speaker 8: And your brain's going to relax and everything's going to relax.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, it's it's more calming, I guess than tensing. Weder.
Speaker 1: They common intense. We love contents already. I don't know
Speaker 1: what we're talking about this. We just suffered for the
Speaker 1: last what month of subzero temperatures. You want to you
Speaker 1: want to cold bath? Just go outside, go start trying
Speaker 1: to take one deep breath, Start to start your car.
Speaker 1: He's a son Jay Shavcremani. He's a physician also our
Speaker 1: health and fitness guru on the Scott Sloan Show at
Speaker 1: Dinewell Dock. We'll talk next Thursday. Appreciate you, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: How about a news update. Let's do that and more
Speaker 1: to follow here afterwards. Scott's Loan Show Home the Red
Speaker 1: seven hundred WTW.
Speaker 6: Since then, all right, here I goes long back, got
Speaker 6: seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 3: We have a record at five credit card debts.
Speaker 1: The average household.
Speaker 9: In Ohio, Kentucky can carry about sixty three one hundred
Speaker 9: dollars per household on average stom So the President proposing
Speaker 9: a ten percent future three camp Now that sounds like good, populous.
Speaker 1: Middle finger fu to banks. But this could actually hurt
Speaker 1: those it intends to help by putting a cap on
Speaker 1: how much credit card companies can check to use their money.
Speaker 1: Kerriy Scheffler is here. She used to be with a
Speaker 1: political in the Hill. She's now a senior policy analyst
Speaker 1: at the Independent Women's Form. Kerry welcome, How are you.
Speaker 3: Here?
Speaker 5: I'm great, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it's kind of funny. I mean, the right
Speaker 1: got all worked up about Mamdani in New York City
Speaker 1: with rent price control, that scheme in New York which
Speaker 1: has been tried and broken, because well then you just
Speaker 1: have empty buildings. And we saw what happened in the
Speaker 1: seventies in New York City. If you're called that or
Speaker 1: our student of history of that, you see what happens
Speaker 1: when you try. Our government tries to artificial control prices.
Speaker 1: And I think conservatives are right to look at that
Speaker 1: and go, well, that's a bad and horrible idea. Is
Speaker 1: it hypocritical not to call out the same here, because
Speaker 1: price controls are price control. Isn't it a price control?
Speaker 5: You're right, it is a price control. It's constraining the
Speaker 5: market forces and the market signals, because that's what a
Speaker 5: credit card interest rate is really a signal to the borrower,
Speaker 5: signal also to the lender about the credit worthiness or
Speaker 5: the credit history, and all of the components in coming
Speaker 5: up with a credit rate and a credit offer, and
Speaker 5: you're basically distorting that by putting this interest rate up.
Speaker 5: And look like you said, this is a I think
Speaker 5: it has good intentions. I think the desire to help
Speaker 5: people who are struggling financially the good desire. The problem,
Speaker 5: there's going to be a lot of unintended consequences if
Speaker 5: this happens federally, because we've already seen this at the
Speaker 5: state level, because some states have already tried this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's nothing new. I would think the biggest one
Speaker 1: would probably be a credit desert occurring. Right, So, if
Speaker 1: you're low to middle income in your first time bower,
Speaker 1: you could wind up losing your credit line entirely, right,
Speaker 1: because they don't want to take that risk because they're
Speaker 1: not going to get their money back because they can't
Speaker 1: charge an IRPR.
Speaker 5: You're exactly right. And we saw for example in Illinois
Speaker 5: where they did put an interest rate cap, and what
Speaker 5: ended up happening is that fewer people were able to
Speaker 5: get access to loans and more people who were shifted
Speaker 5: into the dangerous black market. And so if the intention
Speaker 5: is to protect people, it has the unintended consequence of
Speaker 5: actually putting people into more harmful types of lending products.
Speaker 5: So the the and and the thing is it's not
Speaker 5: This isn't just for the poorest families. And I say
Speaker 5: this as someone who was When I was a child,
Speaker 5: we were homeless. My brother was born in a tent.
Speaker 5: My dad used to have to go to pawn shops
Speaker 5: in order to get loans. He had to pawn his
Speaker 5: watch or his ring just to feed us. This isn't
Speaker 5: a great situation for poor people, but for anyone who's listening,
Speaker 5: this is also for people who have great credit scores
Speaker 5: and strong finances. Because if there's a study for Ohio,
Speaker 5: for example, super primed cardholders, those are people with credit
Speaker 5: scores above seven hundred and eighty, They are also going
Speaker 5: to experience gative consequences. It means higher fees, reduce rewards,
Speaker 5: higher credit standards, lower credit limits, fewer bonus points when
Speaker 5: you're talking about miles and things like that. So this
Speaker 5: affects people across the income spectrum.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if I get Jennifer Garner smiling, at me one
Speaker 1: more time about what's in my wallet and getting these
Speaker 1: great rewards. And I'm traveling and beautiful people around me
Speaker 1: in this lounge where I'm getting steak and lobster, and
Speaker 1: I'm flying these exotic locations, and all I have to
Speaker 1: do is spend more on this card and I'll get
Speaker 1: those points. That's going to largely dry up, isn't it.
