How Trump is Destroying Medicare and Medicaid

Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Find Out podcast.

We have a great show for you today.

We've talked a lot about

the big, what we call big bullshit bill here.

And we're going to dig into that a little bit more because we have Jaquita Brooks-Lashur, who is with us, who was the former administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under the Biden administration.

And if you are curious as to what that role is, it is the one that Dr.

Oz has now.

So

we're going to dive into it.

So Jaquita, thank you for joining us today.

We really appreciate it.

It's my pleasure to be here.

So the first thing we want to really just dive into, because there's been a lot of talk about the roughly trillion dollars of cuts to Medicaid in particular.

You know, obviously, that is a number that is massive.

It is hard for people, I think, to grasp just how massive.

So, if we do nothing, which we're going to talk about, how there are some ways that maybe we can like claw some of this back,

what's going to happen to people that rely on Medicaid across the country?

This is such,

it's just impossible to overstate what a big deal this cut of a trillion dollars is going to do to our healthcare system.

Medicaid is a lifeline for so many families.

So we certainly think of the poorest among us, the low-income of this country who depend on Medicaid.

It is also a great supporter of the middle class.

Half of the births in this country are paid for by Medicaid and CHIP.

Most of the children who are born into this country who have some kind of health need, who have a developmental issue, who have

need an organ transplant.

It is usually Medicaid that ends up paying for that.

And it has served as a lifeline for so many families that depend on this coverage to make sure their children get the care that they need, as well as millions of people who are older, who need home and community-based services.

nursing homes.

And the way I think of this legislation is it's done a couple of things, but one of the key ways that it changes healthcare in this country is it adds more friction.

And I think all of us who deal with the healthcare system know there's way too much friction in the healthcare system.

It's too hard to go see the doctor when you need to.

There are a lot of reasons why that's the case.

But for those of us who depend on Medicaid or ACA coverage, adding more paperwork and more requirements is going to be the difference between whether people actually get coverage and and care.

Yeah, I think that's one of the things that people don't fully understand on this.

And we're going to dive into a lot of the pieces, but just like the

bureaucracy that it has actually created and making it more difficult for people to actually get the services that they need.

Explain a little bit about, you know, because when you hear like paperwork, people are like, oh, I got to fill out another form and that's it.

Like what does that actually mean though to an average person, you know, that really doesn't know anything about the system and now all of a sudden has to do these sorts of things?

What does that look like?

Yeah, so I will say we have so much experience with what paperwork does and new requirements.

And for most of us, if we get coverage through our employer, once a year, you pick your healthcare coverage, then you get a note from your employer, hey, if you want to change your coverage, do something.

If not, fine.

And you get automatically enrolled.

That's how most of us live our lives on a whole group host of things like your gas bill, your water bill, how much of our stuff is automated.

That's, we live in a time where technology helps us take care of so many things.

On Medicaid, we in the Biden administration tried to make it a lot easier for people to enroll and update the systems.

And even we found that we lost people just because the paperwork didn't get submitted correctly.

You filled out your information, you thought you did what you were supposed to, something got lost in the ether.

This bill adds so many requirements to people.

One is work requirements, where you have to prove that you're doing all of the things that you're supposed to do.

But it's not even just work requirements, it's that you have to go through eligibility more frequently, you have to prove what your income is more frequently, you have to prove that you are exempted more frequently.

And it's one thing if you live a life where you're salaried, where you have one job, and you know your income is going to be, say, let's say $50,000.

A lot of the people that we're talking about who are enrolled in Medicaid, they have multiple jobs.

They might lose a shift.

They might gain a shift.

These are the things that can change your eligibility.

Like I talked to someone who shared about

their experience of having to, they lost a shift because their

a relative needed to go to the doctor.

So they took them to the doctor, right?

She's a waitress.

She loses a shift.

Her income has changed.

We see that for people who have,

who are at lower poverty levels, they often have multiple jobs.

And that's why adding what seems like reasonable requirements prove your income, to have to do that frequently when your income is changing can be really, really challenging.

Yeah, I mean, I think you could just think about anytime, you know, you get something in the mail and they ask you to do something, you set it aside for a second and then, you know, you forget about it.

And I think, you know, for most people who have, you know, healthcare through an employer do not understand the added hoops that, and my, my guess, I'm going to, this, this is going to sound rhetorical, but I do want you to answer.

