Speaker 1: Hello, Federalist Radio Hour friends. It's your amiable host and
experience shipa Matt Kittle. You know I have the good
fortune of talking to some of the most interesting people
thought leaders in politics and culture. Today. There's shining light
on some very dark places in our government and fighting
for the foundational values of this republic, this last best
hope for liberty, and that's what we do every day
at the Federalist. We can't do that without you. The
Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit and we depend entirely on
our listeners and readers, not corporations. If you value fearless
independent journalism, please consider a tax deductible gift today at
the Federalist dot com backslash donate. That's the Federalist dot
com backslash. Donate. Your support keeps us going. Merry Christmas
in a blessed new Year from your friends at the Federalist,
and we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced SHRPA on today's quest for knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com follow us on ex at FDR LST.
Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Brian Blaze, former Trump Advisor staffer
and president of the Paragon Health Institute. In a recent
Wall Street Journal op ed, Brian asserts Obamacare is a
mecca for fraud, So why are lawmakers, Republican lawmakers at that,
trying so desperately to keep it? Brian, thank you so
much for joining us in this edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: It is great to be here. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: Well, you have been a very busy, busy fella of late,
most recently this week testifying before the House Judiciary Committee
on fighting Obamacare subsidy fraud. And really, you know, that's
what this is all about. The Wall Street Journal op
ed the GAO report of late that verifies everything you're
talking about. Is anyone listening?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, I think the fact that I testified
in front of the Senate Finance Committee three weeks ago,
and that is the primary committee with jurisdiction over federal
health care programs, and going in front of the House
Judiciary Committee yesterday shows that there is an audience and
that I think a lot of Republicans are rightfully concerned
about what has happened in Obamacare, both the broken promises
that have been well known. You know that people couldn't
keep their plans if they liked them, They lost their doctors.
You know. President Obama said premiums would go down twenty
five hundred dollars, and premiums have escalated in Obamacare, and
most recently, and I know we'll get into it, the
fraud that has been exacerbated in the program because of
a bad policy in the Biden administration that expanded subsidies
to health insurance companies. So I think there is an audience.
I think that it's unclear whether these expanded subsidies will
get extended, but it does look like they will not
get extended this session, and I think that means we
are still fighting and have a reasonable chance at securing
a policy victory.
Speaker 1: Here, and that, I guess is the ultimate question. There
are two tracks here. There's obviously what is good, ultimately
good for the healthcare system for the people who use it.
I mean, that is the ultimate goal, but you don't
get there unless you control the narrative. And you know
that twenty twenty six, these midterms coming up, the left,
the Democratic Party will be using the Republicans in their
estimation refusal to help all of these people, that people
are going to be suffering and struggling because they will
no longer have these subsidies, and those awful Republicans held
out to kill this healthcare insurance, these healthcare insurance subsidies,
all of this sort of you know, the rhetoric is coming.
How do Republicans get the message out there, because that
has been the problem for some time with Republicans getting
the message out there is hey, we want a healthy
healthcare system. Obamacare in the subsidies are a cancer to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So that's a good question. And I actually think
that the government shut down, and the Democrats shutting down
the government because they felt like sending these massive subsidies
directly to health insurance companies was a policy and political
priority for them. That has given an opportunity to educate
members of Congress Republicans on the underlying problems with Obamacare
and also on a set of policy reforms that they
can tout that move us away from government control and
expand power. And control for patients. So let me just
go through a few points. One, the underlying subsidies in
Obamacare are permanent. They are a part of the twenty
ten law. So if you go back to Obamacare, what
we are talking about is the individual market for health insurance,
so where people go who don't get a plan from
their employer or who don't get covered through Medicare or Medicaid.
That law put in place regulations on what insurance had
to offer, made it much more expansive, and because those
regulations increased the price of insurance, it needed to include
a set of subsidies that would have the taxpayer picking
up a large portion of the premium for the enrollly.
So in twenty fourteen, individual market premiums increased about fifty percent.
That's the initial effect of the Obamacare regulations. In twenty fourteen,
the federal government paid about two thirds of the premium,
the enrollee paid about one third. The way that these
subsidies are structured is really deeply problematic. They limit the
amount that enrollly has to pay, so the enroller share
of the premium has been fixed, basically fixed over time.