Speaker 5: Exactly? And just in general, the ability to open a
Speaker 5: credit card in Ohio alone, there's been an estimate based
Speaker 5: on study that between seventy three and eighty five percent
Speaker 5: of people in Ohio are going to see their credit
Speaker 5: lines reduced. And this is again, this happened already in
Speaker 5: the Illinois and there was a study comparing Illinois to Missouri,
Speaker 5: which did not have a rate cap, and it was
Speaker 5: the perfect natural experiment because their neighbors and I lived
Speaker 5: in Missouri, my family lives in Missouri now, so Missouri
Speaker 5: versus Illinois. What happens in this natural experiment with the
Speaker 5: rate cap in Illinois, Well, it turns out that many
Speaker 5: people said that their financial well being declined after this
Speaker 5: and seventy nine and this is according to a study
Speaker 5: from the Federal Reserve. So this is a government federal
Speaker 5: government study, and seventy nine percent of people in the
Speaker 5: study said that they wanted the option to return to
Speaker 5: their previous lender after this rate caap happened in the
Speaker 5: state of Illinois.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, she's Carrie Sheffield, and we're talking about Trump's
Speaker 1: proposal to cap aprs for credit cards to ten percent.
Speaker 1: Now that's a popular study. Sounds good, right, It's like, oh, good,
Speaker 1: screw the those guys, they're gouging me. But the problem
Speaker 1: is it's going to ruin credit for a lot of
Speaker 1: the people it's intending to help. And if you're also
Speaker 1: have a good credit score and you use your credit
Speaker 1: card for the points as opposed to carrying a balance,
Speaker 1: you're gonna get hammered that way too, because those points
Speaker 1: are going to kind of go away. So if they
Speaker 1: got to cut it to ten percent, then how do
Speaker 1: they make money? And not that I'm worried about the
Speaker 1: banks not making money. They'll find a way to make
Speaker 1: money carry for sure, But it squeezes both then, So
Speaker 1: who would their core target consumer be? Because you don't
Speaker 1: want the people at the low end, they're going to
Speaker 1: get priced out with interest rates. The people at the
Speaker 1: upper end that are paying their credit card every month
Speaker 1: are basically leeches because they're not making money off of
Speaker 1: us technically, and they got to give us points to
Speaker 1: do that. Who do they want?
Speaker 5: Well, they're going to increase their fees. I mean even
Speaker 5: a lot of people with super prime high credit scores,
Speaker 5: a lot of credit cards they pay annual, they charge
Speaker 5: annual fees for example. You're going to see those fees
Speaker 5: go up. You're going to see the points dropped, you're
Speaker 5: I mean, it's the cost goes somewhere, and uh, it's
Speaker 5: and it's usually a combination of consumers and companies paying
Speaker 5: higher prices as a result of price constraints. So uh,
Speaker 5: that's really what it's going to happen. And when we're
Speaker 5: talking about inflation, this is this is one way to
Speaker 5: make everything more expensive rather than here's the thing. When
Speaker 5: you have competition, you can naturally lower uh whatever whatever
Speaker 5: it is, including an interest rate, through more competition. But
Speaker 5: this is going to have less competition in the end
Speaker 5: because there'll be fewer lenders who will be able to
Speaker 5: enter these markets. And here's the other interesting part about it.
Speaker 5: When people mention, you know, a credit card interest rate,
Speaker 5: and it sounds astronomically high. Most people, like you mentioned,
Speaker 5: I mean, a lot of people don't carry balances from
Speaker 5: months to months. And for those who do, a lot
Speaker 5: of people it's only for a short period. And when
Speaker 5: you're talking about such a high interest rate, quite often
Speaker 5: it's actually for a fairly small amount. And so there's
Speaker 5: a thought experiment that the economist Thomas Bold did. He
Speaker 5: gave the example of a hotel room. If you if
Speaker 5: you go to a hotel and it charges you one
Speaker 5: hundred or two hundred three hundred bucks a night, you
Speaker 5: annualize that that's an insane amount. So let's say two
Speaker 5: hundred bucks times three hundred and sixty five days. I mean,
Speaker 5: that's that's just it sounds like you're totally gadging someone, right,
Speaker 5: But this doesn't make sense because you're only using it
Speaker 5: for a few nights. Maybe, So annualize that that's seventy
Speaker 5: three thousand dollars just for using a room. And so
Speaker 5: if you're going to let your hair on fire because
Speaker 5: someone's charging me at seventy seventy three thousand dollars annualized price.