It sounds like they're doing this just specifically to make sure they can kick as many people off.

Medicaid as possible.

Is that generally like why it seems like they have put these additional requirements in?

It feels that way when

after

so many people have tried to make clear when you add paperwork, what a burden that is on people, when you talk to states and they say how challenging it is for them to think about implementing these changes.

And again, they repealed our rules, the Biden-era rules, that were designed to make it easier for people to qualify, including people who are older, elderly seniors.

And the only explanation that makes sense is to say you threw out rules to make this process simpler.

You don't want it to be simpler.

You don't want people on coverage.

I think that's the thing that's the hardest for me is

we've been playing catch up for decades.

And I think we finally appreciate, and I mean, politically, we finally appreciate.

exactly what they're doing because I think it was Reagan who, you know, first,

Reagan, who is the godfather of everything that is wrong in America.

I have to say that's the obligatory.

Yeah, no Reagan stands here.

You know, he said, starve the beast, you know, like, oh, I'm from the government and I'm here to help was like the biggest joke in the world.

And their, their approach originally, their, their stated approach, their stated goal was to, you know, force the government to be as efficient as possible by cutting and cutting and cutting.

And, and I think at least somebody who's hearing that in good faith could think, okay, well, like, yes, like necessity breeds invention, like, don't let them get big and bloated.

But now they're doing the opposite of that on top of that, which is to

dramatically, dramatically cut the resourcing for government to do what government is supposed to do and then quintuple the work and push just absolute.

useless, meaningless, trivial work onto the people who are still trying to do it and the families who need it.

And worth, when, and, you know, I think a lot of people are saying, well, this is going to make it harder, you know, and that's bad.

That assumes that they aren't trying to just destroy the government, you know, tear it down.

And I think we finally come around to the idea that, yes, no, they are actually trying to make it so bad that everybody looks around and they say, well, the government is bad at everything.

And when I have to do anything with the government, I also hate that.

And so then they're forced to go through, you know, some for-profit private sector route, which then those same people make money off of.

Absolutely.

And I think what we're seeing right now is states are just scrambling to think about how do I implement this so fast, even though these

changes are taking a little bit of time to

to kick in, states, it is not a lot of time for states to try to build systems to make these changes.

And as a result, they're much more likely to have paperwork

hand processes than to automate it.

I mean, if we really, really wanted to move healthcare where it needs to be, and there's across this country, there's so many organizations that are thinking about AI and IT for the healthcare system.

It's like what we need to do is take a step back and make it so much easier for people to do these things electronically.

And that we did not move in that direction at all with this bill.

In the past, I've been able to listen to conversations with this and feel like I'm glad that I'm a veteran and that I have the VA and that I'm not going to have to worry about this.

But we have seen the Trump administration

push out something like 30,000

VA employees.

We're watching them try to push through a privatization bill that is going to strip money from the current hospitals and the current patients and push them out into the the same private sector.

I think that there are

tens of thousands of veterans in every state who, because of the big bullshit bill, are going to get effectively pushed out of the VA and into a system that sounds far more complex and

much more of a paperwork nightmare than anything that we've had to deal with.

at the VA.

And I wish that more people understood, more veterans specifically understood what was coming.

When I look at the cuts that have happened to the federal workforce over this year, it's just been really heartbreaking.

And I think

it's been a couple of things.

It's been so poorly executed.

And everybody, you know, take a step back.

Of course, you always, you know, there's always room for improvement.

Every administration comes in and says, I want to do things differently.

But the haphazard

way that people have been let go

has been so devastating and demoralizing to the people that have stayed, right?

So a lot of the first round of firings were based on your status, not whether you had done well at an organization.

It was really based on, oh, we can fire the.

probationary employees.

Then people over time were brought back as, but that was demoralizing, right?

So, you let go of your responsibility.

Why do you want to go back to an employer who has treated you as dispendable?

At CMS,

they have not lost anywhere near as many of the number of people that places like the VA or other parts of HHS have lost.

But we've lost a lot of senior staff, and I'm sure that that's true of other agencies because of the frustration you have when

your job is in turmoil and shifting,

losing expertise, things that are some of the things the government does, they're inherently governmental roles, right, and responsibility.

