The Young Turks - Water Wars

Episode Date: January 19, 2023

Homes outside of the Scottsdale borders have no access to the city water. George Santos was just assigned to the committee that oversees NASA. Now more than ever we need medicare for all. Websites that sell abortion pills are selling customers’ data. Host: Ana Kasparian 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. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nieson. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Woo! Get some. Ice cream. You know, I'm not going to be able to be.

You guys better get ready to have a good time because that's what's going to happen on the show today. We are going to dive right in to the water crisis that is currently transpiring in the American West, but particularly in Arizona where one particular town has been cut off from its water supply. We'll tell you why and how deregulation has played a huge role in this debacle, this disaster that Arizonans are experiencing today. In the second hour, which I'm really looking forward to, John Iderola will join me to attempt to defend Marvel as Marvel does naughty, naughty things. Okay, so for all the Marvel fans out there, simmer down, it's going to be okay. This has to do with labor and the treatment of their

visual effects workers, but the workers are fighting back and we're going to tell you how in the second hour when John Iderola joins us. In the first hour, we will also discuss George Santos and how he is beyond deplorable as a person, he has decided to be a great idea to scam homeless veterans who are in desperate need of funds to pay for surgery for their service animals. That story, I mean, it just really crystallizes what the priorities of Republican lawmakers happen to be because he's also been given to committee assignments. Even after all this reporting indicating that he's a weirdo, a complete pathological liar. So we'll get to that later in the show.

But as always, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream if you're watching us online. If you're not a member, you should become one. Go to YouTube.com slash, I'm sorry, t.yt.com slash join or click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. We will be having a bonus episode, which of course is exclusive to our members immediately after the second hour of the show. All right, without further ado, let's get right to the one. water crisis in Arizona. In Rio Verde Foothills, people paid to haul water from the city of Scottsdale into their community for more than 30 years. But now, we're just using our buckets from the garage right

now and collecting the rainwater. Folks like Karen Navity are desperately searching for alternatives. I'm using rainwater in here to even wash my hands with, to rinse dishes with for flashing the toilets. That's right. Scottsdale, Arizona. has cut off neighboring Rio Verde's water supply, citing the ongoing drought and the shrinking volume of groundwater as the reason for doing so. Now, you want to stick around for the details of this story because what isn't being reported is how deregulation from decades ago has played a huge role in the pain and suffering that residents in Rio Verde are experiencing today. But before we get to that, let's give you some more details, including why Scottsdale

has made this decision. Now, Scottsdale said it had to focus on conserving water for its own residents and could no longer sell water to the roughly 500 to 700 homes in Rio Verde. This means that the town's nearly 1,000 residents are left to fend for themselves and will have to buy water from other suppliers. And that's if they can find other suppliers. Now, the water they do end up buying will likely cause these residents a lot more money because they will have to ship the water from further distances. And in a scramble to conserve water, people are flushing their toilets with rainwater and lugging laundry to their friends' homes just to make do with this awful situation. In fact, this video gives you other examples of some of the extreme measures that

residents have taken. Let's watch. Circle of Blue, which investigates water scarcity, warns a worst case scenario for Arizona could make Phoenix one of the most uninhabitable places in the world by 2016. Residents statewide have been stepping up,

some avoiding raking leaves up to keep the ground wet, and using garden pavers to direct water into their plants and trees. So that the water trickles down and gets to the root. Others, opting for toilets with sinks above them, and taking showers outside and collecting the runoff.

Water conservation is vital. We live in the middle of the desert. Ain't nobody interested in taking showers outside. Just keeping it 100 with you all, okay? I feel terrible for these people. The sink situation that's connected to the toilet, also not interested in that. But the point here is the residents of Rio Verde have no choice.

They have been cut off from the water supply that they were previously getting from Scottsdale, Arizona. Now, not everyone is conserving water, and this is a similar situation that we in California are experiencing. As one resident put it, I'm surrounded by plush golf courses. One of the largest fountains in the world, said Tony Johnson, referring to the 500-foot water feature in the neighboring town of Fountain Hills. Maybe we don't prioritize fancy fountains when there is a decades long drought, as is the case in Arizona.

But in fact, 70% of the water in Arizona goes straight to agriculture, something similar that we are experiencing here in California as well. But look, let's take a step back. Because in order to really understand this crisis and what's transpiring in Arizona, you'd have to know where the state gets a its water and how the state more importantly manages its water. Now 35% of the state's water comes from the overburdened Colorado River. The rest of their water actually comes from Arizona state's aquifers or rivers. Now the town of Rio Verde which is unincorporated gets its water in a pretty unconventional way and this is where the deregulation kind of plays a role.