Speaker 4: It's insane.
Speaker 5: And so most people's credit cards, and same thing with
Speaker 5: what they call quote unquote pay day lending. Most of
Speaker 5: this is short term landing, and so it sounds so
Speaker 5: much worse than it actually is when you actually look
Speaker 5: at how people use credit. And so again, study after
Speaker 5: study shows that when you construct a credit market, people's
Speaker 5: financial wellbeing goes down, their choices go down. And there's
Speaker 5: a lot of Hyperboleave that's not based impact.
Speaker 1: Well, Kerrie, if this goes through and they wind up
Speaker 1: capping aprs at ten percent, you know you mentioned payday lenders.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you did. I wanted to bring that up
Speaker 1: because back in the day, payday lenders here in Ohio,
Speaker 1: ay where were getting cracked down. It's like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: these are ConA confiscatory and you can't do this to
Speaker 1: the working man, the working men, the whole thing. And
Speaker 1: then they tried to clean things up. But by and large,
Speaker 1: people who are on the lower end of the economic scale,
Speaker 1: right lower middle even you know, middle income people. For example, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm living paycheck Most Americans live paid well,
Speaker 1: not most, but a lot of Americans live in paycheck
Speaker 1: to paycheck, especially the younger you are. And so the
Speaker 1: problem is this, It's like, all right, well, I got
Speaker 1: to get to work, transmission goes out of my truck.
Speaker 1: I don't have several thousand dollars laying around. I got
Speaker 1: to go to the payday lender. I can't use a
Speaker 1: credit card, maybe they're maxed out, or maybe the credit
Speaker 1: card option isn't there. I can't go to a bank
Speaker 1: and on a collateral. I don't have a choice here
Speaker 1: to go to a payday lender. So we're back in
Speaker 1: that game again. And if we've cracked down on pay
Speaker 1: day lending, does that mean the rise of loan sharks?
Speaker 1: So maybe my job someday is like I look at
Speaker 1: this and go, you know what, I'm just gonna go
Speaker 1: in the loan shark Business'm gonna put some money out
Speaker 1: in the street, get a couple of head crackers out there,
Speaker 1: and you don't pay, I break your leg. Is it
Speaker 1: going to be that way again?
Speaker 5: That's again, that's what we see people doing. When payday lending,
Speaker 5: it's more foral more name it's called installment lending. When
Speaker 5: you go after installment lending, when you go after a
Speaker 5: credit card interest rates through rate caps, Yes, more people
Speaker 5: are forced out into the so called black market, into
Speaker 5: scenarios that are far more exploitative and dangerous versus having
Speaker 5: them in a financial system that is regulated, that is
Speaker 5: designed to protect the consumer. This we've seen this happen,
Speaker 5: and this as an analogy.
Speaker 2: When you look.
Speaker 5: At you know, I for my church, I traveled to Peru.
Speaker 5: There is like an insane amount of transactions that happen
Speaker 5: outside the financial system that is reported to the government.
Speaker 5: And it's because, well, there's a lot of corruption there.
Speaker 5: But here's the thing. We're going to see an increase
Speaker 5: in that here in the US if the federal government
Speaker 5: follows some of these states and in strict credit lending,
Speaker 5: there's going to be even more shifting into the black market,
Speaker 5: which means less tax revenue because these are transactions that
Speaker 5: are going to be happening in the shadows.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep, yeah, exactly, You're going to create a bigger body.
Speaker 1: So anytime you prohibit or you know, artificially doctor something
Speaker 1: in this case it's a it's rate caaps, you're going
Speaker 1: to create a black market for it, which under minds
Speaker 1: everything because there's no transparency and it's not secure. It's
Speaker 1: also extremely dangerous as well. So this is the Trump
Speaker 1: proposal to cap interest rates on credit cards at ten
Speaker 1: percent of the annual fee ten percent. That's the worst
Speaker 1: case scenario. The best case is, oh yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: people are going to be able to afford to live again.
Speaker 1: You know, that doesn't address the core issue in that
Speaker 1: as affordability. For sure. This kind of plays into it,
Speaker 1: but it treats the user end and the diagnosis and
Speaker 1: not really the cause and the symptoms of this whole thing.
Speaker 1: How many politicians? Where's Congress on this whole thing? Is
Speaker 1: there bipartisan support for it? Or is it pretty much?
Speaker 1: Because it seems like he was when you work with
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, I think Watson wanted to push this. Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsoon wanted to push things like this as well too,
Speaker 1: and they were criticized during the election. And now we're
Speaker 1: talking about proposing it. So who's forward in Washington.
Speaker 5: We're definitely Democrats who are supporting this, including Bernie Sanders
Speaker 5: in the Senate, and there are some Senate Republicans who
Speaker 5: are starting.
Speaker 2: To go for this.
