Speaker 1: You're listenings KFI AM six forty the Bill Handle Show
Speaker 1: on demand on the iHeartRadio f.
Speaker 2: Bill Handle. Here he is a taco.
Speaker 1: Tuesday, June third, I put up a Instagram post. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you guys seen it. I went to
Speaker 1: Trader Joe's and buy a mistake. I bought a vegan dish.
Speaker 1: It was devastating, absolutely devastating. I've never bought a vegan
Speaker 1: anything in my life. You gotta look closely. I know,
Speaker 1: I know it's at bill Handle Show. You can see
Speaker 1: how upset I am on buying. Oh, and then let
Speaker 1: me tell you how I ate it.
Speaker 2: I ate the rice that was it on that tofu
Speaker 2: For God's sake, all.
Speaker 1: Right, I want to share with you a story and
Speaker 1: give you just a little background for a moment.
Speaker 2: And that is.
Speaker 1: The issue of Greenland for us. Why Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: making a huge deal out of Greenland, both of which
Speaker 1: are big deals. One is for national security. Greenland is
Speaker 1: where we have this massive base to stop an invasion,
Speaker 1: or at least to tell us there's an invasion coming
Speaker 1: in from mainly Russia. The other is rare earth that
Speaker 1: Greenland has in copious measure. They have a lot.
Speaker 2: We need rare earths.
Speaker 1: Rare earths are minerals that are used in the manufacture
Speaker 1: of phones and computers, etc. And we don't have any
Speaker 1: in the United States, or almost none. You know who
Speaker 1: has rare earth China? That's the other country. Now I
Speaker 1: want to talk about you getting sick. How many of
Speaker 1: you have gotten a prescription for a marxicillin, right, penicillin
Speaker 1: type drugs. I have a moxicillin. My doctor gave me
Speaker 1: a maxicillin because of my foot. You know it wasn't
Speaker 1: an infection to prohibit or to stop an infection. Okay,
Speaker 1: A maxicillin is in chronic short supply. There is one
Speaker 1: manufacturer in the US. China controls eighty percent of the
Speaker 1: raw materials of a boxicillin in the world.
Speaker 2: Eighty percent. You think that's a problem.
Speaker 1: Rick Jackson, founder and CEO of Jackson the Healthcare which
Speaker 1: owns the one amoxicillin manufacturing facility in the United States, says,
Speaker 1: increasing trade hostility or more protracted conflicts we're talking about
Speaker 1: between China and the US could devastate our access to
Speaker 1: a maxicilin Why because they control effectively the world market
Speaker 1: for the ingredients. How about hydrocordisone cream, you know, the
Speaker 1: anti itch cream that everybody uses, anti itch, that sort
Speaker 1: of thing. Ninety six percent of the imports controlled by
Speaker 1: China of the raw material, how about ibuprofen. Who doesn't
Speaker 1: take ibuprofen? And it took some this morning because the
Speaker 1: swelling of my toe is still there. Ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the raw material is China. Aceta meenafin. Seventy three percent
Speaker 1: is controlled by China. I mean, that's scary stuff. So far,
Speaker 1: China has not stopped exportation or exporting of these raw products.
Speaker 2: Is they've kept it close to the vest.
Speaker 1: But man, what is going on. There is a trade
Speaker 1: war going on with China. And we are at a
Speaker 1: real crossroads. When we talk about bringing manufacturing of steel,
Speaker 1: when we talk about bringing manufacturing of chips, computer parts, phones,
Speaker 1: that's one thing. Okay, as tough as it would be,
Speaker 1: it's one thing. It would take four or five years
Speaker 1: to start manufacturing drugs and raw products.
Speaker 2: That is a problem.
Speaker 1: That's years and years to switch over, which the major
Speaker 1: people involved in drugs say it can't be done.
Speaker 2: It just can't be done. And we are at war.
Speaker 1: And so the argument is pharmaceuticals we're paying too much
Speaker 1: for pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 2: We are, and that.
Speaker 1: Is what we're paying for is too much for brand
Speaker 1: name drugs.
Speaker 2: And over fifty percent.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, what's the actual number I'm
Speaker 1: looking at this story. It's really a stunning number. Where
Speaker 1: you've got seventy percent of drugs are generic in this country,
Speaker 1: seventy percent of what we buy and ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the ingredients to make generics are in Chinese hands. I
Speaker 1: mean we and we have a shortage right now of
Speaker 1: certain drugs. If China pulls the trigger on the exportation
Speaker 1: of the raw material, we and the world are in
Speaker 1: deep trouble.
