The Young Turks - Green Gamble

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

Episode summary: Germany shuts down its last nuclear power reactors. Biden's green gamble. UnitedHealth touts profit surge after lobbyists weaken Medicare advantage crackdown. Group of wealthy Americans warns US democracy "will not survive" unless the rich are taxed heavily. HOSTS: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! Hi everybody. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have, as usual, a gigantic show ahead for you. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me to talk about the fantastic artwork that you can experience while looking at

Donald Trump's latest round of NFTs, which unfortunately for all of you have already sold out. So apologies. But we do have some more, shall we say, substantive topics to get to in the first hour. I'll be doing a deep dive on nuclear energy with the newspeg on the fact that Germany has decided to shut down its last remaining nuclear reactors. Was it a good decision, a bad decision? You can decide for yourselves, but I'll give you the facts. Later, we'll also talk about something that the right wing has been celebrating because they think it's an example of me not being in favor of doing something in response to the climate emergency. And really, it's the rant that I engaged in recently in regard to the costs associated with transitioning

to electric vehicles. Turns out I'm not the only one who's concerned about the financial burdens that ordinary Americans are going to be facing. So we'll talk about that in a detailed and nuanced way. And we will of course lighten things up quite a bit in the bonus up for our members. So one man decided it would be a great idea to propose to his now fiance by kidnapping her. Was it romantic? Could it possibly be romantic? I don't know, you got to be a member to find out. TYT.com slash join to become one. You can also help support the show by liking and sharing the stream if you're watching us live online. With that said, can't wait to share this next story with you. I have waited quite a while to make sure I had a firm

grasp on this topic before bringing it up for discussion here at TYT. So let's talk about nuclear. Germany has decided to go forward with its plans to shut down their last remaining nuclear reactors. The controversial decision comes with some serious climate-related consequences that are worth discussing. Now fierce debates over whether countries should completely phase out nuclear power have raged on for decades. What ends up complicating the matter even more is how to do away with nuclear, which is a clean energy source, while adequately addressing our energy needs. Can countries make that transition without depending on destructive fossil fuels to fill the gap? Unfortunately so far, the answer

is no. Before we explore Germany and the issues surrounding nuclear bans, it's important to understand why there's been an effort to ban nuclear power in the first place. The anti-nuclear movement, understandably, took off during the Cold War in the 1970s, when sincere fears of nuclear war and mutually assured destruction took hold. Protesters had legitimate fears that stockpiles of atomic weapons would eventually destroy us all. Let's take a look. The first protests were small and local, but the movement spread quickly in the 70s, leading to months-long sit-ins and riots in the following years.

And then came the Chernobyl catastrophe. Its radioactive fallout also reached Germany, which further cemented the anti-nuclear sentiment in the public. That led to a unique landmark decision. In 2002, Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy. At that point, 19 reactors were generated. over a quarter of Germany's electricity, but they were shut down one by one.

And the 2011 nuclear accident in Fukushima sped things up. In Fukushima have to know that, that even in a high-technology land like Japan, the risks of the energy, not sure, beherished being. The week of the catastrophe, all older plants were shut down. A few months later,

the government decided to get out of nuclear power once and for all by the end of 2022. Well, Germany more or less kept its promise and recently completed its nuclear phase out by shutting down the last three remaining reactors. Unfortunately, what doesn't get discussed enough is what nuclear energy ends up getting replaced with. In Germany's case, it ended up being one of the dirtiest fossil fuels available. People are being urged to cut their energy use, which put Germany in a very tight spot. The threat of the gas shortage loomed.

Three of the remaining six nuclear power plants had just been turned off. The country had to resort to firing up old coal plants to make up for it, which pushed up overall emissions. Pushing up overall emissions, not good, very bad. Left without nuclear energy and limited natural gas, due to, of course, Russia's war with Ukraine, Germany had no choice but to turn to coal. And to be clear, methane emitting fossil fuels like natural gas aren't exactly an ideal replacement for nuclear either. For the environmentalists out there, don't be too hard on Germany.