I want to go to this next video because it does a pretty good job, explaining how water is basically shipped to the people of Rio Verde, previously from Scottsdale, Arizona. Let's watch. John Hornewer moved here 23 years ago, discovered his new community didn't have water service and stumbled onto a new career. The wells in my area are questionable at best, so I just opted to grab a trailer and haul my own water. And then did someone say, hey, could you grab some for me? Exactly.

As my neighbors saw me coming up the road of the trailer, they were like, hey, if you stopped and drop off load for me. Once every four to six weeks, tops off my tank. More than a quarter of Rio Verdi relies on hauled water. And the tank actually runs from here to over here. Karen Nabody bought here in 2014. Yeah, we had talked to a lot of the neighbors, and they've been doing it for 50 years. Now, just to give you a few more details on how the people in Rio Verde get their water, the trucks would feel. fill up with Scottsdale water at a pipe 15 minutes drive from the Rio Verde Foothills

and then deliver water directly to people's front doors, or rather to 5,000 gallon storage tanks buried in their yards, enough water to last an average family about a month. When the tanks ran low, homeowners would call or send an electronic signal to the water haulers for another delivery. So again, a little unusual, especially when you compare how Rio Verde receives its water versus how, you know, other municipalities, you know, get their water through the tap. Now, an average family's water bill, by the way, is likely to explode now that they have to look for other water sources, other places to buy the water and then haul the water to Rio Verde. An average family's water

bill has jumped $660 a month from the previous $220, and it is unclear how long the water trucks will be able to keep drawing tens of thousands of gallons from some of the backup sources that they have been relying on. Now, here's where the story gets interesting. And this is something that people should be aware of because laws matter, regulations matter, and when deregulation from 30 years ago really starts to make an impact, we should really reconsider whether we should allow developers to make decisions about critical infrastructure. Now, what do I mean?

So what's really at play here is the unregulated growth in housing, in developments, in places like Arizona. And it's something that I want, I think, really smart, savvy people on the left who are concerned about housing to take into account. Because if you simply deregulate some of the zoning laws, if you essentially play into the hands of developers who just want to build, build, build with a deregulated model, there could be some unintended consequences for residents who end up buying these homes or living in these homes. And here's a perfect example of that. Now, Arizona is one of the fastest growing states in the U.S., okay, and that does come at a cost.

In order for developments to be approved in Arizona, developers have to prove that the community that they want to build has access to enough water to be sustainable for the next century, for the next 100 years. Now, I would venture to say that the laws should indicate that there should be, you know, a sustainable water supply indefinitely. There shouldn't be a 100 year limit to it. But nonetheless, that is what their initial law was. So in other words, they have to prove that there is a sufficient source of water for the new proposed communities. That regulation was tied to a critical moment in history for Arizona. And I love doing a deep dive and giving you guys some historical context.

So let's talk about that. In 1978, there was a swindler, Ned Warren. He was convicted of 20 counts of fraud for selling land in Arizona without access to water. Two years later, the drafters of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act put an end to that practice by requiring, requiring an assured water supply in advance of selling subdivision lots. Sounds like it makes a lot of sense, a good legislative response to a swindler. Now, in 1980, an assured water supply meant a renewable surface water supply, such as Central Arizona Project water from the Colorado River or water from the Salt and Verde rivers.

Okay, so again, renewable surface water supply was the specific element of that legislation, of that law, okay? It did not include groundwater, which is far more finite, okay? But this is where the deregulation comes in. Let me read the rest of that graphic to you, because the rest is important. It did not mean groundwater. Again, it did not mean groundwater. The Groundwater Management Act aims to halt the overuse of groundwater that plagued the state for decades.

So the reason why it partly plagues the state is a finite resource, of course, but also when you rely too much on groundwater, the land starts to sink. So there were some issues with that. And so the initial act, the initial law that was passed specified that they couldn't note or rely on groundwater in order to get approved for these developments. But things started to change in the 1990s. And that's when things started to become incredibly problematic. So 30 years ago, in 1993, the Arizona legislature ended up amending a law at the behest, of developers, of course, and communities that did not have access to surface water,

to allow the use of groundwater to show assured water supply. So basically, the lobbyist tied to the developers, started lobbying the state legislature, and the state legislature made some amendments to the initial or original law. Let's watch. The politics of construction in Rio Verde, even lots with no water, are still guaranteed building permits by the pro-growth state government. Do you anticipate there being other communities like that facing this in the years ahead? Based on the pioneer attitude that still exists in Arizona, it's going to continue to happen.

