The Daily Signal - Doctor Turned Lawmaker Discusses How to Improve Health Care

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

 Health care continues to be a top issue for Americans -- but it’s not getting much attention from Congress. Rep. Greg Murphy, a urologist and House member, brings a unique perspective to the health care debate. We also cover the following stories: Why Chick-fil-A's surrender in the culture wars is so depressing. What happened during Tuesday's impeachment hearings. Colleges students protest economist Art Laffer. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet,iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, November 20th. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. Healthcare continues to be a top issue for voters, but it's not getting much attention from Congress. Our colleague Rachel will sit down with freshman Congressman Greg Murphy, a doctor-turned lawmaker who brings a unique perspective to the health care debate. Plus, Kate and I will reflect on Chick-fil-A distancing itself from conservative Christian

causes. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave. leave a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. Congress held another day of impeachment hearings Tuesday. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who works on Ukraine at the National Security Council, got applause after a back and forth with Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York. You realized when you came forward out of sense of duty that you were putting yourself in direct opposition to the most powerful person.

person in the world. Do you realize that, sir? I knew I was assuming a lot of risk. And I'm struck by that word, that phrase do not worry. You addressed to your dad. Was your dad a warrior? He did serve. It was a different military, though. And he would have worried if you were putting yourself up against the President of the United States. Is that right? He deeply worried about it because in his context, there was the ultimate risk.

And why do you have confidence that you can do that? And tell your dad not to worry. Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I've served and defended that all of my brothers have served and here right matters. Thank you, sir. You'll back. Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, questioned Vindman about why he didn't report

his concerns to his boss, Tim Morrison, on the National Security Council. VSESPAN? Well, here's what I'm getting. lawyer told you don't talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to Secretary Kent, and you talk to the one guy, Adam Schiff, won't tell you, won't let you tell us who he is. Is that right? Representative Jordan, I did my job. I'm not saying you did it. All I'm saying is you, the instructions from the lawyer was you shouldn't talk to anybody, and you interpret that is don't talk to my boss,

but I'm going to go talk to someone that we can't even ask you who that individual is. That is incorrect. Well, I just read what you said. That is incorrect. I shouldn't talk to any other people. The gentleman has expired. I'm sorry, Chairman, but that sequence is not the way it played out. I'm re-entering your transcript, Colonel Vindman.

Does Jordan, please let Colonel Vindman. There's the sequence played out where immediately afterwards I expressed my concerns. I did my coordination function. Mr. Eisenberg circled back around, told me not to talk to anybody else. in that period of time, I did not manage to talk to you. That's when it happened. That's when you talk to someone. In one curious moment, Finman corrected Representative Devin Nunes, via the Washington Post. Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower. Ranking member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please.

Both Vindman and Jennifer Williams, a Pence aide who listened to the July 25th call between Trump and Ukraine Zelensky, agreed the transcript release to the call, was largely accurate. you recommend. Ness. The call transcript as published on September 25th is complete and accurate. Will both of you attest to that, Ms. Williams? I didn't take a word-for-word accounting. When I first saw the publicly released version, it looked substantively correct to me.

And Colonel Vindman? I think I certainly would describe it as substantively correct. I think in your testimony and your deposition, you said very accurate? Correct. Okay. Williams also discussed her concerns about the July 25th call via CBS News. Ms. Williams, prior to the July 25th call, approximately how many calls between the President of the United States and foreign leaders had you listened to? I would say roughly a dozen.

Had you ever heard a call like this? As I testified before, I believe what I found unusual or different about this call was the President's reference to specific inventories. investigations and that struck me as different than other calls I had listened to. You testified that you thought it was political in nature. Why did you think that? I thought that the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former Vice President Biden and his son struck me as political on nature given that the former vice president is a political opponent of the president. And so you thought that it could potentially be designed to assist President Trump's re-elected

effort? I can't speak to what the president's motivation was in referencing it, but I just noted that the reference to Biden sounded political to me. Well, President Trump reacted to the impeachment hearing Tuesday with this. You have a kangaroo court headed by Little Shifty Shiff, where we don't have lawyers, we don't have witnesses, we don't have anything, and yet I just got to watch, and the Republicans are absolutely killing it. They are doing so well because it's a scam. It's a big scam.

