Appalachian Wireless and Samsung introduce the Z Flip 3. The Z Flip 3 is an actual flip phone. That one open reveals a stunning 6.7 inch touchscreen for the best of both worlds. To find out more visit AppalachianWireless.com. We are you, we are Appalachian Wireless. After months of investigation, Pikeville police officers held a drug roundup Wednesday in hopes of getting criminals off the street. Mountain Top News was there. Well, it feels real good and these officers are, they really take pride in this. You're getting drug traffickers off the street. With 10 sealed indictments, Pikeville police executed a drug roundup Wednesday morning. With three teams tasked with capturing suspected drug traffickers within the city and county, Mountain Top News had the opportunity to see the roundup firsthand and speak with officers about the experience. So we came out this morning to work on a drug roundup that our narcotics detectives been working on extensively for a long time. And this is something that the, you know, the public's been asking for for a long time is getting drugs off the streets within the city. And everybody we've rounded up today has sold drugs within the city. And so we're just glad to get out here and be able to round them up. Fortunately for us, a few of those were already incarcerated for some other things. So we was able to just go over there and serve those. And but the other ones we've rounded up and we're on a good path to make sure they're all hooked up. During the roundup, police incarcerated nine out of the 10 individuals on a list of charges ranging from possession to assault on a police officer. So we have various charges a day including assault third on a police officer, fleeting on foot, trying to get away from officers, possession, including the warrants, possession of drug paraphernalia. So those, and there will probably be more charges pending from this. While police were successful in delivering the indictments, Captain Russell Blinken Chip and Officer Conn say safety for the officers and the suspects is paramount. Yeah, during the investigation we will actually go to each location that we will be going to. And we will make sure we have every picture we can of the location. We can make sure everyone's safe when we go there and try to cross our teeth and nod our eyes before we go. We make sure we watch each other's back. We watch the area. We see if there's anybody else in the house. We clear the apartments or the houses. We also clear the neighborhoods. We wanna make sure that the civilians are safe. My apartment buildings are gonna have other people in it. We don't wanna get into an event that's gonna be catastrophic in one of those apartment buildings. So we try to make sure that we've got good info. And lastly, while officers continue to keep the streets safe from drugs, Officer Conn says they hope to keep the progress going. And so if you're doing it, I promise you we're gonna find you and you'll see what happens. Reporting from Pikeville, Kentucky for Mountain Top News, I'm Joel Porgyl.


All right, folks, good afternoon and welcome on back here this Wednesday, April 20th. Great to see Michael, Gary, Jeffrey, just before, hopefully, is short on AMC. Great to see Norman, great to see Felix. Robert, all of us are rejoining us, perhaps, live inside the Cyber Group Room. Chuck and Will and Brian included. All of them can hear me loud and clear. And hopefully, you can hear me loud and clear as well if you're rejoining us on social media, Facebook, live, or YouTube. Folks, stop right into it. We have class finishing up later on today at 3.05 Eastern Time. I say finishing up because we are finishing up the phase one stock course today. We'll resume class next week, phase two. That's more of our intermediate-based classes. But here, in this afternoon's class, we're gonna really dive into journaling, journaling your trades, not just why it's so important to journal, but more importantly, how actually to journal your trades and study them afterwards.  So I look forward to that class. We'll go over a couple of trades that I ended up taking myself and we'll journal them. But for right now, LGVN, Legovlin as I like to nickname it, not the Scotch Whiskey, but Long Ever in Ink, LGVN. Ended up making a really nice pop shortly after the open. At the time, it was kind of low volume, so really it was more heading into the mid-afternoon once it re-broke above resistance off of 12. Took off beautifully. For right now, just keep your focus on the whole number of levels, if anything, 50 cent and whole number of levels. But yeah, LGVN definitely just looks good to put on our list here to begin. All right, looking at the weekly chart so much because daily weekly either way, it's to say back from early this month, we ended up seeing, from the end of March, early April, we ended up seeing Legovlin here make a spike all the way up as high as 1677 before ultimately pulling back down. Let me jump to it daily. Yeah, there's no real resistance here to kind of work off of, if you want to focus on a chart level, maybe this bottom as a potential support, 1522 is bottom from back in December. Well, obviously it broke above it here, topped off this day at 1677, but 15, 1520-ish could be a daily chart level to watch overhead either way right now. It's actually not looking great on the intraday, dropping off pretty sharply here. Hey, it'll be on our list. Hopefully this begins to squeeze back up and above 13 shortly. We'll go right from top to bottom. Otherwise though, folks, we got to scan pretty quick, make sure that myself and all of our students at least have enough time to prep and join, get ready for class, but we'll go right from the top. Any of the other stocks that we ended up trading, calling out, doing well on, doing bad on? Well, we'll recap it briefly. The IO trade here, hey, we were following this a bit in pre-market, didn't make the main morning watch list with good reason, but hey, it still could have been a stock to call out after the open, but ended up dropping off shortly after the first pop. So popped after the market opened up from there, completely tanked, dropped all the way down towards 50. Hey, little bounce play here heading into the early afternoon, go right now, lower highs, expect to see a lower low. CRXT making a bit of a, you can say support, but certainly lower highs at this point, ended up making a great run from earlier this morning, at least ended up bottoming out right around that 170-ish, 175 price, but from there broke higher high, took off, ended up running up beautifully off of two, ended up exploding all the way up towards, almost four, topped off at 394 there. I don't think this one got halted. I could be wrong, I don't think, if my memory serves me correctly, I don't think this actually even got halted in either direction, up or down. This was just running as is. I mean, there was a trade from earlier today that ended up getting halted. I think that was the ALVR trade, which we'll get to I think next. That one didn't work out so well after it reopened. Either way, for this one, ended up running up without the halt, ran down without the halt too, but it just goes to show when the volume dies off on a stock. I mean, we talked about it this morning in the phase one course. When the volume dies off for a trade, typically so does the stock itself. BAOS, all right, no brainer. This one goes on our list here, looks incredible, making a big pop right now, even over the last 10 or so minutes from like 90 cents upwards of $1.30. So it's already made such a big move. This could get halted pretty shortly from now or otherwise, again, much like that CRXT trade, just be wary of the volume dying off suddenly on this type of stock. But yeah, I mean, hey, for the afternoon, looks just incredible. All right, we keep it going, folks. The ALVR trade ended up making a great move from after the market opened up. You can see this is my main actual trading platform because I ended up lining this whole chart up. So it's to say that this one ended up having a great entry level off of 683, this dash purple line actually represented a pretty strong bottom that we had back from late January extending into mid-March, roughly around 682, 683. Well, hey, in pre-market, it broke above that resistance. Resistance, you'd hope to see initially become support. It did so. Ended up leading to a great trade afterwards. That's where I ended up jumping in at first when the market opened up from there. Thankfully, it led to a really good pop. I ended up getting stuck in the halt, which was a good thing at the time, but it got really choppy and shaky around there. So it ended up working out well. I ended up getting out of my position just in portions around 750 to 770. Ended up breaking higher. I ended up taking another few trades after, but I ended up getting stopped out for a loss on the last two. This was later on here at this point, just in the sequence. So, hey, I ended up taking a loss. All right, no problem. It was off a great level. That yellow line at 783 was a huge print level from earlier this morning. So I thought there was a chance that I could hold his support, try and make, you know, run back up. All right, when you take two losses in a row on the same exact trade, you look to move on. And from that point, whew, this thing tanked. Jeez. All right, so what goes up obviously comes back down. We saw it on CRXT, and here it is now on the ALVR trade. Popped. Dropped. Let me get rid of all these other lines here. Don't make it as confusing for you folks here, but for right now, this afternoon, it's just extremely flat. Wouldn't, I would expect this stock to drop off even more heading into the close. All right, RDBX, my trader's dyslexia. I'm getting this mixed up with RBLX on the losers list, Roblox, but RDBX, Redbox Entertainment, ended up making a big pop shortly after one o'clock Eastern from two upwards to 265-ish. You know, hey, a lot of volume just got filled recently over the last three or five minutes here. So that looks good, that looks interesting. Well, that could be a lot of volume filled off the top, and this could be well on its way down here from this point. So, hey, given the afternoon move, I'll put it on our list at least to begin. Just be really careful around that 250 level in particular. All right, we keep it going, we keep it moving. H-S-H-C-S-G, there we go. Ended up making a nice little pop from earlier this morning. I don't know, I don't think this is a buyout, but it doesn't appeal that much to me right now. If this was much closer to the highs compared to where it's at now, you know, ended up just dropping off pretty sharply from 2050. Bobby says L-L-A-P got halted today also alongside the ALVR trade. Yeah, this one ended up making a nice run shortly after the open as well. Ended up popping off of the 550 level. Ended up topping off right around that eight mark two. So, let's see. 10-08, 10-09, 10-10, 10-15. That's how you could tell this got halted. So, yeah, this got halted right here at the price 7.63.  