They're actually not alone in turning to climate warming energy sources in lieu of nuclear power. As in California, New York, Italy, Taiwan, and virtually everywhere else that abandons nuclear energy, fossil fuels have largely made up the difference, which is a disaster. Aside from destroying the planet and contributing to the climate emergency, the fossil fuels that now replace nuclear also have an immediate impact on people's health. Coal and gas laces the air with fine particles that lodge in the lungs and trigger all kinds of diseases. Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers concluded that deactivating reactors leads to thousands of premature deaths from the air pollution, particularly.

particularly in poor and marginalized populations. And despite investing heavily in hydroelectricity, biomass, wind and solar, these sources of energy simply don't generate enough power to fill the gap left behind by nuclear's phase out. Germany just isn't there yet. A third of its electricity still comes from dirty coal. And that's where nuclear energy could be useful. To replace coal until renewable energies ramp up enough, batteries are developed enough,

and transmission grids are built widely enough to even out the regional differences in wind and solar generation. As Alexander Kaufman writes in Huff Post, for all the billions of euros Germany spent on renewables, the now six reactors shut down since the end of 2021, produced more zero carbon electricity than all the country's solar panels combined, and did so without requiring gas and coal-fired plants to switch on when the sky went dark. And look, the picture is even more bleak when you take a step back and look at Europe as a whole. Even with some of the technological improvements like batteries, for instance, that store solar energy that can be used when the sky is dark, the current capabilities are still nowhere close to meeting Europe's energy needs.

Weaker than anticipated winds, the previous summer had actually forced utilities in wind-powered nations to burn through more gas than expected. And the methane gas that had served as backup for renewables, meanwhile, relied on a fresh supply constantly flowing through the continent's network of pipelines. And we all know how we feel about pipelines. Now, the point here is not to trash the incredible strides that Germany has made in the realm of renewables. As an American, I find it enviable that Germany, you know, treats transitioning to renewables with the seriousness that the United States lacks. In fact, by 2022, around 50%

of Germany's energy actually came for renewables, which is pretty damn impressive. And the country's goal is to increase their reliance on renewables to a whopping 80% by 2030. But there are huge questions about how Germany will fulfill the other 20% of its energy needs. And that's assuming the country reaches its 80% renewable energy goal by the year 2030. And what do we do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? The amount of electricity needed to compensate for that is called the residual load. And it fluctuates a lot during the day. To fill the gap, we would either need huge batteries to store the energy in peak times,

which we are still far from having on a large enough scale, or we need power plants so we can shut on and off very flexibly. Right now, a lot of this flexible adjusting in Germany is done by gas plants, which can be turned on and off completely within just 30 minutes. But they, of course, also emit considerable emissions. To cut those, we need to have a low-carbon energy source. Hydro and biomass are currently not flexible enough for that in Germany. So could nuclear power fill that gap?

And again, this is the 20% gap that Germany would be dealing with, assuming they get to 80% renewables by the year 2030. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's actually take a look at what's happening in other countries right now before finally considering the costs and benefits of each model. Now, France actually resisted calls to end its dependency on nuclear power. The country happens to rely pretty heavily on it. Just a few weeks ago, on April 7th, the carbon intensity of Germany's power grid was roughly 10 times that of France's. Just let that sink in for a second.

Then there are other countries that actually banned nuclear energy long before Germany did. Denmark is a prime example, having outlawed nuclear power in 1985. Today, about half of the country's energy comes from wind and solar, which, by the way, just pause for one second, makes me really realize how far behind the United States is on renewables. But I continue. It sounds impressive until you realize that Denmark does rely on fossil fuels and burning wood to fill the gap left behind by phasing out nuclear power.

Without nuclear, Denmark needs fossil fuels and wood to provide energy for heating, for heating their homes, keeping the lights on at businesses, and also for fueling transportation. Pretty rough if you're concerned about the climate emergency, which of course, I'm definitely concerned about that. A lot of people are concerned about that. On top of that, Denmark simply is not generating nearly as much power as they would if they kept a few nuclear. reactors without decommissioning them. Now, the British energy think tank, Ember, claims that last year, wind and solar generated a little under 21 terawatt hours of electricity. Germany's three remaining nuclear reactors alone before they were shut down managed to double that in the same year.