It's going to continue to happen. Do you guys understand what's happening? Developers are going to want to build no matter what, knowing full well that they might even try to build in lots that do not have access, do not have sufficient access to water. which of course you need to live, right? They just want to build and sell because at the end of the day, their motive is to make money. So they effectively lobbied the state legislature to deregulate the original law to essentially state that you can use groundwater into this equation of making the case that there is sufficient water supply to build that community.

But it turns out that that groundwater is not enough to rely on, especially when it comes to towns like Rio Verde. Developers did not like the assured water supply restrictions on groundwater pumping. So in 1993, the Arizona legislature created an exception that allows houses to be built on raw desert land and their owners to use groundwater on the assumption that the government will purchase water supplies to replenish groundwater that is pumped. Well, you know what they say about assumptions. When you make an assumption, you really make a mistake, especially when you're relying on the government to, you know,

mitigate whatever shortages there may be in the water supply. And that certainly is a case or is the case in Arizona, which is only exacerbated by the ongoing drought, which has been going on for literally decades at this point. And so let's talk a little bit about the drought and more importantly, the impact of climate change and how it has exacerbated an already dubious situation with these developments in desert areas that clearly do not have access to enough water. Now Tom Bouschakki, I think his name is, I think I'm mispronouncing it, but nonetheless,

the individual in Arizona who is in charge of managing the water supply explains how climate change and the warming planet has exacerbated this issue. He articulates it way better than I can, so let's take a look at what he has to say. It's still snowing and raining 80, 90, 100% of what it did historically. But instead of that turning into water that goes into the river, the water's disappearing. Wait, what does that mean? Where is it going? We're getting 40 or 60% of that water going into the river. So in 90% of the snowfall, 40% of the water. And so it's happening because the soil is much drier because it's been hotter.

The snow is melting sooner and trees and other vegetation are growing earlier in the year because of the warming climate. So there you have a government official in the state of Arizona. Not only acknowledging that climate change is real, but specifically acknowledging how the climate emergency has exacerbated the conditions in Arizona, exacerbated the drought in Arizona, and more importantly, exacerbated this crisis for people living in communities like Rio Verde. But I want to be absolutely clear, the developments in Arizona like Rio Verde should not have been built in the first place. The developers should not have been granted,

the permits they were granted, to build those homes knowing full well, there was enough water to support that community. It started off pretty terribly, and it was only exacerbated more with the fact that we are dealing with an ongoing drought that is caused by this climate emergency. And so what are the people of Rio Verde going to do? Well, so far, they have filed a lawsuit against the city of Scottsdale, hoping that a judge will implement a permanent stay and reverse the decision that's Scottsdale made in cutting off Rio Verde of its water supply.

They're also asking the courts, again, to implement that stay. But there's a private company that is now working. This is also not good, in my opinion, but private company known as Epcor, who is planning to essentially supply water to Rio Verde, but they say they won't be able to do so. They won't be able to be up and running for another two years. Okay. And we're also talking about Scottsdale, Arizona, I'm sorry, Rio Verde, specifically relying on a private company to get them water. And private companies have one thing in mind, which is what can we do to maximize our profits? I'm concerned about what that means in terms of their water bills.

But they are in a terrible situation right now, a precarious situation. And while I have no problem with them going after Scottsdale, Arizona for cutting them off, we also have to acknowledge that there is a limited supply of water. And the real individuals that I think the residents of Rio Verde need to go after are the developers. Are the individuals who made the decision to build a community in the desert knowing full well that they would eventually run out of water and find themselves in the situation they're in today? And let me also be clear, these aren't renters. These aren't people who can just easily get up and leave.

These are people who put their life savings into purchasing these homes. Okay, and I feel absolutely terrible for them. But this is what happens when you deregulate. This is what happens when you allow money in politics to rule all of us. Everyone suffers the consequences of that, except for other than the very corporations that succeed in essentially legally bribing these politicians to deregulate important industries in this country. We suffer the losses, they reap the rewards. It's absolutely disgusting. Anyway, we got to take a break.