So, you know, nice run from earlier today, great run even from yesterday, right? I'm not thrilled about this for the afternoon. You know, maybe keep it on your side list tomorrow, but even truth be told, like, you know, to see such a big pop back to back days, and then it dropped all the way back down like this, rarely doesn't make a good move again the following day. I think it'll only continue to dump off more.  You know, that looked interesting at first. But right back down it goes, CVM, same thing. Cano, Robbie Cano, nope, nothing there. All right, let's hop on over to the losers list, folks. Maybe just one or two more here if there's any familiar names. PTPI, nope. All right, let's hop on over to the losers list here in the meantime, folks.  So, you know, of course, Netflix down 36 plus percent at this point, it's a much more expensive stock. You know, I'm gonna be teaching class, if I was not teaching class, I would not be trading Netflix personally because my personal price range is more between one and 30, but given how active Netflix is right now, given the steady downtrend Netflix is on right now, if you're doing more option puts, perhaps, that could be a less expensive way to trade this type of stock. But yeah, Netflix just given the overall activity, definitely I'll put it on the main list. This is an ETF, FNGU, so it's at the lows, near the lows, but much like we talked about in class, back on Monday this week, it's really hard to apply level three to an ETF or ETN even, this being an ETN, but it makes it really difficult. If you have your own strategies and you do really well on ETFs, you know, that's one thing. Again, another fang's one here, BULZ bulls, so these two move together, seems like FNGU and BULZ. Roblox, not an ETF, this one, dropping back down a bit, much like the Netflix trade, a lot more within our price range, unlike Netflix. So Roblox, definitely looking interesting, is this at all time lows? Looks like it is. It is. All right, so Roblox, easy to borrow, near the lows for the day today, which would be essentially an all time low. I mean, if you wanna go back to last month, 36.04 was the bottom there, the bottom today, 36.05, it is right there. All right, Shopify is a little expensive. I mean, Netflix obviously is already on our list, but I'm gonna put one stock that's really expensive on there, we'll stick with Netflix. FSLY, FSLY, definitely right within the wheelhouse in terms of price, right at the lows of the day today, looks like all time lows, it's approaching all time lows, it looks like here. Back from March of 20, bottomed out at 10.63, ah, it's got a ways to go. It's got a bit of a ways to go. Few bucks away, as I switch back to a daily chart now, this thing ended up bottoming out back in mid-March, bottomed out even there at 13.01, but hey, as a short, still looks pretty interesting at the intraday lows right now, not really a big iceberg order representing support on the bid. So, we'll watch to see if there's any big support coming up, right, but for right now, looks good, FSLY. All right, where is it? Where is it? I got a couple of other familiar names here, but I wanna look at AMC. Where's my AMC guy here today? Because he wasn't here yesterday, AMC was making a much better move going up yesterday. It's actually a really good short for this afternoon. I ended up clocking out on AMC before we started this meeting on a short trade from 18. Peloton, as we just go through the loser side here in between, but Peloton dropping down and once again here, hey, looking pretty good, similar to the FSLY, perhaps looking similar to AMC if that's still dropping down. Peloton looks interesting. My neotrade, this doesn't look too active right now. It's at the lows and it's down over 8%. So that makes it really interesting to follow, but it's slow. It's slower compared to what I normally like to see NIO at. So this is just me being as transparent as I can possibly be. I said it the other day for a couple of our sideless stocks. Don't fall in love with just one stock, folks. I love AMC, right? Or I love NIO, right? Well, hey, it's just even too slow for my liking right now. It typically moves a little bit faster. AMC, you could say it's like moving at its normal pace, but this one's pretty much right at the lows. In fact, it just broke lower a moment ago. So I feel like that could be a better short if we're comparing apples to oranges here, AMC or NIO. So I'll put AMC on the main list in particular. Let's see if there's any other sideless stocks that look even better. DraftKings looking very similar to AMC. It's actually down more percentage-wise. Robinhood. Robinhood is down just as much at the lows right now, not at all-time lows yet, but it's getting closer day by day. I could easily add both DraftKings and Robinhood to this list. I really can. I want to see if there's anything looking even more convincing perhaps. Looking at the airlines or cruise lines. American Airlines not doing it. CCL's barely down anything right now. So I'm going to pass on those. Palantir, Garbage, Ford. Check out Ford. It's at the lows, but it's so slow. It's not really worth it for me there. Para from Bobby on YouTube, Bobby J. Rejoining us. Para, it's like flat right now for a $33 stock. In terms of opportunity cost, it's not as if we only focus on the cheapies here at CTU. The stocks that are like between one and five. I mean, hell, I had a blast on Twitter the last week and a half, but right now even for Twitter, it's a $45 stock. They should be moving a lot faster compared to what it's doing now. It's not worth the squeeze. So it seemed to be said there like on Para. Made a great drop off this morning, but for a $33 stock, it's not really doing much of anything right now. Brian calling out the SoFi trade. The grape on SoFi, Brian, is that it's so slow. So, hey, when this was a $10, $13, $15 stock, it was really liquid, and it was moving a little bit faster compared to what it's doing now. Dropped off in price, and typically with that a rule of thumb is that it becomes even more liquid. Actually, just quickly here, a quick little side story. Before Neo took off and blasted up to 70 bucks last year, folks, it was like a $2 stock. This thing was as slow as freakin' molasses. It was as slow as can be right here, Neo, back in 1920. So that's where I say, hey, SoFi, we love trading SoFi every now and then, especially if it's off of news, but the cheaper this becomes, it will move in a smaller range per day. It'll become even more liquid than what it even is now, and it's kind of tough to trade that type of trade there. Kind of tough to trade that type of stack, I should say. BAOS, Robert, in and out for about 13 or so cents himself inside our live trading room, that is, he got in from 129 out at 142. Penny under the high there, Robert, nice grab. All right, folks, I think that just about wraps it up for me here. I don't see anything else across YouTube, Facebook Live, or the live trading room collectively. I think that we did our homework. I think that we're just about good to go. C-E-L-Z, lastly, this one not looking great. Just wanted to check this one out lastly before we close out. All right, folks, for all of us inside the live trading room, or at least our students that have access to the phase one curriculum lined up at 305 Eastern time, I know that Rich will post the link for that for you folks coming up pretty shortly. If you wanna make sure that you can just access the class, make sure that you're squared away on the audio and tech side of things. Just join early, and I'll join very shortly from now. I just need to sign out from YouTube, Facebook Live, post our picks, and then I'll be in the class with all of you there. All right, so for all of us on Facebook and YouTube Live, I appreciate you sticking with me each and every day, each and every afternoon. You can always send over a question via email to josh at ctutrading.com. I always like to post my email here at the end of these streams, or look to at least. But otherwise, if you wanted to continue the audio commentary with us later on this afternoon, tomorrow or even next week, just go right down to the yellow or to the link on the yellow banner below right there to get yourself started on a small trial. But for Nina and Norman and Michael and Grant and Roger, I look forward to seeing you all, if not in the live trading room shortly from now, then just in class. Come a Cyber Group member today. Just click the link below and receive all these amazing products and a world of knowledge. We're just...