So his premiums in Obamacare have escalated, the taxpayer has
been the one who bears the full financial responsibility. So
by twenty twenty, the taxpayer was picking up eighty percent
of the premium. The enrolly share had gone down to
twenty now in twenty twenty one as part of the
pandemic efforts. And you know, one of the things that
came out of the pandemic was a massive expansion in government.
And one way that they expanded government was by sending
additional subsidies to insurers, which replaced even a shrinking a
small enrollly share with more taxpayer dollars. So the enrollly
share of the premium over the last five years has
been actually less than ten percent. So the issue going
next year is whether the enrolle will still pay just
ten percent of the premium or whether we will go
back to the enrollly paying twenty percent of the premium.
So the underlying subsidies remain very generous, they are in place.
Democrats have confused the issue. They talk about all of
these subsidies expiring, when these underlying subsidies remain in place.
So I think for Republicans it is important to talk
about how Obamacare is the problem Obamacare is what led
to escalating premiums and deductibles and led to inferior plan design.
Like most of these plans that are available in the
individual market, they do not cover the best hospitals and
doctors in regions. And what we do not want to do.
The worst thing to do is to throw more taxpayer
money at this system. That will lead to higher premiums
and higher healthcare prices and give insurers more power to
set high rates for premiums, knowing that the federal taxpayer
is the one who is on the hook for the
premium increase. Rather than doing that, we need to embrace
market principles, expand consumer options and choice, and inject more
competition into the market. So that's why it's vital that
you know, Republicans and conservatives hold the line here and
defeat an expansion of these uh these what we're supposed
to be temporary COVID subsidy boosts, so that we can
actually have altern natives that move us in the direction
of a freeer market healthcare system.
Speaker 1: That's a good point. Do you think most Americans, middle
class Americans understand how inherently unfair this is. Wouldn't it
be nice I can tell you this is a middle
class American. It would be very nice if my share
of my healthcare insurance cost just ten percent, that would
be wonderful. That's not the reality for a lot of hardworking,
tax paying Americans. Not only are they paying more for
their health insurance, much more than the people who are
using Obamacare, they are paying for those people to use
Obamacare in a greater and greater share all the time.
Speaker 2: So that is an excellent point and it is one
that we are really starting to make. We did a
policy brief last month that looked at the differential in
employer sponsor insurance and this Obamacare coverage in the exchanges.
So there's seven times more people that get coverage through
either their employer or an employer of someone in their
family than get covered in the individual market. So, in
the individual market, we just said eighty to ninety percent
of that premium is paid by the federal taxpayer. In
the employer market, one hundred percent of the premium is
paid by the employee. Now, there's often this misconception that
the employer is paying a large portion of the premium,
and we use the term employer share of the premium,
but the employer share of the premium just represents a
worker's compensation that is in the form of health benefits.
If they didn't get the health benefit, they would have
higher weight. So the worker is paying the full cost
of their health insurance. Individuals on the exchanges are paying
ten to twenty percent of the cost. What that means
is that if you take an individual of the same income,
they get much more benefit now if their employer does
not offer them health insurance because they have access to
these very large subsidies on the exchanges. So you point
out that it's patently unfair to people with employer coverage
because they are paying for their employer coverage and they
are financing the subsidies. It also leads to a situation
for employers where they have incentives to drop coverage. So
Obamacare has an employer mandate. It's a tax penalty on
employers that don't offer health insurance, but it's only for
employers that have fifty or more workers. What we have
seen is small employers dropping coverage and mass since twenty ten,
and dropping that has accelerated because of these Biden COVID
bonuses to the point where now only one out of
three employers. Small employers offer health coverage to their workers,
and that means worst coverage in the individual market. It
also means escalating costs for taxpayers because of the growing
cost of Obamacare plants.
Speaker 3: The Treasury just made a huge announcement regarding illegal immigrants.
The Watch doot own Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski
every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. The Treasury
says illegal immigrants will be removed from the financial system completely.
If you can't get a job here and you can't
get benefits, you're not going to come. This should have
been done years ago. Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Do you think that might have something to do with
this inflation that we're all concerned about? You know, obviously,
I mean you hit the nail on the head, you know.
The COVID era was the massive expansion of big government
and those decisions by the former president, or at least
is auto pen and the Democrats who controlled Congress at
the time, really did a number on the cost of things.
Healthcare is a big, big part of that. What's the
inflation cost here that we have borne over the last several.