Speaker 5: And I think again we we it's good to acknowledge
Speaker 5: the intention that good intentions do not equal good outcomes,
Speaker 5: and we're not over and over. I mean, the whole
Speaker 5: socialist experiment is good intentions that have disastrous outcomes. So
Speaker 5: we really need to look at this from you know what,
Speaker 5: what are the better angels of our nature to solve
Speaker 5: the affordability problem for families? And the Trump adminstration is
Speaker 5: doing amazing things forward that end, and that's those are
Speaker 5: the things that we need to see more in our economy.
Speaker 5: For example, in the regulations. Last year, President Trump put
Speaker 5: in an executive order that if any agency wanted to
Speaker 5: create one regulation, they had to ten regulations before they
Speaker 5: could do that. And it's it's phenomenal because it unleashes
Speaker 5: competition and unleashes innovation. And you know what's really interesting
Speaker 5: is that in the United States, for exams, we have
Speaker 5: such a more dynamic system economically compared to the rest
Speaker 5: of the world. We hit a stock market high last week.
Speaker 5: It's fifty thousands for a doubt. The US market capitalization
Speaker 5: for our companies here in the US, for our publicly
Speaker 5: traded companies, it's worth more than seventy trillion dollars. To
Speaker 5: put that in perspective, the European Union is only fifteen
Speaker 5: point seven trillions for the entire European Union, China is
Speaker 5: only eleven trillion. Japan less than seven trillions, So we
Speaker 5: are orders of magnitudes above any other country in the
Speaker 5: world when it comes to our economy and our innovation,
Speaker 5: and a big part of that is through what they
Speaker 5: call animal spirits in economics, which means competition driving down prices.
Speaker 5: And credit card rate caps are the opposite of that.
Speaker 5: So I think it's important again not to shame anybody
Speaker 5: for a good intention, but to just really focus on
Speaker 5: what is working and let's do more of that.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, you know, granted, and you know the idea
Speaker 1: that the two sides are Trump is the greatest thing ever.
Speaker 1: He makes no mistakes and if it is, it's somebody
Speaker 1: else's fault. And the other side is he's evil. He's
Speaker 1: a manipulative genius at the same time the dumbest man
Speaker 1: ever to hold the presidency. I don't know how he
Speaker 1: could be a genius and dumb at the same time.
Speaker 1: But those are the the tired narratives that they fire
Speaker 1: right and the far left. The real reality is is
Speaker 1: I look at this policy, and you're right, there are
Speaker 1: policies that he's enacted and more for that matter, that
Speaker 1: are putting us on the right track. It's not catching
Speaker 1: up when you do know, the tariff thing, for example,
Speaker 1: that's a long slow burn. I don't know if we've
Speaker 1: got the patience for it. I don't know, quite honestly
Speaker 1: at this point how much more we should pursue it,
Speaker 1: because it's driving costs up as well, among other factors. Now,
Speaker 1: Wall Street and Main Street, as you know, are two
Speaker 1: different things entirely. But I'm looking at some of these policies.
Speaker 1: This one just doesn't make any sense to me. It
Speaker 1: seems counterintuitive and shooting yourself in the foot. It sounds good,
Speaker 1: but once you scratch the surface, it's terrible.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And there are so many other ways. One thing
Speaker 5: that we are working on at Independent Women's Voice is
Speaker 5: we are in the process of putting together our Commons
Speaker 5: drive to support the Trump's Department of Labor because last
Speaker 5: year President Trump issued in executive order to allow for
Speaker 5: one case to invest in private equity, which means private
Speaker 5: real estate deals, startup deals that are private deals that
Speaker 5: are outside the publicly trained stock market, to allow for
Speaker 5: one case, which means private sector workers to be able
Speaker 5: to access these deals. And we think it's great because
Speaker 5: it will, as you to your point, tear down that
Speaker 5: wall between Wall Street and Main Street and have more
Speaker 5: ownership by people in the private sector. Because currently these
Speaker 5: private equity deals they are accessible to public sector pensions,
Speaker 5: which means we well connected government workers already have access
Speaker 5: to these deals as well as a credited investors, which
Speaker 5: are high net worth individuals making above a certain threshold.
Speaker 5: Trump wants to bring that wall down between Wall Street
Speaker 5: and Main Street when it comes to private equity, and
Speaker 5: private equity has a long track record of a higher return.
Speaker 5: And when you bring in a different asset crossed into
Speaker 5: your four one kke, that also improves the safety of
Speaker 5: it because you have more diversification. And that's one of
Speaker 5: the first rules investing is to diversify.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean there's higher risk, but also I mean
Speaker 1: it's higher reward but also higher risk along that too
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with private equity. But the buyer has
Speaker 1: to beware. It's it's my money, and I choose to
Speaker 1: invest it no matter how conservative or risk averse I am.