Ew! Asians don't put fruit on rice. That's a white person thing to do. Ah, you teenagers are making me as an older Asian American that's more educated than you so mad! I'm gonna make a post about this on Reddit! Oh, what's Reddit? We gotta talk about this post that says, There is more than one way to make rice. And this person, Andrew, is an older Asian American. Obviously, they're very cultured. They understand that some Asians put fruit on rice. Actually, all Asians put fruit on rice, even though those aren't the most common well-known dishes. So they were mad at seeing some other teenage Asian Americans trying to separate themselves from white people by saying people, white people are the only people who would eat rice pudding with cranberries and cherries on it. So basically this turned into a whole debate about do Asians even know about the other way that other Asians make rice and the way that the usage of rice has spread all across the world and should we gatekeep rice? Should we not gatekeep rice? What is basic Asian knowledge? And we don't want to turn into white people making fun of white people. All right, everybody, please hit that like button. Check out other episodes of the Hot Pop Boys as we talk about this. But one thing that every generation can agree on, whether you're Gen Z or Gen Alpha, is Smala Sauce. Smala chili oil. It's a finishing oil made with truffle. Guys, check out the Instagram right now at Smala Sauce. You can also buy it at SmalaSauce.com. Can you even put that on American fruit rice, though? Yeah, you can put this on anything, literally. But anyways, I guess David, like, yeah, first of all, a couple questions. Gatekeeping rice kind of hard because rice is just a global thing. They eat it in South America. It is true that 90% of the world's rice production comes out of Asia, though. Yeah, but I mean, the South in America, Uncle Ben, that was a popular rice brand, you know. That was weird for me growing up because I was like, I always knew rice as Asian and then I'd see these commercials for Uncle Ben's Minute Rice and I'd be like, is Uncle Ben part Asian? But you know what I mean at first. Did you even know that there was American fruit rice? Like, I guess long story short, we got to explain, Andrew. The OP is an older Asian American who's, I guess, deeply familiar with Asian-Asian cuisine, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And witnesses these Asian-American kids who are more limited in their scope of understanding who are almost trying to have the white kid attitude but towards white people. Right, right, right. They're almost like trying to separate and judge white people for, like, not doing rice properly, right? Right, because they're probably looking at cozy shack rice pudding, which is delicious, by the way, one of my favorite American brands of pudding, cozy shack. And then I guess they put, like, fruit in it. I don't know. I don't know. I never even had that at a white person's house. I didn't know white people ate fruit in rice. I do. They had put cinnamon and raisins with a little bit of rice actually. Oh, okay. Cinnamon raisin you're right in rice pudding, yeah. And maybe more from Eastern Europeans that have immigrated to America, like more originally. And honestly, originally, if you want to turn the clock way back, that dish might have came from Asia, somewhere in South Asia, too. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Rice pudding, that idea of rice pudding. A cure and things like that. Yeah, it might have came from cure. But anyways, guys, I guess it's one, I did not know that actually white people put real fruit into pudding other than raisins.  They haven't lived life a lot. And I do think that for the millennial generation and Gen Z, there was a very pan Asian identity where it's like, yo, try to know about other Asians. But I don't know if the next, next generation of Asians is thinking that. But maybe they're just not there yet.  Literally, when you were a kid, you have a very small knowledge base. But Andrew, this person, OP was mad. They said, this was some of the most ignorant-ish I've ever heard in my life. Triggered. So anyway, of course, this person went on the list that there's Filipino cock'n'in, Andrew. Thai mango, sticky rice, fruit, kheer in daisy countries, Korean yakshik, Chinese babaufan, Vietnamese have a coconut, raisin rice coconut version thing. And Japanese fruit daifuku, as well as umaboshi, onigiris and different things like this. So this person was basically like, why the heck would these Asian teenagers think that Asians also can't put fruit on rice, huh? No, I think the OP and is probably a little bit older. They're just mad at seeing Asians grow up in America and start reacting like white kids. But towards the white kids. But they're still adopting that sort of like, would you say, I don't want to say punk or more dominant, I'm superior, your inferior attitude. But they're like flipping the uno card on the white kids themselves. Yeah, and I guess for us growing up, we never thought about saying you to white people food, even meatloaf, because I guess we were just exposed to it even though some people might you at meatloaf. But like, I guess, you know what I mean? But like, it never occurred to me that that even rice, the idea of rice pudding was gross. But these kids, I'm assuming David are not like Thai Asian kids. You know how like, if you're family's Thai, you probably definitely had mango sticky rice before. Right, and it's not to say that all generation alpha or all young Gen ZZZ kids are even doing this, right? But I'm not saying that all these Asian rice dishes, these fruit rice dishes are super common. We don't eat the Chinese eight treasure rice that often. Like I've had it maybe. Well, you have to go to more like specialized spots. Yeah, like I've had it like 10 times in my life, honestly. You know what I mean? So it's not that, it's not like we ate it all the time. So I guess they're just not exposed to it yet. And also the discussion sort of spiraled into Uncle Roger's first viral video where he sort of roasted this South Asian British woman for cooking fried rice. And he roasted her and he went so viral off that. But it actually came out that she was cooking rice just a very South Asian biryani way. But that is a little bit strange for fried rice. But if you're South Asian, you may only just cook it that way. Yeah. Well, let's get into the comments sections, David. This first comment I thought was actually really funny. Someone said, I definitely get upset about rice mixed with cheese. It grosses me out for some reason. And interestingly enough, Andrew, because Hong Kong specifically and the Japanese in Tokyo had so much exposure with the British, you can find cheesy rice with sausages in both places. Bro. Or cheesy rice with a pork chop or something. You know, at my elementary, I told you this, that during lunchtime, one of the options was cheesy rice. You could get a side of cheesy rice. And to me, when I saw that, I'm not going to lie. As a kid, I was kind of like cheesy rice. I only know rice with soy sauce. I know rice eating more fish. I know fried rice. But I was like cheesy rice. And then, but it's funny because at the same time growing up, I loved macaroni and cheese. And macaroni and rice are essentially not that different. Right. Right. They're carbs that carry flavor. It's essentially the same. It's just a different form. Yeah. It's just a different form of a different wheat. Yo, some of the kids would go crazy for the cheesy rice. Dude, some kids love cheesy rice. And actually, I would eat some cheesy rice today. It's not that that would be my preferred dish. Shout it out. What? Michael Meninsky? Oh, this. Yeah. The Russian kid. He loved the cheesy rice. I mean, I would say this. I just don't understand why Asians would like gatekeep rice. I feel like noodles makes more sense because you have to do about like 10 things to a bunch of rice to turn it into a noodle. Right. Right. I feel like rice is so base level. It's almost like obviously there's not that many steps between harvesting the rice and it becoming the rice. So why is everybody's going to gatekeep something so close to the core? Yeah. Rice noodles are very, very Asian. But rice, it is Asian, but not. I mean, they eat in South America. They eat inside.  Right. Somebody's saying, what do you think? Should this older OP even be judging Asian-American teenagers for trying to be edgy and trying to develop some sense of tribal self-identity? Even though they are ultimately, they're wrong. Some people are trying to defend these young Asian teens and being like, well, they're just trying to be proud of being Asian.  Yeah. I mean, it's not that big of a deal, bro. Unless they went up to a group of white kids and started being rice pudding, rice pudding people. Right. And then started making their eyes all round. You guys put fruit and rice.  Obviously they didn't do that. But, you know, they're just trying to find community and camaraderie somehow.  You know what I mean? Like even Asian-American studies is not going to teach you that Asians do indeed put fruit on rice in some dessert dishes. Right. Like nobody, who's going to teach you? Like what course in your normal schooling outside of like your relatives sitting you down and like schooling you on everything is going to teach you any of this? Yeah. Yeah. No, I ended up for sure. Of course, Andrew, this turned into a debate about Uncle Roger judging, like we said, the South Asians for cooking this thing and there's no real right or wrong way to cook rice. There is not. But you could kind of still get big on it because enough, I guess, not everybody knows everything about every other Asian and everybody's arguing. Obviously the OP is arguing in favor of a very large Pan-Asian knowledge base. Yeah. Do you expect every Asian to know everything about every other Asian? Or is it just... I think it would be better though. Or is it just... No, but is it just that you just don't want to see Asians act this way? You don't want to see Asians act ignorant but you also can understand that like what are these kids supposed to know how every culture cooks rice already at the ripe age of 15? Like and if they're, let's say to be honest if they're all Chinese or all Korean or whatever like we don't know what Asian these kids were. They're not exposed to every other Asian culture yet. Right? I guess, I don't know, it's a good question but that's why we try to make the material that we do in a more pop fashion so it's more universally accessible. Somebody brought up a Bo Burnham lyric, Andrew because they were talking... This spiraled into a discussion about Uncle Roger. This guy said, yeah, everybody knows that it's easy to get a laugh with a white crowd because if you're Chinese just do a Chinese accent and then everybody laughs at the Chinese accent because privately they think that your people are laughable and now you've given them a chance to express it in public. So this person was... This went into like a little bit of a derivative discussion about people just doing accents for laughter or people that are Asian judging other Asians for laughter. And yeah, obviously Bo Burnham was saying it's possibly because the mainstream crowd thinks your people are already laughable and you've given them the opportunity to laugh at people. I think that's partially true. I think that's partially true. It's definitely part of it. But if you do come from that group, do you have ownership over that laughability if that's how the Western world views your group is to be laughable? Because I hear that discussion sometimes with the Cantonese accent. Because if you are Cantonese, why shouldn't you be able to do it? But it's