And just hiring the private sector, sometimes that's appropriate to have private sector entities and people can have different views of that.

But there are just times when the expertise is not there and would take time to build.

And that's what I think has been just so demoralizing about what we've seen over this year.

But, Jaquita, we have Dr.

Oz as the head of CMS now, a man who has made somewhere in the neighborhood of between $100 and $300 million

peddling,

I'll say, false cures for things like

weight loss drugs.

And he was big on the, I'm never going to say this name right.

So you can all laugh at me, the hydro, hydrochloroquine, hydroxychloroquine.

Yeah, yeah, I'm sounding like like Trump now.

I can't say these words, but uh,

you know, yeah, I see this, but you know, for cures for

COVID, of which doesn't exist, um, what are you hearing?

Uh, and there's all kinds of like, if you just go look at some of the hearings he testified in a few years ago, like it's just horrifying.

What are you hearing internally now about leadership there?

Obviously, a lot of people have left, and I'm sure a lot of people who were dedicated to the mission have left, but what are you, what, what is the, what is it,

what is it like inside CMS right now, uh, with, with Oz and RFK Jr., another whack job, uh, my words, not yours, uh, that is in charge of basically America's health right now?

Well, I would say that

CMS is in a better position than

a lot of HHS.

And I would say that I feel much more distressed about the leadership at HHS than I do at CMS.

I think that at CMS,

it's more where I have philosophical differences, right?

Like the implementation of this law is

incredibly distressing to me.

And I think that, and the millions of people that are depending on that, and that's different than what is happening at HHS, where I think the firings have just been so haphazard and

just the assault on

science has just been just absolutely devastating between the CDC, the FDA, NIH, and

what that means about our ability to attract.

attract leaders from across the world, which we have been able to do.

We've had scientists from across the world want to be here and just with the grant funding and

the messages coming out of HHS.

I mean, if I'm a pregnant woman in America, I am just devastated.

I'm a mother and I, when you are pregnant, it is so, you are.

you are trying so hard to do all the right things by your child.

It is so challenging.

I was just talking to a mom and we were talking about what it's like, my daughter's 11 now, and like what it's like dealing with a kid that doesn't sleep and how bad you feel.

And just there's so much pressure.

And to be told everything you're hearing is wrong and suck it up.

I mean, where

Having a baby, having a difficulty in your pregnancy is not safe in this country.

I mean, I spoke to someone last week who told this harrowing story about

her

really rough pregnancy and her inability to get the care that she needed when one of the twins wasn't viable and going to cause problems and having to cross state lines to be able to get the care that she needed and how devastating that was, not for her, just for her, but her baby.

So, I just,

my heart hurts for people who are trying to make good decisions and they can't trust the science that's coming out of the federal government.

They can't trust what their leaders are saying saying and and what that means for health in our in our country yeah and i think it's it's it's worth pointing out that yeah last week when there was that insane press conference where they essentially blamed tylenol for autism even though autism has been around a lot longer than tylenol but i also thought it was pretty telling that they had three men essentially up there.

And what they were kind of doing, right, was blaming women for taking Tylenol, which doctors have told them to do.

And is also, there is no direct evidence of any link whatsoever.

But I saw in the aftermath, too, a lot of men

repeating the thing that President Trump said, which was like, well, it's no big deal if you just don't, just don't take it, which essentially is telling pregnant women, deal with the pain for no reason and basically shut up and listen to these guys who really have no background in this at all.

And I think we spent a lot of time in our last episode sort of railing on this because it's just like an assault on science, but it's also very sexist as well, and that they're trying to do this blame game when there is no blame.

That this is something we have always had for forever.

But

I want to pivot to one thing that I think trips people up a lot in this debate.

And it's the question of these work requirements.

When you, you know, when you talk to a regular person that doesn't pay attention to politics and you say things like, well, in order to get services from the federal government or the state government, you know, if you're able-bodied, you should, you should work.

And on its

just when you hear that, you think, I understand that.

But you're involved in this and you have been dealing with this for years and years and years.

Explain to people what those work requirements are and why they are really not an effective way to make sure that the right people are getting the care they need.

And people who are, like, I think what they're saying is quote unquote, poor people are lazy, right?

That's the underlying statement of this.

Why all of that is so false?