Now, right before Germany actually went through with decommissioning its nuclear reactors, Danish protesters, like 25 year old Johann Solid, traveled from Denmark to Berlin to speak out against the potential shutdowns. He told the press this, quote, these three nuclear reactors in Germany produce more electricity than all Danish windmills and solar panels combined. In one day, they wipe out the whole energy transition of Denmark. But what are the experts saying? I mean, It's one thing to hear from a 25-year-old protester from Denmark who doesn't like what his country did. But I want to hear from actual experts, environmentalists, including those who are a little more skeptical toward nuclear energy. Now, we trust the terrifying reports from the IPCC, for instance, which indicate the rapid pace at which our climate is warming.

Do they agree with the nuclear phase out? Let's watch. On the point of emissions, there is agreement. The International Energy Agency sees nuclear power as necessary to lower our emissions as fast as possible. And the IPCC also factors in the growth in nuclear power in most of its 1.5 degree scenarios. Even environmentalist Greta Toonberg, who is famously against nuclear power, says, you know, when it came to Germany mothballing nuclear reactors to transition back to coal, not in favor of it. She just expressed quite a bit of dismay. In fact, Tunberg even got arrested while protesting the expansion of coal in Germany.

While some countries like Germany have banned nuclear energy, other countries have decided to go in the opposite direction. And that includes Japan, which was the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster that was brought on by a tsunami back in 2011. The tsunami flooded backup generators at the laxly regulated power plant, which triggered. the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. But notably, no one died from the radiation. Things began to shift toward the end of 2021 as warming, meaning climate warming, worsened. The COVID-19 pandemic deprioritized emissions cuts, and the tradeoffs associated with depending entirely on renewables became clearer. Ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit that November, Japan pledged to restart its reactors. So other countries have also decided to

not only protect the nuclear power they have in their countries, but to develop more nuclear power. Ghana and Indonesia announced plans to build their first nuclear plants. China also promised to build 150 reactors in the next 15 years, more than the entire world constructed in the last 35 years. Poland recently announced plans to go on a reactor building spree, according to HuffPost. Poland announced a deal late last year to build its first full scale nuclear power plant using American reactor technology and hired South Korea's nuclear exporter to construct its second station shortly afterward. And believe it or not, like this actually shocked me, But even Ukraine has placed orders for new reactors that have been designed in the United States,

betting that atomic energy is actually safer than gas or oil, and that's after Russia occupied the Zaporizia nuclear power plant. But nuclear, I want to be clear about this, does come with downsides, which includes issues with nuclear waste disposal, and also, of course, potential accidents at reactor sites. The discourse in Germany has centered on the question of safety. Talking about accidents and looking at the numbers alone, though, nuclear is much safer than coal and other fossil fuels. Check out this graph. Not only are fossil fuels way worse for climate change,

but air pollution and mining accidents have claimed far more lives than nuclear accidents. Nuclear waste storage is another contentious. issue. There is the solution which has been agreed widely by the scientific committee, which is burial in deep geological repositories. And the first one is in fact going to be coming into operation in Finland. The site in Finland is the only one in the world in construction. Sweden just licensed a site of its own. But the other 30 plus countries with nuclear power have yet to build or license sites. And the search for suitable areas is long, fraught and controversial. The fear of contamination has continually sparked protests.

Look, there could come a day where we have the technological advancements necessary to abandon nuclear entirely without having to turn to coal or wood or natural gas or some other fossil fuel. But the point is we're not there yet. So as with other political issues, Countries seem to be putting the cart before the horse, which drives me crazy. And in this case, it's causing destruction to the environment, to the planet. Healthcare, and the health care costs associated with turning to more fossil fuels in lieu of nuclear is another concern that I personally have. Look, this isn't to say I love nuclear energy and I want to keep it for eternity. I understand the risks associated with it.

I understand the impact it has because of the use of fresh water for these nuclear reactors. There could be some technological advancements that mitigate those issues as well. But my whole point in bringing up this issue is that it just doesn't make sense to phase out one of the most dependable clean energy sources before we've developed the necessary renewable energy to basically close the gap left behind by the phase out of nuclear. That's the point I'm trying to make. And weirdly enough, somehow people have convinced themselves that switching over to burning wood or switching over to coal is somehow better than continuing to rely on nuclear energy

until we develop more renewable energy that we can rely on and to close the gap. But it's an interesting topic, one that for some reason fires people up. At the end of the day, it's nuanced, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis, and you have to weigh the risks of nuclear with the risks of using climate, you know, warming fossil fuels. And based on the data that we have right now, I think that Germany probably should have kept those three nuclear reactors up and running until they reached better developments when it came to renewable energy. Anyway, a lot of you have thoughts about this.

