Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 06-10-25_TUESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: June 11, 2025

Lynn Barton from Skypark Insurance explains benefits of Medicare Advantage Plan, Kevin Gill at Clouser Drilling, looking for more comment against a water bill. Former state Sen. Baertschieger says we now have Cap and Trade in Oregon, ooh, muy corrupt!

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Clauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at clauserdrilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. Like I mentioned a few minutes ago, I talked with Dr. Jane Orient, MD about ways to reduce medical costs. And she was doing really good talk on, OK, maybe sometimes you're better off paying the cash price rather than actually

You know running the drugs through your insurance and various other things going to direct primary care various other ways of going about it And she didn't have a lot of good things to talk about Medicare Advantage plan or to say about Medicare Advantage plan and I have Lynn Barton from Sky Park insurance course one of my sponsors But I'm happy to let her back on here because she says that it wasn't quite... I guess I don't want to put words in your mouth, though, but you thought that she kind of threw Medicare Advantage under the bus. Would that be fair, Lynn? Welcome to the show.

Good to have you on. Yeah. Hi. Thanks for having me on to share a little bit broader perspective. I felt like she was so negative that she really distorted the truth about Medicare Advantage plans. Okay, now what is Medicare Advantage in the first place? I'm not on Medicare, so I don't really know much about that, okay? So Medicare Advantage is a plan. They are heavily subsidized by Medicare, and it's

a way for people to get extra coverage for very little money monthly. Many of the plans cost nothing a month up to, well there are some higher cost ones I don't think they're worth it, but the ones that I was recommending last year, the most expensive one was $17 net out-of-pocket cost in addition to, because you always have to pay your Part B premium is 185 bucks a month. And then by adding a Medicare Advantage plan, people get extra benefits, but the real benefit is the protection from catastrophic expenses. Because once a person's costs get to a certain level,

typically between $5,000 and $7,500, the plan covers everything after that. And so one of the reasons that, I'm just going to give several reasons why Medicare Advantage can be a real boon to people, and let's begin with people of modest means. Many people cannot afford the Medicare supplement premiums and they're getting very expensive. It's now about the best price I can get is about 190 bucks a month for someone who's just turning 65. Yeah, now my mother, yeah, I'll just give an example since I wear some of this.

I think hers is about 350, 360 a month, you know, for her plan. Wow, I didn't think it got that expensive yet. It might be including her 185 part B. Yeah, it could be, but of course she's 85. She also has 85. Oh, your mom, I thought you're, yeah, no, it's probably is, it's over 300 bucks.

And I had someone call me last week and he said, I need to get into Medicare Advantage plan. My bill, my premium's up to over $300 a month. I simply cannot afford it. And I had to tell him, well, you have to wait till the fall and it'll start next January. Well, he's canceling his med sub plan cause he just can't afford the premiums.

So there's an affordability question, especially as people get older. So I wanted to talk about that. So there's an affordability question, especially as people get older. So I wanted to talk about that. It really is helpful for people who just can't afford it. Another thing is that some people choose, I'm just going to explain why I chose Medicare Advantage for me. I'm not that interested in what the Medicare covered services offer to me.

I'm not really interested in that kind of healthcare. But I want, I need the catastrophic coverage. Maybe I get in a car wreck or some terminal illness or something where I'm going to have some high expenses. So I need that. But by having a Medicare Advantage plan, that frees up cash for me that I can spend on the kind of healthcare I want working with a nat naturopath and I pay that out of pocket. So that's another reason that a person might choose Medicare Advantage because there's only one plan left that gives a modest amount of money toward alternative types of care. That's slowly going away. So that's another reason why someone would want a Medicare Advantage plan.

And they come with other benefits. So you save some money and then you can use your alternative health care providers. Yeah, I have a certain amount of money available for health care expenses, and instead of spending hundreds of dollars every month to a plan for services I'm not going to use unless I'm deathly ill, I get that catastrophic protection for a very low cost, and then I have money available to get the kind of healthcare that I want. So that's another reason that someone might choose Medicare Advantage.

And then also it comes with other benefits that again help people with modest means, dental, vision, things like that. That's not a reason to choose Medicare Advantage, but it's kind of a nice bonus. And then I wanted to talk about Dr. Orient. She actually contradicted herself. So at the beginning, she suggested that Medicare Advantage plans make money by denying and delaying care. I have to say I have not seen that. I haven't heard complaints

about it. My own husband needed surgery this summer between submitting a pre-authorization request and actually getting the surgery, it took about a month and it was a very smooth process and then he had to get another pre-op for a particular service and he had the pre-op in a week. It's a pain. People don't like it but it's not the downside because if you're with original Medicare and a Medicare supplement, you're not going to have to deal with that. But I'm not seeing it being used to deny or delay care. And I have seen that with group insurance or people who buy their own plans before they're 65. I had a friend who needed back surgery and it was horrible. So there's a lot of regulations around Medicare.