Yeah, so when we have these discussions about work requirements, there's always those who think they're a good idea say we want to encourage people to work.

There are going to be exemptions for all of these categories of people.

So don't worry.

It's you're not going to be affected if you're older.

You're not going to be affected if you have a disability.

You're not going to be affected if you're doing what you're supposed to do.

But what we have seen time and time again is it, first of all, is completely inefficient.

So Georgia

implemented work requirements

in the state of Georgia.

And GAO just did a study and said they spent more money administering their work requirements than they did actually for the people giving them health care.

So we spend millions of dollars building these systems that just keep people out.

And what a colossal waste of money.

So that's, you know, to me, one of the first things that

you can't underestimate just how how wasteful it is just from administrative point of view but let's talk about what actually happens to people who are supposed to get the coverage that they need

the thing is everyone has to go through this process of proving that they are worthy and what we've seen in states is the vast majority of people are working or they're in school or they fit one of these umteen categories that they're going to be exempted But you end up losing way more people than you think that you're going to lose.

And the thing is, again, we already have these issues in the healthcare system.

Many people, when they come off of Medicaid, lose coverage when just when they get a raise, what have you, because of paperwork and the transitions.

And if anything, we needed to be moving to a system that was making it simpler for people to get coverage.

Because a lot of times, I think we don't know, understand that it happens, like these transitions between coverage, they happen at very difficult times in your life.

And I'm just going to give you one example.

Again, I'm a mom, so I have a lot of.

feelings about some of our, you know, my own experiences.

So in our country, before the Biden administration, Medicaid covered women postpartum at higher income levels.

So often you would lose coverage right around two months after you've given birth.

Do you know what's happening to you as a mom two months after you've given birth?

Right.

You're

a lot in your life.

And so then you had to figure out, okay,

am I eligible for some new program?

What is my kid eligible for?

All of this stuff.

So during the Biden administration, we were able to get almost every single state to extend coverage postpartum for 12 months.

So then you don't have that transition.

That's when people are going through these processes.

They're going through these processes when they've got a lot of stuff going on.

And so I just think sometimes we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people that were, you know, we can talk at high levels about policies, but we forget what happens, what happens to the individual,

you know, just talking to people about

their own experiences, a single man talking about, I have a disability, it's my back.

It's taking a while to get through the paperwork.

The work requirements are going to kick me off.

He also is bipolar.

Do we really want someone who's bipolar not taking their medication?

I mean,

none of us want that, right?

This is

not just affecting the people.

right it affects all of us as a society and just feels like so much of that has gotten lost in the last in this debate.

That's the part that makes me the maddest is that, you know, they, we know that they're, it's not a particularly compassionate group of people we're talking about.

And so saying, like, hey, people are hurting,

they, they look at the people and they say, well, it's mostly minorities.

And so then they think, you know,

maybe that's just the system taking care of itself.

I mean,

these are the things I've, I hear from, from these people, and you can read them online.

They're talking, they always go to cost, you know, well, you just got to work.

We can't afford it.

We just got to work.

Without acknowledging that it's significantly, significantly cheaper to help people take care of themselves.

You do have to trust them.

You have to trust them to

use the systems when they need it, work when they can.

And I think that's the hardest thing is like.

This all comes from the Republican perspective on healthcare and Medicare and

Medicaid is that people are inherently bad and inherently abusive and inherently lazy.

And we have to force them out into the world to be productive citizens.

And they don't trust Americans to

make the right decisions for themselves and their families because they just don't trust Americans and especially the people who are the most marginalized who need these services at those, you know, at that point of need.

when they're, you know, when they're struggling.

Sort of like the equivalent of saying, well, we shouldn't give a tax cut because there's some people who treat on their taxes.

We don't do that to the higher income people, right?

We don't say, you don't get this because there are other bad actors, right?

And it's, it is just very distressing that that is the attitude.

But you could even be selfish.

You could even only care about yourself.

And you should care that we have cut a trillion dollars of the healthcare system because we are linked for better or for worse to each other when it comes to healthcare.

And we saw that during COVID, right?

You can't get your packages from your favorite company if the delivery guy is sick.

You can't get all of the things that you need.

If everyone who's sick is filling up the hospital, then you couldn't get, you know, your elective, and by elective, I don't mean liposuction, I mean like your heart surgery and

your knee replacement because the hospitals are full.