I will read your comments in our first social break. For now, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about how the Biden administration might get some blowback over its weak efforts to say the least in helping ordinary Americans afford the transition to electric vehicles. That and more coming up. Don't miss it. Welcome back to the show, everyone. I'm Anna Casparian, and we're going to keep this climate-related first hour going, because I wanted to talk a little bit about what Axios has referred to as Biden's Green Gamble. What exactly is that?

Biden's EPA has announced some pretty far reaching climate rules that are meant to dramatically change the way Americans travel and commute over the next decade, which sounds like a great idea if you're concerned about the climate emergency, which is very real and we absolutely should respond to it appropriately. For instance, the EPA under Biden's administration want two-thirds of all passenger cars sold in the United States to be electric by the year 232. What a lofty goal. Now, we're a long way from that. Less than 6% of new cars sold last year happen to be electric vehicles. And there are some cost concerns, especially since the financial burden would be placed squarely on the ordinary American consumer. In the middle of a

rigged economy that they're already struggling with. And I have huge issues with that. As Axios reports, if Biden's plan goes through, consumers in nine years would find fewer gasoline options and be compelled, compelled, meaning forced to buy vehicles that currently are more expensive and have less driving range than traditional cars. Now look, I have issues with the driving range associated with electric vehicles as well, but let's put that aside. You can deal with that. What about the financial burden? I have no issue with transitioning to vehicles that are better for the environment. I have no problem making changes that are better for our planet. I do have a problem, though, with the government forcing you to do something and not providing

the adequate financial assistance to make it possible. And that is the issue that I'm starting to run into more and more with the Democratic Party. So electric cars currently, are dependent on Chinese manufacturers. I bring that up for good reason. Because since a lot of this technology is dependent on Chinese manufacturers and tech companies for parts and batteries, the financial assistance that has been offered up by the Democratic Party is actually not that great because it is reliant on you purchasing vehicles that are manufactured in the United States with American parts. And by the way, there also aren't enough charging stations or the infrastructure necessary to

support the electric vehicles. So other infrastructural issues were highlighted by the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, as California was dealing with a pretty crippling heat wave last summer. Now, that heat wave placed a heavy burden on the state's energy grid. And here is exactly what Gavin Newsom said to Californians, just a few weeks after Gavin Newsom said that he was going to push through a transition to electric vehicles. Let's watch. A heat wave is descending on California, prompting state officials to ask electric vehicle owners to refrain from charging their cars in hopes of avoiding power outages. But putting out this call just a week after unveiling plans to ban the sale of new vehicles. gas-powered vehicles by the year 2035.

Residents are being asked to conserve energy, and that includes not charging their cars from 4 to 9 p.m. A time where demand is high, but resources from solar power is low. The irony is that California is at the forefront of the push for electric vehicles. A week ago, the state passed a bill requiring 35% of new vehicles to produce zero emissions by 2026. increasing to 68% by 2030, and then 100% by 2035. 2035 is not that far away. So the idea that we're going to basically phase out the sale of gas powered vehicles entirely

and just rely on electric vehicles that would place a heavy burden on our electric grid. It's just all insane. Does anyone genuinely think that California is going to upgrade? it's electric grid to the point that it can actually accommodate all these electric vehicles, especially during a heat wave when there's a heavy burden on the electric grid. I just, this is what politicians do. They say whatever they think will appeal to you, they'll even push through policies that they think will appeal to you.