true that people consider people with that Hong Kong, you know, the choppy Cantonese accent, not to be serious. They don't take that group of people to sound like that. Yeah. It's complicated, guys. There's a lot of valid arguments on both sides. Somebody said, why do people on Reddit, particularly the Asian-American subreddit, be so sensitive about what other people think or say when it comes like this? Yes, it's ignorant, but it's not that big of a deal. Right. You do see this on Reddit a lot, right? Yeah. Do you think it's people who are overeducated? Perhaps they're not that capitalistic so they have all this time to dedicate in their mind to like things in the world that are not how they would like them to be? I mean, yeah. I mean, what do you think? I feel like that a lot of... There's a lot of cultured people out there and they wish that everybody else was as cultured as they were. You're saying this person, this OP, might be eight, nine, or 10 out of 10 on the Pan-Asian or Pan-Global cultured scale. They know about Kozyshak. They know about Pulau and Central Asia. You know what I mean? They know all about Daifuku in Japan. This whole Reddit post could be a somewhat low-key flex to show how much the OP knows. I can't believe. These kids don't know about Filipino Kakinin or the Thai Mango Sticky Rice or they've never had Fruit Keer. I've had it. Right, you're saying some sort of world cultured cuisine superiority in that ladder. But I mean, again, like I said, like, listen, if you feel like that people need to know things, is it your obligation to step up and let them know? Should she have stepped in and said something? No, I don't think she has to in person, but what are you doing to spread the word? Right, because people... What are you doing? Are you creating content or are you correcting these people in person? What are you doing to be a soldier of this mission if you believe in this mission? We believe in this mission, so we make a lot of content and we also talk to people in person and anytime someone asks me, oh, what's the best of this and this food, I'll try to give them the best answer possible. But what are you doing? Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, let's just get into our takeaways, Andrew. It certainly was somewhat ignorant of those kids and I wish that those teenagers, I hope that they don't adopt almost like, and this is messed up by the way, it's not, I'm not saying this, but everybody gets what I mean.  Do you know what I'm saying? Because that's not what Asians should do. Once they start to have their culture be more popular or they feel like they've gained the upper hand.  So I would hope that kids don't do that, but it's tough to blame them because their knowledge base, like you said, Andrew, is not there. Who's going to teach it to them? Even Asian American studies doesn't teach you anything about Asian cuisine. Yeah. Are you going to be bold enough to tell those kids that group of kids and be like, hey, by the way, guys, there's a lot of different ways that Asians eat fruit on rice. And then they'll be like, uh, okay. And then you're going to have to let them know. And then what if they're like, we don't care.  You know what this kind of reminds me of? In the early 2000s, Andrew, and a lot of people are not going to remember this, but some of the people are. There was a split between AZNs and like the Preppy Asians because the AZNs would call the Preppy Asians whitewashed because they would wear Abercrombie or have white friends or like hiking and rock music. But oftentimes the Preppy Asians were even better at understanding the ancient traditions and language of their ancestral homelands than the AZN kids who probably didn't have as much access to like motherland origin schools and things like that. So sometimes the Preppy kids would be like, what do you mean? You say I'm whitewashed because I grew up in a white neighborhood, but I understand our ancestral homeland on a historical and linguistic basis better than you. But then the AZNs were like, but all my friends are Asian and we don't act white. You guys act white, so you guys are whitewashed. So did it go to show you that even back, you know, 20 years ago, Andrew, there's some sort of like weird split and different people ranked their own identity different ways? Yeah, exactly. So I guess you guys let me know in the comments down below what you think. Is it that all Asians should know about other Asians' cultures to this level? Or is it just more of like the attitude of these teen kids that probably triggered the OP? Or is this OP just too sensitive, man? Like, honestly, who cares? These kids are young. They'll figure it out. They didn't go in disrespect and vandalize some white rice pudding shops. You know what I mean? Imagine they went up to some kids and slapped the cozy shack with raisins out of their hand. Rice pudding, people! Ha! Your skin looks like the rice pudding! Why? Anyway, guys, let us know what you think in the comments section below. Are people on Reddit too sensitive? Or do they make a valid point and all Asians should increase our knowledge not only of Western people eating rice but other Asians' unique styles of cooking rice? Keep it civil. We encourage the debate. Until next time, we're the Hop Hop Boys. Peace.


all right let's see if we can do this again guys that was 18 or 19 pounds of boost right there on a stock 5.7 oh my goodness please have the blessed day out there today we're gonna do something really awesome but probably really stupid to do to your stock internal factory sealed 5.7 with factory ring gap we're gonna go try to hit 18 pounds of boost maybe more with frostbite so stay tuned before we get started guys definitely give a video a thumbs up share the video comment down below what you think and if you haven't subscribed to the channel yet hit that subscribe button it's free help a brother out help out the mopar channels obviously to torque storm superchargers as you guys know we just switched over to the new ts-84 which is the new bigger midsize unit that they just came out with that fits in the factory brackets of the original torque storm supercharger and that is how we're making tremendous boost now I also want to give FRP flying ryan performance a massive thank you thumbs up he is absolute man as he is the biggest part of why this truck is surviving this right now and taking the amount of boost that we are shoving down frostbite's throat so huge thanks to FRP he's keeping this thing alive and hats off and on another note he's not afraid he literally said we're going to moon boost this thing and give it a full send and see what happens and I totally agree also want to give a huge thanks to my transmission man john cope at crt we're running his built 46 re transmission in frostbite and that is the reason that we are able to put this power to the ground that we are making if it was not for that transmission or john this truck would definitely not be doing what it's doing and I know a lot of you guys are wanting to know how are we making this much boost and it's surviving so far well it's no doubt that it's borrowed time for sure if we probably keep beating on it but logs and everything looks very good so we should be able to make a couple solid a to b passes and they should be ridiculous but how we're doing it well again FRP tuning that is number one thing that the the the proof is in the tune that's all I can say now we're also running e85 now all these logs and data pools that you guys are seeing just like the one today is on pump e85 from the speedway gas station I've had good luck with our fuel it works great now when we go to the track I will probably put some canned fuel in it just to know that you know everything is kosher but the truck runs great on pump e85 from speedway it usually tests out at 82 3% or better every time and I've had great luck with it now the other thing that's helping us is I run something called VP speed sauce it's from VP racing which is the same company it makes all the race fuels out there and everything like that well they have a new version of meth injection fluid that is actually an ethanol slash water based mixture and this is what it looks like this is what I run so obviously on frostbite we have a meth injection kit from snow and this is 80% ethanol 20% water it's called speed sauce plus it raises octane tremendously it adds a little extra fuel and a lot of extra cooling this right here is another big reason of how we're able to keep the truck alive on enormous amount of boost on stock pistons so that's kind of where the secret formula is working for us as of right now the truck is pretty much dialed in right now on the tune and the amount of boost that we're running so we're going to hit the track soon we were going to go last weekend but we couldn't make it it got rained out so we're hoping to go this weekend and get a new record pass so fingers crossed that we can get to the track frostbite is pretty much ready and it is ripping today we are going to go data log some more with all frostbite and the new ts-84 torch storm and flying ryan just sent us a new tune told us to keep it below 6800 see where we're at um fully expecting us to hit 18 pounds of boost maybe a little more on this uh test log so well that said let's get a cold start let's go make 18 pounds of boost on a stock 5.7 hemi all right we're gonna let it warm up a little bit head down the road and go see if we can uh get 18 pounds all right guys let's uh go try on this log see if we can hit about 18 pounds it's chilly today now it's still pretty cold so next one we'll do a small rip and i'll hold the camera at the boost gauge so you guys can actually see the boost gauge but uh on this first one i'm just going to try to call out what i see on the gauge that kind of gives you guys an idea of what's going on how we're doing it what we're using and i hope you guys enjoy the content again hit the thumbs up button comment down below what you think subscribe to the channel and as always stay safe out there we'll see you guys on the next one


