Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • It will be the first for the county
    A green, gray and white map showing the veterans cemetery planned in Anaheim.
    A concept plan for Orange County's first veterans cemetery.

    Topline:

    Orange County's first veterans cemetery will be in Gypsum Canyon alongside the 91 Freeway. The Anaheim City Council unanimously approved the plan Tuesday night.

    Why it matters: Orange County is home to an estimated 80,000 veterans, according to the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet). The nearest cemetery dedicated to the burial of military personnel is the Riverside National Cemetery located at least 40 miles away.

    The 150-acre veterans cemetery project will be located alongside a public cemetery, O.C.’s first in over 100 years. The public cemetery will be managed by the Orange County Cemetery District, while the veterans cemetery will be built and maintained by CalVet.

    How we got here: Talks of a veterans cemetery in Orange County date back to the early 2010s.

    What’s next: Construction could begin by 2026 with the cemetery opening for burials by 2027.

    Orange County will soon get its first veterans cemetery in Gypsum Canyon alongside the 91 Freeway after the Anaheim City Council unanimously approved the plan Tuesday night.

    Orange County is home to an estimated 80,000 veterans, according to the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet). The nearest cemetery dedicated to the burial of military personnel is the Riverside National Cemetery located at least 40 miles away.

    The 150-acre veterans cemetery project will be located alongside a public cemetery, O.C.’s first in over 100 years.The public cemetery will be managed by the Orange County Cemetery District, while the veterans cemetery will be built and maintained by CalVet.

    “It would look like one big cemetery, but in reality it's two separate cemeteries,” said Tim Deutsch, general manager at the Orange County Cemetery District. “We'll share access in, we'll share bridge in, we'll share utilities, and then all of those costs associated with building the bridge, bringing utilities will all be part of the shared cost.”

    The public cemetery will also contain two unique components — one for allied troops who served alongside American troops in the Vietnam and Korean wars, one for first responders.

    What a veterans cemetery would mean for families

    The Veterans Alliance of Orange County represents 150 veteran organizations and has been lobbying for a veterans cemetery for the past 14 years.

    Nick Berardino, president of the Veterans Alliance of Orange County, said some local survivors of veterans have been storing the ashes of their loved ones until the cemetery is complete. Others have been making the trek to Riverside County, while some have buried their loved ones on private plots.

    Berardino said he has spoken to some Gold Star Mothers, those who have lost a child in active combat, who “are extraordinarily excited” about the cemetery coming to Orange County.

    “For the mothers who we know unfortunately will be losing their children in future conflicts and wars, this will give them comfort, that if their child is lost, they can be close to their child, and that's really important to the Gold Star Mothers,” Berardino said.

    Beradino, a veteran himself, said the idea of being buried in a public cemetery can bring about a “feeling of loneliness and I don't think you rest as peacefully.”

    “In the veterans cemetery we are laid to rest with our brothers and sisters, who we have served with, and it gives us great comfort to be with each other again in our final resting place,” he said.

    Being buried in a veterans cemetery also means you get the ceremonial actions of a 21 gun salute and for Vietnam War Veterans a motorcycle escort, he added.

    How we got here

    Talks of a veterans cemetery in Orange County date back to the early 2010s and led to AB 1453, a bill calling on the state to build and maintain a resting place for veterans in the county. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation to bring the cemetery to fruition.

    But efforts to build the cemetery at the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro and at Irvine’s Great Park stalled over the years.

    “We began in the city of Irvine, where through internal political battles going on in Irvine, we got kicked off of two sites so we finally came to the Gypsum Canyon site several years ago and we have been focusing on building it there,” Berardino said.

    The Gypsum Canyon location for the veterans cemetery has won support from county, city and state leaders. In the recently passed state budget, around $5 million was allocated toward the veterans cemetery, bringing the total funding secured to $50 million from various state and county departments. CalVet has also applied for a federal grant to support the project.