These plans get rated on how they treat their people. If they can get up to four stars, they get a big bonus payment so they can offer a better plan. So I'm not saying it'll never happen, but that's a rap against them that I have not seen. Okay. So you've not seen this. So I wonder if, hmm, of course, I don't know, maybe, and I like Dr. Jane. Dr. Jane has been a fighter for...

I did too. I'm a big fan. I know. So we're both fans. Is there a time in which a Medicare Advantage program is not a good choice for someone? And what would be an example of something in which Medicare advantage... Yes, I wanted to get to that, but let me just... Can I just quickly say how she contradicted

herself in that? Oh, okay, good. I guess we didn't complete that. Go ahead. Yeah. So she suggests that they make money by denying care, and then she talks about, well, they want to get the nurse out to your house and do a health assessment so that way they can put a bunch of diagnosis codes down and sell you a bunch of medical services that you might not need. So which is it? Is it denying care or is it providing excess care? So both can't be true. Okay. I don't think that's why they do it. I think they do it because Medicare wants them to do it because Medicare in its infinite wisdom has

decided that if people get all the vaccines and they do the healthcare assessments, they can catch stuff early and lower medical costs. And the plans do it because if they get people to do that, then that gives them a better chance at a higher rating, a higher star rating, and then they can get a better bonus payment and offer better plans. They get better bonus payments, they get brownie points then for getting you to be up on all your medications, all your shots, right? But you don't have to do it. You don't have to do any of it. You don't? Okay. Okay. So as far as, yeah, there's, I typically, when I'm sitting with someone, I try to explain the pros and cons of each as objectively as I can and then see which way they're leaning.

The only time I ever urge anyone to get any kind of plan is if they have had cancer, especially recently, or if they have an ongoing health condition that's going to require medical services, then I say if you possibly can afford it, you really need to get a Medicare supplement plan because they're going to save money, even though the premiums are high. It's very predictable. So most people get a G plan to start. You can get lesser plans that will save you a little bit of money, but you want to start at the highest because you can't go up. You'd have to be underwritten to get a more comprehensive plan.

Anyway. What do you mean by when you would have to be underwritten? What does that mean? Well, right when you're 65, you can get into a Medicare supplement plan without any health questions. Oh, okay. Okay? All right. And so you want to start at the highest level

because let's say you start with a cheaper Medicare supplement plan and later and then you have a cancer diagnosis and you want the more comprehensive plan, well you're not going to be able to get it because they would ask you the health care questions and they... Okay, all right, now I understand that. So as an example, I think now like an AARP plan, the AARP plan is like one of the the best of the best, right? Well, it's been one of the lowest cost ones, but there's some others that are competing with them pretty well this year. So it varies from year to year. But if you wanted a really, really good

supplemental like that, you get it at age 65 so you qualify for the higher levels then. And then if you end up getting cancer or something else later on, you're not going to be penalized for it. You're fully covered. And that way, later on, if you get to the point where you can't afford it, you could go to a lower cost plan if you wanted to. You can always go down in coverage. You can't go up. Okay. Cool. All right. So if someone has an ongoing health issue, then they really should get a Medicare supplement plan. Otherwise, it's kind of a it's really a personal choice because what's great about the Medicare supplement plans, they're very predictable, you know what your costs are going to be. And also, they're simple,

you hardly any pre authorizations because they just, whatever Medicare covers, by contract, the plan has to pay what Medicare doesn't cover or what Medicare doesn't pay. So your 20% Part B, the plan would pay instead of you. So that's really great. So that's what you wanted to correct. Is there anything else that Dr. Orient said that you disagreed with it you wanted to counter. I'm just curious. No, I wanted to say I completely agree with her assessment of the prescription drug issue. It's really a mess. I know they're working on it and the administration, I hope they're going to make some improvements, but ironically the Medicare Advantage plans I have found have better drug coverage than the ones you can get that you have to buy independently to go along with your Medicare supplement plan. So it's a very complex situation and it's a personal decision, but she's right about the drugs. The drugs are a real problem.

But more than half of people now have Medicare Advantage plans over Medicare Supplement in the country. So it's a very powerful constituency. People generally really like them. There's no guarantee what's going to happen in the country. So it's a very powerful constituency. People generally really like them. There's no guarantee what's going to happen in the future with these plans. They change every year. You got to stay on top of it. But I would imagine that they wouldn't go after them and significantly reduce their benefits because older people vote. And that would be that would really upset a lot of people. Oh yeah, talk about touching the third rail, right? Yeah, it's like it would be like touching the third rail.