Speaker 2: Now. The good news is that India is the.
Speaker 1: World's biggest manufacturer of generics and we get a lot
Speaker 1: of our generics for India. Oh wait a minute, the
Speaker 1: raw products that go into the Indian manufacture are all
Speaker 1: controlled by China, and so this trade war gets a
Speaker 1: lot more complicated. Where we are at a we're at
Speaker 1: a dilemma here and in the world of.
Speaker 2: Trade.
Speaker 1: Has been said, China is going to suffer more than
Speaker 1: we will, which is probably true globally in the world
Speaker 1: of pharmaceuticals, we are screwed. If China starts throwing in
Speaker 1: raw products as part of their war and their ammunition.
Speaker 1: So be prepared for pharma pharmaceutical costs to go down
Speaker 1: among patented drugs that are manufactured in the United States.
Speaker 1: When it comes to generics, that's just a commodity. And
Speaker 1: now we're talking about how cheaply can you make it?
Speaker 1: And the United States will never make generics as cheaply
Speaker 1: as they can in China.
Speaker 2: It's impossible, just can't.
Speaker 1: And if China goes to town and says, okay, that's part
Speaker 1: of our trade war, we're throwing that in the mix. Man.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a mess. The whole thing is we're
Speaker 1: too simplistic with this trade war. Business fifty percent, right,
Speaker 1: let's change last week. Was it last week that President
Speaker 1: Trump said, you know what, instead of twenty five percent,
Speaker 1: I'm going to make it fifty percent And one week
Speaker 1: it changed. It changes overnight. Try to build a factory
Speaker 1: in a week and bring manufacturing here. Try to convince
Speaker 1: China not to have ninety percent of the world market.
Speaker 1: Medicaid rules could leave a million Californians without health insurance,
Speaker 1: saying yet at the same time, the administration is saying, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we're not cutting medicaid. And there's two ways of looking
Speaker 1: at this, and I'll explain both right and both wrong.
Speaker 1: Quick word about what's going on this Saturday, and that
Speaker 1: is our get together at the Anaheim White House, the
Speaker 1: entire crew Morning Crew.
Speaker 2: We've never done this.
Speaker 1: We're having dinner together and five of you plus I
Speaker 1: guess plus one will be coming with us, and it's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of fun where we're going
Speaker 1: to give you the inside baseball what's going on, and
Speaker 1: you get to meet all.
Speaker 2: Of us, which is for some reason people are interested
Speaker 2: in doing that. So here's what you do.
Speaker 1: You go to during the course of the show, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app click onto the bill handle show microphone in
Speaker 1: the upper right corner. Click onto that fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: seconds to tell us why you either want to go
Speaker 1: or you should go on Saturday.
Speaker 2: Thursday.
Speaker 1: By the way, will contact the winners, so leave your
Speaker 1: information obviously contact info, and we will say you're.
Speaker 2: One of the big ones. Okay.
Speaker 1: Now, there's a real issue going on with the federal
Speaker 1: government in the state.
Speaker 2: You are going to see that the.
Speaker 1: New budget, the Big Beautiful Bill, cuts Medicaid recipients by millions,
Speaker 1: and in California, it could leave a million Californias with
Speaker 1: no health insurance. Now the administration is saying we're not
Speaker 1: cutting Medicaid. That's not true, and yet the California is saying, yes,
Speaker 1: you are. How can they both exist? I mean someone
Speaker 1: has to be wrong. It depends on how you look
Speaker 1: at it. Because the cut, if you call it a cut,
Speaker 1: and there's a moral component to this, according to Mike Johnson,
Speaker 1: is if you can work, why don't you work? And
Speaker 1: if you're getting medicaid because you can't afford any kind
Speaker 1: of healthcare and we're paying for it the taxpayer and
Speaker 1: you're not working, that is a problem. So I guess
Speaker 1: we're cutting medicaid. But the administration's position, we're only quote
Speaker 1: cutting to people who.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't have it in the first place.
Speaker 1: And under the Big Beautiful Bill, it simply says that
Speaker 1: you had better prove that you're trying to well, actually
Speaker 1: you are working, or you're going to school, unless you're
Speaker 1: exempted special needs, a pregnant woman, and taking care of family,
Speaker 1: being a caregiver. There are a bunch of exemptions. But
Speaker 1: if you're nineteen to sixty four and you can work,
Speaker 1: and you're not exempted, you're not getting medicaid.