    The need for the public cemetery

    Deutsch said that El Toro Memorial Park, the only public cemetery in the county, has about 600 spaces available for burials, enough to last the county around two years.

    The Orange County Cemetery District has plans to convert roads into burial spaces at the Santa Ana Cemetery, giving the county an additional two years of available burial spaces.

    What’s next

    Construction could begin by 2026 with the cemetery opening for burials by 2027.

    The cemetery plans will come in front of the council again on Aug. 13 for a procedural vote.

  • Fennessy to lead new federal agency
    A group of firefighters and highway officials stand behind a podium at a news conference.
    Orange County Fire Chief Brian Fennessy at a news conference Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Brian Fennessy is retiring as head of the Orange County Fire Authority in January to become the first director of the newly created United States Wildland Fire Service, according to a staff memo.
    OCFA Chief Fennessy retirement letter
    OCFA Chief Brian Fennessy announces his retirement to join new U.S. Wildland Fire Service

    Why it matters: The Trump administration announced the U.S. Wildland Fire Service in September to modernize wildfire management nationwide. It will be a joint effort between the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture.

    The context: The service's areas of focus will include strengthening response efforts among local, state and federal agencies, modernizing aviation and coordinating systems and improving technology that can help agencies respond to fires and protect personnel. In his retirement letter, Fennessy said the USWFS "represents a historic opportunity to strengthen interagency coordination, modernize capabilities, and elevate the profession of wildland firefighting."

    The backstory: Fennessy was OCFA fire chief for more than seven years. According to OCFA, his career began in 1978 as a hotshot crewmember with the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

    What's next: A new chief has not been announced yet. Fennessy said he would “work closely with Executive Management and our Board of Directors to support a smooth leadership transition.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Republicans push plan, HSA

    Topline:

    Although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    Why it matters: In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    Some background: Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Read on... for what happened with a family who had high-deductible health plan.

    Sarah Monroe once had a relatively comfortable middle-class life.

    She and her family lived in a neatly landscaped neighborhood near Cleveland. They had a six-figure income and health insurance through her job. Then, four years ago, when Monroe was pregnant with twin girls, something started to feel off.

    "I kept having to come into the emergency room for fainting and other symptoms," recalled Monroe, 43, who works for an insurance company.

    The babies were fine. But after months of tests and hospital trips, Monroe was diagnosed with a potentially dangerous heart condition.

    It would be costly. Within a year, as she juggled a serious illness and a pair of newborns, Monroe was buried under more than $13,000 in medical debt.


    Part of the reason: Like tens of millions of Americans, she had a high-deductible health plan. People with these plans typically pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before coverage kicks in.

    The plans, which have become common over the past two decades, are getting renewed attention thanks to President Donald Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

    Many Republicans are reluctant to extend government subsidies that help cover patients' medical bills and insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act.

    And although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    "A patient makes the decision," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at a recent hearing. "It empowers the patient to lower the cost."

    In a post on Truth Social last month, Trump said: "The only healthcare I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people."

    "Skin in the game"

    Conservative economists and GOP lawmakers have been making similar arguments since high-deductible health plans started to catch on two decades ago.

    Back then, a backlash against the limitations of HMOs, or health maintenance organizations, propelled many employers to move workers into these plans, which were supposed to empower patients and control costs. A change in tax law allowed patients in these plans to put away money in tax-free health savings accounts to cover medical bills.

    "The notion was that if a consumer has 'skin in the game,' they will be more likely to seek higher-quality, lower-cost care," said Shawn Gremminger, who leads the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, a nonprofit that works with employers that offer their workers health benefits.

    "The unfortunate reality is that largely has not been the case," Gremminger said.

    Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Plans with deductibles that exceed $1,650 can be paired with a tax-free health savings account.

    But even as deductibles became widespread over the last 20 years, medical prices in the U.S. skyrocketed. The average price of a knee replacement, for example, increased 74% from 2003 to 2016, more than double the rate of overall inflation.