They'll pander like crazy. But they don't actually think through the costs associated, the infrastructure necessary. It's infuriating. I get it, some of the Biden stands out there, some of the Democrats stands out there might respond to this by saying, well, you know, Biden and the Democrats passed two bills that appropriate some funding for these issues. Did they? Okay, let's get to that, actually. So for instance, there was the Inflation Reduction Act, which didn't deal with inflation at all, but that's beside the point. And then there was, of course, the bipartisan infrastructure bill. And to be fair, those two bills

did appropriate some funding for climate related issues. But what does that mean? Well, spending $5 billion for 500,000 highway chargers and $2.5 billion for community chargers. Okay, so there's some money there, $5 billion for the charging stations. Setting price limits and income restrictions on EV tax credits to steer benefits toward mass market buyers. That was a euphemism for they're going to like means test the financial assistance that's going to be offered up to people so they make this super costly transition to electric vehicles. Okay. The means testing frustrates me because we know how means testing works. Okay, they will have the threshold be so incredibly low that a lot of people aren't going to qualify even as they're being compelled to buy electric

vehicles. With that said, there's more I want to get to here. That's incredibly frustrating. Remember I was talking a little bit about the manufacturing of these cars and the financial assistance only applying to electric vehicles that are made in the United States with American parts. It's going to be an issue. Okay. Now other areas of financial assistance and the two bills that I mentioned included tax credits for EV used EV buyers, lucrative tax credits for companies, this is important, for companies that build electric vehicles and batteries in the United States, which could trickle down to consumers, trickle down to consumers. Where have I heard trickle down before? And why do I have such a bad reaction?

to that phrase. It's like a repellent. It disgusts me because nothing ever trickles down to ordinary consumers, okay? Tax credits for companies means tax credits increase their profits through our money. That's what tax credits mean. But let's talk a little bit about some of the financial assistance to ordinary Americans, because ordinary Americans under these bills would also get a little bit of financial assistance directly in the form of tax credits, of course. New Biden administration rules first announced March 31st will sharply winnow the number of vehicles now eligible for the $7,500 tax credit. Okay, so the tax credit alone is not enough, especially when you look at the costs of electric vehicles, okay? But a lot of the electric vehicles available on the

market today absolutely would not qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit. So let's get to some of these specifics here. If you look at this graph, it actually lists which cars are getting electric vehicle tax breaks. It's really important for you to, of course, see the amount of the tax credit, which is $7,500 in some cases. It goes down to 3,000. $80,750 if the vehicle has parts that were manufactured in other countries like China. But if you notice an asterisk next to any of the vehicles on this list, it's because the vehicles aren't even on the market yet. But the plug-in hybrid by Lincoln, for instance, the lowest MSRP for that car is $70,190. And if you're lucky, you'll get a $7,500 tax break.

tax credit if you buy that car. I mean, come on. The next one is a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which doesn't qualify for the full tax credit, but costs $60,360. You've got the full electric Ford F-150, which a family member of mine just bought, and it's very nice, but it's also very expensive, nearly $60,000. I mean, the list goes on and on. And, um, Under the new treasury list, seven models will be eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit, and six will qualify for $3,750, which is half of the tax credit, depending on whether their battery minerals, their battery components, or both meet the domestic content rules. And again, anything with an asterisk that you saw on that list indicates cars that aren't even

on the market yet. So the Blazer EV from Chevy, not on the market yet, Equinox EV, one of the cheaper cars that just $30,000, not on the market yet. You get the point. I mean, if you want a Chevy Bolt, lowest MSRP for that is $26,500. That qualifies for the full $7,500 tax credit. But also if the tax credit only applies to vehicles, that are manufactured in the United States with parts and minerals from the United States. Doesn't that decrease competition with other electric vehicle producers? Couldn't the American-made manufacturers jack up their prices even more if you want to, you know, take advantage of that tax credit, which again, I don't think is enough?

Look, maybe I'm going on and on here. Maybe I'm blabbering too much. But like, do you guys get the point here? My point is not that I'm against transitioning to electric vehicles. My issue is that in case after case, climate policy after climate policy, ordinary Americans are told to do things. And if they can't afford it, they're told to kick rocks. And I'm sick of it. I really am. Okay, we've got a broken health care system, unaffordable housing, a rigged economic system that redistributes wealth from the bottom to the top.