So what we have on our agenda this morning is amendments to extra reading and to have a specific amendment that I think we have protected and is available posted on our website or on our web page for representative Cooper and others, some of whom are members of this committee. So good morning, Mary. Morning. Just for the record, then walk us through what you have. Yeah. So good morning, Representative Mary, Cooper from Montpelier. And what I have before you are four proposals of amendment to your bill, S203. That really came out of a conversation when you were walking your bill through appropriations and we were chatting about what it does. Several of three of them I think are quite simple. So the first is simply changing the legislate, the reader heading where it says your bill said legislative intent and oversight has been added so that in the second section where we add a request that the Secretary of Human Services report updates on what's going on with the renovations at the retreat and the planning process is going on with UVM to develop the level one beds for mental health patients. So we just thought that there should be some, I'm proposing that there be some legislative oversight and a check back in that process. So that's kind of one idea there. Just tell us what you're doing. The next proposal of amendment is the third, which is at the bottom of the page and going on to the top. One, two, and three are what your committee said. Four is what I'm suggesting be added, which is that if people aren't in, if the transport officers departments are not in compliance, identify how you're going to come into compliance and if they're still not in compliance, how are you going to replace those services? And that quite frankly comes from however many years of us saying, we think you ought to not transport people that way. We really mean that we think you ought to shouldn't transport people that way. You ought to follow the law that we passed. Yes, we really mean you should follow the law. And so now it's kind of darn it, do it this way. So that's what I mean. It is out of a deep sense of frustration with the handful of people who continue to not seem to be able to follow the law. If I may, I believe there have also been conversations with the Department of Mental Health that a plan of correction is something that they would support. I think we simply said something a little... Representative Hoofers, not ours, but Representative Hoofers, first version of the amendment had said, tell us how you're going to replace the services. Yes. And they responded saying, well, how about a plan of correction first? First. So I think this is just a post note that this is embedded with this particular piece of the amendment. It is somewhat of a compromise. Next year we're not compromising. And then the fourth one is where I'll probably need some help in adequately describing this. But in the fourth section proposal of amendment, we're saying, I'm saying two things. It begins with recognizing the importance of the designated and specialized service agencies to our mental health care system and the important role that they play in preventing hospitalization and emergency room use. And then the substance of it is at the top of page three, which suggests two things. One, initially, now, use the same model that is being used to develop rates that you all have discussed for the Brattleboro Retreat. Use that same model for looking at how the designated and specialized agencies should be funded. And provide that information to us as part of the budgeting process next year. It doesn't say build the budget based on that, and that is the budget. We're just getting the information. And I can say as the person who's responsible for a portion of those budgets, I am totally out of my ken in being able to do any sort of analysis of their budgets. And we need some sort of other competent agency providing that sort of oversight, which is actually maybe more to the point of the second part of this amendment. But we need a better way of getting into what the DA budgets are. It's just beyond our ability to manage it the way it's running now. And that is then to the second one, which is to suggest that the process that is going on now should include an analysis of the mental health portions of the health care system, and that that should be incorporated in that evaluation process with the long-term goal of bringing this underneath the Green Mountain Care Board. And so there are all sorts of interesting policy questions that we as a body will need to answer as that moves forward. But to the point that I was making, right now we don't have the capacity to do the sort of careful analysis of those budgets that they deserve to make sure that services are being properly delivered. We need help. We've had kind of informal, we different members have had informal conversations about how to accomplish that. And we keep seeming to come back to the Green Mountain Care Board. So I've brought us to the Green Mountain Care Board here. And I would really appreciate help in making this better. It sort of accomplishes what we think it ought to be doing. Can you say again what you think the timeframe is as you're talking about particularly the review of budgets? So it's a long-term timeframe and I believe that it would be a five-year process. I think it's a six-year process that we're engaged in now. And we're in what I have heard described as year zero is kind of the planning and then the rollout I gather is a five-year process. And so I'm presuming that at the end of this we would be, if this is the path we choose to go down, DAs and specialized service agencies and the delivery of these services would be under the regulatory oversight of the Green Mountain Care Board. So there's the leaders. Okay. Can I just say I should add, I've sent copies of this to the Department of Mental Health and to my DA just as a way of checking in with this amendment. I haven't heard back, actually. I need to read my email. Yeah. No, I have nothing else to say. Okay. Yeah. So if you'd like, Mary was asking for help. I did help work on some of this and I can give a little bit of background on this section one and two. Okay. So let me say that, so we have some time here and I understand there are some other folks that wish to be heard on your amendment and as I, it's important that we take the time to actually think through what implications there may be. I say this having put my name on the amendment. I've put my name on the original amendment. It said revisions. I'll be happy to sponsor as well. And this is a section that I think deserves a little more consideration. So I think the whole community needs to be able to raise questions and hear from others. And if I may, in fairness to the others who put their names on the amendment, it grew out and we circulated it back to you, but it may have grown more than people had appreciated. Right. I think in the press of other people's attention to others, I'll speak for myself and probably others, seeing that there was a revised amendment did not necessarily capture the attention. There's some new elements that were not better substantial than working together. Great. I'll hang with you. Yes. Thank you. I mean, this is a piece that probably people need to know in terms of before restifying. Right. Because there are two pieces here that, particularly the first one, that this committee has not heard a lot of background about because I was sitting in on Senate Health and Welfare and they got their presentation from Aldo Bay. And I think he didn't go into that as much with us on this, how they're looking at the rate for the retreat. I'm not an accountant, so I'm not going to use the right words. But he was basically explaining, and the retreat was explaining, that in order to, you know, they've got staff that they can't hold on to because rates are better at hospitals and so forth. But in order to meet their needs of sustainability, the only way they can really address it is looking at the whole, their whole costs and their whole revenue and saying this is the gap and so we need rates that fill that gap. And there were questions raised about isn't that the problem the DA's have and the answer was, well, yes. With them, we look at the individual services and what the rates need to be to reimburse those services. We wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that they were really addressing, running tight budgets if we just said, tell us your total costs and tell us your total revenue. So we can't do it that way. And so members of Senate Health Welfare and in fact Senate Appropriations asked, well, wait a minute. You know, you're using a different standard. So the concept here was to take that and say, well, we think you ought to identify what it would mean if you looked at the DA's the same way that you are now presenting and asking the legislature for how to address the retreat sustainability. So that's where that comes from. That's what it means by saying the same model as the retreat. It's what's being presented this year to the legislature. And the second part, we heard just briefly from Michael Costa a few days ago about this Medicaid pathways, the all-payer waiver. One of the things that identifies is over the five years there's supposed to be a pathway for all of the Medicaid services that are not Medicare Part A and B, therefore, that are not in the all-payer starting waiver, that they're supposed to all end up integrated as part of the all-payer waiver. So this is something that's a work in progress. So that's the reference to the Medicaid pathways that part of the plan, if you're really following what the goal is of the all-payer model, is that the budget review process would come under the same board that's doing ACO reviews and hospital budget reviews. They can't actually approve budgets because that's a legislative function because of the Medicaid money, but they can review and they've had a trial run of that with Howard Center a few years ago that they were asked by the legislature to just do a kind of sample review. So that's the idea behind that. That's what that means by saying and that's what we're talking about. It being not something next year because this is a process as part of the all-payer waiver. Can I just say I'm not sure that's clear. I think one might, one could include that it's going to happen as opposed to meeting legislative action that's going down. I'd like to transfer the responsibility. Right. It could be some wording. Yeah, not too long ago we addressed the financial situation of DAs by legislation and doing some pay adjustment and stuff like that. Do you know what the current financial situation is for the DAs of this would impact them? I mean, wasn't that long ago how much of a change has that made? Changed the situation at all. So we, what, invested I think it was less than nine million dollars or as much as nine million, eight point something in the system last year so which comes into the current fiscal year and that was to raise everybody's rates to $14 an hour and if that wasn't enough we said focus on emergency services. I understand that in fact they were able to raise rates pretty much across the board to $14 an hour. It did not go further than just that and you may recall that last year when we invested that money we also asked that the Agency of Human Services report back to us on the additional investments that would be necessary to accomplish essentially the stabilization of the system and we received a report back that said we really perhaps I'm being unfair in my synopsis but they essentially said we can't tell you what that number is there's a lot of different things that we need to take into consideration I need to look it up but I believe there was supplemental information that was provided as part of that report that said something on the order of maybe $70 million was necessary to bring everything up to deal with wage compression and bring the care providers in that system up to I don't know if it was the hospital levels of pay but their peers within the private system so we didn't address that bigger issue can I just add a piece of what I'm remembering from what we did last time was that what the 8.37 million that was printed was considered to be stage 1 of what was then hoped for intended to be stage 2 stage 2 is not reflected in the appropriations in the budget of the House at this point and probably the chair is here to make me a question again what I've noticed is whenever we bump into a situation in healthcare we're always quick to say let's put it to the cream up care board I'm not sure how much capacity or what capacity the board has why would we not look at AHS AHS to look at I would suggest that there is a need for an independent review of that if the right now we are the check and the balance of that system between the legislature and the executive we do not have the staff to do that sort of analysis so I was looking around for who the other people are who are independent of the system the administration has a position that the secretary of the agency of human services supports and part of that has to do with funding goals and so there's not an ability to for that body to really dig in and report back to us on what the actual needs are of the system when you're dealing with that political imperative which is certainly their prerogative