And the impact of taking this money out without putting investments back is going to affect hospitals across this country, providers across this country.

And

again, like our economy depends on healthcare in ways that I think sometimes we just don't appreciate.

Yeah, I think it's wild that people do not, I don't think they understand.

So with these cuts,

and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think no one likes to go to the emergency room now, right?

Nobody enjoys that.

It's going to get a lot worse because of the closures of hospitals.

But not only that,

the fact that people don't have any, if they don't have Medicaid and they don't have some of these preventative services, they will wait until the absolute last minute and then they will go to the ER.

And then they either are riddled with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, or we, the American public, cover the cost.

And man, wouldn't it be better if we just like paid for people to go for their yearly checkups to catch these things before they spiral?

But this is, you know, these guys keep telling us that they are, you know, the business.

Donald Trump is a business president.

You know, Oz was a businessman and RFK was, I don't know what the hell he was, but that's just basically a liar.

But they're making this

so much worse.

And it's not going to save any, it's like, you're not going to actually save any money and you're making the system worse.

Am I correct with that?

You are.

Like if you think about this bill

and there were arguments that it wasn't a health bill and in a lot of ways it wasn't.

It was only a big cut, right?

It was only kicking people off.

There are so many things that we could be doing to make our healthcare system

cost less and work more.

Those are harder things to do.

They require compromise and discussion.

But that could have been the focus.

But no, no, I mean, just these draconian changes that really are going to have an impact on

so many of us.

And for those of us who live in more densely populated parts of the country where you can choose between what hospital, you may have to wait.

But

we do not know how a lot of people in this country live.

A lot of people live in rural areas.

I did a lot of traveling as CMS administrator.

I was in Colorado where I drove this beautiful drive in between,

you know, two huge mountains.

And when I got to the rural hospital, they told me the hospital, the road you just drove on is not, you cannot pass it one out of three days of the year.

So think about that.

You are trying to get to the the nearest hospital.

You can't take it because the weather is bad.

The snow has made it.

So you can't, where are you going to go when you're trying to give birth?

Where are you going to go when you have a heart attack?

Where are you going to go when you don't know what's going on and you need to go to the ER?

There across this country already are places where people have to travel further than they should for care.

And again, many of us don't don't know what that is like, but it is the rural hospitals that are really already on the edge in our country.

They already live on really, really tight margins.

And we've already started to hear of hospitals closing their labor and delivery services, closing, not planning expansions, and talking about closing altogether as a result of this legislation.

Well, we've talked a lot about things that are bad.

For your last question,

what could people do?

We're in this situation where clearly this bill has passed.

What and it's the law of the land as of now.

What do you recommend people do as far as

trying to get some of these cuts either rescinded or just frankly like torpedoing pieces of this bill?

What should people do?

Well, there is the short term and then there's the

next year.

So in the short term, right now, Congress is talking about the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

And the thing about this bill is there are changes that are taking effect right now this fall.

And pushing members of Congress to

extend the subsidies and to roll back some of the administrative changes is really a short-term thing that could be done.

The Medicaid changes are do not take effect until, for the most part, 2028, but they are already starting to states are already starting to implement that.

And so, really educating and pushing your members of Congress to overturn these provisions, there is still time, especially now states try to start implementing them, but they haven't taken effect and either pass new legislation.

And certainly, it'll, what we see in the midterms will have a huge effect on whether or not this bill in it whether the whole bill becomes enacted or it becomes

becomes stays the law of the land or not.

Okay.

And I lied.

I have one more question for you that I, you know, as being the amateur host that I am, I missed this completely.

So we are in the midst of a potential government shutdown as well.

This is currently,

I think, expires

on the 1st, I believe, or the 30th.

I can't remember.

I think it's Wednesday

midnight.

Wednesday midnight.

So like there are, you know, we've been in these situations before.

Actually, Chaquita and I were both in the Obama administration when there was a very long shutdown back in 2012 or whenever that was.

I can't actually remember.

But

from a Medicaid and Medicare perspective, if there is a government shutdown, what does that look like for Medicare and Medicaid recipients in the short term?

Not related to BBB, but just like what happens if the government shuts down?

Yeah,

government shutdowns are very frustrating and difficult, and they cause a lot of uncertainty.