The president also complained that Congress hadn't approved his new trade deal with Canada and Mexico because they're too busy with impeachment. Two guards who were supposed to be checking in on financier and alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein have been charged for saying they performed checks they didn't. According to the Southern District of New York's U.S. Attorney's Office, the two men, Tevin Noel and Michael Thomas, did, among other, things sit at their desks and surf the internet rather than monitor the prisoners. Meanwhile, in a hearing Tuesday, Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina,

asked Dr. Kathleen Hawke Sawyer, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, about Epstein's death in jail. Here's that exchange via C-SPAN. As I indicated in my opening statement, I wanted to talk about the death of Mr. Epstein. Do you concur with the opinion that it was a suicide? That was the finding of the coroner, sir. Okay. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? I do not. How could this have happened?

Unfortunately, sir, the death in the whole situation is still under the investigation of the FBI and the Inspector General's office, and I'm really not at liberty to discuss specifics of this case. I can discuss issues around institution operations, but I can't specifically talk about that particular issue. Okay. with a case this high profile, there's got to be either major malfunction of the system or a criminal enterprise at foot to allow this to happen. So are you looking at both? Is the FBI looking at both?

If the FBI is involved, then they are looking at criminal enterprise, yes. The Hong Kong protests have entered a new and increasingly violent phase. On Tuesday, students at Hong Kong Polytechnic University continue to defy police after a three-day standoff. During that time, they repelled multiple police surges with Molotov cocktails, arrows, and bricks, according to AFP. Police responded by threatening to shoot live bullets. Some protesters managed to escape overnight by hoisting ropes from a bridge down onto a street. Others tried to search the sewage system for a way out. The protests are only getting worse and show no signs of stopping.

They began over the summer after Beijing backed efforts to erode freedom in Hong Kong. Hong Kong. Wickeleaks founder Julian Assange is no longer facing the possibility of being extradited to Sweden on a rape charge stemming from a 2010 incident. According to reports, Eva Marie Person, the Swedish prosecutor who was investigating after Assange was kicked out of an embassy in Britain and thus was potentially able to be extradited, decided that there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with an indictment. According to NPR, Person said, I would like to emphasize that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been coherent, extensive, and detailed. She continued. However, my overall assessment is that the

evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation. There is still a possibility of person's decision being appealed. Another campus shoutdown of a conservative speaker. On Monday, student protesters at State University of New York at Binghamton, shut down Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics. The college fix reports that dozens of students yelled and disrupted the lecture with one student yelling this into a microphone. Of getting murdered by this administration, because of this, we will mention the stories of all the lives lost through the administration that you, this man, this liar, Arthur Labor supports.

A New York state senator, Republican Fred Akshar, tweeted in response, I'm disgusted by the chaos we've witnessed erupt across the Binghamton campus over the past several days. Our college campuses should be places where ideas and peaceful discourse can be shared freely by all individuals, no matter their differing politics or opinions. Next up, we'll feature Rachel's interview with Representative Greg Murphy about health care policy. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? If you want to understand what's happening at the court, subscribe to Scotus 101. a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. We're joined today on the Daily Signal podcast by Congressman Greg Murphy of North Carolina.

Congressman Murphy, thank you so much for being here with us today. Thank you so much for having me. So you're a freshman in Congress, and before serving in Congress, you worked as a urologist. Can you tell us a little bit about your road to Congress? My road to Congress is an interesting one. Four years ago, I was fully employed as a surgeon. in Greenville, North Carolina. I was chief of staff of our trauma center, our thousand-bed medical center, and the opportunity availed itself to serve in the General Assembly in North Carolina.

We had a vacancy in the North Carolina House, and I was asked by the community to see if I would serve, and I put my name forward. And then two and a half terms later, by the grace of God and all other things involved, I ended up in the United States Congress. So what led you, looking back a little bit, what led you to become a medical doctor? What was that journey like? That journey began actually when I was very young. My father was a physician, although he really only practiced for about a year and did some other work in research. And so I became acclimated a little bit and experienced with the medical field.