I'm not questioning that I just desire to have an independent third body that can look at it and if we were properly staffed to provide that service I would say that's our job and that's the way we're organized but we're not there I have a lot more questions and I'm quite convinced that we need this particular section so I was just going to say in our bill already we had a section of the report back from the agency to next year saying make recommendations for how we can be dealing with these budgets as part of the health care system as in the way that we deal with other health care system the hospital and so forth this would go a step beyond that because we're saying bring back recommendations in our bill and this is saying so maybe I missed something but I know that Green Mountain Care Board reviewed Howard Center budget a couple years ago and I'd be interested in hearing more whether all DAs are really interested in submitting themselves to this process because I know it's quite a rigorous process in other facets of budget review and I think that's something to keep in account especially since a big part of the hospital budget review is to keep costs down and pressure on the rise of these hospital budgets and here I think nobody would say that DA budgets are growing particularly fast and that's the opposite problem they've said we would love to have the same rate of growth that the hospital has squeezed down I might say that I think as I've reflected on this just over the course of this half of the biennium for a longer but particularly in this half of the biennium we just in our larger bill we are embedding in other statutory references references to ensure that we actually follow through on our commitment to parity of mental health as a part of healthcare and I think that increasingly when we have the Green Mountain Care Board a portion of healthcare and if we really think about healthcare then it increasingly makes sense for us to be thinking about the Green Mountain Care Board having that ability to actually look at all of healthcare because we're continuing to segregate mental health from healthcare and I think we do have responsibility to look at whether the resources is there a timeframe in which that could be accomplished etc and I think Ben your point is right on the point because in fact when my recollection was from the previous chair of the Green Mountain Care Board now Secretary Hovey was testified here that they were stunned to discover on what a how narrow, what a shoestring they were operating on that they were used to seeing X number of days of cash on hand and X amount of reserves and suddenly realizing that there's nothing close to that in the system that is an essential part of the healthcare system in the state of Vermont and so I think the dynamic might very well be a different dynamic when you actually get to see the entirety of the picture so but I think you're right all I was trying to say is there's a fundamental difference in the role as opposed to cost containment versus more appropriation which comes to the literature I think their role is also to have a sustained system and not just to do cost containment so it's like to have an effectively appropriate system but cost containment is absolutely a piece of that and so I'm going to so maybe a response to your question and then I understand there are others who wish to be heard we're going to have to figure out how to manage our time because but we have some more time so Julie Tesla is here from Care Partners which represents the designated agencies or is a cooperation or consortium of the designated agencies perhaps you could respond to the question which represents I suppose particularly about what position what would the DA's either as a group if there is a position respond to the idea I'm going to be about Care Board review the DA's and specialized service agencies which are not one of the same thank you for the opportunity to speak Julie Tesla from on Care Partners we haven't had discussions with the Green Mountain Care Board so it's a little hard to speak about that without having had the discussion but yes we have definitely talked about the value of having the Green Mountain Care Board review our budgets and for all those same reasons that we've been raised that we really feel like our budgets are very tight that we're part of the health care system we should be looked at as part of it the all pair model does lead us on a path to be a more integrated part of the health care system and in the interim we've gone to the Secretary of Human Services and said including the business manager at the Howard Center who went through the analysis and said at least let's start with an interim process that looks just like it you should be doing the same review and understanding our budgets in the same way on an annual basis so when we sign our master grant and we say we're getting this money to do that you know what we're spending the money on what our costs are increasing what our review are what our key performance indicators of where we are financially what cash on hand or debt equity ratios things like that and then let's look at what we can do how many people can we serve what's the scope of services what are the outcomes and expectations that are reasonable with the budgets you've given us so we brought that proposal to the Secretary and we're working on that so it's a work in progress and the Senate Health and Welfare please come up with some language for this section so we've started that conversation with him I emailed him at 7 o'clock this morning language I said can I share this and he said not till I look at it but basically it says please look at all this please work with us on it make this part of our annual process we want to be transparent, accountable and we want them to understand that if we don't get increases we can't keep providing the same level of service because we are over $70 million short of what we really need for staffing so how do we set reasonable expectations and I really appreciate the work of this committee to say it's our intent to invest in the community mental health system because that's going to make a difference in health care and it's part of what we do my understanding from my conversations with the Secretary is that he's not sure there is a will to make those investments and we have a capped budget and tough decisions have to be made and as the House did not put money in for workforce I can't fully argue with his perspective that maybe the will is not there to make the greater investments but it is interesting to me that we put a lot of there's been a lot of discussion about prevention and health promotion and the importance of that and that's in part of what community mental health does it meets people's needs immediately at the community level in schools and communities so it's hard to see an investment making investments in the symptoms and the acute care when we could be doing more up front so we are definitely open to better analysis because we feel like we're really at the edge because in part of it we take responsibility for when we don't get increases we haven't been saying sorry without some kind of inflation we can't continue to do the same level of work we somehow suck it up and do that but we're at that edge we can't step back anymore and I think we have actually articulated in language last year which was not acted on which was saying that rates should be established and if they cannot be established then work that needs to be identified which is no longer going to be required I think that's this is another way for us to I think be on the same page as saying it's not reasonable to not increase rates and increase adequate funding and have the same level of expectations as hard as those decisions may be absolutely and we do we really appreciate the legislature's involvement in this committee in particular in raising the issues and feel like that's added balance to the picture as we move forward in making funding decisions so Mike is that a question for the witnesses? yes, yes, eventually I think budgets in general are tight when you talk to hospitals or whatever and staff shortages exist in the DA's and hospitals but one thing that you said the lack of will I'm not sure if it's so much a lack of will to do the funding and those funds and resources but my question over the last five years what is the rate of growth for DA's? well there's if you could separate caseload and inflation I think that's really important because in developmental disability there's a growing population and it grows by about 8 million a year so if you and we're about a $400 million system of care so if you look at both caseload and inflation you would probably get to 3% or something close to it but if you take that new caseload out it's been we've actually had rescissions and some increases so I can't do it off the top of my head but it's been very minimal and even last year with that workforce investment $8 million is a lot of money but over a $400 million system it ended up to be 2.1% and it was very targeted state employees got greater pay raises and there were health benefits and there were other things covered like IT systems so out of that 2.1 we actually had to do more and so it kept us afloat and it certainly helped our lower paid staff and we can say, yes, raising a minimum wage really helps those staff a lot and helps with recruitment and retention but our gaps with the other staff actually grew so that you can go to DCF where there's more than the same job and a designated agency and so most of our staff when they're walking out the door and we say, why are you leaving the majority will say because I really can't afford to work here I've been working two or three jobs I can't handle it anymore I can do similar work and earn better pay and other forums whether it's state employment or a hospital or a school or other places most of our staff will love their jobs it's tough work to have to do two or three jobs to maintain it so we're not going to be able to get into the depth of this this morning this is to look at what the amendment and whether or not this is the language to look forward specifically this morning I'd like to turn to if there's a comment that the Greenmont Care Board wishes to weigh in since you're referenced in the amendment Dr. Kevin Mullen, Chair of the Greenmont Care Board and basically we have more questions than comments basically I understand the theory behind this and I think that those that were involved in the look at the Howard Center felt it was a productive use of time wearing my former legislative hat I have to ask similar to the questioning that was put in place earlier in that in hospital budgets we actually control the rates so I would hate to see an extensive process set up where we would go through and analyze all these agencies and then notwithstanding things just carried on in the same manner in terms of their funding so that's something I would have to look in the mirror on I would just say but if the point is that there wouldn't be any changes in the funding I think it would be a terrible waste of our resources to go through that process and I will say that and I listen to your argument Mr. Chair it's very consistent with what people talk about what a global budget should contain and it really is the whole host of things and I want to throw out that for example in home health we have a hospital in one part of the state that had to meet the payroll for the home health agency strictly because choices for care or state program isn't funded in a way that they can sustain themselves so I think you may be opening the door to other things in the future but as far as this particular amendment