I wanted to wrap that in about 15 minutes and I failed, but it's okay. We're going to take a break and when we come back, we will talk about George Santos and his latest unbelievable scams and lies. Don't miss it. one comment from our member section regarding the story that I just that I just covered about Rio Verde, Arizona. I feel bad for these communities, says square peg in a round hole. But between voting for representatives that value deregulation above all else and ignoring climate change, this is only the beginning. We are all going to pay the price for the voting decisions of people who put present comfort over future benefits. Square peg and a round hole, I mean, look, you make a good point here.

One thing that I want people to be cognizant of is the very real filter bubbles that Americans live in. And the filter bubbles I'm referring to have to do with news consumption, what kind of news stories, and more importantly, what kind of bias in reporting people are stuck in, right? And so a lot of right wingers, and quite frankly, those on the left as well, are stuck in their own filter bubbles. and they're not getting any information that goes against their preconceived notions. They're not getting other perspectives unless they are aware of the filter bubbles and they literally go out of their way to get a different perspective. What I'm trying to do here is just be a lot more cognizant of those filter bubbles and make sure that we're giving you guys as accurate reporting as we can. But the other thing is, if you have conservative friends or family members, you know, talk to them, you know, if you think that they might not be exposed to different perspectives, maybe share a video or two with them. It could help. You never know. But I think increasing dialogue with those we disagree with politically could actually be beneficial for everyone involved. So something to keep in mind. All right, with that said, let's get to our next story.

I also knew him as Anthony Zabrovsky. So you knew him he, why did he say he had two names then? Well, he used Zabrofsky for his friends of Pets United, his GoFundMe. And he would say, oh, well, you know, the Jews will give more if you're a Jew. And so that's the name he used for his GoFundMe's. You just heard from the former roommate of freshman Republican congressman George Santos. And not only did he lie about his heritage, something that we have talked about on this show before, George Santos also stole that particular roommate's Burberry scarf, which they also discussed in that interview.

But for the purposes of this story, I actually want to focus on something else, which is George Santos' alleged dog charity, animal charity, which turned out to be a bit of a scam according to one homeless, formerly homeless veteran who had the misfortune of crossing paths with George Santos and accuses him of scamming him in his moment of need. Now, in 2016, a veteran by the name of Richard Ostoff was homeless and living in the a tent in an abandoned chicken coop. Now he did have some company, his service dog, a pit bull mix named Sapphire. Now, there they are, it's a really sweet photo. I just want to warn you guys,

this story was difficult to produce, just thinking about the insane cruelty that someone would have to carry out, that George Santos did carry out in this case. But that man was scammed allegedly by George Santos because when he needed money to pay for a necessary surgery for his service animal, George Santos swooped in, engaged in a fundraising effort, and ran with the money. So what happened? So Sapphire developed a life-threatening stomach tumor. And when Ostoff found out about it, he went to the vet, of course, and found out that a surgery would cost about $3,000. Now we're talking about a homeless veteran who's living in a tent.

Clearly he didn't have the funds for it. A veterinary technician took Ostoff aside and told him, quote, I know a guy who runs a pet charity who can help you. His name was Anthony DeVolder, also known as George Santos, by the way. And his pet charity was called Friends of Pets United, the vet tech told him. Now that was when George Santos ended up putting a GoFundMe page up for Sapphire, in order to raise money for Sapphire's surgery. But much like Santos's congressional campaign,

his efforts turned out to be nothing more than a scam meant to enrich himself. Now, Ostoff and other and another New Jersey veteran, retired police sergeant Michael Bull, who tried to intervene to help Ostoff in 2016, says that Santos closed the GoFundMe he set up for Sapphire after it raised $3,000 on social media and just disappeared.

As you can imagine, Michael Bull was furious about this. I contacted Santos and told him, you're messing with a veteran and that he needed to give back the money or use it to get Ostoff another dog. He was totally uncooperative on the phone. Now there were other issues too, like the fact that Santos told Ostoff that he needed to use a veterinarian that he knew in Queens, New York, rather than the, the, the veterinarian that he wanted to take the dog to in New Jersey. Santos claimed, no, no, you gotta go to this vet in, in, you know, in Queens,

specifically because I have a good working relationship with this individual, I have credits with him, and so you need to take the dog there. And he obliged, he listened, it was a tiny little hole in the wall place, but looked legitimate, the vet there said they couldn't operate on the tumor. Astoff said, adding that he was confused because the New Jersey vet didn't express any similar concerns. So in other words, it seems like this veterinarian, if this person actually was a vet in Queens, told him something that might have been untrue, that the dog could not be operated on because the vet in New Jersey said something completely different, that the tumor was operable,

they could do a surgery and take the tumor out, it would just cost a lot of money. Now, Ostov had one final phone conversation with Santos who said that because he didn't do things my way, he put the GoFundMe money from Sapphire's fundraiser into the charity to use for other dogs. That's when Bull jumped in, right? This is the other person who's a friend of off trying to help him out, and he told Santos that he couldn't do that because the money was specifically raised for the pit bull, the pit bull mix. Now, on November 13th, 2016, he urged Santos to let him take Sapphire to another vet saying, quote, my dog is going to die because of God knows what.