Speaker 2: Now that came under Obamacare.
Speaker 1: That's when that started expansion of medicaid. You'll hear that
Speaker 1: phrase be thrown about the expansion of medicaid with Republicans
Speaker 1: are adamant about stopping it, and certainly we're against it.
Speaker 1: There is the issue, are we cutting medicaid well to
Speaker 1: the people who don't deserve it in the first place,
Speaker 1: they're not going to get it. We don't view that
Speaker 1: as a cutting. What we view is taking back which
Speaker 1: shouldn't be there. Now you have the states which are
Speaker 1: saying you are cutting and people who are eligible who
Speaker 1: are going to be made ineligible because of your now
Speaker 1: definition of who deserves medicaid. Right now easy to get medicaid.
Speaker 1: The problem with the big beautiful bill where they're undoing
Speaker 1: this is the reporting that has to be made to
Speaker 1: prove that you should be allowed to collect medicaid. No
Speaker 1: one knows what that is. The bill doesn't talk about that,
Speaker 1: and the fear is that it's going to be so onerous,
Speaker 1: it's going to be so difficult to do the reporting
Speaker 1: that effectively people who do deserve medicaid are not going
Speaker 1: to get Medicaid, there is the problem. So the version
Speaker 1: of the Big Beautiful Bill right now as it has
Speaker 1: passed by the House, requires adults to log at least
Speaker 1: eighty hours a month of community engagement. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: What could be employment, school, volunteer work. Anybody nineteen to
Speaker 1: sixty four. I don't know what that means, by the way,
Speaker 1: nor does anybody else. It's it's a problem because they
Speaker 1: haven't come up with the rules of how you do it.
Speaker 1: And that is the argument that's being used by the states,
Speaker 1: California specifically, and what California says that Medicaid if it's
Speaker 1: taken away from these people, going back to before the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act, where Medicaid was in existence, what was
Speaker 1: not was expanded then and has not been cut curtailed.
Speaker 1: About a million Californians would be with no health insurance.
Speaker 1: And Medicaid is a federal program which then reverts back
Speaker 1: to medical in which the state picks up all of
Speaker 1: the costs for the poor people, poor being and those
Speaker 1: unable to meet the requirements in terms of just accounting purposes,
Speaker 1: in terms of meeting the requirements for recognizing having the
Speaker 1: Feds or the state recognize that they are in that.
Speaker 2: Position because no one knows how do you do it?
Speaker 2: Who do you report to? And I volunteer? What does
Speaker 2: that mean? You can?
Speaker 1: It's crazy? It is I'm at the shelter. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm a volunteer and I do that fifteen hours a week.
Speaker 2: Is that enough?
Speaker 1: We don't know you need eighty hours? But how do
Speaker 1: we count the eighty hours?
Speaker 2: Okay? Enough of that?
Speaker 1: So it's you're gonna hear expansion, not expansion, cutting not cutting.
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens in the Senate. Mosquitoes.
Speaker 1: There's actually technology out there that can make mosquitoes extinct,
Speaker 1: and for some reason, there is an ethical dilemma here.
Speaker 2: You got me on that one.
Speaker 1: But I'll explain what's going on technology versus bioethics. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly the problem that I had when I first
Speaker 1: started practicing law, and I'll tell you how we dealt
Speaker 1: with it. Tolf of the Hour is rich the Moureau's
Speaker 1: tech guy, and KTLA's tech guy will be with us
Speaker 1: as he does every Thursday or every Tuesday.
Speaker 2: Yo, do I want to throw something at you.
Speaker 1: When I started practicing law, virtually from the beginning, my
Speaker 1: specialty was third party reproductive law. Pretty bizarre stuff, surrogacy,
Speaker 1: frozen embryos, sperm freezing, all of that. Sperm freezing is
Speaker 1: what you do in Antarctica when you never mind.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to go there in any case.
Speaker 1: So for three years I actually taught a course at
Speaker 1: my law school in third party reproductive law. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: was Professor Handel. If that isn't scarier as hell, then
Speaker 1: nothing is. And that was at the infancy of gene editing.