For Medicare,

most of the, while Medicare dollars themselves keep flowing, the people who work on the Medicare program, the dollars do not keep flowing.

And so in the short term, a couple of days, it doesn't make that big of a difference.

But if a shutdown goes on for time, for a length of time, then claims do not get paid.

So when people

go to the doctor when you go to the doctor, CMS will make sure your doctor gets paid, the hospital gets paid.

Again, that will happen for a short period of time, but the longer the shutdown goes on, the claims do not get paid.

And so that's one of the most immediate effects.

The people who answer the phone when you have a problem, the people who investigate it, when the members of Congress call and say, so-and-so isn't getting what they need, this doctor needs help.

The people who solve your problems are paid for by

the government.

And then on Medicaid, something similar, right?

The money has already gone to Medicaid is mandatory.

Funding continues.

But the staff that

work with the states,

they're the ones who

aren't going to be in the office able to make sure we keep going.

And at some point, that really affects whether or not people get the care that they need.

Well, let's hope that that doesn't go on for very long because that could be very devastating and for a whole host of other reasons as well.

So hopefully they can figure out some sort of deal and hopefully Democrats maybe can claw back some of the losses that we had in the BBB.

So, well, Jaketa Brooks LaShore, thank you very much for joining us.

This is such an important topic.

And also just thank you for actually being someone who is trying to make America healthy, unlike what the other side is, you know, uses that term a lot.

But, you know, some of those things that were changed in the Biden administration made real impacts for people.

And so I just want to thank you for that.

And, you know,

hopefully we will get through this very soon.

But we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us and letting our folks know what's at stake.

So thank you very much.

And we'll have to have you back on again sometime soon.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're going to move from one super fun topic to another one, which is we touched on it just a second ago with Chiquita, but we are days away from a potential government shutdown.

My understanding is that the both sides are not talking to each other.

There have been talks of meetings and not happening.

And so we thought it would be important to tell people, you know, what a government shutdown, what actually happens in a government shutdown and whether we should like it or not, which I can tell you right now,

we are not going to like a government shutdown.

So, for example, like pretty much everything, like I worked in the federal government

in 2012 or 2013 when the like the 40-day shutdown happened.

And I can tell you that the American public does not like it.

It's actually a wonderful way to show people the importance of government when it gets taken away.

But it's going to national parks theoretically will be closed.

The Trump administration will probably try to keep them open.

And I highly recommend you do not go to national parks during shutdowns.

It's very, very dangerous.

I I do, do not do it.

But there's a whole host of other things, like Jiquita just said, about like, you know, people getting reimbursed.

And, you know, also you're laying off a million federal workers in the short term, which means they're not spending any money on the economy as well.

It's just a bad, bad idea.

For me, the thing is, like, I hate the blame game.

I think everybody hates the blame game.

It just creates cynicism.

I don't want to go into this thinking.

We should shut the government down for political reasons so that Donald Trump, so that then we can try to win the argument that it's Donald Trump's fault, or like usually it's the party in power who gets blamed.

Those are political wins, and I don't care about political wins as much as I care about real people.

And so, when I look at this, I think, okay, we've been through this, like it's almost boring.

Like, oh, there's a government shutdown, and maybe it's going to shut down, and they're going to extreme measures to keep things, whatever.

That's all just noise.

What I want to know is if the government shuts down this time, what will be different from the prior times that the government shut shut down?

And I just read an article this morning about how apparently his name is Russell Vogt.

I've always called him Russell Vought.

When he says Kamala correctly, I'll pronounce his name correctly.

So I'm just going to keep calling him Russell Vought.

But he hold up for four years during Biden's tenure so that he could draft a plan for how to expand unitary executive theory, the whole thing behind Project 2025, as rapidly as possible in the event that they take take power again, in the event there are shutdowns.

Like he, he game planned out every different scenario.

And that's what we're reading is that he's the director of the office of what budget and management management budget.

And he has a written up plan drafted so that they can do the worst things as fast as possible.

when the government is shut down because the rules do change when the government is shut down.

You can force through appointments.

You can do all sorts of horrific things.

So they're not going to play by the same shutdown rules that Biden played by and that even Trump played by in his first term.

So are we willing to hope for political points with the blame game in exchange for these unknown things that they're going to do?