Now let me ask then, when it comes to alternative care, well let's say even having direct primary care, is there anything in the Medicare world that works with direct primary? No. Nothing? Okay. Nothing. Because then they would have to submit the claims to Medicare and then they have administrative costs and then, you know, so a doctor would not do that and I don't and you can't submit

an individual claim, I don't believe, to Medicare. Would you agree with what, with what the... You could potentially spend a hundred bucks a month for that direct care provider that you really want to go with because you'd have that money instead of paying it for a Medicare supplement plan. Sorry I didn't mean to talk over you on that. What about, I guess, she was saying something else in that in that piece last week that the administrative costs are just absolutely insane in Medicare and just in the regular insurance world. Would you concur with that, that people spend so much time trying to get paid that it is doubling and tripling the cost of care otherwise?

Well, the administrative costs are really enormous and they're horrible. So I agree with that. I was going to say something about that and I completely lost my train of thought on it. That's a good point too. Oh I know I was actually told by someone higher up in one of the Medicare Advantage plans that Medicare likes the Medicare Advantage plans because what you do is you transfer out of original Medicare you still have to pay your Part B premium but the Medicare Advantage plan takes care of all the administrative costs so Medicare doesn't have to do it and actually Medicare saves a little bit of money for every person who's in a Medicare Advantage plan. I'm not sure if that's still true but if that's the case I just thought that was really interesting that original Medicare

spends more money on administration than a Medicare Advantage plan which does implement some kinds of uh... pre-authorization and sort of managed care type things to try to reduce costs all right when it could use any your talking points on that output about on the web if you have time you can either after type about considered in my messy handwriting but i'll type about okay go go ahead to that i'll i'll share it on the blog okay

okay thank you thanks so much for having me on let me share my side of the story. Absolutely. Someone who's working that side of it, that's Lynn Barton at Sky Park, her number is 499-0958-722 at KMED 993 KBXG. It's heating up out there. DaxsonAlerts.org. The Phil Meyers Show on 1063 KMED.

25 after 7. Kevin Gill joins me from Clouser Drilling. Clouser Drilling and we're talking about Senate Bill 1154 and Senate Bill 1153. Are we down to brass tacks on this one, Kevin? Welcome back. It has to do with well water and trying to, I guess, keep the state's grubby hands out of our wells. Is that the story this morning? What are you saying? Yeah, good morning Bill. Yeah, we're really down to the end of the session here and Friday evening at the close of business, some amendments dropped on 1154, which is a bill related to managing groundwater quality. And it sounds good when you when you hear the title but

when you started digging into the bill there was a lot of increased regulatory expansions big inspection powers a lot of compliance things with a bunch of agencies getting more power it was going to be very costly. It did come out of the out of the room Friday with the amendments improving the bill, but it's still a 73 pento with the Earl Shide paint job. What are they, what is this ultimately? You said it's about groundwater quality management. Where is, are we at the point where it's about we're not going to water this or you're going to put the meters on the wells or it's just kind of up in the air a little bit. Maybe it's too complex of a bill to

discuss in a few minutes here but maybe you can help us. Yeah it's a 39 page bill but it started out with language in it. They did have the meters for domestic wells but that's been removed from this bill. So there's no language in there about metering domestic wells. But what it does have is, and basically this came right from the governor's office. You could read their staff briefing that was given to the Ag Committee in the Senate, and they're just regurgitating a governor's priority.

And what it does, they have some nitrate issues from farming up in Eastern Oregon and the Northeastern Oregon and there, you know, so there was an issue up there from fertilizers and farming practices and some groundwater was contaminated. Well, why don't they just take care of the contamination issue and work that end of it? Or is this part of that? Because it just seems to me that looking at your or controlling your well is not going to control the pollution problem, will it? No, and the basic thing with this bill is it gives the governor she can create an interagency team with six agencies, DEQ, OHA, OWRD. It goes on and on.

And if you look at the bill, there's no plan about it. It says fiscal impact has been issued, but you can't find it anywhere. So we don't know who and how this is going to be paid for. And it does infringe on the rights of well owners in terms of if they did declare an area, whether it's valid or not, you could be forced to drill a new well, abandon your old one, and it's not shown how that would be paid for. So that's very concerning if you are a well owner. And these are just part of the amendments which dropped on Friday. And Senate Bill 1153,

what water attacks or attacks on well owners are possible with this one? I know this is your business, which is why I figure you have to be a go-to source on this. Yeah, 1153 is regards to agriculture wells. So it's not domestic household wells. It's wells for farms or commercial purposes or in-stream uses.