Speaker 2: Years another good question. The inflationary elements of these subsidies
has been significant. It's actually one of the most inflationary
parts of the American Rescue Plan Act, which President Obama
or President Biden signed in twenty twenty one, and then
the you know, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act that he
signed in twenty twenty two. Again, the way that these
subsidies work, they capped the and roll share so that
the taxpayers picking up the full cost over time. So
that's inflationary. And what the Biden COVID bonuses did is
lift the cap that had existed at four times the
poverty line. So original Obamacare had these subsidies, but they
didn't feel like upper income households needed the subsidies, so
they put a cap in place for households above four
times the poverty line. The Democrats lifted that cap so
allowed households, making you know, several hundred thousand dollars up
to actually over households, making over five hundred thousand dollars
qualified now for subsidies to purchase Obamacare coverage, so that
brought more people into the inflationary system. And what we've
seen is a lot of what these government COVID subsidies
have done is replace private spending with taxpayer spending, which
means higher federal deficits, higher debt, higher interest rates, and
higher inflation. So there has been bad sort of macro
economic outcomes from the misguided expanded subsidy policy as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and those expanded subsidies, we've talked about this before.
The message that I hope is finally clear two Americans
over the course of the shutdown is those subsidies cost
hundreds of billions of dollars. That's expanded subsidies to help
people supposedly during a pandemic. The pandemic was long over,
and yet they continued that the American people continued to
pay out these subsidies to prop up this this miserable system.
And then Democrats said, well, we want to expand these subsidies,
we want to double down, we want to throw bad
money after bad and that really is what is what
was happening there. What would have happened if Republicans had
not held the line on the expansion of these I
should say the continuation of these subsidies, and built into
that would be the expansion of these subsidies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so a couple of if the subsidies get expanded
or I guess if the expanded subsidies get extended, the
budgetary cost every year of that is estimated to be
at least forty billion dollars. So you're adding forty billion
dollars to the federal debt every year. You are also
exacerbating the incentive that exists for small employers to drop coverage,
so you will have continued exodus of people with employer
plans into the exchanges. You will also worsen underlying healthcare
price inflation because if you subsidize insurers and you make
individuals less sensitive to the premium growth, that gives insures
more pricing power, and that means escalation of healthcare prices.
But I think the most galling thing is that it
would perpetuate massive fraud.
Speaker 1: So the.
Speaker 2: Expanded subsidies made coverage fully subsidized for people claiming income
between one and one and fifty percent of the federal
poverty line. And this was the message of my testimony yesterday.
And so I'll give you a bit of the backstory.
A year and a half ago, I testified before the
Texas State Senate and one of the senators asked me
about information that he was hearing that there was income
manipulation in order for people to qualify for more subsidies
than they were eligible for. And what I did was,
you know, I explained the incentives and told them, yes,
there are incentives to do that. That's because the subsidies
are advanced directly to the health insurance company. And if
the government advances too much more than the person was
actually entitled to, for the most part, the government just
writes that off. But I went back to my team
and I was like, well, let's quantify this. How many
people are enrolled claiming this income versus how many people
actually have this income. And it turns out for this
year twenty twenty five, there are six point four million
more or people that have claimed income in that category
than have income in that category. Now, how could how
could we have that much fraud? The reason is because
the insurance companies benefit from every enrollee, right, they get
a monthly check sent from the US Treasury directly to
them for the enrollees, and the insurance company will pay
brokers and agents that have enrolled these people a monthly
commission for every month that they're enrolled. So what that
did was create large incentives for fraud schemes. And so
you may have see you know, mainly there's there's there's
two types of ways people may have seen these. There
were social media like Facebook, TikTok. They had ads that
would advertise cash or free gift cards if people call
the number, and you may also have been driving down
the road and seeing free Obamacare plans number associated with that. Well,
people would call that number and they would ask about
their free cash or cash. They would ask about their
gift card, and they would provide their information, their name,
their birth date, and their address. And they didn't get
signed up for a gift card, they didn't get a
cash reward. What they got was enrollment in a fully
subsidized Obamacare plan. So this happened all over the country.
On some parts of the country it was worse than others. Now,
what would you expect if you enroll a whole bunch
of people in health insurance that thought that they were
signing up for a cash gift card. You would expect
a lot of these people enrolled never use their health plan.