Speaker 1: And there was an ethical dilemma that was part of
Speaker 1: the course that we were talking about that I threw
Speaker 1: out the students and papers were written on it. And
Speaker 1: here is the ethical dilemma. Part of it is not
Speaker 1: part of It's pretty easy. Do you edit genes and
Speaker 1: edit out which you can do in the embryo stage,
Speaker 1: and change the genes and remove the possibility of diseases.
Speaker 2: With gene editing, you can get rid of.
Speaker 1: Taste acts, which virtually kills every Yashkenazi Jew that has
Speaker 1: tas as.
Speaker 2: It's an inherited it's an inherited syndrome.
Speaker 1: That kids don't go beyond five six years and it's horrible,
Speaker 1: or sickle cell anemia, which affects African Americans, which is
Speaker 1: a deadly, deadly disease. Do you change the very makeup
Speaker 1: of genes to make sure that those are not passed down?
Speaker 1: That's an easy one. Who's going to say no to that?
Speaker 1: Saving lives? Okay, let's take that same that same science
Speaker 1: and take it a step further, and now we get
Speaker 1: into bioethics. If we can change genes, how about parents
Speaker 1: coming in who are creating children via third party reproduction IVF, etc.
Speaker 1: How about making a kid taller, faster, blue eyes, blonde hair,
Speaker 1: or black eyes. Where is the ethics of that? Should
Speaker 1: we be able to do that? Should we have designer children?
Speaker 1: There is an ethical dilemma. Okay, that's step two in
Speaker 1: ethical dilemmas. Now I'm going to give you step three
Speaker 1: when we come back, and that has to do with
Speaker 1: going beyond getting rid of disease. Well, to some extent,
Speaker 1: it is making people better, faster, smarter.
Speaker 2: This went well, I'm going to wait.
Speaker 1: And I tell you about that because this has just
Speaker 1: started and there's a program going on right now in
Speaker 1: which bioethicists are going, Oh, hold on a minute. We
Speaker 1: don't want to go there, or do we? This is
Speaker 1: a Tuesday morning June thirtieth. All right, great topic.
Speaker 2: I love this stuff. It's my wheelhouse. And this has
Speaker 2: to do with some bioethics. As I was saying.
Speaker 1: Before the break, when I was teaching third party reproductive law,
Speaker 1: we had a real ethical dilemma with the concept of
Speaker 1: gene editing, which is now here. Those days it was
Speaker 1: what the future going to bring. Gene editing allows you
Speaker 1: allows scientists to change the makeup of a creature human
Speaker 1: or otherwise changing Darwin's selection concept and theory completely. The
Speaker 1: natural order of the things change, for example, removing diseases
Speaker 1: that are inherited at the genetic level, making kids are
Speaker 1: going to be born faster, better, taller at the genetic level.
Speaker 2: Big ethics involved.
Speaker 1: First one, not so big a problem, removing diseases, making
Speaker 1: designer kids, that's ethical. That's an ethical dilemma. So here's
Speaker 1: a third one. There is something called target malaria in
Speaker 1: which genetics are and this is going on right now,
Speaker 1: are going to deal introduce a gene mutation to mosquitoes.
Speaker 1: Female mosquitoes offspring to be born without their ovaries functional ovaries,
Speaker 1: rending them infertile. Male mosquitoes, the offspring can carry the
Speaker 1: gene but they remain unaffected physically.
Speaker 2: So here's the concept.
Speaker 1: When female was mosquitos inherit the gene from both their parents,
Speaker 1: they will go on to die without producing offspring. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: when males and females carry just one copy of the gene,
Speaker 1: they will spread the deene further until there are no
Speaker 1: fertile females left and the population crashes. Okay, not bad.
Speaker 1: Who's going to say no to that? Where is the
Speaker 1: bioethics here? Where is the ethical dilemma? Well, here is.
Speaker 2: What the ethicists are saying.
Speaker 1: Researchers and ethicists are warning this may be too dangerous
Speaker 1: to tinker with the underpinnings of life itself. We're talking
Speaker 1: about scientifically eliminating a species on this earth.
Speaker 2: Now, granted it's a species that.
Speaker 1: Causes malaria and dingy and West Nile virus and all
Speaker 1: kinds of serious diseases. What six hundred thousand people a
Speaker 1: year die just because of malaria, not counting other diseases.
Speaker 1: But it's an ethical dilemma because let's say we look
Speaker 1: at other species cockroaches, which don't do anything good. And
Speaker 1: by the way, who makes a decision as to who
Speaker 1: wipes out a species, an entire species.