Some people have water rights in some of the cities, too, to pump from the river or creeks for farming. And 1153, so the state has already put a moratorium with what's called the Water Allocation Project. They did that through rules, so there's going to be no new water rights basically issued in Oregon, no new ones because they figured they were over-allocated. 1153, Senate Bill 1153, will stop being able to transfer a water right if you've already, even if you already have one, if it's deemed a threat to fish habitat, which they've linked groundwater to stream water in their models to everything

links to fish habitat according to their models. But yet if you have a water right it is a water right. Where am I wrong on this one? You are correct. And it should be protected under Oregon Water Law, but with this new proposed legislation, you could be a farmer, for example, with a big irrigation well in Klamath County, and let's say the well fails because the casing

is compromised and you lose your production and you want to drill a new well, this could prevent you from even being able to transfer your existing water right to the new well. That is amazing. It's almost like they want everyone to go out of business. Is it that clear? Or is that in your face on this one, Kevin? What do you think? Yeah, OBI just did a survey and Oregon is the seventh most regulated state and fast growing in regulation.

So businesses don't, there's so many regulations they don't even understand how to stay in compliance with these regulations. But the big ask for your listeners today, Bill, it's too late on 1153 to really have any meaningful impact. That one's okay. So we can't do anything about that. All right. So it's about 1154 is what you're looking to buy 1154. Okay. What do you need? You can, you can go to OLS, which is the organ legislative system and

which is the Oregon legislative system and search for Senate bill 1154 and there's a testimony tab on the right hand side. We have until one o'clock Wednesday tomorrow to submit public testimony in your own words as to why and there's a there's some good information your listeners can read and they can just do a brief statement. Some have already, I went in there and looked, some of your listeners and people from this area have already testified. But we want to let them know how we feel about, you know, protecting our rights and not being over-regulated. I don't think the intentions of this is bad, but the implementation

plan is really poor. Now I'm looking at your testimony which you have submitted here and is that something you do you mind me sharing that on the blog too so people can see as an example what you have concerns with you know about the 1154? Well I gave you a policy brief and then it's fine to share that and that has some of the key components and I am going to be submitting my testimony later today so I personally have not submitted my testimony yet. Are they paying attention to the testimony, do you know? That is a really good question.

Early on it appeared not at all but there has been some a little better dialogue I must give credit to I'm going to give more credit to the Rules Committee than I am the Ag Committee the Ag Committee just seems to rubber stamp everything and send it on but the Rules Committee has really been diving into this and has helped make some improvements and make it less of a horrible bill. Kevin Gill with me. Clouds are drilling and I think we have a caller who wants to ask a question or comment on this. Hi, good morning. Do you want to talk with Kevin about this?

Hello. Hi, Cliff. Kevin, on either of those two bills, would it affect in-stream water rights and permits for recreational residences that are situated on forced-service land? And this would be pertaining up to Union Creek, where there's some series about 50 cabins up there that have a lot of them have in-stream water rights and permits so would this non-transfer the permit to a new owner affect them or not? That's a great question Cliff so right now the way this bill is written is it let's say that there's something happened with that water. It wouldn't affect a transfer to the new owner but let's say something happened to

the stream and the point of use was not as productive and someone wanted to transfer that water right to a different part of the stream. That it would affect that. But not, you're saying what, if they have to move their intake on the river up there, is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Because that it floods up there periodically. So, uh, and I know some people's intake had been washed out and they've had to replace it. Okay, well that sounds good.

I'll take a look at the bill. All right. Hey, Cliff, appreciate that. Hey, every comment could help on this one. Kevin, really appreciate your take on it. Thanks for keeping us in the room. Best of luck. My concern is that I've looked at other bills.

I know with gun control bills it doesn't seem to how many other people, how many millions of people say no, they passed them anyway. I hope that's not the case with gun control bills it doesn't seem to how many other people how many millions of people say no they passed them anyway I hope that's not the case with these water bills too okay I mean just look at it that way you know it's it's one of those things though if you don't if you don't try you'll never have a chance and so that's all I'm asking for us to do here today is to just be heard and and and hopefully we can make a difference Kevin Gill, Clause of Drilling, appreciate you being on, okay? And thanks again.

Thank you, Bill. 735 KMED 993 KBXG. Herman was telling me yesterday, we already have cap and trade. I didn't know about that because I didn't really hear that there had, I know that there was this deal of wanting to cap carbon emissions here in the state of Oregon.

And now Herman was telling me, you Bill with executive orders they have brought us cap and trade it's now being implemented I didn't really know that it's kind of being slid under the door so to speak or under the mat how is that how could that be especially because they're gonna be giving millions upon millions and millions of dollars to people he'll tell us about that coming up. Is your parking lot starting to look like it moonlights as a landfill? Call Dustin Curbs. For details, go to TheExpo.com.