And here's how Santos replied to him. Remembering, he's, Santos replied, remember, remember, it is our credibility that got GoFundMe to contribute. What credibility? What credibility? Like, who are you? He continues to say we are audited like every 501c3. Turns out, by the way, it was not a 501c3. So that was a lie. And we are with the highest standards of integrity, also a lie. Sapphire is not a candidate for this surgery. The funds are moved to the next animal in need. And we will make sure we use of resources to keep her comfortable. A lot of grammatical errors there, you guys get the point. Now in December, the New York Times reported that the charity was not a registered non-profit. So it was not a 501C, 501c3, that was a lie.

There needs to be more of an investigation to figure out what this charity was, what happened with the funds that he raised through this so-called charity. But nonetheless, Santos disappeared after that. And we have some proof that this story is in fact true, because here is a screen- shot from the Facebook post that Richard put up in 2016 when all of this went down. To everyone who helped me in Sapphire raise the money for her surgery, I'm sorry to say that we were scammed by Anthony DeVolder. Again, that's George Santos and Friends of Pets United. Through a series of bad veterinary contacts and subterfuge regarding payment, Sapphire has not

received care and her growth is three to four times bigger than it was when the campaign was fulfilled. She is facing euthanasia within months. And this is where the story gets really difficult because this veterans support animal, support dog ends up dying. Sapphire died on January 15th, 2017. After being out of work with a broken leg for over a year, Osthoff couldn't afford the dog's euthanasia and cremation. He said, I had to panhandle. It was one of the most degrading things I ever had to do, he remembered. And he also said, he told Patch the following of his dog.

Little girl never left my side in 10 years. I went through two bouts of seriously considering suicide, but thinking about leaving her without me, saved my life. I loved that dog so much. I inhaled her last breaths when I had her euthanized. The fact that George Santos scammed this person, a homeless vet, and scammed this man to the point where his service animal had to die when it might have been saved. just gives you a sense of who this person really is, right?

I mean, all of the insane lies, I mean, we've been dunking on him, making fun of him, but this goes to a completely different level. Just the willingness to carry out this insanely cruel act, this insanely cruel scam. And when the press reached out to George Santos to ask about this, he just said simply fake, no clue who this is. Well, the gentleman that you're pretending not to know has the receipts. The text exchanges, screenshots of those text exchanges are readily available in the original reporting of the story.

What happened to the money? Would you do with it? There really does need to be an investigation into not only George Santos's alleged charity, but more importantly, where did he get his money from? the money that he loaned to his own campaign. I mean, obviously, this wasn't a guy who's working at Goldman Sachs. He's lied about all of his credentials. He's lied about his education.

He's lied about his heritage. He's lied about everything. Where did the money come from? So there are potential campaign finance issues there, potential fraud issues, certainly when it comes to his alleged charity. And despite what a ghoul George Santos is, the Republican Party, the Republican establishment has decided to reward him and his scamming ways by giving him committee assignments. Let's watch. Let's go back to Republicans sticking by him. Today, the Speaker of the House,

Kevin McCarthy, said Santos will be seated on committees. What do we know so far about his assignments? Well, we actually just found out within the last few minutes, newsbreaking, that Congressman Santos will serve on the Small Business Committee, which one of its main responsibilities is to oversee potential fraud within the PPP program that was quite popular during the pandemic, but there was a lot of back and forth about if some of that money was misused. So that's kind of the main area of focus for the small business committee. Incredible, right? I mean, isn't it so perfect?

Have the guy who's clearly a fraudster oversee potential fraud related to businesses in America. And why would Kevin McCarthy? Why would Republican leadership do this when they know that this guy is an insane pathological liar? If I were a Republican in the House of Representatives right now, I would be so embarrassed to be associated with someone like George Santos in any way, shape, or form. But the Republican Party rewarded him with committee assignments. Not only is he on the small business committee, he's also going to be on the science space and technology committee. And look, Republican leadership did it. Kevin McCarthy did it because George Santos supported Kevin McCarthy and his bid to be

Speaker of the House. At the end of the day, it's all about power. Always remember that. Kevin McCarthy does not give a damn about you. He doesn't give a damn about Republican voters. He doesn't give a damn about the American people or making this country a better place. Kevin McCarthy cares about Kevin McCarthy, much like most politicians in Congress today. And that's because the system incentivizes these ghouls to run for public office.