And then on top of that, we get to hear from our local and federal lawmakers that we are compelled to move to electric vehicles with little help, little financial help. I have a problem with that. For anyone on the left who thinks that being critical of this issue makes me right wing, please for the love of God, read a book, go outside touch grass. Okay, you have a very simplistic mind and you don't know how to think in a nuanced way. If you think it's okay to force ordinary Americans who are already struggling to make these transitions with little financial help from our federal government, which by the way has no problem shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars every year for the Defense Department, I don't know. I just feel like you're not really thinking this through. And you're also not thinking through how deeply unpopular it is to be part of a political movement that on one hand rightly takes climate change seriously. But on the other hand, has this incredible. incredibly callous approach of asking everyone in the country, whether they're struggling financially or not, to take on the burdens and to stop complaining about it. And all the fossil fuel companies that privatize the gains and socialize the losses, where are they at?

How about an extra tax on them to help fund increased tax credits for Americans who are looking to buy electric vehicles? But there's no conversation about that because God forbid, God forbid, we hold the very fossil fuel companies that created the climate emergency in the first place accountable for their actions. God forbid we cut into their profits just a little bit. So yeah, I'm a little heated about this, super heated about this, because this ain't enough help. This is a massive financial burden for ordinary Americans. And anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a day of reckoning at some point when we have elections.

I don't know if it's going to be the next election cycle. I don't know if it's going to be election cycle after that. But if Democrats think that they can push these policies on ordinary people without providing adequate financial aid, they'd be mistaken. It is going to hurt them. Now just two EVs now on the market will be available for less than $25,000 after the tax credit is deducted, the Chevy Bolt, whose cost could fall to $19,000, just $19,000, guys, thanks to the tax break. And a utility vehicle version of the bolt, which could drop to $20,300.

That's assuming buyers can actually find the vehicles at that price in today's post-pandemic sellers market. And look, I get that we are drowning in consumer debt in this country, and debt has been so normalized in our highly financialized economy, I'm not in favor of taking on debt. I have a car, it's an older car, it's a little car, it's a Chevy, I'm sorry, it's a Honda Civic. And you know what, you know why I have a Honda Civic from like years and years ago? Because I don't want car debt. I don't want a car payment. I don't want to be a slave to debt for the rest of my life.

But transitioning to an electric vehicle would require me to take on debt. $20,000 is not a small amount of money. These are issues that I wish the Democratic Party actually gave a damn about and actually thought through. Instead of just spouting out nonsense about like, oh, by 2035, we're going to phase out all gas powered cars or two thirds of all cars will be electric. Will they? How about the other side of that? How about thinking about the costs associated with that for ordinary people? God forbid they ever think about that.

We got to take a break. We've got more for you when we come back, including, you know, how the private health care industry is stealing money from the Medicare trust. With the help of the government, we'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone, Anna Casparian with you. You know, we've been talking a lot and we've been updating you guys regularly on this whole private Medicare Advantage story and just how much they've been defrauding the federal government and stealing from the Medicare trust. I know it's a dense story.

I know it's not the sexiest topic, but I want you to keep in mind, this is our money. we pay into the Medicare trust. And the fact that it's being robbed right now is infuriating. And unfortunately, we have a pretty terrible update on that story. United Health Group's chief executive bragged about how the Biden administration's ineffectiveness in cracking down on overbilling in Medicare advantage has led to record profits. So the CEO, Andrew Witty, told investors that he appreciates the White House's decision.

to slow the implementation of its Medicare Advantage reforms, which would prevent companies like United Health from potentially over billing and stealing from United States taxpayers. United Health, as common cause rights, common dreams rights, United Health, one of the largest Medicare Advantage providers in the United States reported $91.9 billion in revenue for the first three months of 2023, 15% growth year over year, and more than $8 billion in earnings from operations exceeding analysts' expectations. United Health, like other Medicare Advantage insurers, has been accused of wrongfully denying patients necessary care, in some cases utilizing artificial intelligence to determine whether or when to end coverage. And unfortunately,

more and more seniors are signing up for Medicare Advantage, with some of them very likely not realizing that it's a privatized alternative to Medicare. The company, meaning United Health, said that it added 655,000 new Medicare Advantage members in the first quarter of the year. Now, we'll get back to United Health in just a moment, but first here's a little context about what we learned recently about these Medicare Advantage programs. So Medicare Advantage is not the same as Medicare. It's a Medicare approved plan from a private company that offers an alternative to traditional Medicare. Much like private prisons, it's privately run, but publicly