This is Randall with Advanced Air and I'm on KMED. By the way, go to that site, TheExpo.com and click on the contest. They have a huge contest. It's a big, well, it's a big blank contest, talent contest that is coming up during the fair, which is going to be a lot of fun. A thousand dollars cash prize, a thousand dollar prize, thousand dollars. Boy, put it in your account, do something. That would be nice to...you have some kind of a talent. You don't have to be a singer.

It could be something else. Maybe you have a magic show or some animal act or whatever it is. But sign up. In fact, I'm going to be one of the emcees on one of the talent nights at the Jackson County Fair coming up. That'll be a lot of fun. All right? 20 before 8.

Former Josephine County Commissioner and also former state senator. Gosh, I guess it's really a former state senator. It's really the big one here and we appreciate you being on here. Herman Barchinger is here. It's pebble in your shoe Tuesday. So does the former state senator have a pebble in his shoe today? Yeah, so the other day I was in Fred Meyers and doing a little shopping, you know, and I come up to the stand and I had some beer there, you know, and the lady says, can I see your ID? And I left my wallet in the truck, but I had cash, so I didn't have that many groceries,

no big deal. I said, I gave her my birthday, which is over 65 years. She says, I'm sorry, sir, I can't sell you any beer without an ID. So I got thinking, only in Oregon, where we decriminalize hard drugs, where we have homeless people dropping dead and some of the highest overdoses in the country. And where we would actually provide free needles for you

if you needed to inject those drugs. And they wouldn't ask for an ID for that, would they? I don't think. No! And we legalized marijuana, but by God, don't sell beer to a gray-haired man. That's an OLCC rule. Now, is that an OLCC rule or was that legislature activity that happened, you know? That made that happen? I don't have any idea. All I know is it's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, only in Oregon, you know? But if it ain't stupid, we don't do it. I mean, look at the sign in Portland. Keep it weird. By God, they're living up to that. Got that right.

By the way, when do you think we're going to see our next resistance riots? Do you think they're coming into Portland again? Oh, as soon as Trump sends ICE into Oregon, Tina Kotech, she'll round them up and get them going. She said that she doesn't believe that President Trump could mobilize the Oregon National Guard. I think it's pretty clear that he does have the authority to nationalize. Absolutely. All he does is have to nationalize him. Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, so she's just trying to talk to her Antifa friends. Listen, Tina's always trying to play the tough guy. She did that in the legislature. She thinks she's a tough guy, you know? Uh-huh. Okay.

And I say tough guy, no pun intended. No, I get it. I get it. I completely understand. I completely understand. Yep. All right. So the water stuff. So let me tell you how it works in Oregon, okay? All right, this is going back to the Kevin Gil talk. He's looking for help on Senate Bill 1154.

All of this comes from. Okay. So where there is a agency, OWEB, Oregon Water Enhancement Board, okay? The legislature funds, Oregon Water Enhancement Board. The legislature funds the Oregon Water Enhancement Board. Oregon Water Enhancement Board turns around and gives money to an NGO, Water Watch, and then Water Watch hires an attorney and goes after water rights. They also lobby the whole goal.

This is a goal, this goes back to Governor Brown. The goal is to leave all water in stream in this state. It's another bizarre policy that makes absolutely no sense at all. Well, even though water rights are considered property rights, right? Well, even though water rights are considered property rights. Well, they're water rights. They're a little different.

But I will tell you that what my point is, is see how the state feeds money into NGOs. So they create the Water Enhancement Board, Oregon Water Enh water enhancement board, OWEB, and they fund it, and then now you give money to NGOs. It's a job for attorneys. It's their attorney, attorney, attorney, attorney, attorney. Isn't there some way to challenge this legally, even the concept, because it seems to go against absolutely everything that involves the Oregon Constitution, with which your know, if your government's going to do something, the government does something. It doesn't pay non-governmental authority because it's

not really an authority. It's an affront to the constitutional rule. Water rights are really a privilege. They're more of a privilege than a right, even though they're called water rights. It goes back to the 540 statutes and go all the way back to like 1907. Boy, I'll tell you, a lot of people got killed over the years over water privileges if that's the case. My goodness. Right? Oh, it's, you know, what Mark Twain says, you know, whiskeys for drinking and waters for fighting. For fighting over, yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah, but that's how it works. That's how these Democrats funnel your taxpayer money into these liberal attorneys who live in some pretty nice houses and drive some pretty nice cars. And you were telling me that this is also how they're working cap and trade. Now, I remember you led the walkout in the Senate a number of years ago that ended up blocking

cap and trade. And I remember Governor Brown at that point, didn't she say that revenge was going to be served cold on this one? Yes, cold and slowly. Cold and slowly, alright. Now there were some executive orders that she issued on the way out, and of course Tina Koteck I imagine is going to be continuing to put this in, but you're telling me that essentially Oregon is implementing cap and trade without legislative action? Is this true? That's correct.