Or do we say just fund the goddamn government?

because we are on track to clean house in 12, you know, 13 months when we have the next election,

just keep the ship as steady as possible despite Trump's mayhem.

And I honestly don't know how I feel about answering that question.

And I think probably a lot of our listeners are sort of stuck in the middle, too.

I think that the reason that it's stupid to entertain the idea of a shutdown is because our chief communicators are Jeffries and Schumer, and they have shown us time after time after time that they're not built for this moment.

At this point, I'd rather them get rolled over by the Trump administration than them stand up, try to do something stupid, and make things worse.

At the end of the day, as Tim said, the shutdowns are about a blame game.

We will lose that because we do not have anyone who can stand up on a bully pulpit and compete with Trump's messaging.

That's like the sad and cynical view, but we are this close to a deadline, and

democratic leadership, those that were elected to office, have not coalesced around a plan.

Therefore, it is too late to make a plan.

Like just abandon it, abandon entertaining that idea and say to the voters, just say, you know, it's time for Jeffries and

Schumer to move on.

I know that's really hard for politicians to take, but that's where we are.

Like, we are not at a time when we can play by the old rules, that we can be passive and that we can

take half measures and stumble our way into a plan.

Like, we need strong leadership right now, and we don't have it in the Democratic Party.

I have a follow-up on that, but Tim, I want to hear your thoughts first.

Well, I, well, first of all, the difference here is that

the Democrats would be the ones in the minority.

And usually the way that this works is that a shutdown happens because the Republicans want basically to cut more things that, you know, help poor people, working class people, veterans, things like that.

And then we say no, and then we quote unquote win because people see it for what it is.

The problem in this case is that it's the reverse.

So it's the Republicans that are in control.

And we do have some levers in the Senate because they need a certain amount of votes to pass it.

So we can be involved in this.

But we are the ones that are, I mean,

I guess you could call it pro-government.

So for us to do it, it has to be for a very good reason.

And there needs to be a very clear ask of the Trump administration in order for Democrats to go along with this bill.

And as Chris mentioned, I haven't heard any of that.

I actually don't know what they want.

Do they want to claw back $100 billion of the Medicaid cuts?

I don't know.

I haven't heard any specifics.

And the other problem with this is that when you look at the media, like everybody's talking about who's going to win and who's going to lose.

Well, I could tell you who's going to lose in a shutdown, and that is the American public.

That is the problem with Democrats being the ones to say shut it down.

I get it.

Like, shut it down means I would rather nothing happens than destructive stuff.

But Rich, as you mentioned, they're talking about doing mass firings during a shutdown.

And

I just, there is no, there is no coherent message.

This has been an abject disaster.

I don't know what they're thinking.

I don't, maybe they're not thinking.

I don't know.

But, you know, the answers that I've seen from both Schuber and Jeffries are questionable at best as to what they want to do.

That's a really good point about the mass firings.

People need to remember that things like the court system, the federal court system,

needs employees, right?

It's not volunteer work.

It takes paper and internet and buildings, right?

These are things that need to be paid for.

The Trump administration wins

if the courts shut down, right?

If there's no one to order them to stop breaking the law, the Trump administration wins.

So there are just so many ways that we are, I think, potentially going to get steamrolled if a shutdown does happen.

So the follow-up question is,

totally agree about the congressional leadership.

I hadn't thought about what would Gavin Newsom do, you know, or Pete Buttigieg, people who are outside of the system, who have a loud voice and a good following.

I mean, Gavin has, I think, 100 to one over everyone else, found a way to, and Pritzker as well, but found ways to

find wins when it doesn't appear there's anything to win on the table.

What could governors do?

And this is, I don't have an answer in my back pocket.

What could governors do?

Like, you know, could he dig into a rainy day fund and fund all of the federal workers who are in California?

Like, what, how could we at least minimize actual harm while scoring a political win the way that he's done, you know, I think really throughout the summer?

It's complicated, right?

Like, I mean, there are certain things that governors can do, but the problem is that governors have to, you know, they rely on balanced budgets and they don't run deficits.

So they don't have the amount of cash.

Like the federal government could go into debt, right?

We're $20 trillion or $40 trillion in debt as it is.

So it's easier for them to unlock funds.