    At the same time, patients have been left with thousands of dollars of medical bills they can't pay, despite having health insurance.

    About 100 million people in the U.S. have some form of health care debt, a 2022 survey showed.

    Most, like Monroe, are insured.

    Medical price shopping isn't easy

    Although Monroe had a health savings account paired with her high-deductible plan, she was never able to save more than a few thousand dollars, she said. That wasn't nearly enough to cover the big bills when her twins were born and when she got really ill.

    "It's impossible, I will tell you, impossible to pay medical bills," she said.

    There was another problem with her high-deductible plan. Although these plans are supposed to encourage patients to shop around for medical care to find the lowest prices, Monroe found this impractical when she had a complex pregnancy and heart troubles.

    Instead, Monroe chose the largest health system in her area.

    "I went with that one as far as medical risk," she said. "If anything were to happen, I could then be transferred within that system."

    Federal rules that require hospitals to post more of their prices can make comparing institutions easier than it used to be.

    But unlike a car or a computer, most medical services remain difficult to shop for, in part because they stem from an emergency or are complex and can stretch over numerous years.

    Researchers at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, for example, estimated that just 7% of total health care spending for Americans with job-based coverage was for services that realistically could be shopped for.

    Fumiko Chino, an oncologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said it makes no sense to expect patients with cancer or another chronic disease to go out and compare prices for complicated medical care such as surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy after they've been diagnosed with a potentially deadly illness.

    "You're not going be able to actually do that effectively," Chino said, "and certainly not within the time frame that you would need to when facing a cancer diagnosis and the imminent need to start treatment."

    Drowning in bills

    Chino said patients with high deductibles are often instead slammed with a flood of huge medical bills that lead to debt and a cascade of other problems.

    She and other researchers found in a study of more than 8,000 cancer patients presented last year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology that cancer patients who had high-deductible health insurance were more likely to die than similar patients without that kind of coverage.

    For her part, Monroe and her family were forced to move out of their house and into a 1,100-square-foot apartment.

    She drained her savings. Her credit score sank. And her car was repossessed.

    There have been other sacrifices, too. "When families get to have nice Christmases or get to go on spring break," Monroe said, hers often does not.

    She is thankful that her children are healthy. And she continues to have a job. But Monroe said she can't imagine why anyone would want to double down on the high-deductible model for health care.

    "We owe it to ourselves to do it a different way," she said. "We can't treat people like this."

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.
    Copyright 2025 KFF Health News

  • Paramount tries to beat Netflix with $108B offer

    Topline:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties. It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios.

    The backstory: The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block. In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Reaction: Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    The context: Combining with Warner would let the Ellisons create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    Get out your popcorn because there's more drama in the fight over the media powerhouse Warner Brothers Discovery:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties.

    It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios. If that deal were to go through, CNN and other cable channels would be spun off.

    Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world's richest people, and his son David, the movie producer and founder of Skydance Media, took over Paramount this summer. It's the parent company of CBS, Paramount Studios, the Paramount+ streaming service and more.

    Combining with Warner would let them create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block.

    In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    Despite Zaslav's reluctance to sell to the Ellisons, they thought they had a dominant hand to play: they were offering a premium for the company's value on the open market and they were bidding for the entire enterprise.

    What's more, they had built strong ties to President Trump, whose government regulators ultimately would have to approve any such acquisition by an already established major Hollywood player.

    Larry Ellison is a donor, informal adviser and friend of the president. David Ellison has made two key hires at CBS — specifically in its news division — to ensure it will be perceived as less adversarial to Trump. A conservative former think tank chief has become its new ombudsman to review complaints. And Bari Weiss, founder of the right-of-center Free Press, has taken over the news division as editor in chief. Paramount's previous leadership had paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump against CBS News that legal observers described as flimsy.

    Presidential preferences are supposed to be held at arm's length from such reviews by antitrust regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department. But that's not how Washington operates under Trump.

