All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 9, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
43:13
Episode 293 Scott Adams: Antifa Terrorists, Caravan, Guns, Healthcare, Mueller
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, hey Thomas.
Hey, everybody.
I keep waiting for another name to come up on the comments and then it paused.
Good morning Mustang girl, Gigi, Brett, come on in here.
You know what time it is.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And if you have your beverage, and it's in a cup, a glass, a stein, a mug, any kind of a container, this is the time to lift it to your lips and enjoy the simultaneous sip.
Ah, that's the good stuff.
So let's talk about some of the things in the news.
Oil prices are crashing.
That's right. The price of oil is way down.
It's good if you're a consumer.
It's bad if you're in the oil industry or if you own oil stocks, as I do.
So I can't tell you this is great for my portfolio.
However... It does tell you that whatever we're doing with Iran isn't going to hurt oil prices, if you know what I mean.
So Iran is in a lot of trouble right now because not only are we giving them economic sanctions, but whatever little oil they can sell It's going to be sold at the lowest price.
And so suddenly we have all this economic leverage because the U.S. has such a strong economy that oil up, oil down, it's not going to make that much difference to us, but it will make or break Iran.
So while you were looking over here at caravans and Jim Acosta and all that stuff, things in the Middle East are starting to line up.
Here's the first thing that's lining up.
The Saudi leader needs to do something to, shall we say, partially redeem himself from this killing of Khashoggi at the Turkish embassy.
And I would not be surprised to find Some announcements, some progress, some really big deals coming out of the Middle East.
It might involve Iran.
It might involve Saudi Arabia.
It certainly would involve Israel, whether directly or indirectly.
But I'm feeling like the elements are all just starting to drift in the same direction.
It feels like North Korea felt a year ago.
Which is that there's more heading in the direction of good than bad.
People are prompting me to talk about the alleged, alleged I say, election fraud in at least Florida.
I think that's a wait and see.
I believe that if you're looking at the anecdotal evidence, yeah, there's stories of somebody found a box of votes, and if you're normal, you say to yourself, they found a box of votes two days after the vote?
I'm not sure that's real.
But anything you hear at this point is still fog of war stuff, so I'm discounting almost everything I hear, except that we should definitely get a handle on this.
At the very least, law enforcement of some nature should be surrounding that place just to protect the Republic.
Now, I have a question for you.
It's well understood, I think, by most people in this country, most smart people, that there's no such thing as really voter fraud in this country.
You hear stories, but overall, overall, our system is, you know, very reliable.
Overall, give or take some individual cases.
But why is it that everyone has Everybody has recounts built into their system, right?
They have different laws on recounts.
But why do you need recounts if your system is so good?
Those are two things that can't exist simultaneously.
Either the system is not reliable, possibly because of ordinary mistakes, bugs in the system, you know, things that don't get recorded.
But also because of potential for playing with it.
Yeah, so even though the recount doesn't kick in until about a 1% level, most of them have a threshold.
Things have to be this close before the recount.
If you are going to do something fraudulent, at least in this country, where everything is polled and measured, the only way you're going to get away with it Is if the natural difference was around 1%.
So if the natural difference is sort of in that 1% range, then I would think there's a lot of potential for fraud once you get that close.
I don't see in this country anybody getting 40% more votes than they deserve.
That's probably not happening. So, I do not have an opinion about whether the Florida stuff is crooked in Broward County.
But, like you, My antennas are fully up, as in, what did Marco Rubio just say?
What did Rick Scott just say about their own state?
What? What?
Alright, so I'm, like you, I'm on DEFCON 20,000 about how important it is that we get this right.
But it's a little early to know exactly what's going on there.
So I'm just being a little bit cautious.
But like you, I've got my suspicions.
Now, CNN is reporting, as both CNN and Fox News like to tattle on each other.
They both talk about the bad behavior of the other.
And Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon were talking about how on Fox News, the story of the caravan suddenly went from this dangerous invasion to not even a story.
And, well, they do have sort of a point there, don't they?
But I would add a few things to that.
Number one, as I've said from the beginning, nobody on either side of the discussion believed that the caravan was a big problem.
Nobody on Fox News thought it was a big problem.
Everybody understands that if the caravan did whatever it wanted to do, And got its way, no matter what that looked like to you, but if the caravan got its way and most of those people got into the country, the real question is, what happens next?
Well, the next thing that happens is more caravans, right?
So when CNN talks about, oh, Fox News, you're making a bigger deal about this.
It's no invasion. It's just a few hundred people that's falling apart.
They're hundreds of miles from our border and all that.
That's all totally valid, but it's also not the right point.
The point has nothing to do with this caravan, because this caravan is not really a big deal when you look at the whole world, the whole country.