funded through the Medicare trust. Aside from robbing the Medicare trust through overbilling, other issues with Medicare Advantage includes, you know, super narrow networks for providers that can severely limit access to care for the nation's elders. Many of the nation's largest health insurance companies have made billions of dollars, not just in revenue, in profits, by exploiting the government's Medicare Advantage program. A recent New York Times investigation found that eight out of ten of the largest Medicare Advantage providers overcharge the government. In fact, six of the ten have been accused of fraud by both whistleblowers and government

officials. Before the Biden administration could implement any rules to mitigate or prevent this fraud, private health insurance lobbyists did what they do best. They went to work. They went to Washington. United Health helped lead an aggressive lobbying campaign against new Biden administration rules aimed at limiting Medicare Advantage insures ability to overcharge the federal government by making patients appear sicker than they actually are.

United Health CEO Andrew Whitty appeared on Capitol Hill in person to lobby against the proposed changes, which the lucrative Medicare Advantage industry falsely charactered. as cuts to the program that now provides insurance to nearly half of the overall Medicare population. Now, that lobbying effort culminated with big rewards for the private health care industry. Just last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, otherwise known as CMS, agreed to slow down its regulatory agenda by imposing policy changes over a period of three years, than all at once. By the way, with no justification, like, why are you slowing down the implementation of

these regulations? Is it because the lobbyist showed up and demanded you do so? CMS also agreed to boost Medicare Advantage payments or payment rates by more than previously expected. But just how bad has the overbilling been? We can get to some of those numbers. When it comes to excess billing, CMS, which by the way, agreed to slow down their regulations and their crackdowns on overbilling, recently estimated

that overpayments to Medicare Advantage totaled $11.4 billion in fiscal year 2022, a significant drain on the Medicare trust fund. Other estimates, according to Democracy Now, were higher at $25 billion in 2020 alone, citing one industry analyst stat news. Noted that United Health could reap $900 million in additional profit next year alone, thanks to the administration's decision to delay full implementation of reforms. Insurance giants, United Health, Cigna, CVS, Aetna, Elevents, Humana, you get the picture, and Molina saw their combined revenues from taxpayer-supported programs grow 500% between 2012 and 2022. United Health is one of just seven large for-profit insurance companies that now control

70% of the Medicare Advantage market, which is dependent on taxpayer money, our taxpayer money. Taxpayer money that they steal by overbilling their patients, by overcharging and overbilling the Medicare trust. So it's incredible to me that on one hand, you have Republican lawmakers pretending to be panicked about the solvency of various social safety net programs, whether it be social security or in this case the Medicare trust. Shouldn't we do something about the private companies that are defrauding the system? Shouldn't we crack down on that? And by the way, the Biden administration aiding and abetting the robbery in the first place,

It's pretty disgusting. Like, what is he going to do? Is he going to blame Trump for that too? This is happening under his watch. The Biden administration is fully aware of what these private insurers are doing in stealing money through overbilling. And they're letting it happen. They're slowing down the implementation of these rules that are meant to crack down on

this terrible behavior in the first place. Just something to keep in mind when the Democratic Party pretends to be better than Republicans. Because fact of the matter is the whole corrupt political system that we're currently living under does not discriminate against Democrats. The money flows into the coffers of Democratic lawmakers and Democratic politicians as well. So just like Republicans, they do the bidding of corporate America. And in this particular case, they do the bidding of private insurance companies that are literally stealing money from the Medicare trust. a trust that we all pay into.

All right, let's switch gears a little bit. Let's end the first hour with, I guess, it's like our annual positive story about millionaires, I guess, because decent millionaires do exist. I always feel a little weird covering this because it seems like a PR stunt, but it seems like they really mean it. We looked into whether the individuals involved in this group are donating money to some nefarious politicians, and they're not. So let's talk about the patriotic millionaires.