Speaker 1: There's always an alternative that as well. That's how it works. Again.
Speaker 1: She is Karrie Sheffield over at Independent Women's form of this.
Speaker 1: Thanks again, care, I appreciate.
Speaker 5: It, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: God bless take care. We got a news update coming
Speaker 1: up in just minutes on seven hundred WLW the very
Speaker 1: latest on what's going on with Savannah Guthrie's mom, Nancy Guthrie.
Speaker 1: That a little bit more evidence. Hopefully that brings us
Speaker 1: thing to conclusion, and a positive one at that. We'll
Speaker 1: get full details coming up. Any big warm up continues
Speaker 1: here in Cincinnati. Added more in news five minutes away
Speaker 1: seven hundred.
Speaker 7: The bells.
Speaker 1: Do you hear the bells? It could only mean one thing.
Speaker 6: It's real estate time with Michelle Sloane, Remax time agent
Speaker 6: and proud proprietor of sloan sellshomes dot com. Heed her
Speaker 6: words or face her wrath on seven hundred wl WI.
Speaker 1: Good morning.
Speaker 7: Are we going to fight about dishes? I'm ready.
Speaker 1: You don't need them because we've got high speed internet,
Speaker 1: so you don't need a satellite dish.
Speaker 7: Shush. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 10: You would think after three hundred and seventy years of.
Speaker 7: Marriage, no longer than that, there wouldn't be.
Speaker 10: There wouldn't be anything for us to really fight about.
Speaker 10: But there is one issue where we just cannot not
Speaker 10: agree on, and it's dishes. How to dry dishes if
Speaker 10: they're not in the dishwasher, right, you will tend to
Speaker 10: wash them and put them on the right side of
Speaker 10: the sink to drip dry.
Speaker 1: Now, stand by, those aren't dishes, if you notice. When
Speaker 1: I do the dishes, okay, dishes, oversized pans, cutting boards,
Speaker 1: things like that, I will put them on the side
Speaker 1: to just kind of drip dry, and then eventually you
Speaker 1: just touel them off, get get the stains off, and
Speaker 1: then you just put them away. You will lay a
Speaker 1: towel out on the counter and then put them to
Speaker 1: glasses and everything down. And then what happens is you know,
Speaker 1: drips seat hold on. I'm giving you my side of it.
Speaker 1: Then I want to hear your side. Environment is you
Speaker 1: put then you put the glass down on the thing.
Speaker 1: It drips down good, and then that water sits there
Speaker 1: and then it makes the glass stinky because because it
Speaker 1: gets kind of moldy and musty, and so you got
Speaker 1: to clean them all over again.
Speaker 7: It's not there that long.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they are. I did so my job. I did
Speaker 1: dishes on Sunday because I cooked meals for you because
Speaker 1: you're an invalid. And the thanks I get is while
Speaker 1: they're on that say, if you put them in there,
Speaker 1: I'm not put them on a way like, oh okay, well,
Speaker 1: then I'm going to go in and get the fork
Speaker 1: that I used out of the dish one, I take
Speaker 1: the dishwasher out. I'm just going to get the things
Speaker 1: I used and put it. If you want to be roommates,
Speaker 1: then separating dishes. Now, some people have separate finances. We
Speaker 1: have separate dishes because you're a pain in the ass
Speaker 1: with it.
Speaker 10: No, no, seriously, how hard is it though, because when
Speaker 10: you set let's say you wastle glass, you set it
Speaker 10: on the side of the counter, on just the counter
Speaker 10: halfway leaking into the sink, and that glass is going
Speaker 10: to fall over and break. If it's on a dish towel,
Speaker 10: My god, what a dish towel is it won't fall
Speaker 10: over and break as easily.
Speaker 1: I ask you a question, now, who leaves bred dishes
Speaker 1: and glassware around the house? Mir or you?
Speaker 10: Oh, that's me. I will totally I will totally totally
Speaker 10: take you.
Speaker 1: Now, when I leave the glass with just a little
Speaker 1: bit of it over the edge so that so the
Speaker 1: air can flow and dry the glass out.
Speaker 7: Then just put it away.
Speaker 10: If it's such a big deal, well it's got to
Speaker 10: dry first, Oh god, okay, this is this is one
Speaker 10: of those things, a drip dry, and you should just
Speaker 10: get a sink rack like your mom had.
Speaker 7: See this is where it comes back.
Speaker 1: To what you put a towel down. Isn't that the
Speaker 1: same thing as a sink rack?
Speaker 7: Well, why can't you just put it on the towel
Speaker 7: that and make me happy?
Speaker 1: Because it stinks. It the same work all over again,
Speaker 1: and it's like the same day. You're just like repeating.
Speaker 1: Labor is like the dishrushers open, but you'll still put
Speaker 1: bolls and utensils in the sink and I'll pick them
Speaker 1: up and go, oh, dishrushers.