When you have a system that allows lawmakers to trade individual stocks and enrich themselves with insider trading that goes on with impunity, it's going to attract the worst people in the country. And that's why Congress is just a massive dumpster fire. To see someone like George Santos get rewarded for his bad behavior is so incredibly depressing and honestly illustrative of some of the biggest problems we have in America today. We got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk about our broken health care system because I guess it's just that kind of day, isn't it? Well, while leftists are engaging in ridiculous infighting on social media and getting absolutely nothing done, Bernie Sanders is still fighting, and he's fighting hard when it comes to health care.

I see a nation where over 85 million of our people are either uninsured or underinsured. Senator Bernie Sanders gave a national address on the state of America's working class, and he did what he does best. He provided a voice for Americans who have been victimized with crippling medical debt. Let's hear more of what he has to say. And as all of you know, we are the only. major country on earth, not to guarantee health care to all people. I see a nation where unbelievably, over 500,000 people go bankrupt each year because of medically related debt. You got

that? You were sick. You had a cancer operation. And you know what you get? You go bankrupt as a result. That's right. That is a reality for countless Americans. And in fact, tens of thousands of Americans die every year as a result of not having adequate health care to take care of their ailments. Now, many avoid preventative care because of its costs. And as a result, they end up in hospitals with their illnesses progressing to a point where it's either far more costly to get treatment or they've kind of past the air, their illness has gotten to a point, it's progressed to a point where there isn't much the doctors can do. But medical debt is a very real problem in this country, especially when it comes to

retirees, people who are on a fixed income, who can pretty much lose everything they saved, their entire nest egg if they have an illness that is too costly to treat. Now, a new poll by Gallup provides more insight into this. As U.S. residents face soaring prices for private insurance, the percentage of them foregoing medical services as a result of the costs, climb 12 points in just one year, from 26% in 2021 to 38% in 2022. Here is a Gallup poll graph showing you that spike of the 38% in just one year.

So of those who reported postponing treatment last year, 27% of them said that they or a family member did so for a very or somewhat serious condition. Even that, by the way, is nine points up from the previous year. So the most, the most, this mostly affects, as you guys can imagine, people who are, you know, of lower income, people who don't really have much disposable income, don't have much in terms of savings. And even people who are making as much as $100,000 a year are feeling this issue, not to the same extent as lower income individuals, but let's keep it real. With the rising health care costs, with inflation tied to corporate price gouging,

with the insane cost of housing, all of this stuff plays a role in making life unaffordable. in America, but once you put the broken healthcare system into the mix, it makes it even more untenable, really. So let's talk about that a little bit. In 2022, Americans with an annual household income under $40,000 were nearly twice as likely as those with an income of $100,000 or more to say someone in their family delayed medical care for a serious condition, 34% versus 18% respectively. Those with an income between $40,000 and less than $100,000 were similar to those in the lowest income group when it comes to postponing care with 29% doing so.

In fact, this is a point that I've brought up many times on the show because I think it's important to really face reality here. Americans have the same life expectancy as Cubans. The reason why is Cuba, even with its lack of resources, even with the embargo that the United States has implemented against Cuba, even with the United States stating that Cuba is a state sponsor of terror which prevents other countries from doing trade and business with Cuba, Cuba still has a comparable life expectancy rate to Americans because they focus most of their on preventative health care. They don't have the resources to treat illnesses that have progressed past a certain point. So they know that preventative health care is critical in keeping people alive in their country. In America, you ain't got health insurance.