You know, I think there's certain situations where,

and I know this will happen, even though I said I don't recommend it, there, you know, those guys will try to keep national parks open because I will tell you, we shut them down because we didn't have any people.

And that was a huge lever for us to pull because of the amount of jobs that it creates, the amount of spending.

If they're not open, none of that stuff's happening.

So they can do those things, which again, I don't recommend going because it's very dangerous, putting a sheriff in charge of, you know, massive national parks who have no idea about terrain or no understanding of like emergency response and all that sort of stuff.

It's just bad.

So there's stuff like that.

They can't fund federal employees.

There would be no real way for them to do that.

You know, I think the best thing that governors could do, in particular blue state governors, right, is to highlight the pain that is happening.

Like Gavin.

you know, Governor Newsom, it would, you know, telling stories about what's happening to Californians because the government's shut down and because because Trump won't, you know, sign a deal.

Uh, Pete Buttigiege could do the same in either Indiana or Michigan, where he lives now.

Um, and is so good on going on like Fox News and other things to talk about the damage.

And, like, I think those are the things they can do.

But the reality is that there are really

five people involved in this dance: Schumer, Jeffries, Johnson, Thune, and Trump.

Those are the five people who have to make a deal.

Um, I think that Trump is probably, on one hand, licking his lips at the,

gross term, but at the thought of

just destroying the government during a shutdown, but he's also very, very keenly aware that his approval ratings right now are absolute garbage.

And I think this will be laid at his feet because Democrats can say, you have total control of the entire government.

What the hell are we?

Why do you need us?

And I think that is a message that can win, but I wish Democrats could say something like, I want 500 billion of the trillion dollars in Medicaid cuts back and then settle for 250 and then you can go or whatever and can go back and say,

we actually saved a lot of pain and probably death by forcing Trump to give something in return for letting the government open.

That's what, if I were them, I'd be hammering that all day.

And I have no, they're just, I'd, they're just saying Trump bad right now, which is not an effective communications message.

You just, you just gave me an idea.

This is what I want.

I'm making a decision right now.

I want the Democrats to come up with an offer that says

don't delay anything from the big bullshit bill make everything real right now and and then we'll sign on to continue to fund the government pull all of the pain that they tried to defer to after the midterms pull it to right now let's let's live the big beautiful bill in its purest form as soon as possible And then the American people can really have, you know, a good choice when they go into the midterm elections as to what country they want to live under.

So that is something that Republicans would do because they don't care about the results.

I think that, you know, I know you're mostly joking.

Well, they designed the bill in that sense

to screw Democrats because they knew how bad it was for sure.

It's just then we're just giving people more pain if we do that.

So we probably won't do that approach.

But

anyways, you will all know by Wednesday or Thursday morning when you wake up whether there will be a shutdown or not.

Let's hope there's not.

And let's hope that there is some,

you know,

cooler heads prevail and some sort of deal

is struck.

And we will see.

And speaking of deals, guys,

you know what's coming.

For the first time ever in Find Out podcast history, all of the co-hosts that are on right now, of course, there's only three of us, are wearing

Find Out podcast merchandise, and it's all different.

I have the short sleeve

logo.

Rich has got the hoodie version of the logo.

And actually, Chris has a slightly,

yeah, Chris has a slightly different logo version, which are all available.

And there's also exciting news that I think maybe later this week, there will be a couple more hoodies in the store as well.

But right now, there's plenty of good stuff for you to go pick up.

Actually, one of the people on our team mentioned they were at the airport.

wearing one of these shirts and they got recognized or the pod got recognized.

So buying these and wearing them around helps to spread the word, and you'll get to meet some good people too once you know enough people get them.

Uh, they're also made in America, union made,

they're comfortable, and they help support us doing this full-time.

So, you can get your merch at findoutpodcast.substack.

Nope, I screwed that up.

Findoutpodcast.com,

or

I got ahead of myself, you can do a subscription or buy a subscription for us, $6

per month at findoutpodcast.substack.com to help fund this work.

And so we could talk to people like Jaketa and other people to inform you guys about what's going on in the world and getting into a little bit more detail than a social media post.

So, with that, I actually have a meeting, which is why I'm wrapping this now.

I want to thank you guys as always and thank Jaquita for joining us today.

And I hope you have a great week or a great week.

And we will

talk soon.

Thanks, everybody.