it really is just a reference to whether or not we should do it so I don't have too much comment there but one question I would have for Julie is everybody on the same fiscal year and if so what is that fiscal year we're on a July 1 fiscal year but there's discussion and payment reform of putting us in the same calendar here as the Alpera Model ACO so that we would be consistent so either one of those would be a slightly different fiscal year than the hospital budget because if we had to do everything all at once, forget about it you'd have to give us quite a bit more staff but if it could be staggered a little bit it sounds like either one of those could be so it really is just questions for you there are many things that would need to be worked out before this does not implement I mean I think that to be clear and that was my concern to be honest when I first saw the new amendment I was immediately concerned as the Green Mountain Care Board been insulted about this well I'm just saying so that and part of what needs to happen is that there I needed some assurance that there was not an immediate impact and that it's more looking ahead with lots of opportunity both for the legislature to weigh in further and for the Green Mountain Care Board to weigh in further as well as the agency at a minimum the word plan only needs to be proposal so develop a proposal I think everybody's on the same page okay thank you so I'm going to suggest that we have this so S203 is on the floor this afternoon there's time between now and there's time between now and then for any language to be modified there's a very least there's some language modification that could clarify what it is that's been articulated here and I think there's an answer looking for it so I'm going to suggest this that this committee not try to take any action on Representative Hooper's amendment at this time but that we ask that you and perhaps Representative Donahue and others review the language to see if there isn't a way to make it more clear that this is clear that there's not an immediacy involved other than to be looking ahead and planning or that in fact there I'll just throw out from one member's point of view maybe there is some piece where there is actually submitting of information for informational purposes only and not necessarily for analysis because there are I could imagine either as part of this plan I should maybe not overstep what their plan might be but there could be submissions on an informational basis that don't require a lot of additional staff work from the Green Mountain Care Board but that would in fact begin the process of providing the designated specialized service agencies information to have that holistic system because I'll tell you I am more and more persuaded and understand what the chair of the board has said that until and unless we have a full picture of what we're talking about in terms of the health care system we're wrongly focusing on just a significant portion but not the entirety of the system and I think we need to if we're going to be serious about working with the entire system sustaining the whole system because it's not just downward cost it may be downward cost in one part of the system and it may actually have to be holding another part of the system that's I think we need to be moving ourselves in that direction to speak for myself so if that seems agreeable to our committee I'm looking around and seeing some and I would welcome any committee member to be in with Representative Hoover in terms of seeing if there's language that my goal, my hope would be that we would find language that certainly majority of us, if we don't we won't support the amendment but I would hope that we can have language which goes in this direction but that's more precise okay so let's put that piece to a close for this moment and then we'll come back to it we're going to need to come back to it before the floor and I think we I arranged well we will come back to it before the floor yes we will, we have to because that's what we're going to do or we'll rearrange the floor that's also possible okay so let's shift gears we have a number of things on our agenda this morning I think I'm going to turn to what we're going to do is I'm going to committee to hear the setting proposals of amendment to 696 okay so let's just I'd ask committee members to stay put so we've got my wires crossed a little bit in terms of what we're doing when so it's important it's important for us to have everyone present for our committee discussion and I think what will be a light for you both today on a very important issue so what we have in front of us today is S-53 the Senate and as we we've taken testimony we've walked through from the beginning I said to the committee I want us to understand both what the Senate has said to us and I want us to understand what the Senate Health and Welfare Committee passed out the Senate Health and Welfare Committee as well and so we've had the opportunity to walk through S-53 and pass by the Senate S-53 as its command of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and there are differences that are significant S-53 as passed by the Senate features a more of a continued exploration or study of universal access to primary care while S-53 as passed by the Senate Health Welfare makes a commitment to public and finance universal primary care and I think that's in some ways the crux of the issue in front of us we've heard the fiscal impacts of both pieces of legislation and quite honestly I think it's a little unclear I don't think either of the fiscal analyses are full part complete and so whatever action this committee chooses to take will necessarily go to the House of Appropriations Committee for God's conclusion and we will be looking to them to sort through issues, fiscal issues but particularly the impact in the 2019 budget which of course because of the way the Senate and the House we moved the budget first so we assume that the Senate is anticipating based on as they passed it having provisions in the Senate proposed we'll have a provision for that but we recognize there's nothing in the House budget to support either version so again there are many moving parts here and I think we've heard from many to be quite honest I don't know everyone who's in the room but I recognize the numbers of you and I've heard from and I think many of us have heard from folks who are in the room we've heard I think the whole committee has heard from strong voices of advocacy asking us to consider not just the Senate passed version but to consider reinstating the Senate Health and Welfare Committees version and so I think that's the choice point we're at and I think that we need as a committee long debates I think we concluded I think we're at the point where we need to decide in order to move forward and so that's where I think we are at this point I'd like to make a motion I'd like to make a motion that we restore the language of S53 to the version that came out of Senate Health and Welfare I'll second okay so we have a motion to restore which essentially would be to substitute to substitute a strike all version for the Senate passed version okay to restore what the Senate Health and Welfare committee did we have a second for that can I explain speak to your motion and then have a representative on it so Senate Health and Welfare which is the health care policy committee of the Senate worked on this bill for over a year with extensive testimony and deliberation and they created a proposal that looks at how we can make a transition from our current system towards the vision of Act 48 through a process that engages various stakeholders in the creation of a universal publicly financed primary care system for all of our monitors the results of that work was replaced by an amendment from appropriations in the Senate which is their money committee and that ultimately passed the Senate policy committee should be making policy not money committees and I propose that we support the work of our sibling policy committee whether or not this bill survives the rest of the process it becomes a law I think today we need to make a decision that makes a policy statement and what statement should we make I propose that we take a step in the direction of the promise of Act 48 by restoring the language of the bill to the version that came out of Senate Health and Welfare yeah so I actually think there's tremendous value to an approach to curbing healthcare costs that starts by ensuring everyone can get early intervention that can prevent higher cost healthcare later and particularly by doing it across the system not through small inequitable chipping away co-pays for specific services it would also start us on a path to more equitable access to healthcare regardless of what coverage you do or don't get from your job which is something I have consistently strongly supported in concept not always as a practical ability to do it because while almost all remuners have health insurance it's an incredibly inequitable cost balance the very poor through Medicaid and the very wealthy through a very small percentage of their income going towards healthcare pay relatively little or nothing but we know very well that there are people in the middle who have incredibly high premium and co-pays that are a barrier to care the problem is that for better or for worse we embarked on a healthcare reform initiative right now that makes huge alterations to how money flows through the system I supported that very reluctantly I remain not confident about its potential for success but it's very complex it creates huge pressures on the system in order to focus and sustain energy on it to take on a second major overlapping restructuring at the same time I think does doom both to potential failure and so I can't support going forward with this either version even just studying it further at this particular point in time I don't think we can be doing both at once so I don't support going forward with either so I thank you Brian for your motion and I'm going to support your motion and I've been sitting in this committee for a number of years and have now this will be our third attempt at enacting some form of universal healthcare and I have to say it's really frustrating to be in the position of considering this kind of incremental approach opposed to taking on the whole healthcare system but I am critically aware that there are so many Vermonters who either are paying through the nose for the healthcare that they have or are stuck in jobs that they would rather not be in because it provides them with a healthcare benefit and I feel like we owe it to Vermonters to say that yes we want to move forward with finding a way to do a universal healthcare cover so I will support your motion the senate finance committee took a look at the finances of this and it came to the conclusion that with 20% of the entire state spend being on healthcare that we had to move a little more slowly a little bit more pragmatically and I don't think the original version took into consideration all the money that it would take or even among our testimony the cost for this would vary between 4% we were initially told and by the time we were even done deliberating on this it was already up to 7% or 8% of the entire healthcare spend so I don't think this is really well thought through and it doesn't get to the root of the problem of healthcare and the root of the problem has more to do with a socialized aspect of healthcare and this that it's very expensive although I agree everyone should have healthcare we live in a very free country and I think that we should be promoting avenues that compete against one another right