Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Summer’s here and that means vacations and that means….guest hosts! Today, Peter Robinson teams up with our podcasting colleagues at The Weekly Standard, Steve Hayes and Fred Barnes. They talk about Georgia’s 6th district race, and of course the new health care bill now in front of the Senate. On the topic, we call on the most knowledgeable person we know on health care law, Avik Roy. Also, Trump vs. Comey and the not so special special counsel.
Music from this week’s podcast: Complicated Avril Lavigne
The all new opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a review too! And for Peter’s sake: JOIN RICOCHET TODAY.
Bend over and cough, @EJHIll
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Good podcast! This is how I wish it always would go–lots of disagreement, but no disparagement. Deep explanations of opposing points of view without implied insults. Excellent, top to bottom.
Yeah I think this is one of the best podcasts I have heard in a long time. I think the reason is Peter is a professional interviewer and he allows people to talk and then asks the followup question. If he had time he could teach a lot to the other two who make appearances.
Thank you Avik Roy and thank you Peter Robinson for just exactly what was needed this week: good questions and clear answers on a very complicated topic. I’m more hopeful now than before listening.
I think it’s sweet that Avik believes that the cuts starting in five years will actually happen.
Hayes excepted, this was the most Panglossian take on current events I’ve heard in months.
The content was great, but wow! what was going on in the background? Did you record this in a diner?
Avik was in an airport lounge.
How does not the next democrat run on and, if possible, ram through socialized medicine after another 7 years of soaring costs for the voters? I assume Trump is re-elected, mileage may vary.
Soaring costs are not fixed here although there are improvements. The lost insurance coverage meme will stick on the GOP.
Blue Yeti
Avik was in an airport lounge.
Even before Avik came on, there were some cell phone calls and other background noise. Cones of Silence for everyone!
(Aside for the sound issues, this was a fun and informative offering)
Avik didn’t give any prediction as to whether some future Congress would or would not repeal the McConnell reforms of Medicaid.
He simply said that the McConnell reforms of Medicaid represent enormous entitlement reform, much larger than the 1996 welfare reform in terms of dollars saved for the US taxpayer.
This Congress has no way of binding a future Congress. Asking them to do so is unreasonable.
Great podcast! Conservatives really need to realize we’re not going to get everything at once. The electorate is wary – we’ve been burnt over and over. Show us a little something and perhaps we can talk in ’18. Abandon us at your peril.
Hayes talks about the need for straightforward answers on the Russia probe to satisfy the public’s interest in the subject. Except only 44% of Americans, mostly Democrats with hopes of impeachment, are interested in this witch hunt.
In the latest Harvard-Harris poll, 64% think this Washington obsession is hurting the country and 56% say just move on.
Hayes needs to realize that in the real world not all of our questions get answered. And if we don’t have the answers today, 8 months after the election, maybe we are asking the wrong questions.
Barnes was correct that Trump has become a much more conventional conservative Republican president and that Trump hasn’t impacted conservatism much.
The main advantage of having a President Trump over a President (one of the other 16 GOP candidates) is that it blows up a lot of conventional wisdom about presidential politics, much of which I subscribed to myself.
You can be very obnoxious as a candidate and still win if your opponent is a crook.
Hey, I just learned a new word!
I remember exactly nothing else from reading Candide, so for all intents and purposes you have now read Voltaire too. Congratulations.
On healthcare, the GOP Congress should kick the damned field goal!
Then it’s up to us – you and me – to keep the pressure on for further free market elements by word, deed and increasing the GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Fred Barnes says Mueller has a “great reputation for integrity.” That’s what everyone was saying about Comey a year or so ago. :-/
And about Patrick Fitzgerald. (Ask Scooter Libby about him.)
And about Lawrence Walsh. (Recommended indictments of GOP cabinet officials just before the 1992 election.)
Now, fellow members, what do you call doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
I was disappointed not to hear any push back against the idea that Mueller’s hiring of a lawyer who worked for the Clinton Foundation, among others with perhaps some Democratic inclinations, was somehow improper.
It is critical that lawyers be able to represent unpopular clients (or clients who subsequently become unpopular) without being tarred by their clients’ beliefs or positions. Rule of law works when the best arguments be made on both sides, regardless of the parties to any specific litigation, because we rely on precedent to develop jurisprudence that applies to everyone going forward. If lawyers fear being tainted by unsavory clients, (a) those clients get bad advice, and (b) if the case ends up before a court, that court is not presented with the best arguments and may arrive at a poorly reasoned decision. That precedent may then be applied down the road against a more subjectively sympathetic litigant (and everyone else). The system, and our faith in the rule of law and not of men, loses.
The best example of this at the moment is the apparent difficulty in finding lawyers willing to work for the Trump administration or to represent him and his associates in their personal capacities. Everyone should hope that Trump has access to the very best advice available from top lawyers who can be unafraid of alienating the media, their friends, or future clients. For the same reason, we should want Mueller to have a team of the best minds and the people he trusts most. Lawyers are trained to zealously advocate for their clients within the confines of established ethical rules. We all benefit from this institutionally, whether we like the outcome in a particular case or not. This principle should be better articulated (and lauded), in conservative and liberal media alike.
Peter: love your work with Ricochet and Uncommon Knowledge. Just listened to the June 23 podcast.
Ever the sunniest man in the room, you asked Fred and Steve if things will be better in the next week.
Like the X-Files, I want to believe, but then Trump steps all over it with the Mika tweets. Yeesh.
But the Lord commands us to Hope, so I will.