Speaker 2: That is a dilemma.
Speaker 1: Not for me.
Speaker 2: I can tell you entire members of my family.
Speaker 1: I would wipe out and make sure that they don't
Speaker 1: exist anymore.
Speaker 2: But that's me.
Speaker 1: So we're really in a scientific age now. When I
Speaker 1: first started, even with IVF, for some crazy ass reason,
Speaker 1: the ethicists said, oh, no, IVF is not the same,
Speaker 1: because what you're doing is you're making decisions, a god
Speaker 1: like decision, who is going to live, who is going
Speaker 1: to die? What embryos you save, you destroy embryos? And
Speaker 1: that is an ethical dilemma. Well it isn't It really isn't.
Speaker 1: Now n gene tinkering with genes to remove diseases, No,
Speaker 1: that's not an ethical dilemma. Making people better, faster, taller, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an ethical dilemma. This one is scarying bioethicists because
Speaker 1: this is eliminating entire species of life. Now, granted, if
Speaker 1: you're going to do that, the first group you're going
Speaker 1: to wipe out is mosquitoes. But where does it go
Speaker 1: and how far? And again it took years, for example,
Speaker 1: to come up with a regulatory scheme across the country
Speaker 1: to determine how IVF is done, or how many sperm
Speaker 1: downers can be used, because there are ethical dilemmas there
Speaker 1: the fear of you know, not intermarriage, but you know, brothers, sisters,
Speaker 1: et cetera, creating children without knowledge. And they've never been
Speaker 1: able to come with a federal law. There are guidelines,
Speaker 1: but there is no law. The bioethesists had never been
Speaker 1: able to come up. Can you imagine this one? And
Speaker 1: then the question is what species do you wipe out?
Speaker 2: Mosquitoes? Absolutely no one cares.
Speaker 1: How about rats that cause diseases, certain kinds of rats
Speaker 1: that carry all kinds of diseases.
Speaker 2: Well, no, because they're part of the food chain.
Speaker 1: And when you take out a when you take out
Speaker 1: one of the elements of a food chain, and what
Speaker 1: happens going up and the same thing? You know, there
Speaker 1: are bugs, or there are mosquito eating animals. Don't bats
Speaker 1: eat mosquitoes? Who eats mosquitoes? I'm trying to think. Don't
Speaker 1: they for example in Asia, don't they eat mosquitoes?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: No, they eat crickets, that's right, not mosquitoes. That, by
Speaker 1: the way, is a joke.
Speaker 2: Mexico, they eat mosquitoes, We eat crickets. Oh Okay.
Speaker 1: So in Korea they eat mosquitoes, No, they don't. No
Speaker 1: one eats mosquitoes except you know, bats. And I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think of what other creatures, spa.
Speaker 2: And insects like dragonflies, some damn flies. Okay. So with that,
Speaker 2: do you get rid of mosquitoes? No, because they have
Speaker 2: their place in the circle of life too.
Speaker 1: Okay, and their place is giving you dingay fever.
Speaker 2: Okay, boy, there's there. There's a place for giving you malaria.
Speaker 2: Can't you just splice their jeans to not be able
Speaker 2: to do that? That's it?
Speaker 1: No, No, you can't because you would have to do
Speaker 1: it individually. The only way you can deal with an
Speaker 1: entire population is to make the bugs infertile.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very difficult to do.
Speaker 1: Individual gene manipulation. You can do it with people, but
Speaker 1: a per mosquito you really can't. I kind of feel like, God, ay,
Speaker 1: there's a delate thirties mid forty somebody was trying to
Speaker 1: do this stuff. Well, sciences go, well, they didn't do
Speaker 1: it to mosquitoes. They no, And it wasn't gene editing,
Speaker 1: it was wiping out entire species. By wiping out entire populations,
Speaker 1: very different.
Speaker 2: Okay, just wanted to bring that up. Rich Tomorrow coming.
Speaker 1: Up and we're going to be talking about well Nintendo
Speaker 1: and shoplifting, and he's going to talk about shoplifting either
Speaker 1: pro or con. Is shoplifting good or bad? I don't
Speaker 1: know yet. He's going to come up with the answer.
Speaker 2: Kf I am six. You've been listening to the Bill
Speaker 2: Handle Show.
Speaker 1: Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
Speaker 1: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.