But I think the thing that drew me most to medicine was the fact that on the most basic level, you are caring for another person, oftentimes in their hour of need in their deepest time. And I was really attracted to that, really to try to make a difference in people's lives. How I turned into a surgeon is a different story. Once I got into medical school, I really enjoyed working with my hands and dissection and stuff. And so the two married themselves very well together, and that's how I became a surgeon. So as a doctor, given the years of experience you have in the medical field, what do you think of our current health care system right now in this country?

I think in the United States we have the best health care system in the world. We have a lot of problems with it. We have a delivery problem. We have an access problem. We have a pricing problem. And while we have the highest level of technology available in the world, we still have a lot of problems with infant mortality, with access to care. There are a lot of problems that need to be fixed.

in the United States health care system. So what reform in health care would you say is needed first and foremost if you could single out one thing, is that one thing that you say would need attention the soonest? That's a hard question to ask because, to be honest with you, that's a two-hour lecture because there's so many different pushpoints that need to be attended to. But I think one of the biggest problem is access to health care. And access to health care involves not only being able to get into, see a physician and getting taken care of, but also being able to afford your medications. And that's really become a pinnacle issue is the unaffordability of medications in the United States, especially compared to Canada or Mexico, you know, our congruent countries.

And something needs to be done about that. And soon. Looking back at what happened in the past years with President Obama, you know, mandating the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare, how would you say Obamacare changed health care? I think it devastated health care. And I said that soon after it was brought forth. It was a massive bureaucracy that was ill-conceived, miscalculated, pushed upon the American people. It's created a coverage gap for individuals that can't afford insurance. The great lies that you would be able to have cheaper health care and keep your doctor readily apparent now, it needs to be thrown out and a new system needs to be worked through. So one thing that Democrats always, one of their talking points that we hear a lot in the news,

is that Republicans don't care about preexisting conditions. And given your passion in health care working in that space, what do you see as ways we can address pre-existing conditions? To say that Republicans don't care about pre-existing conditions is utterly false. It is not true. We have addressed that issue. We will continue to address that issue. It is through no fault of someone's own.

If they walk in to get insurance one day and, God forbid, they find out they have a kidney cancer a week or two later, that that should not be covered or treated. So to say that about the Republican cause is simply not true. Something else we're seeing today, different up-and-coming, I guess, political celebrities like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, this is nothing new for him. They're all pushing Medicare for All. How do you think something like Medicare for All would change medicine? Well, first of all, I question the fact that they're celebrities because they're not

experts in this field. They're experts in emotion. and when we start making rules and statutes and laws based upon a motion, we're going to end up in a horrible state in this country. Medicare for All, if you look at our VA system, let's look at our VA system, the government-run health care system, which is horribly inefficient, horrible when it comes to access of care, that's what Medicare for All looks like. It would be a single-payer system, and it would be something, to be honest with you,

the American public would not tolerate. So I know that a passion of yours is lowering prescription drug prices. What do you think is the best way to go about doing that? There are several different ways. Again, that's part of my two-hour lecture. One of my pet peeves, to be very honest, is the fact that we are one of two countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer advertising. And eight out of the top ten pharmaceutical companies in this nation, their number one cost is advertising.

And that's paying for Super Bowl ads. that's paying for television slots on the news programs. And as a practicing physician, one of the things that oftentimes would bug me the most is when patients came in with a scribbled down article about a medicine that they heard about. And I have to spend time explaining to them that what was presented in the advertisement really wasn't correct and how that medicine is not new for them. I'm all about companies advertising to those of us who prescribe it so that we can educate, we can be educated and prescribe the correct medication. but I think that is a total waste of patients' money to have that out on the airwaves. So before coming to Congress, you worked in the opioid epidemic when you were a state lawmaker in North Carolina. What needs to be done on that front?

There's a lot that needs to be done nationally. We really did great things in North Carolina to try to address the opioid epidemic. I look at times really as a three-legged stool. We worked very hard. I was the primary sponsor of something called the Stop Act, which was a, aimed at essentially at prescribers like myself, trying to dial back the number of pills that we prescribed. And we met with great success. It took us a while. But we, in North Carolina, over the last three and a half four years, the number of prescription opioids has gone down 40%. That's one leg of the stool of oversupply.

