692 episodes
The Weeds Vox
-
- News
-
-
4.4 • 7.6K Ratings
-
Politics is how people achieve power. Policy is what they do with it. Every week on The Weeds, host Jonquilyn Hill and guests break down the policies that shape our lives, from abortion to financial regulations to affirmative action to housing. We dive deep and we get wonky, but we have fun along the way. New episodes drop every Wednesday.
Produced by Vox and the Vox Media Podcast Network.
-
NYC’s not-so-sudden migrant surge
Earlier this month, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said the current migrant crisis would “destroy the city.” Since April 2022, more than 115,000 migrants have arrived in New York City, many fleeing hardship from their home countries. In response, the Biden administration granted Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelan migrants. But while the move may provide some immediate relief to migrants seeking work authorization, some experts worry that it won’t fix the root of the problem: the broken US immigration system.
Read More:
New York City’s migrant surge, explained — Vox
Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.
Credits:
Fabiola Cineas, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts
Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices -
What’s up, doc(ket)?
Summer is over, school is back, and the Supreme Court is getting ready for a new term. The term starts in early October, and the docket is stacked. Host Jonquilyn Hill sits down with Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser to get into the major cases the court will hear this term.
Read More:
The Supreme Court will spend its new term cleaning up after rogue MAGA judges — Vox
Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.
Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts
Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices -
Who protects workers from extreme heat?
No matter where you live in the US, this summer was hot. Extremely hot. Temperatures soared all over the country, breaking records almost daily. Even Arizona saw unprecedented heat: Phoenix baked under 110º heat for 31 days straight, with little to no relief at night. The extreme heat poses a grave threat to workers in America, both indoor and outdoor, because there are few to no heat-related protections for workers. It asks the question: Whose responsibility is it to keep us cool?
Read More:
Extreme heat is giving us a glimpse at the dangerous future of work | Vox
Laws don't protect outdoor workers from heat. Advocates say the consequences are deadly
Heat is not classified as a natural disaster. Arizona officials say that needs to change
Workers exposed to extreme heat have no consistent protection in the US | AP News
More from David Michaels:
The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception
Doubt Is Their Product: How industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health
Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.
Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts
Special thanks to Katelyn Bogucki
Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices -
Why isn’t school lunch free?
The problem of school lunch debt is not a new one. But during the early days of the Covid-19 public health emergency, Congress had a solution: universal free school lunch. Suddenly, federal waivers were available to public schools around the country, and food insecurity in at-risk households dropped by 7 percent. But, like many other Covid-era policies, it lapsed. And while some states moved to make universal free lunch permanent, many didn’t. Vox senior correspondent Anna North (@annanorthtweets) explains.
Read More:
The return of “lunch debt”: Why schools and families are facing a food crisis - Vox
Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.
Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts
Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices -
Trump’s RICO problem
In case you missed it, Donald Trump was indicted once again, this time for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. But this indictment is different from the others, because it involves a RICO charge. RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, is most commonly used to prosecute organized crime. These cases can also be exceedingly complicated, and often take months to even make it to trial. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis wants to see a trial date within six months, but is that too ambitious? Stanford law professor David Sklansky (@d_a_sklansky) explains.
Read More:
Trump's 4 indictments, ranked by the stakes - Vox
Georgia Trump indictment: The 5 conspiracies at its heart - Vox
Florida man indicted (again) (again) (again) - Today, Explained
Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.
Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Erica Huang, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts
Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices -
Biden messed with Texas
In early July, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed a chain of buoys and barbed wire in the Rio Grande as part of his “Operation Lone Star” plan to crack down on illegal border crossings. Then, a few days later, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in response to the floating buoy border. The DOJ is using an obscure 1899 law called the Rivers and Harbors Act as the legal basis for this suit, claiming the border obstructs navigable waterways. Will that be enough for the DOJ to force Abbott to remove the buoys? Weeds host Jonquilyn Hill asks Texas A&M law professor Gabriel Eckstein and Texas Tribune reporter Uriel García to find out.
Read More:
Biden is taking Texas to court over its floating border barrier
Eagle Pass residents sour on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star
Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.
Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Katelyn Bogucki, producer
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts
Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Customer Reviews
Aug 9 episode on behavioral/mental health care
I am a therapist and I feel there are a lot of
Important nuances that are being left out of the conversation here and elsewhere, including the Biden proposal. It’s frustrating to me that the bulk of this conversation is being led by policy experts and not the people on the ground providing care.
First and foremost, the mental health reimbursement rate from most insurance companies is simply inadequate to provide quality care. It’s not just “not lucrative” it’s just not enough. It’s expensive to become a therapist. It’s 2 years in a graduate program plus post graduate supervision as well as licensure fees and continuing education. Then we have to pay for expenses as well as our own livelihoods. A huge chunk of therapists are also small business owners who need to figure out their insurance, retirement, etc, and the reimbursement rate is just too low. So we leave the networks for our own survival. Most therapists really don’t want lucrative, they just want enough to feel financially stable.
Second, people come to therapy for a lot of different reasons, just like some people go to the doctor for a lot of different reasons. If you have a therapist seeing mostly low risk patients with strong support networks, they can take a much higher caseload than clients who take high risk or complex cases, yet the reimbursement rate is the same. 45 min of therapy is 45 min of therapy regardless of the diagnosis or work outside of session.
Also, none of that work outside of face to face therapy is compensated. If I have a patient who needs to seek inpatient care and I have to coordinate with the care team at the hospital, that could be hours, but I won’t get paid.
This is ESPECIALLY burdensome and problematic for therapists of color, who are more likely to have higher student loan debt and less likely to have any generational wealth to lean on. There is a reason people of color cannot find therapists of color and it’s because the system is horrible for them. Horrible behind reimbursement rates but that’s for another day.
Yes, insurance providers put up barriers for patients that make it harder for them to access care. That needs to be stop. But until therapists are paid what they are worth for their work, the issue simply will not be solved.
Biased towards government intervention
I appreciate the information and viewpoints shared in the show, but it makes me sad that their first solution is always to have the government who created our problems fix those same problems…………………………………………….
The hosts are Ivy League, privileged intellectuals who debate philosophy while never talking to people actually affected or promoting community over government (they don’t need community, they have everything they need). They don’t understand the problems real people have while they sit in their ivory tower.
Recently they highlighted how the government props up pharmaceutical companies with intellectual property law. (Insulin specifically)………………… ……………………….Instead of addressing the fact that government is supporting and protecting companies who sell insulin at steep prices through patent laws preventing others from making those drugs affordably, they celebrate giving the government MORE POWER over our healthcare by having the State produce medicine. If the insulin patents were not enforced by our government (or the government shared the patent they plan to use publicly), then anyone could make insulin. Seems much easier than starting an entirely new drug manufacturing department of the government……… ………….More and more people are losing trust with our government and we need MORE options, not a single centralized option as dictated by the political party in power. Putting decisions like these in the hands of government is why we are so divided, and we can’t get past the 2 party polarization until we stop trying to control everyone with our party politics.
Earnest naïf gives guest monologue
This podcast has grown increasingly introductory in its content. This isn’t really in the weeds, it’s stuck on the surface. I’d prefer the host to actually know more about the topic and have a viewpoint, like Ezra Klein or 538 (back in the day).