You ain't got the resources to pay for preventative care. You can kick rocks. You're on your own. And so we're found, we find ourselves in this situation where again, where again, America, one of the richest countries in the world, has a life expectancy that's comparable to Cuba, one of the poorest countries in the world. Think about that. Now, Elizabeth Benjamin, co-founder of Healthcare for All New York campaign, explains just how

insurance companies cripple patients with medical debt. Let's watch. We know from the credit reporting agencies that 50, of debt that's on people's credit reports is medical debt. I think what's most distressing about this is how this medical debt is getting incurred. Over five years from 2015 to 2020 by looking at every single county court, you know, civil, small claims court record that they had sued 53,000 patients. This phenomena is also have been found in other states. Wisconsin, for example, there was a big analysis out there that was published in health affairs. But what we've seen is that

these nonprofit hospitals, which are bound by IRS rules to not take extraordinary debt collection actions, but suing people is quite extraordinary by the IRS rules. But not only do they sue people and sue kind of a lot of people at huge volume, but also that's not good enough. They were charging 9% interest when the interest rates were 1%. They were charging, they were going after people's homes by putting liens on people's homes, which ruins someone's, you You have non-profit hospitals suing patients for their inability to pay astronomical medical bills. They're placing liens on Americans' homes. Do they consider that maybe these Americans aren't paying their medical bills because they can't

afford them? know? So further ruining their lives by putting liens on their homes. And then again, these are non-profit hospitals we're talking about. That's how broken this system really is. Now, at the same time, polling for provisions and legislation like Medicare for all remains very high. Here's a recent headline from common dreams. As centrist House Democrats attack Medicare for For all, Fox News poll shows 72% of voters want government-run health care plan. Hmm, interesting. That is a Fox News poll.

Just let that sink in for a second. Americans have a lot more in common than corporate media would have you believe. Every American, regardless of their political affiliation, wants the same thing. They want happy, healthy lives. They want their children to thrive, they want safe communities. The thing is, we're so focused on fighting each other based on the manufactured wars that people in positions of power basically bait us with. So while Americans are dying because they're not getting the preventative health care they need due to its astronomical costs, We're talking about transgender athletes in high school sports.

And you have red states passing laws on that when those same legislators can't name a single transgender athlete that inspired the legislation in the first place. But let's keep fighting about that. Let's keep fighting about drag queen story hour. Because that's the most important thing that's happening in the country. while your family members are either crippled with medical debt or dying because they're not getting the medical care that they need. We need to really re-focus our priorities on things that matter. Rather than feeding into the fear-mongering, rather than buying the fear-mongering that the political elite try to bait us with,

how about we reject that garbage? actually respect our fellow Americans, regardless of what their identity is, and actually fight together for a better system that actually takes care of the American people, rather than basically destroy their lives with, again, crippling debt, or insufficient medical care because of lack of resources and lack of funds that a patient might be dealing with. One of the richest countries in the world, and it's embarrassing how we allow people to suffer here. Year after year, decade after decade, things need to change. All right, I want to do one more story before we bring John in, so let's talk about the latest in reproductive fights.

Online pharmacies that sell abortion medication across the country are unfortunately sharing their customers' data, sensitive data, with big tech firms like Google. Now, this is obviously concerning, considering the fact that we have, you know, many states that have criminal, in some ways, criminalized abortion, certainly when it comes to the abortion providers. It's also problematic when it comes to medically related privacy rights. But it turns out there's a lot of deregulation when it comes to HIPAA online. So we're going to get to that in just a moment. But the Department of Justice recently announced that the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver the abortion pill to people in states that have effective.

banned abortion. Now, this new revelation, though, regarding the sale of data, customer data, could give women pause before they go to order these drugs. So it is a cautionary story, but there needs to be more of a fight to protect people's privacies, especially when it comes to sensitive matters like this. Now, more people have been utilizing Mithoprestone and mysoprostol, the two drugs used in medication abortions in the wake of these strict anti-abortion laws. Now, those drugs can, in fact, be purchased on the internet, and they can be taken at home. Now, ProPublica ran checks on 11 online pharmacies that sell abortion medication to reveal the web tracking technology they use. Late last year, and in early January,

ProPublica found web trackers on the sites of at least nine online pharmacies that provide pills by mail. Here's what the pharmacies are, online pharmacies. There's abortion ease. Bestabortionpill.com, privacy pill RX, pills online RX, secure abortion pills, abortion RX, generic abortion pills, abortion privacy, and online abortion pill RX. Now, these third party trackers collect a ton of details about the users, and then they feed that information, that data to Google, its parent company alphabet, and other third parties like the online chat provider, live chat. Now, those details, by the way, include a lot of private information, including the web

addresses the users visited, what they clicked on, the search terms they used to find a website, the previous site they visited, their general location, and information about the devices they use, such as whether they were on a computer or a phone. Now, this info apparently helps the tech companies personalize ads, which is why they want that data. But it gets way more nefarious than that once law enforcement is involved. So the nine states, I'm sorry, the nine sites are also sending data to Google that can potentially identify users, ProPublica's analysis found, including a random number that is unique to a user's browser, which can then be linked to other collected data. So if you're thinking, well, I mean, but we're talking about the

abortion pill, this is medically related, right? This is a medical issue. There are HIPAA regulation. So should there be some protection, some sort of law that protects the private information of the customers, the users here? Well, it turns out, no, it's not the case, not the case, because our politicians are dinosaurs and they have difficulty understanding how the digital era works. And our legislative efforts in trying to regulate Personal information, private information on the internet have been pretty bad. I mean, honestly, just watch any congressional hearing pertaining to tech companies and you'll want to pull your hair out.