That's correct. How do they pull this rabbit out of a hat, Herman? So in 2020, on the way out, Kate Brown did executive order, well, not on the way out, Kate Brown did executive order, well not on the way out, but in her term, executive order 20-04. And what that does is they give DEQ more power to regulate carbon emissions. And the goal, the goal of this is to phase out all fuels by 2035. So we have 10 years of fuel left according to Kate Brown's executive order. Right and so this is how the scheme works okay so I'm a company and I emit carbon into the air I'm a mill I'm Intel I'm any of these

factories DEQ comes out, does an analysis of how much carbon you're emitting, then you can buy carbon credit, okay, that offsets that. And those carbon, so you write a check to DEQ. Now, at that point, that you would think that becomes a fee or a tax. I would think so, yes. This would be if you're having to write a check to a government agency, I would call

that a fee or a tax, sure. But it's not. So what we have is we have a commission, okay? And the commission's in DEQ. And that commission identifies what NGO that money goes to. And NGO, if you don't know, once again, folks, non governmental, non governmental office, right? Or operator. Yeah. And so at that point, since it's not

used by the government, they say it's not a tax or a fee. Boy, I'll tell you what, this is how slimy these people are, okay? So, there's all the, so what is that? Oh, I forget the name of that commission. Anyways, it's the Environmental Something Commission. Anyways, so they've identified only one NGO gets the money and that NGO is Seeding Justice and you can go on to their seeding like S-E-E-D-I-N-G. Oh, S-E-E-D-I-N-G, Seeding Justice. Okay. Right. And they, let's go through their bullet point. Okay, their mission statement, SeedingJustice.org. We fund grassroots movements working to overcome injustices that have harmed our communities,

the planet for far too long. We support emerging organizations and change makers on the front lines fighting for social, racist, gender, disability, economic, and environmental justice. You know, I'm finding out on their values too, we embrace the power we hold to support and resource our communities and to challenge the systems of oppression. So Governor Brown and Governor Kotec are essentially doing cap and trade, but the money is not going to help people pay for fuels or energy or anything else. It's going to communist front groups, is essentially what this is doing.

But what kind of Democrat machine? Because they can do anything. Yeah, but, well, no, you have to call them communist front groups because the Democrat Party in Oregon is essentially a communist front group, period. Exactly. Exactly. But it's going to go to the Democrat machine, and I'll tell you why, because they can do anything they want.

Anything? They can do anything with this cap and trade? The charge for a carbon-based fuel can go to anything they want? Really, Herman? Anything. Yes! So here's what they just did. The Justice Fellowship just gave unrestricted cash awards of $25,000 per year to three individuals, okay? And there are community organizers in Oregon who have demonstrated racial love, resistance, and resilience. So Isapina, she is, she works at the Innovation Law Lab based in Oregon,

and she is a longtime organizer and leader of Immigration Rights. She gets $25,000 a year for three years. Lamar Wise, he is, let's see, he volunteers on the board, Oregon Student Association and Oregon Students of Color Coalition. He gets $25,000 a year for three years. And Seth Johnston, he's joined a team of Basic Rights in Oregon and has promoted transgender justice and is a lead trainer of transgender and an organizer. He gets $25,000 a year for three years out of money that these companies pay into. Now are we going to be paying into this as part of the Kate Brown and now Tina Koteck cap-and-trade that we're going to pay more for gasoline and fuels or home heating or whatever the case might be diesel in order to run the trucks to.

Listen, what do corporations do when they get taxed? They pass it on. They just pass it along. That grocery seat tax is buried in every single thing you buy in the state of Oregon. It's just a sales tax, but it happens before the register. Have you been able to discern or determine how much money that the Democrat communist front groups will end up getting from cap and trade as implemented without the legislature in the state of Oregon. About 1.6 billion every every two years, you know, every my annual.

1.6 billion, 800 million dollars a year. That's real money even in the state of Oregon. And you know that's going to trickle into the Democrat machine to get people elected and to hold house seats and everything. And this is what happens when Oregonians elect governors with no business experience. So you look at, let's go back. Oh, no, no, no. Listen, they're getting exactly what they want though. I don't think so.

No, they elect Democrat governors and get more Democrat politicians, apparently, from the sounds of it. Because what's going to happen with these NGOs? These are the farm teams. These are the farm teams for the future reps and the senators that come in there and talk about how oppressed they are as they're wielding power in the state legislature, Herman. Well, here's what happens. There's going to be a reaction and you're going to see companies again leave the state. And it doesn't phase them. They don't even try to keep these big companies here. They don't care. And that's why I go back and we elect

these governors with no business experience. They don't understand economics. You go back to Kittsopper, he was a doctor. I mean he was probably the best out of the last three. Governor Brown, she was an activist all her life and in an environment, environment, environment. And by the way from Boston, right? Remember Boston, of course,, Sid, who's the more immigrant? Brown was from Minnesota, and Kotec is from Boston. Kotec's from Boston. So Tina's the one that's going to give unconditional love

to illegal immigrants, right, because of her stance from Boston. OK. Yeah, and Boston is the biggest city, you know, for illegal immigrants. But it's absolutely amazing to me that Oregonians continually vote for these people. I just, I'll never understand it, Bill. The point being though, ultimately, is, you, is on this cap and trade. Now, I guess the trade part about it is just being implemented.