So the Biden administration failed to release information about people
that we call zero claim enrollies, so people had never
used their health plan. In August, the Trump administration really
least disinformation. And what did we find. We found a
massive increase in the number of individuals who never used
their health plan. So in twenty twenty one, there were
four million people enrolled at some point during the year
that never used their health plan. By twenty twenty four,
that was almost twelve million people. Wow, so that is
equal to thirty five percent of all Obamacare enrollees that
year and forty percent of enrollees and fully subsidized plants.
Now it's crazy. And if you look at a normal
private health there are some people that are healthy that
don't go to the doctor during the year. Normally about
fifteen percent of people in a private health plan won't
have any medical claim during a year. So in Obamacare,
it's you know, two and a half times that in
twenty twenty four. So what we coined, we coined the
term phantom enrollment. So we think that there are. I mean,
I say, we're virtually certain that there are millions and
millions of people signed up in Obamacare plans. Again, the
government is sending insurance companies that check every month on
their behalf, who have no idea that they're enrolled, who
are either fictional or have other types of coverage. But
it is, it's really a national scandal. And I'll say
one more thing about this before you have follow up questions.
I mean, the Government Accountability Office, they after Paragon, we
released our research paper, our first research paper on this
A year and a half ago. Three committees of Congress
wrote to the Government Accountability Office and asked them to
do an investigation of the problem. Their investigation is ongoing,
but they release preliminary findings last week and two major things.
They created twenty four fake applications and they submitted them
to the exchange for enrollment. And I'm talking about some
of these applications had erroneous information, some of them had
missing information. You want to know how many of the
twenty four were approved for subsidized coverage.
Speaker 1: I'm going to say twenty. Given the extent of this.
Speaker 2: Higher twenty twenty almost all of them, ninety six percent
of the fake applications got through. Now, if you're approving
any fake applications, that's a sign of a problem. Maybe
one you would say one or two or is an
error and you attribute to well, that's just normal government.
Government is going to make mistakes. But mistakes aren't the anomaly,
they are the rule. With the eligibility determinations in Obamacare.
So GEO testified the other stunning stat So people that
receive these advanced subsidies, they are required to file tax
returns because you need to reconcile the advanced subsidy that
goes to the health insuran with the amount that you
were actually entitled to. One third of all advanced subsidies
were not reconciled for twenty twenty three. So the government
is literally, I mean, we're just sending money out the
door to health insurers that is going directly into their
revenue and profits and not translating into any zero healthcare
services received by people enrolled.
Speaker 1: That is absolutely criminal, absolutely criminal. Our guest today is
Brian blay Is, former Trump advisor Stafford, president of the
Paragon Health Institute. We're talking about it is it's a
national scandal of fraud involved in Obamacare, and a lot
of us saw this coming. Of course. I just think
that it is still stunning how much fraud there is
in this system. How culpable are the insurance companies in
all of this? And will anybody ever be held to account?
Speaker 2: So the insurance companies, good question. They say, well, we're
not culpable at all.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: These eligibility determinations are made by the federal government and
they send us individuals and then you know they're enrolled
in a health insurance plan. And I think that is
a bunch of hogwash. The insurance companies know that many
of these enrollees for years now. I mean this problem really,
I mean it started in twenty twenty two, it escalated
in twenty twenty three, and it probably reached its pinnacle
in twenty twenty four. It's still uncertain exactly what's going
on in twenty twenty five. Hopefully it's been minished to
some degree. But the insurance companies, they know that they
have massive numbers of minrolies that don't use any medical care,
and they know that they're getting They know when people
get enrolled from brokers, and if they see like individuals
getting enrolled from brokers that is like several times more
than what you get from a normal productivity from a broker.
I mean that is that should raise alarm bells. But
you know, if it did, then insurers have just ignored it,
and they have decided that it's very profitable for them
to just receive all of this money from the federal government,
and they would just rely on the fact that they
weren't the ones doing the eligibility determinations. But I think
they are culpable for this. They share a large part
of the blame. And I think that insurers should have
financial liability and the government should impose penalties on them
because this fraud is of such a magnitude that the
taxpayer should not be the one who bears the full
brunt of the cost. And insurers could have shut this down.