The other part is the illegal illicit drugs, which are really now becoming the worst problem, is that people are getting cheap fentanyl through illegal means. And the HOPE Act, another bill that I sponsored, dealt with helping law enforcement deal with illegal activity. The final leg is really where the most effort is going to be made and needs to be made, and that's going to be assistance with mental health. People need to understand that addiction is a disease. It is a change in the chemistry of the body. It is a change in the chemistry of the brain, and that does not go away without treatment, oftentimes lifelong treatment. And if we're really going to be able to make a dent in this horrible plague that's hit the hit the country, that's where the final push needs to go.

So you've also worked as a medical missionary. Can you tell me a little bit about that experience, working as a missionary, serving people, and did any experiences particularly linger with you? Yes, I feel like that that's been the greatest experience of my life, being able to serve people in other countries. Actually, I started when I was only 20 years old, and I spent a summer in India, working in a leprosy hospital in the northeast corner and have spent time since then, operated in multiple countries throughout Africa,

have worked in Nicaragua over the last 15 years. But the pinnacle of all those experiences was in Haiti right after the earthquake in 2010. I took a group of 17 doctors, nurses, and personnel down into Port-au-Prince, only about six and a half, seven days after the earthquake. And to be very honest with you, and very frank, it was truly a dissent into hell. There were still bodies all around.

People were living out in the streets because they wouldn't go into dwellings because of aftershocks. And I met the most remarkable person I've ever met. A father Rick Frischette, a passionist priest, Catholic priest from Connecticut, who's been working in Haiti for over 30 years. And seeing him and his dedication to the poor and caring for the poor and the downtrodden just is a daily lesson for me. and priorities and trying to keep life on an even keel and really understanding what's important and what's not so important. Thank you so much for sharing that perspective. So looking at the countries you've been to, seeing their systems, did encountering these other

countries' medical systems change how you saw the United States medical system at all? Definitely, definitely. If you look at some of the, obviously, the poor countries that we go to, and in some instances, is there is some government-run health care, but we're talking about only for extreme emergencies and poorly functioning at best. And in those countries, essentially, if you can pay for health care, you get it.

If you don't, you're out of luck. I mean, there are a lot of countries still in this world that if your kidneys fail and you need dialysis, you don't have a choice, you die. You aren't able to get dialysis. And God forbid we would ever have that in this country, but people need to understand that this does exist in the world. There are some other countries, Australia, for example, that runs a two-tier system where there is a basic level of care afforded to everyone.

But if you wanted a higher level of care, then you purchase insurance. Now, right or wrong, that's a system that works for them. They have a fairly homogeneous population. We don't in the United States. That's why some people talk about health care in Sweden and Finland being so good. Well, number one, it's gone bankrupt. And number two, they have a very different. population in needs than we do in our country. So where we're going to move to is probably a hybrid

of those. We're going to have to take care of those who don't. We have a patchwork system that does that now. It's not, it does what it does, but it's really truly not effective in needing people's, especially their preventative needs. Why do you think, just looking at, you mentioned Finland, Sweden, these other countries where their health care systems have gone bankrupt, why don't you think we hear about people, we hear all of the positive things, but then when you look at the numbers, like you're mentioning, they're not adding up. So what do you think is behind that? Well, it is what it is. I think part of our media bias loves to be able to report things that are very pro for socialism and socialistic policies, but they're not willing to report the horrible parts of

socialism and socialistic policies. And, you know, if only we had a truth meter, on every media article and every newscast, it would be wonderful to have that for the American people so they can really find out what the truth is. So we just celebrated Veterans Day, and I know that your district has a very strong military presence, and that's something that's really important to you. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? We had a fantastic experience on Veterans Day. I was in a parade in Moorhead City down on the coast. I celebrated with two cities in Pitt County, one in Greenville and one in Aden on their Veterans Day celebrations, and it was just fantastic. And just coinciding this recently, the Marines celebrated their 24th birthday, and it was fantastic to celebrate both with the Marines at Camp Lejeune and then at Cherry Point. So last question to wrap up, I know that your district has a market interest in coastal issues.

what are some of those issues and how are you wanting to represent them in Congress? Eastern North Carolina, we celebrate our coastline, we celebrate our water. Commercial fishing, recreational fishing, tourism. All those are over $3 billion industry to eastern North Carolina. And there are a lot of issues that are affecting our coast right now. Obviously with these storms and hurricanes, we're having a lot of challenges, both with infrastructure and just with daily living and tourism. So being here in the United States Congress to support them is a good thing, something of which I take very seriously and will advocate for them tremendously.

