How to Make a Documentary in 2026 | Steve Dabal

We send our soldiers to the front lines, but when they come home, does the healthcare system follow through? Jim Maguire and Joanne Frederick of Government Market Strategies explain why veterans and military families are struggling to get care, and how to fix it. Most people don't realize there are two completely separate systems. The Military Health System (TRICARE) covers about 9.5 million active duty members, families, and retirees. The Veterans Health Administration covers about 9 million veterans. Both are stretched thin. When military and VA facilities can't meet the demand, patients are sent out into the community, where they compete with everyone else for limited appointments. That's especially hard in rural areas, where many veterans live. On top of that, reimbursement rates are often lower than what private insurance and even Medicaid pay. Claims get delayed or never paid, so many doctors simply don't want to take these patients. Then there's the paperwork. Joanne estimates that roughly 15,000 pages of law, regulations, and manuals govern these contracts, and "no one really knows what they say." Using AI, she broke those documents down and found that they contradict each other. That project took two weeks, compared with a year and a half for a team of 20 doing it by hand. Jim and Joanne also share Patriot Health, their plan to modernize a TRICARE contract model that has barely changed since the 1990s. It would bring in more providers, more competition, and lower costs for taxpayers, while keeping the force ready for conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. If you're a veteran, a service member, or love someone who is, this episode is for you.

Is there still hope for climate change? Environmental journalist Fred Pearce, author of Despite It All, explains why climate change is solvable, from renewable energy and EVs to AI data centers and China's clean energy boom. Have you given up on the planet? Before you do, hear from someone who has spent 40 years reporting from more than 80 countries, and who has watched the world solve problems that once looked impossible. When Fred started out in the 1980s, the big environmental story was acid rain. Then came lead in petrol, the hole in the ozone layer, and warnings that a "population bomb" would starve billions. Today we barely talk about any of them, because we fixed them. So can we do the same with climate change? Gregg plays devil's advocate and throws the hardest questions at him. AI data centers are driving up energy demand. China is still building coal plants. Corporations and governments are quietly walking back their net-zero pledges. And climate change has become deeply politicized. Fred doesn't sugarcoat it: "You should be worried for sure." But he makes a compelling case for optimism. Solar and wind are now cheaper than coal. China has become the world's clean energy powerhouse. The conflict in Iran is pushing countries toward homegrown renewable power. And nature has an extraordinary ability to bounce back. As Fred puts it: "Hope drives ambition." If climate news leaves you feeling anxious or hopeless, this is the episode to watch.

Miami is raising its seawalls. Cities across the country are doing the same. The question now in front of the Supreme Court is whether the oil companies can be made to help pay for it. UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber joins Gregg to unpack Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. In this case, local governments are seeking compensation from oil companies for climate damage and for allegedly misleading the public about what their own scientists knew. The oil companies' defense is that climate change is a federal issue under the Clean Air Act, so state courts can't hear these cases. Here's the catch. The Trump EPA has repealed the endangerment finding, the legal foundation that lets the federal government regulate greenhouse gases. Pull that out, Farber explains, and "the whole house of cards falls down." The move meant to help Big Oil may end up weakening its best legal defense.

If you or a family member has a case involving Camp Lejeune, PFAS, NEC, or Depo-Provera, you've probably seen headlines about deadlines and settlements and wondered where your claim actually stands. In Part 2 of this conversation on Climate Change Environment Science & the Law with Gregg Goldfarb, host Gregg Goldfarb sits down again with Steven Smith, Vice President of Broughton Partners, to unpack four more mass tort campaigns that are all reaching critical moments. Smith explains why Camp Lejeune finally has real momentum, now that a federal judge has given plaintiffs' leadership until the end of October to reach a deal with the DOJ or risk being replaced. He also clarifies why no new Camp Lejeune claims can be filed, since the window Congress opened has now closed. On PFAS, he walks through how firefighting foam (AFFF) seeps into soil and drinking water, why 131,000 cases were filed when only 60,000 to 70,000 were expected, and how an upcoming Daubert hearing on two additional injuries could shift negotiating leverage before a possible global resolution. On NEC, Smith explains how two defendants agreed to pay just under $1 billion, why state court cases have succeeded where the federal MDL has not, and why the details of case values are still unknown. And on Depo-Provera, he breaks down the science linking the birth control shot to brain tumors called meningiomas, with more than a 5x increased risk, and shares his expectation of average case values between $150,000 and $200,000 for qualifying claims. Throughout, Smith and Goldfarb stress that deadlines, qualifications, and venue all matter, and that claimants should talk to their own firm about where their specific case stands.

If you or a family member has a case in Talc, Roundup, Hernia Mesh, or the social media litigation, you've probably heard a settlement number in the news and wondered what it actually means for you. On this episode of Climate Change Environment Science & the Law with Gregg Goldfarb, host Gregg Goldfarb sits down with Steven Smith, Vice President of Broughton Partners, to unpack four major mass tort campaigns that are all reaching critical moments at once. Smith explains why J&J's $5.5 billion Talc settlement is really a floor, not a ceiling — with total payouts from this first wave expected closer to $8 billion, and no cap on what the company pays over time. He breaks down why a recent Supreme Court preemption ruling gutted the "failure to warn" claims in the Roundup litigation, while "design defect" claims may survive, and why the proposed class action's roughly $50,000 average case value has some claimants better off staying out of it. On Hernia Mesh, he details the split between Bard (which resolved lower-value cases early while holding back its biggest claims for a separate, stricter fund) and Covidien, where a recent verdict topped $66 million. And on social media, he walks through how Meta's $16.68 billion settlement with 29 state attorneys general is actually a step toward compensating individual families, not the end of the road. Throughout, Smith and Goldfarb stress that "qualified" is doing a lot of work in every one of these settlements — and that claimants should be talking to their own firm about where their specific case stands before assuming a headline number applies to them.