Speaker 10: Well, it's going to get there. Eventually, it'll get where
Speaker 10: it's going.
Speaker 1: Get on my next wife.
Speaker 10: Oh sorry, that tell us part maybe, and it may
Speaker 10: be sooner rather than lay.
Speaker 1: Each other, by the way, happy Valentine's Day at what towels? Good?
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 10: I'm gonna lay them all over the counters and then
Speaker 10: I'm gonna put the wet.
Speaker 1: This is one right exactly.
Speaker 10: Oh, for heaven's sakes, we do have real estates talk
Speaker 10: about though. I know that doing your dishes is part
Speaker 10: of real estate sort of kind of not really.
Speaker 1: But what if we just want the paper. We're just
Speaker 1: trying that.
Speaker 11: That's the possibility. That's an incredienty We'll just go chinae sold.
Speaker 11: But a lot of people just eat out every meal.
Speaker 11: We could do that, I suppose to somebody else's problem.
Speaker 11: I would now, Yeah, No, I like to cook, so
Speaker 11: you do like to and I like to eat your food.
Speaker 1: I know you do. And she yells at because I'm
Speaker 1: leaving the stuff up. Anyway, Let's get into real estate
Speaker 1: related stuff, including the Twenty first Century Act. I know
Speaker 1: you want to talk about that. What is that?
Speaker 7: I do?
Speaker 10: Yeah, So there's something new going on how to make
Speaker 10: housing more affordable. That's been the goal for the last
Speaker 10: I don't know, twenty years, right, But the House just
Speaker 10: passed a major bipartisan bill, the Housing for twenty first
Speaker 10: Century Act. It's pretty comprehensive. What it does is whether
Speaker 10: it happens or not again is sort of up in
Speaker 10: the air. It's going to streamline zoning and permitting to
Speaker 10: make building new homes easier because we have a shortage
Speaker 10: of homes. It's going to boost affordability of housing and
Speaker 10: financing grants, which also could help some development block grants
Speaker 10: things of that nature in zones that are determined to
Speaker 10: be ready to be developed, but there's just no money available.
Speaker 10: Modernizing federal affordability housing programs. That's going to be kind
Speaker 10: of a nice thing to have as an option for
Speaker 10: young buyers especially, and some protections for renters and buyers. Now,
Speaker 10: I'm always a little bit skeptical when the government gets
Speaker 10: involved in housing because it's not always been a good thing.
Speaker 10: I'm not sure that they're asking me my opinion, but
Speaker 10: it's definitely something that I'm glad that somebody's trying to
Speaker 10: do something. And I do think that the zoning and permitting,
Speaker 10: streamlining some of those actions and activities. Now you've got
Speaker 10: it at the federal level, but it does have to
Speaker 10: trickle down to the local level as well.
Speaker 1: So all right, so what does it mean for the consumer?
Speaker 2: Though?
Speaker 1: Okay, this is all good government stuff, but well, you know,
Speaker 1: speeding up permitting for example, or is reducing zoning. But
Speaker 1: what does that mean to the consumer?
Speaker 10: It means the possibility and again it's not a short
Speaker 10: term goal. It's the possibility that homes will become more
Speaker 10: of affordable because there are going to be incentives to
Speaker 10: build affordable housing, and that's really what it is. But
Speaker 10: I will say more housing supply will certainly be a
Speaker 10: benefit to buyers. It's going to reduce the barriers for
Speaker 10: a lot of builders, speeding up permitting. It's going to
Speaker 10: cause you know, it's going to create a lot of jobs,
Speaker 10: which is a good thing. But you know, in places
Speaker 10: in Ohio, Cincinnati, Columbus, we've had such tight inventory on
Speaker 10: those starter homes and having builders because everybody wants to
Speaker 10: make the most money, it does have to be a
Speaker 10: group effort to create a home for that is affordable
Speaker 10: for all. You know, the old Seer's home where you
Speaker 10: could buy a home for I don't know, ten thousand
Speaker 10: dollars or something like that. That's never going to happen again.
Speaker 10: But these federal incentives could be helpful. It still has
Speaker 10: to go to the next step. It has to go
Speaker 10: to the Senate, so we'll keep an eye on that.
Speaker 10: The other thing that is not in this bill, which
Speaker 10: we talked about at one point, is the investor restrictions,
Speaker 10: So it's not included to limit the number of homes
Speaker 10: that investors are able to purchase. So that's another interesting
Speaker 10: factor because you know, as I'm sting homes and selling homes.
