Is it possible for individual organizations, a health system with a 1% margin, a health plan with a 0.7% margin, to meaningfully make that tradeoff and say, I am going to lose at affordability in order to gain on access or outcomes?

It's very, very hard.

I mean, I do not envy the choices that are there.

The way that you could possibly give the same away or give away more while paying less means paying all of your people less money.

All sharing in the pain, everyone takes a cut.

That is almost one of the very few ways I think they can.

And that's honestly what other countries are doing.

So my question is, how should health leaders engage maybe more honestly in the choices that they're making and explain those to their staff, to the public, and maybe to their board?

A year later, what has industry done? What has academia done? What's philanthropy done to fill in the gap?

So, I mean, I think some foundations have tried to step up their support, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to federal funding.

And so when you cancel 117 grants, if not more, they just stop.

They don't happen.

So- To be very honest, I think people are hoping that after the midterm elections, maybe we will start to get some oversight.

And with some teeth, some of the committees that are tasked with overseeing research and overseeing health will start to demand that what is law is what follows.

But until then, I think everyone is in a holding pattern, hoping that things will get better.

What makes you think there's a chance that any of this actually

So how did the Trump administration come to view this agency as so woke that it basically needed to be disassembled?

I don't know.

And again, if you don't like the research priorities, it is perfectly reasonable for an administration to say, let's change them.

And if they decided they wanted to focus on cost, OK.

If they decided they wanted to focus on access, OK. There's so many different ways to do this.

But what they've done instead is apparently cancel access.

A ton of grants that were already ongoing, and I'd be happy to talk about more specifics about that, but also they just are not spending the money.

What can Congress do and why isn't Congress doing something? So

But is there even precedent for something of this scale?

No, I mean, certainly Trump's brazen nature here is we've grown accustomed to it.

But the sweep here is something different.

So we know that Trump has attacked the press relentlessly and increasingly viciously.

But this effort is really notable because of the broad sweep of it.

As you said, he's blocked three major news organizations, including this one from the White House grounds.

And as a sign of just how significant Trump hopes this will be, on Friday, he called this an effort to, quote, ban the free press.

Is that an argument that the president, the vice president are making that would ever hold up in court?

Oh.

And of course, the bigger the fish, the bigger the problem, and when you're a big fish, you're eating little fish.

They're also eating the mercury in those little fish.

Therefore, large, long-lived fish like sharks and swordfish are the ones that are gonna have the highest levels of mercury.

Um, and of course, we should be concerned about mercury because there's reasonable evidence that when people ingest too much of it, uh, especially pregnant women, it can have effects on their children.

But a lot of that is, again, as we've talked about with many other episodes, there's a statistically significant danger but not necessarily a clinically significant danger.

So for every extra sort of microgram that we might find measurable in a pregnant woman's hair, which is how you look for it, um, you see a decrease of about .7 points in his or her child's IQ.

So, so when they do these studies about fish consumption, is it because someone's consuming more fish and less red meat, or is it strictly on the basis of the fish itself?

Aaron Carroll, what a game, what an ad- advertisement for Clare as senior championship holding, and what a win for your native Cratloe.

Look, Leo, it was great.

I don't know what qualifies me for analysis here [laughs], hard stuff.

But listen, hard and about stuff, um, today was just about winning, and Faithful would say the same thing, and winning ugly even if need be.

Um, and it was.

I think both teams will be disappointed what was left after them on the scoreboard.

I'd be biased, but I think especially in Cratloe, some of our fellas who would usually, you know, you put your house on for scores, uh, w- we failed to get them at a crucial stages midway through the second half.

O'Brien's goal was a big game changer.

Aaron Kell, what a game, what an ad- advertisement for Clare as senior championship holding, and what a win for your native Craughwell.

Look, Leo, it was great.

I don't know what qualifies me for analysis here [laughs], you're hard stuff.

But listen, hard and about stuff, um, today was just about winning, and Feakle would say the same thing, and win ugly even if needed be.

Um, and it was.

I think both teams would be disappointed what was left after them on the scoreboard.

I'd be biased, but I think especially in Craughwell, some of our fellas who would usually, you know, you put your house on for scores, uh, w- we failed to get them at crucial stages midway through the second half.

O'Brien's goal was a big game changer.

So the question is, uh, does turkey make you sleepy?

Everyone seems to know this, and I don't even fl- like to say believe.

They know it to be true, and it baffles me.

Um, I've often said that if there was one myth or especially food myth that I could get rid of before I die, it would be this one.

There's no real link whatsoever, uh, between the idea that, that turkey and sleepiness, that, that, the idea that they go together.

And what's disturbing about this one is not only does everyone believe it to be true, they all believe they know why it's true.

They're sure it has something to do with tryptophan.

Hm.