Okay, but nonetheless, U.S. privacy law does very little to control the kind or amount of data that companies like Google and Facebook can collect from individuals. So even if the data they're collecting has to do with medical issues, doesn't matter. The HIPAA regulations don't extend to the tech world, apparently. Anyway, tech companies are generally not bound by the health insurance, Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, which limits when certain health care providers and health plans can share a patient's medical information, nor does federal law set many limits on how companies can use this data.

Now, two bills aimed at implementing broader privacy protections for online consumers and their medical history failed to pass. Oh, wow, shocking, failed to pass through Congress in the last few years. And this could spell bad news in places that outlaw abortion. Now, law enforcement can obtain people's data from tech companies like Google, whose privacy policies say that that they reserve the right to share users data with law enforcement. ProPublica reports that Google requires a court order or search warrant, which law enforcement can obtain with probable cause to believe a search is justified. The company received more than 87,000 subpoenas and search warrants in the United States in 2021 alone.

And look, it's important to understand that, you know, this analysis and that number does not provide a breakdown of these requests by type. such as how many involved abortion medication. And considering some of these anti-abortion laws being implemented recently, I'd venture to say that the abortion issue is really underrepresented in those numbers, although I don't know for sure. But one thing I do know for sure is that people have been prosecuted for searching for abortion drugs before, especially when the mother has miscarried and the prosecutors suspect that it wasn't a miscarriage. It was because the mother took an abortion pill or did something else.

So I want to talk a little bit about that because this is the scariest part about the data collection associated with these abortion pill websites. So Ari Waldman, or Ari Waldman, A professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University says this. This information can tell a district attorney that you went to an abortion website and you bought something. That might be enough to get a judge to get a warrant to take someone's computer to search for any evidence related to whatever abortion related crime they're being charged with. And guess what?

If you're thinking this is farfetched, if you're thinking, Anna, you're just a weirdo lefty who's fear mongering right now about these red states and what law enforcement and prosecutors can do. Guess what? It's already happened. Let me do it. Joe Biden likes to do and whisper. It's already happened. Okay. So let me give you examples. It's happened in Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, and elsewhere. In fact, at least 61 cases have occurred from 2000 through 2020, where prosecutors investigated people or ordered their arrest for allegedly self-managing abortions or helping someone else to do so. In most of these cases, people had used medication for their abortions. At least 13 states, by the way, now ban all methods of abortion, including medication abortion,

some with minimal exceptions for rape and incest. And although security experts make it clear that there really are no full-proof solutions for this in terms of, you know, like what the consumer can do or what the online user can do to protect themselves, there are some suggestions, few pieces of advice here that you can, you know, take or leave in at least providing some protection for yourself. So you can install a web browser like Brave or Firefox that offers some privacy protections. You can install browser extensions that block third party trackers and address the privacy settings on those browsers. But look, at the end of the day, the onus should not be on the

consumer. The onus should not be on the American people. The onus should be on the tech companies that still have sneaky ways to get around some of the protective measures that the consumer can take. And really, the most effective way to protect users data is for online pharmacies that sell abortion medication to, you know, maybe stop sharing health-related data. with third parties and with tech companies like Google. Just a thought. But would they do that on their own? I wouldn't bet money on it.

It would be far better if we actually had, you know, a federal government that functioned properly and had even a little bit of interest in protecting American citizens. But so far, the dinosaurs have proven that they either are too incompetent to pass the legislation we need or really have no interest because they've, They've been bought off by the very tech firms that do not want more regulation. And that's the situation we're dealing with. We're dealing it with the situation where women are being prosecuted for allegedly taking

abortion pills. Land of the free, home of the brave. That does it for our first hour. John Ida Rola will join me for the second hour, lots to get to, don't miss it. We'll see if he's gonna defend Marvel. Will he? I don't know. We'll see. Come right back.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple. Huger and I'll see you soon.