now we have quite a few monopolies within the state whether it be one ACO or two hospitals running the entire state very few private practices left and we've created this monopoly we have only two insurance companies and I think we can go down a different route which will create more competition not less I wasn't going to say anything but listening to everyone this has been one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make I agree with Sarah and Brian wholeheartedly I come from a family we have a small business we have a healthcare crisis in our family that will be paying for the rest of our lives so I see both sides of having a universally publicly financed system but at the same time I really appreciate Ann's words in that the state made a commitment for a process forward and we have some people in this room and many many other people who are putting everything they have into making that system work and to put another system change on top of that is very very difficult the other thing I've always I've struggled with the last two years here is we chip away at everything instead of changing a whole thing and so I will be supporting Brian's motion because this is one time where we need to chip away and we need to figure out how to do it I also support the motion and I do hear the viewpoint where we are looking at both I think we need to look at both because if the all payer model does work what will we have in this place and we need to the people of Vermont need healthcare and when I think about the all payer model it comes from the hospitals down to the primary care and the funding flow whereas I believe that funding flow needs to start at the base and primary care is the base and it feeds up to the hospitals and by doing that all those components of are you ill now I can't afford it now so I'm going to wait and you are much worse at the time you do seek the care are the pieces that drive healthcare costs that much further and by allowing everyone to go in and see a primary care I do believe that we may find there is an uptick in the cost at the primary level only because those people that have been resistant or unable to access the care will have issues that are more extensive initially but going forward I think we take that away and by treating it at the preventive level where it belongs we prevent those long term higher costs that we have when people don't have care and so that's why I support this I'm going to support Brian's motion and thank you for making it that when I was elected in 2014 the primary issue that I ran was trying to move our state to a publicly funded universal care system and I don't think I'd even take an office yet when that option pulled up the table in Vermont and acknowledging Lori's frustrations I think we are going at this in an incremental way and I view this as the most cost-effective way to go at this incremental way where our healthcare dollars are most cost-effectively deployed making sure that people have adequate primary care and I also want to acknowledge Ann's points because there are things that I'm concerned about as well but I am going to take a little bit of twist on it because while I'm concerned about the issue of can our state take on a major reform for the all-pair model while simultaneously taking a look at universal primary care a concern that I have about the all-pair model is I feel all our eggs are in that basket we are depending on the all-pair model to work to get to what I want to get to at the end of the day which is a publicly financed universal care model and I'm looking for for different baskets instead of just having that one basket with all the eggs in it and an incremental approach moving down the universal primary care road gives us an additional way to approach that so thanks for that promotion well our mantra this has been it has not been a hard one for me because our mantra has always been with the healthcare the right care at the right place at the right time right care I think this is the right care I do believe this is you just see all the people in need out there and you know this is the right care the right place if there's any place that's going to do it it's going to be Vermont except in my heart I really know that we need a larger platform if it's going to be publicly financed and we have to be nationwide or even regionally the right time this is definitely not the right time for Vermont we have two major health reform efforts that will be going which we do both and we will get nowhere the all-payer ACO model is basically a little more than its first year the layer of something else as complex as this is just not the right time it would just Vermont is even though it's hard to believe with all we get done in Vermont Vermont is a small state and there's only so much money and so many resources to go around basically on the right time I'm going to be voting against anyone else who wishes to speak I guess I might as well you know the only thing I would say I would be much more likely to support the Senate finance version just because I think it does a better job of distilling what the problem we're trying to solve is and then taking a broader look at how do is the best way to get people the access that they need we've heard from people throughout the system that there is an access problem we're dealing with a certain segment of our population that either for financial they can't afford a copay or both getting the base level of primary care that I think we all believe we should do everything we can to try to get them there so I would have much preferred an approach where we take a holistic look at saying we have this set population that we're not doing a good job of now how do we connect them and are there different types of innovative ways that we could look at to really reduce this problem of access that we're seeing I think many of us are working with the local hospitals on the crisis in primary care practitioners I know in the Bradborough area we're down 13 practitioners and we've got another one retiring so to take on a primary care initiative without having the the the the primary care initiative without having the underpinning support I think is extremely difficult to do and I also agree with Anne on the parts of trying to operate two systems simultaneously I think we really need to address this primary care issue that we've had with physicians within our states I'm not comfortable with this we need to say a few words more first let me express my appreciation for the committee and how are we arriving with this outcome this committee has committed itself to healthcare for Vermonters and from every point of view I don't question for a moment the individual commitment that each of you have to having high quality accessible healthcare for all Vermonters and I think we've demonstrated in a way actually in a way we demonstrate by even our conversation here today and what we've done previously where there are times when we have come to full consensus in this committee I think we have a good and proud record of moving initiatives particularly around prescription drugs which are very much in my mind even as we make a decision about this I went to a meeting yesterday outside the building I had nothing to do, people didn't know I was the chair of the healthcare committee so I came on a ride home and they said could you give me a ride I said sure what came up in conversation was healthcare what came up in conversation was the unaffordability of their healthcare what came up was they're having to make decisions about not accessing healthcare to the detriment of their own well being and in this particular instance much to my surprise they talked about the possibility of having to relocate outside of this country in order to have full access to the healthcare that they felt they and their family needed and I was stunned to hear that I did not know their history and this was a spontaneous conversation I think we struggle we've made great gains here in Vermont but we struggle with how to move forward and at this point knowing that I don't know what the path for this for our decision is here today in the building or outside the building but I'm at this point prepared to make a vote that makes a commitment and makes a statement in the direction of universal primary care because I think it also is a statement toward what I believe we should have which is publicly financed healthcare the fact that we have Vermonters whose lives are impacted on a daily basis who don't who are tied to their workplace whose well-being is in fact in jeopardy for the very reason that they don't happen to work in a place that has healthcare good accessible affordable healthcare I think it's our responsibility as a state of Vermont to create every possibility for accessible publicly financed healthcare for all Vermonters recognizing the barriers, the difficulties that this particular path creates so that's if we do nothing else here today I'm prepared to use my vote to make that statement knowing that there are it's not an easy path there's nothing easy about it and recognizing and appreciating the concerns that other committee members have expressed and I think I'm going to suggest given the business in front of us other business in front of us that we unless there's a lot more that needs to be said that we move ourselves toward the phone well first I want to thank everyone for making your policy statement because in my motion I was basically asking what is our policy statement and I feel like people really clearly made that so I appreciate that the only thing I wanted to ask just for clarity for the record that when the bill passed out of health and welfare it went to Senate finance right I'm looking at Jen because she's she could probably answer this and then it went to appropriations and my understanding is it was appropriations who amended the bill at the last minute so just for the record I wanted to clarify that the bill did make it through Senate finance without any changes right yes finance approved the Senate health and welfare amendment without recommendation and sent it on to the appropriations committee which is the committee that made the and I just want to say that because two people said the bill as it came out of finance and so not to I just want to be clear before we vote what the process was that it went through two committees and that was changed so thank you and I I realize that there is actually one amendment which I think can be made on the record and not have to wait for a new draft and I was reviewing this morning the language which I frankly asked to have available depending on what direction we went the Senate Health and Welfare Committee version says that the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare may meet up to five times and I don't know why but I think we should be included it just seems like so I would suggest that we amend on the record that in each instance I think it's just the one since it's section three that we amend it on the record to say the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare and the House Committee on Healthcare may meet and then Jen can assign us actually you can tell us what version will that change the 1.2 well then I would hope that you accept that as a friendly amendment and that it would be your motion would be to adopt draft 1.2 as a substituted amendment I think I can live with that I know it's tough okay I asked the court to call the roll Copenhagen says yes China? Yes Jinkling? No Ebert? No Brighlyn? Yes The Furt? Yes Houghton? Yes Take the motion carries okay okay thank you committee members thank you for those who have been having conversation with us from all different perspectives thank you