They could have stopped on sending commissions to brokers where
they were highly suspicious that these applications that they were
receiving were fake and fraudulent, and they did not.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, how much have members of
Congress Bennett benefited from this fraudulent system? And I asked
that in context of some legislation pending, we'll see where
it goes that will stop you know, equities trading within
you know, members of Congress who have obviously they're privy
to information on the markets that the average American would
not be because of you know, their positions and their connections. Now,
a lot of these members of Congress, I believe, knew
that this was a huge stink and fraud, and they
knew that it would put money in their pockets accordingly
with their investments and their campaigns. The insurers, of course,
were very happy about this, and so they also ritually
rewarded campaigns. Did this make members of Congress even more wealthy?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't have any I haven't done any research,
and I don't have any data on that specific question.
But I can tell you that insurance companies have done
an unprecedented amount of lobbying this year, and.
Speaker 1: You know, they.
Speaker 2: Realize that unfortunately, because I believe in private health insurance,
that's not what we have in the US. I mean,
in an Obamacare market. Now, the insurers are getting eighty
five percent of all of their revenue from the federal government.
So their you know, their motive vation is not to
design plans that best meet the needs of individual consumers.
In the country. It's to appeal to the federal lawmakers
and lobby for additional federal subsidies and cash. And it
is a terrible structure that we have where the incentives
for insurers are not to provide value for patients and consumers,
but to just appeal to members of Congress to maximize
the amount of money that they get from the from
the federal treasury. And I can tell you that the Democrats,
I mean a lot of their rhetoric is very anti
insurer and they talk about, you know, Medicare for all
and the evil of private health insurance companies. But their
policy agenda is about just sending more money to health insurances.
And look of what they've they've proposed to vote on.
They're just doing a clean extension of these subsidies. There's
not a single reform, there's not any proposals to address
any of the fraud or any of the abuse. It's
just to continue pouring additional taxpayer money on this already
over subsidized structure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's curious, where's Luigi Mengioni and all of this,
you know, the killer of the United Healthcare CEO. The
tragic as it is, his trial going on, of course,
and you know, he was seen by some on the
left as a cult hero, you know, for taking on
the insurance. But of course he's accused of killing a
man in cold blood, but they, you know, an assassination
culture on the left, they don't care much about that.
But it is interesting that you say that because Democrats
are propping up the thing that you know, he was
railing against, the thing that he allegedly committed violence over.
So I think it is rich and I mean that
in multiple different ways that the Democrats are telling you
they're fighting for the average America who's paying so much
in health care cost when they are absolutely benefiting from
this destructive system. But I want to Democrats certainly are
the issue and the problem. We've seen that, But I
don't want to let you know, Republicans off the hook.
Republicans who have talked about for years, we've got to
get rid of Obamacare, We've got to change this system,
we need to do something else. Very few have really
proposed something else. You have tried to help them. Where
are Republicans in this battle? And that's going to be
extremely important obviously as we get into the midterms.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know, twenty twenty five has been a
pretty important year for health policy. And I give Republicans
credit for the Medicaid reforms. And I know we don't
have time to get into this specificlar the Medicaid reforms,
but there were significant reforms to the Medicaid program that
were in the Budget Reconciliation Bill that were opposed by
the medical industrial complex. And the hospitals are very politically powerful,
and unfortunately it's one of the it's like one of
probably the major problem in healthcare is hospital prices. And
hospital prices since the turn of the century have grown
three times faster than general inflation, and a lot of
the reason is because of bad government policy that limits
choice and competition and scues the market to be more
hospital centric. But there were provisions in the One Big
Beautiful Bill that addressed a significant amount of corporate welfare
in the Medicaid program that led to just outrageously high
prices going through insurers, so they got to cut two
hospital systems. I would say with the current debate, Republicans
need to get more comfortable with health care policy. It
has never been a strength of the party. And in
twenty seventeen, the efforts to reform the Affordable Care Act.
They it wasn't well done. I think there was a
large failure in the party. And then the takeaway from
many in the leadership of the party was, well, let's
just ignore healthcare. Let's focus on other things that Republicans like,
like cutting taxes, deregulation energy production, and ignore health policy.