    Even so, Trump's approval is never a sure thing. The Netflix announcement stirred instant opposition from a handful of U.S. senators in both parties. Trump was noncommittal in remarks Sunday.

    "Netflix is a great company and they've done a phenomenal job," Trump said. "They have a very big market share, and when they have Warner Bros., you know, that share goes up a lot, so I don't know, that's going to be for some economists to tell and also, I'll be involved in that decision too."

    However, Monday morning, Trump lashed out at CBS News for a 60 Minutes interview with Trump ally-turned-critic U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican who has announced she is stepping down. Paramount came in for particular scorn.

    "My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air," Trump wrote Monday morning in a post on Truth Social — after the Ellisons announced their hostile bid for Warner. "THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE!"

    Editor's note: Warner Bros. Discovery is among NPR's financial supporters.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • SCOTUS case could expand presidential powers

    Topline:

    The Supreme Court hears Monday arguments in a case that could end the independence of independent agencies, overturn a 90-year-old precedent, and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.

    The issue: President Donald Trump fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. President Biden appointed Slaughter to a second term, which was supposed to end in 2029. Instead, in March, Slaughter received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately. She was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

    A bipartisan agency: Congress created the FTC in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Slaughter had been given no such reason for her removal, and so she sued. A lower court declared that Slaughter had been unlawfully removed from the FTC and ordered her back to work. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order removing her from her seat until the merits of her case could be heard. Justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines to allow her firing to stand — for now.

    The Supreme Court hears Monday arguments in a case that could end the independence of independent agencies, overturn a 90-year-old precedent, and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.

    At issue is whether President Donald Trump can fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. President Biden appointed Slaughter to a second term, which was supposed to end in 2029.

    Instead, in March, Slaughter received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately. She was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

    Congress created the FTC in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

    Slaughter had been given no such reason for her removal, and so she sued. A lower court declared that Slaughter had been unlawfully removed from the FTC and ordered her back to work. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order removing her from her seat until the merits of her case could be heard. Justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines to allow her firing to stand -- for now.

    Reconsidering a 90-year-old precedent

    Black and white photo of a man wearing a tuxedo, sitting at a desk with a microphone on it
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt during a radio broadcast circa 1933–40.
    (
    Harris & Ewing
    /
    Library of Congress
    )

    Proving that history does repeat itself, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to fire an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements. In that case, called Humphrey's Executor, the court unanimously held that while the president has the power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC, whose duties "are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative."

    Following that 1935 decision, Congress went on to create many more multimember, independent agencies whose members likewise can only be removed for cause. Since January, Trump has also removed Democratic members from some of those agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In Slaughter's case and others, the Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor was flawed, due to a misunderstanding of the FTC's functions at the time. The administration maintains that the FTC did in fact exercise executive power then and says those powers have only grown in the decades since.

    During Trump's first term, the Supreme Court chipped away at Humphrey's Executor when it permitted Trump to fire the head of another independent agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the firing was permissible because the CFPB is run by a single director rather than a multimember board. Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as applying to multimember agencies "that do not wield substantial executive power."

    On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in line with that guidance. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court said Trump's firings of Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox were lawful, citing those agencies' "significant executive powers."

    A man with white hair wearing a blue suit and pink tie stares off into the distance. He is standing in front of a wood-paneled wall.
    President Trump attends a press event at the White House on Dec. 2.
    (
    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds
    /
    AFP via Getty Images
    )

    A clash of views on independent agencies

    Slaughter believes that it is vital for the Supreme Court to preserve the independence of bipartisan multimember agencies and allow her to be reinstated.

    "Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people," she said. "That is what Americans deserve from their government."

    James M. Burnham, an attorney who has served in both Trump administrations, offered an opposing view.

    "I don't think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government," he argued. "I don't think they've ever been independent because I think the removal protections have been unconstitutional from the beginning."

    The court will continue its deliberation on Humphrey's Executor on Jan. 21 when it considers another case involving Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
    Copyright 2025 NPR