with one request for America's lawmakers in there, tax us. You just watched a man named Morris Pearl. He's the chair of a group known as the patriotic millionaires, pleading with American politicians to please tax the rich. In fact, they're arguing that if the United States government fails to do so, it could lead to the end of our democracy. Now, Pearl stated this, quote, the tax code has been contributing to growing inequality for decades, and we're reaching a point

where the concentration of wealth is simply unsustainable. We need a change, or our economy and our democracy will not survive. For my future, my grandchildren's future, and our country's future, we need to tax the rich. Now, I want to know, these are the patriotic millionaires? No word from the patriotic billionaires. Not so concerned about paying their fair share of taxes. But I'll continue. So what should be done about this issue? Well, here's Abigail Disney explaining the new and improved tax code that the patriotic millionaires would actually like to see signed into law. The patriotic millionaires are here to offer three core principles for that tax framework. One, treat all income.

over a million dollars in the same manner, whether it's generated from ordinary income or capital gains or inheritance. Two, make our income tax code truly progressive. That means raising the standard deduction to charge nothing to people who don't even make a living wage, and it means imposing significantly higher marginal tax rates on extremely high incomes. And the third is pass a tax specifically designed to rein in wealth concentration, a wealth tax on the richest people in America. If we can do these three things, we can save America. And if we don't, we won't. That was Walt Disney's, you know, niece. Actually, Walt Disney is the great uncle of Abigail Disney. Anyway, moving on though, what she said there is absolutely correct.

Our current tax system is simply not good enough at properly taxing the wealthiest people in our country. More details on that. A massive trove of IRS documents obtained by ProPublica last year showed that the 25 richest Americans, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, paid an average true tax rate of just 3.4% between 2014 and 2018, in large part, because unrealized capital gains from stock appreciation are not taxed. So what they do is they have most of their assets invested. Those investments keep growing, and what they'll do is they will get loans and use those investments, the unrealized gains from those investments as collateral. And they'll just live off that debt, which of course they get all sorts of favorable terms for. And that's how they avoid having to pay any taxes, including capital gains taxes,

which are lower than income taxes. It's absolutely insane. That was a pretty explosive report by ProPublica. We talked about it on the show. I highly recommend you guys go back and watch that report or read the ProPublica report if you have like an afternoon to yourself because those reports are super long. But nonetheless, while billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank, the rest of us are in fact suffocating financially. According to an oxy, America analysis published just last week, U.S. billionaires have gotten 86% richer over the past decade with $37 of every $100 of wealth created between 2012 and 2021, going to the top 1%. The bottom 50% only received $2 for every $100 of wealth generated during that period,

according to Oxfam. And the number of U.S. billionaires, of which, which there are now more than 700 is also nearly 60% higher than it was a decade ago according to the analysis. So the money is moving from everyone else, middle class, the working poor, all the way to the top. So the billionaires can get richer. It is unbelievable, well, it is believable when you consider the way the system is set up. This is the way it works. This is why letting the wealthiest people in the country get away with paying very little in taxes, a much smaller percentage in income taxes than ordinary Americans do, leads to inequality, which leads to anger and resentment, and leads to divisions in the country.

I really do think that is the heart of the divisiveness that we're seeing in the United States and elsewhere. The rhetoric of patriotic millionaires is all well and good, but are these wealthy individuals actually putting their money where their mouth is? I've always wondered about that, right? Because it's real easy to say, like, we want the government to tax us more. But what are you doing to make it happen? Well, each member donation varied.

The common thread was that most of them have donated tens, if not tens of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Senatorial Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DNC Services, the DNC Services Corporation. So here's one detail. So Morris Pearl, the man that open, that we open the story with, donated a few thousand dollars to politicians I like a lot, like Nina Turner, Jessica Cisneros, who ran for a house seat in Texas two times, unfortunately lost, but I really hope she runs again because she is a wonderful progressive. So when it comes to them putting their money where their mouth is,

I love to see that Morris Pearl, who is again, the chair of patriotic millionaires, is supporting the right kinds of candidates. And based on our research, we haven't seen any other member donate money to nefarious politicians who want to deregulate industry and cut taxes further for the wealthiest people. So it seems like they're real about this, and they're genuinely trying to change the way taxes are paid in the country. And I hope they succeed. And I think they're right. We absolutely do need to change something because the inequality that we're experiencing is leading to more division, more hatred, and it could make the difference when it comes to protecting our democratic process. All right, we got to take a quick break. John Iderola is waiting to come in. He's just itching to come in and talk to you all. So stick around. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.