Speaker 10: At least one or two offers that I receive are
Speaker 10: from institutional investors, whether or not they are large that
Speaker 10: own more than one hundred properties. Almost every time, if
Speaker 10: it's an affordable home, it will there will be an
Speaker 10: opportunity for an investor to buy that property because it's
Speaker 10: in that sweet spot. So that makes it more difficult
Speaker 10: for first time home buyers and buyers in a lower
Speaker 10: income bracket and affordability bracket. It makes it more difficult
Speaker 10: for them to get it because if a seller sees,
Speaker 10: here's a cash offer, here's a financed offer, Faha, they're
Speaker 10: both the exact same price. I can close on the
Speaker 10: cash offer in two weeks. It's going to take thirty
Speaker 10: days plus an inspection, plus maybe some more red tape
Speaker 10: to get through the one that needs financing. Which one
Speaker 10: are you going to pick?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 10: Some sellers will say, I'm not going to sell to
Speaker 10: an institutional and that is the seller's right to decide.
Speaker 10: Even if the institutional investor is a higher price point,
Speaker 10: sellers do not have to accept that offer if they
Speaker 10: don't want to sell to them. Now, you have to
Speaker 10: be really careful about why you're choosing. You know, you
Speaker 10: got to be careful about fair housing. But if it
Speaker 10: comes down to it and you make a decision as
Speaker 10: a homeowner to sell to a person, a real person,
Speaker 10: and that's that's on you, you can totally do that.
Speaker 1: Okay, got it? No, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you hear the things. I guess on an answer to
Speaker 1: two things that I think are driving off the cost
Speaker 1: of housing because there's a barrier to entry with the money.
Speaker 1: This will reduce it to some degree because you're speeding
Speaker 1: up the permitting and zoning process and creating more usable land,
Speaker 1: which I think, quite honestly, the zoning laws have been
Speaker 1: jacked up for a long time in this country. There's
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. Cincinnati is allowing you to you know,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a good idea to take your
Speaker 1: freestanding garage, for example, and make that a livable using space.
Speaker 1: You can rent that out. You know, it's like a
Speaker 1: small house basically. But the cost of labor and the
Speaker 1: lack of labor is a huge factory and we always
Speaker 1: talk about that we need more people in the trades,
Speaker 1: and people are responding to that, but it's going to
Speaker 1: take a long time. For those numbers to catch up,
Speaker 1: because you know, people in their fifties are leaving the biz,
Speaker 1: fifties and sixties are leaving the business at greater rates
Speaker 1: and were replacing those bodies, and we're already behind because
Speaker 1: of that for the last several at least the last generation,
Speaker 1: if not too. The other element here is with tariffs
Speaker 1: and all that other stuff, the cost of materials is
Speaker 1: really really expensive too. So does what they're proposing with
Speaker 1: this twenty first Century Housing Act off set that.
Speaker 10: It's gonna only time will tell really if it passes.
Speaker 10: We're just going to have to wait and see how
Speaker 10: it affects it. And again, you can't build a house overnight.
Speaker 10: It's going to take months. And even though you are
Speaker 10: that red tape is going to you know, they're trying
Speaker 10: to cut a little bit of that out, so things
Speaker 10: are going to move a little bit quicker. We'll be
Speaker 10: able to see the results of this act potentially if
Speaker 10: it passes, maybe two or three years down the road.
Speaker 10: So it's nothing that's going to happen immediately. The other
Speaker 10: thing that the rising costs of owning a home, and
Speaker 10: this is really really difficult. It's hard for homeowners to swallow.
Speaker 10: But did you know that homeowner's insurance now makes up
Speaker 10: nearly ten percent of the average monthly housing payment ten percent.
Speaker 10: And so then on top of that, you know, you
Speaker 10: have your insurance, you have your utilities that we know
Speaker 10: are going up, the cost of utilities, We know that
Speaker 10: your taxes are increasing. Yes, so all of that actually
Speaker 10: lumped in. That's also part of the housing affordability and
Speaker 10: the lack thereof. And so these are issues that a
Speaker 10: lot of new homeowners are like, or young people especially,
Speaker 10: or like I'm out. You know, you have to you
Speaker 10: have to spend so much to have a home of
Speaker 10: your own.
Speaker 7: Why not just rent?
Speaker 10: And I don't have to be bogged down by all
Speaker 10: of the extras and if the investors want them again,
Speaker 10: we're in a bit of a vicious cycle. And just
Speaker 10: lowering the interest rates, which I know that something President
Speaker 10: Trump wants to do, and he's talking about lowering you know,
Speaker 10: lowering rates. Again, that's not going to solve all of
Speaker 10: the issues that homeowner's face, yes, and so you know,
Speaker 10: it's one of those things where we talk about it
Speaker 10: and I know for just the general public it's a
Speaker 10: really difficult pain point. But you know, you definitely. If
Speaker 10: you're buying a home, you have to be really careful
Speaker 10: because there are so many additional fees on top of
Speaker 10: the mortgage that will never go down. You know, as
Speaker 10: long as we've been on this earth, right, have you
Speaker 10: ever seen truly taxes or utilities decrease?