Well, Congressman Murphy, thank you so much for being with us today on the Daily Single podcast. Thank you for having me. I appreciate the time. What the heck is trickle down economics? Does the military really need a space force? What is the meaning of American exceptionalism? I'm Michelle Cordero. I'm Tim Desher. And every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we break the.

down a hot button policy issue in the news at a 101 level. Through an entertaining mix of personal stories, media clips, music, and interviews, we help you actually understand the issues. So do this. Subscribe to Heritage Explains on iTunes, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcast today. So Chick-fil-A made waves this week by announcing that it would in the future be focusing its attention on three areas of charity, homelessness, hunger, and education. This is a huge shift for the fast food giant, which has been controversial in recent years because of its donations to causes and groups supportive of traditional marriage.

The chain has faced boycotts, a gay kissing protest, and more. Daniel, you wrote about this for The Daily Signal, and you were pretty worked up about it. So why does this decision get under your skin so much? Well, I've loved Chick-fil-A for a long time. In fact, I used to work for Chick-fil-A. I worked there one summer after college, and, you know, I still like Chick-fil-A. But I think they're sort of betraying their brand and the trust that a lot of loyal customers have in them, which is based on their convictions. Everyone in America knows that Chick-fil-A is a Christian-run organization, and it's been involved, I would say, whether they like it or not, they've been involved in some culture war issues stemming from their charitable giving to Christian ministries and also some of their,

their founders' statements in support of traditional marriage. So, you know, that created a lot of controversy in recent years, and they stood firm. And conservatives and Christians rallied around Chick-fil-A to support them and say, hey, here's an institution that is standing for, like, high moral principles. It's really well-run. It's a great product. We want to support them in the marketplace. And so now Chick-fil-A has decided that it's going to move away from supporting some of these Christian ministries,

like Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Salvation Army, both of whom hold traditional views on marriage. And I wanted to assume the best about Chick-fil-A going into this because they're a great company and I don't think they're evil. But as I looked into it, you know, when you read some of the quotes, direct quotes published by the president explaining why they're shifting this charitable giving, he says that there has been tension coming from new markets that they're trying to reach and he said the words, we want to be clear about who we are.

And, you know, that just struck me. Like, Chick-Fleys always been clear about who they are about their convictions. So what do they need to clarify? It seems like they're just trying to build, they're trying to reach new markets. They're trying to move into, you know, progressive cities, urban centers and other countries, like in Europe. And they've gotten a lot of bad press in recent weeks, protests by LGBT protesters. and so they haven't been able to penetrate the market. And so all the indicators seem to me that this is about money and about expansion.

And what got me worked up over it is, you know, they've already won. They're already the third largest fast food chain in America. It's not like, you know, there's some small startup that's trying to, you know, gain a leg up. There's just no reason for them to capitulate. And at a time when corporate America is, you know, they're stepping all over themselves to beat each other to the left on social issues. A couple weeks ago, Sprite released a horrible ad that was glorifying gender transition. It was like a 90-second ad. It had nothing to do with Sprite.

It was just about, you know, about gender transition. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that we're getting now from corporate America. And so I think people like myself and a lot of other conservatives sort of looked at Chick-fil-A as a beacon of light in a very dark corporate culture. Yeah, I think the word that I keep coming back to is disheartened. I don't know if I'm mad exactly at Chick-fil-A. I don't think they, as you alluded to, they necessarily asked to have this fight. Right. I think they'd – I don't know the full history, but I believe they've been donating to some of these groups for years.

And then suddenly it became hugely controversial. and suddenly they were in the middle of a fight that, you know, maybe, yeah, they had never wanted the focus to be. At the same time, though, as you say, so many companies on the left, or so many companies are on the left. You know, I think about it, I use Apple products. I go to Starbucks. Like, I recently went to a coffee shop I love in D.C. And they had the pride flag up as well as the transgender flag up. And it was like, great.