And that is just honestly. I founded Paragon Health Institute
because those of us who support free markets, we need
a health policy agenda. We can't retreat from what I
think is the most important domestic policy agenda. It's the
largest part of family budgets. It's the only part of
the government budget that is increasing as a share of
the economy outside of interest payments on the debt. And
we need an agenda that is both visionary in terms
of where we want to go in maximizing free market principles,
but also how we can win contemporary policy battles that
at least mean we're making marginal steps in the right
direction rather than retreating towards more government control. Today, you
know that there's well, there's going to be a vote
in the Senate. The Democrats are focused on expanding Obamacare
subsidies and the proposal that the Senate Republicans are offerings
has actually some pretty meaningful reforms. It would open up
the lowest cost Obamacare plan to more individuals. It would
address a flaw in Obamacare that would lower premiums for
the most common plan, and it would rather than funding
health insurance companies, it would take some funding and send
it to individual patients as hsas. Now. I think there's
could be improvements in this legislation, and I've written about
ways that it could be improved, but at least it
is a proposal that is moving us in the right
direction rather than towards more government.
Speaker 1: It is the issue, I mean really, and it's all
captured under affordability. And look at look at what is
look at what is happening in areas of this country.
I mean New York City. Uh maybe not surprisingly, but
did elect a socialist for a mayor in Zorandani who
did very well at least politically talking about how expensive
things continue to be. The affordability question. Now he will
be a disaster because he's a Marxist, and like we
saw the disaster coming with Obamacare, we can see that
for New York City. But that that shows you. Uh,
It's not just New York City. People are really really
struggling with the affordability question because all of its basic
basic economics, all of their gains in their wages and
their salaries, are being swallowed up by the higher call
of things, particularly health insurance. So how do Republicans, conservatives
who really want to change the system and make it better,
how do they communicate that to the country, to the
voter in a midterm where if they do not hold
the House and perhaps the Senate, any movement for reform
is going to die.
Speaker 2: So I think the way to communicate it is actually
to wrap a traditional free market message in populism. I mean,
the reason that we have such high health care prices
is because of the nexus and cronyism between big government
and big industry. And I think we need to tie
those together and say the way to get out of
this mess that we are in is to go after
the cronyism and the corruption, and we should. I mean,
health insurance companies are not a popular entity now. Like
I said, I support private health insurance and think that
health insurance should be able to do a wonderful job
of aggregating premiums and then paying off risks and spreading
the risk. That's what insurance does, but contemporary health insurance
is so there's little resemblance to that. But I think
to go after the corruption the Minnesota medicaid fraud scheme,
like where they were paying parents so their kids could
be diagnosed with autism so that they could generate more
Medicaid funding to these facilities like that is it is
so horrific that that happens, but that happens all over
the country. It is not just in minnesot It's because
of the terrible underlying incentives within these programs. And I
do think Republicans need to win the message on Obamacare
is why health insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and we can't
you know, uh, just debate this one individual issue on
the enhanced subsidies going away. We need to look more
holistically at the problems in Obamacare and greater government control
and really I think attack the like I said, the nexus,
but big government and big industry.
Speaker 1: Well, on that final question in our conversation today, do
you think the Minnesota medicaid fraud scandal that is going on,
Tim Governor Tim Wallas is you know, just very awkward
defense of himself and others, and the fact that we
have all of these blue state governors who refuse to
open up the books on how they handle this situation
or at least oversaw this situation. Do you think that
will ultimately be important to the move for reform?
Speaker 2: I do, and I think so. Doctor Oz, who is
the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
and who I think has done an excellent job so far,
has really laid out a reform agenda and has taken
a variety of actions to protect taxpayer dollars and to
preserve these programs for the most vulnerable rather than to
be siphoned off for fraudsters and grifters. They are going
to be all over this Minnesota situation, I really, and
I think the Obamacare fraud that we've seen in the
GEO signing up ninety six percent of fictitious applicants, like
we need to go after government healthcare programs. They are
not working, they are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
And take these two very clear examples that I think
will resonate with the American people to make a very
populist compelling case against government corruption.
Speaker 1: Well, at the very least, I think we should be
changing the slogan of Obamacare, that is to say, if
you hate your Obamacare, you have to keep your Obamacare.
That's basically where the system is today. And it is awful,
it is sad, and the word that keeps coming back
to me is criminal. And I hope there is accountability.
Thanks to my guest today, a Brian Blaze, former Trump
Advisor staffer and president of the Paragon Health Institute, you've
been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll
be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of
freedom and anxious for the fray.
Speaker 2: I heard the fame voice reason, and then it faded away.