Speaker 1: Well, it makes it up in other areas. Is the problem.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're fighting the property text battle nowe in
Speaker 1: Ohio obviously, as you know, yes's funny as you guys
Speaker 1: you're talking about this. Somebody just DMed me and asked about, well,
Speaker 1: what about three D printed houses? You know, isn't that
Speaker 1: a cheaper alternative to this? And that is you know it,
Speaker 1: You don't need as much labor to do it, and
Speaker 1: you could put them up pretty quickly and alleviate that.
Speaker 1: I think there's some problems. I mean, first, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of regulatory and code challenges there. But
Speaker 1: if you can wipe some of that out, that helps.
Speaker 1: I know, the construction industry, like any industry that's entrenched,
Speaker 1: doesn't really want to give up ground. So you know,
Speaker 1: you've got local contractors, trade unions, supply chains all built
Speaker 1: around the way we've always built things right and that
Speaker 1: is you frame and stick and also too, I think
Speaker 1: it's too true too in to tell I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it sounds cool that you get a video from someplace
Speaker 1: in Germany where they're putting up a three D printed
Speaker 1: concrete building, and an.
Speaker 10: Oh, I love watching it, if you I mean, I
Speaker 10: love watching those be built because you know, the concrete
Speaker 10: is going around and they seem like very stable structures.
Speaker 10: It's interesting how you're going to insulate that and do
Speaker 10: all of those things. Again, there's a lot of there's
Speaker 10: a lot more questions now three D printed homes. We've
Speaker 10: been talking about that for probably five years or more, yep.
Speaker 10: And you certainly don't see anything like that in Cincinnati
Speaker 10: as far as I know.
Speaker 1: I know they're doing them in I think in Austin, Texas,
Speaker 1: for example. But the prize you mentioned though, it's just like,
Speaker 1: you know, you still need roofers, you still need glaciers
Speaker 1: to put windows in doors, electrical party elected, kay. And
Speaker 1: the other thing is, and you probably don't think of this,
Speaker 1: but you need specialized concrete in order concrete mixtures for
Speaker 1: that stuff to go in. And there's still you know,
Speaker 1: again it's in an infancy. We don't know twenty what
Speaker 1: the life of these things are twenty thirty years from now,
Speaker 1: because it's so new what happens over decades of these
Speaker 1: buildings and so is it like aluminum wiring, you know,
Speaker 1: you put it all in and then wait a minute,
Speaker 1: we got a problem. We're going to tear it all out. Well,
Speaker 1: you can't really do that with a building. And if
Speaker 1: you're a bank, you're a lender, you're looking at going
Speaker 1: I can invest in that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm not going to touch that, especially with the
Speaker 10: freezing thal in Ohio. I think a concrete will always crack.
Speaker 10: That's just one of those mantras that we will say
Speaker 10: over and over again because people.
Speaker 1: Are like, there's a crack in the in the foundation.
Speaker 1: Yeah right right, yeah, it's just in nature. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I mean, I throw that out there. So my wife, no,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, Yeah, my wife, Michelle Stone. It's called the
Speaker 1: Housing for the Twenty first Century Act. Congress just passed this, the.
Speaker 10: House of Representatives have passed it. It's onto the Senate.
Speaker 10: You know, it's definitely something to keep an eye on.
Speaker 10: It seems to be bipartisan, meaning maybe it will pass,
Speaker 10: but then of course there's always somebody that says, well,
Speaker 10: I want something else in it that's going to benefit me,
Speaker 10: So we'll keep an eye on it.
Speaker 1: All right. So the takeaway from my perspective is to
Speaker 1: show you just how terrible our government, our leadership and
Speaker 1: congresses on both sides. We have something called the Housing
Speaker 1: for the Twenty first Century Act that may or may
Speaker 1: not pass over a quarter away through the Senate injury.
Speaker 1: My wife, Michelle Sloan is here from Sloan cells Holmes
Speaker 1: dot Com and avi ad dishwasher on the show A dishchowl.
Speaker 7: I'm I'm pro dishchowel.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, yeah, if you use it, it's not
Speaker 1: a drying rack. You're a woman. You're supposed to be
Speaker 1: good at this stuff.
Speaker 10: Oh now, oh no, don't you dare.
Speaker 7: It's Valentine's Day, son.
Speaker 1: It was. Yeah, No matter how nasty and filthy are,
Speaker 1: I still love you more than anything. So all right,
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you, l I love you. I here
Speaker 1: to go.
Speaker 7: I get that.
Speaker 1: Uh all right, we gotta get to Willie coming up next,
Speaker 1: Scott Sloan Show. I may be dad, I maynad me
Speaker 1: back tomorrow. I don't know. We'll find out. Seven hundred
Speaker 1: ww Cincinnati have a going