And, you know, I don't, I think boycotts are a personal decision. I'm not against people doing them. I perhaps wish I had more of the courage of my own convictions. But, yeah, it's just so disheartening that I'm sort of at a loss to think of what other company besides Chick-fil-A has been successful and big and has really tried to fight. And I can't think of one. And they're not fighting to be a culture warrior institution. They're just being themselves, being true to their convictions, and producing great chicken, great waffle fries. and doing a great job of what they do.

So again, yeah, they're not inviting controversy by supporting these Christian ministries. They're just being themselves. And their surrender sends several messages. It sends a message to other Christian companies and businesses that, no, you can't be a big player in corporate America unless you bow the knee to the LGBT orthodoxy. And it also sends a message to these activists on the left

and says you can actually win if you, you know, brand us as bigots. and bully us for long enough. We're going to cave. Yeah, I mean, I'm definitely concerned that it does that. I noticed, I don't recall the name, but I'm glad, you know, the LGBT organization made a statement already saying Chick-Fully needs to go further, that this isn't enough. And, you know, it just reminded me, and I think most conservatives find it extremely frustrating that in the culture wars, you know, the left always says, well, conservatives are

instigating these. And we're like, no, we're not. We're just trying to hold the line a little bit. And I felt like that was such a perfect example of that. You know, like, I mean, here it is. It's still not good enough for Glad. Right. Chick-fil-A is going to have to ultimately, like, probably celebrate Pride Day or Pride Month and, you know, have Pride chicken sandwiches or they're not good enough.

Like, it's really this demand for total allegiance. And I think it's disheartening because, you know, we had seen, you know, some people on the left talk about, you know, I may not agree with Chick-fil-A on same-sex marriage or on these other Christian things. but I'm okay patronizing them, just like people like me go to Starbucks. And I think that that was the approach that I was hoping we were getting to, like a live-and-let-live, not Chick-fil-A surrendering like this. But I did want to say one thing in their defense. They still are not open on Sundays.

I do think that is a very bold move in our workaholic culture to maintain that. And I think it is to their credit that that doesn't appear to be changing. Yeah. And again, I don't think this makes, you know, Chick-Flay out to be some villain or some godless institution. It's just like one little step away from their former brand that I think, you know, over time, if they take more steps like that. And what's more important, this is not about who gets their charity money. This is about them sending a signal about who they are. This is about, you know, trying to rebrand themselves.

And so I agree, like being closed on Sunday, they were very clear that they're still going to be closed on Sunday. I think they were, you know, definitely probably realized that they miscalculated on this, like did not expect the blowback that they got from the whole conservative and Christian world. So, you know, we'll see where they go from here. Well, and I think you've made a good point in your op-ed about like it might hurt them financially in the sense of I know that sometimes I have chosen Chick-fil-A over, you know, McDonald's or another fast food chain because I'm like, I like, well, I like to support, you know, a company that really, frankly, like, I saw the food's the underdog. Like, they're fighting for values I agree with. And it's enormous.

It is great food. But I don't think it's so great that like, I don't know. Slightly overrated. It's definitely overrated. I mean, I guess I was just sort of thinking about it. And like, I have and I know other people who have probably gone somewhat out of their way to patronize Chick-fil-A that no longer will do that. And I think it might hurt their bottom line because I think a lot of us sort of

of thought as like we wanted to reward them for being brave at a time when so many people are afraid to be brave on these issues. And now it's like, well, you're just another corporation. Right. And that's a decision that every consumer gets to make. And that's the beauty of the market is you get to make subjective decisions about that. Like, Chick-fil-A doesn't have an obligation to give to anybody to be an upstanding organization. And we don't have an organization, we don't have an obligation to love Chick-fil-A. So we'll see. We'll see. We'll see where it goes from here. But my hope is that they realize just how badly they miscalculated

and realize that their base of support is there for them if they kind of step away and decide, you know what, we're not going to go down this slippery slope of bowing the knee to the progressive left. But only they can make that decision. That'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation.

Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or Spotify, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis.

Sound designed by Lauren Evans, the Leah Ramprasad, and Mark Geinney. For more information, visit DailySignal.com. on.