That's the part that's new. I knew about her trying to get the DEQ to put the cap on it, but I always made that simple assumption that the trade part was going to have to be some market-based sort of thing, that the government was going to have to be in control of somehow and you know the taxes and the fees. Originally how it was supposed to work this is really cap and spend cap and trade is where you buy carbon credit for like somebody that raises trees yeah trees are locking up the carbon so I'm gonna have my I'm gonna have my I'm gonna have my Burger King grill at my restaurant.

I have a Burger King, let's say. I'm just using this as an example. And so they're saying, oh, you're putting out carbon, and you're killing the planet. So I then have to buy carbon credits from Tesla. You have to buy carbon credits from Elon Musk in order to have my grill for hamburgers. And then what they do then is that they take that money, instead of sending it to Tesla or whatever, they funnel it then to all the left-wing commie front groups that you're talking about, the NGOs. Exactly. And they're going to feed the Democrat machine.

There's no question that. And that's how they stay in control. How do you think COTEC wound up with $30 million in the last gubernatorial election? I don't know. How do you fix that kind of corruption here? Corruption that is so to the bone deep, Herman. I think Oregon is on the fast track to be worse than California or Washington. in California or Washington. And the livability, you know, they're going to want everybody to be around that $30,000, $40,000 a year, and that's it. Everybody's the same. This goes back to your communists. Everybody's the same. Say, we take away from the rich, we give to the poor. Oh, but you can't tell me, though, that the Democrats in charge aren't going to be making

banks somehow. Of course they are. Of course they are. But hey, Oregonians keep electing them. As long as they keep electing them, that's what's going to happen. You know, it's interesting. I was reading how Gavin Newsom, governor of California, wants to impound California income taxes or California residence income taxes and prevent them from going into the federal government in order to fight Trump on the ICE thing, that sort of deal. I know there are ways... That's just all rhetoric to get people to say, oh, I mean, people are so stupid.

Oh, I won't ask. oh, that's a great idea. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, they would just impound it because, you know, they would just impound it and keep it within the state. In other words, starve the federal government of the excess funding. Oh, they don't think that's going to happen. Well, it may not happen, but what you're talking about in the state of Oregon makes me want to do that into the state of Oregon. Like, screw you and paying you, paying the state, when you're going to sit there and take your extra costs for fuel and funnel it to your commie front group friends. That's just, oh my gosh, Herman. Look it. Look what they're doing in the legislature. Listen, this is the last month,

this is the home run. Yeah, and by the way way the Republicans are still there providing quorum Herman that bill I told you those days are over I just I I'm saddened to say that but they are okay they're trying to steal the kicker and and pay for wildfires so that they can free up general fund money to go spend on their transgender and all that, the DEI and all that stuff. They're trying to add another 20 cents per gallon for gas packs. 20 cents will be the highest in the country. But that goes right along with them. I remember Kate Brown saying, she says the only way we're going to get out of carbon-based fuel is to have $10 a gallon fuel. Looks like she's wanting to do that. And she's going to take that extra $6 and give it to her

commie buddies. That's right. Yeah. And that is the truth. I mean, people, they will pay this $0.20 the truth. I mean, people, they will pay this 20 cents, and it'll give them less money to spend on discretionary money. But they will, you know, as the price goes up, there's a tipping point where people simply can't afford it. That's what I was wondering about too, but economic... It's all about control. If they can control your movement, that's a big deal. Think about that, Bill. And then you look at all the other little projects that get shoveled down to the gullet, like the the swidewalks and the road diets and everything else. You can see all the connection here to this, quite out in the open. Herman Barichek, former state senator.

Herman, I have not been able to ask any questions of these people in the open. Herman Barichick, former state senator. Herman, I have not been able to ask any questions of these people on the line. I don't know if they want to talk with you or Nob Wol. Maybe they have a question or two. All right. Go for it. Hi, good morning. You're on with Herman. Who's this? Yeah, Ron Grants-Pass. Yeah, Ron. Hey, I want to suggest that the elephant in the room is the voting machines, the Dominions, who are preparing and putting in people who aren't really elected, but are appointed by these Dominion... You don't have evidence of that, Ron. Well, I don't.

I don't want to get off on that right now. Trump administration is going after Oregon with its voting rolls issues. So that might be an interesting thing. Well, the solution, however, is to go back to paper ballots and go back to the precinct and go in. Yeah, I know, but that's irrelevant to the moment that and Hanlon were talking about. Okay, let me grab another call here. Hello, you're with Herman. Morning.

Yeah, your guest sounds like a little kid that doesn't want to clean up his room. Oh, David. David, knock it off. No, no. Goodbye, David. Hi, good morning. You're on with Herman. Who's this? I'm Ron. I'm at Hamilton Field in Northern California. Yes, Ron, go ahead. And I talked a little bit yesterday with you in regard to the White House putting out Make America Healthy Again. Okay, we are talking, are you with Herman Baerchiger or are you off a topic on this one?

Okay, are you off topic or not? I think I'm off of topic. Okay, well if you're off topic, hang on. Okay, Herman, I thought maybe someone would have a coaching question for you, but I don't think so. Not this time around. All right. So, well, we'll have you back. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry, David's in the Bay Area. So he's in the Bay Area.

Maybe he's going to tell me how things really work here in the Democrat controlled areas of Oregon. So anyway, got to roll. I need to remind your listeners So anyway, got a roll. I need to remind your listeners to be conscious of taking your wallet if you're going to go to the store and buy any alcohol beverages. All right, will do. Take your ID. Thank you very much. See you, Herman. All right. Former state senator. It's a minute after 8 KMED, KMED, HD1, Eagle Point, Medford. Now let me go back to the call. You had something about, hello caller, what was your name again? Yeah, yeah, my name is Ron. I'm calling from Hamilton Field, which is north of San Francisco in California. Okay. And I'm very much pleased with what's been put out from the White House on Make America Healthy Again. Okay. Only though in the segment that talks about the toxins in food products and the long-term industry of both chemical and food producers, in the sense of packagers, how they influence

the regulators to the degree of putting out less than true reports on the contamination aspects of the food product. Now, from my point of view, this is not a farmer's issue unless those people in the farms cannot provide a growth product because they have to use these chemical products to be able to produce the enormity of food necessary to feed the nation. All right. What does this suggest to that? My interest is in let's follow up on that.

Let's put science really at the forefront so we don't have to put additives in it that actually contaminate the population and of course contaminate mothers who contaminate their offspring by transgenerational effect. All right. Thank you for the call. Three minutes after eight. Ed's here too. Hello, Ed. How you doing? Good morning, Bill. I just wanted to say a couple of quick things. The acronym that Herman was looking for earlier in the conversation that you had with him, it was the Environmental Quality Commission. And all of the members of that are appointed by the government.

So basically the governor can steer every aspect of it. And so we're going to be paying higher costs for fuels, which goes to this commission appointed by the governor who will then dole it out to every commie NGO that she can get her hands on. There is another aspect to this that I want people to be very clear on. The Oregon Constitution specifically forbids the state government to involve itself in any type of banking condition.

And all of the carbon things that they talk about with the trading and everything equal a banking situation. It's called a carbon bank. And the reality to this is it's a very fundamental issue, but people got to understand how fundamental and then we have to attack it on that basis because they don't have the legal right to do this, to oversee it, to disperse it. And that's what I'm thinking too, that there has to be a weakness and the idea that they say we're going to do this. I think the assumption is that no one will challenge them. And if no one challenges them on this... That's the assumption. And it's like, it's very frustrating because, as you know, my time is limited right now.

And I'm like, there's so much to be said about it. But yet, how do you progress without people going back to a simple foundation of understanding about this? A bank is a bank is a bank is a bank. That's it. What does a bank do? Well, a bank does all of these processes. So if banking is forbidden, then banking is forbidden, whether it be money or carbon credit.

It is still, and a carbon credit is a financialized item, you know, item, really. There you go. It is financialized. There you go. You're paying for it. It is financialized. It is a financial instrument then. What you're bringing up then may be the weakness in this non-legislatively authorized carbon cap and trade or the carbon cap and spend, as Herman was calling it. Well, the simplicity of this bill is they've tried to do this for years now.

And each time, ultimately, we've addressed it with this. But the reality is nobody takes hold of the foundational idea of how you address it. And they either have the right to proceed with it or they don't. And the reality is we're one of 50 states, no other state is doing this. Well, why? Because state governments cannot participate in any banking situations. And that's the reality.

And that makes the reality. Now how would you think this gets remedied though? How would you remedy this as far as an action plan though? Because I think writing a letter to Tina Koteck is not going to make that change. No, writing a letter to the legislature, stating your objection, but state the true objection. That they're functioning at unconstitutional levels with too many ties to a banking situation that is not allowed. Ed, thank you very much. We'll have to talk more about that further and I may get a little more time with you. Okay, all right. All right, thank you.