It's what happens next.
So we'll see what happens next.
I would say that the President has done a good job of making sure that what happens next turns into a non-issue.
Because he moved the military down there, he's making whatever changes he needs to.
He has threatened them sufficiently that apparently they've backed off.
He's also worked with Mexico to, you know, make accommodations within Mexico.
So I think the president has carved away on the caravan in all the right ways, psychologically, legally, militarily, security-wise, to make it a non-issue, which also Pretty much guarantees that there won't be another string of caravans coming through as long as there's a President Trump.
Because whatever happened this time is going to inform them what the next one looks like.
So it's not a coincidence the caravan left the news because once the election is over, it actually is less important.
And it also has been largely dealt with.
So it did shrink from big and scary to nothing.
Nothing we should worry about at the moment.
But it does have to be dealt with.
I love watching CNN when they label Fox News a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration.
So the CNN framing of their competitor, their mortal enemy, Fox News, Is that Fox News is just in the pocket of Trump and the Trump administration.
Now, if you watch the news, you would know that clearly Fox News is a pro-Trump, pro-conservative editorial slant, and CNN consistently is sort of a Clinton-Democrat kind of a slant.
So, as either of them accuse the other, they're both largely right.
But I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again.
There does seem to me a difference in how Fox labels its opinion versus its news.
When you're watching, you know, Shepard Smith, for example, if you're watching him, it looks like news.
And he does not seem to be in the pocket of Trump.
If you watch, why am I blanking on his name, Neil Cavuto, He sometimes loves what Trump is doing.
Sometimes he doesn't.
And that feels fair.
You don't really see that on CNN, right?
You don't see anybody on CNN who's an on-air personality, who sometimes agrees with the president and sometimes doesn't on a fairly regular basis.
Brad Bear is another one.
He's hard news, seems to stick to the facts.
It does not look like opinion when he presents it.
But then you take Hannity.
Hannity is just clearly an opinion show, and he labels it as clearly as you would ever want it labeled.
He says it as clearly as you want him to say it as often as he wants to say it, and he tells you that he's personal friends with the president.
So when I watch Hannity, like, I can put that in the right context.
But here's where it gets dicey.
When I'm watching, let's say, Anderson Cooper's show, Anderson Cooper is most well known for being a hard news guy most of his career.
He was the guy in the hurricane, the disaster, the war zone, you know, and when he was reporting, you weren't giving opinion.
He was telling you, there's a flood here, this is happening.
I mean, he did the hard work of real journalism.
But at the moment, His current job is sort of this weird hybrid where he's sort of the serious moderator and the pundits are doing the job of the opinion.
And because it's him, I think our minds give it more weight as being news.
Because when you see Anderson Cooper, you say, well, that's a news guy.
And then you hear one of his pundits say, and the president's obviously a white supremacist or whatever they say on CNN, and you won't see anybody disagree with it.
So don't you process it as though you heard news when in fact it was opinion?
I think that's a difference, but I'd be open to a counter-argument on that.
So the only point is that Fox News seems to label its opinion more clearly than CNN, and I don't know if any of that's intentional.
It just could be the way things roll down.
Now you're wondering, will Trump Fire Mueller now that he's got Whitaker in place.
And here's my take on that.
My take is that the president doesn't make decisions until it's time to make the decision.
But he does walk right up to the line so that when it's the perfect time, he can make the decision.
So if you're asking yourself, has the president already decided to fire Mueller or not, my best guess, and again, we can't read his mind right, but my best guess is that he has not made that decision.
But he has quite intentionally walked right up to the line and put a toe over it.
So that you know it's in the air, it's possible.
Here's what's happening because of that.
Number one, we're in a period where people are sure he's going to fire, or at least the opponents, you know, his opponents are sure he's going to fire Mueller, and so they're protesting, etc.
At the same time, he's not firing Mueller.
So all of the protests are, hey, you can't fire Mueller, you can't fire Mueller.
While the reality is, Mueller's still in his job.
So there's a strange situation where the president has created a situation in which his opponents are punching themselves out.
They're exhausting themselves on something that is completely imaginary right now.
Which is not to say it couldn't happen.
There's a very good chance it will happen.
But at the moment, they're flaming out, punching themselves silly on something that they are imagining might happen.
What will happen if he lets them do this for a while?
Let's say they go to maximum protest, maximum excitement, maximum emotional whatever.
They're gonna get used to it.
Here's the great persuasion level that's a little bit invisible, unless you study this stuff.
As I say often, you can get used to anything.
Humans get used to their situation very quickly.
And so anything that's terrible and even anything that's amazing, if you're exposed to it too much and too consistently, you just get sort of blind to it.
Its emotional value just starts trending down.
So Trump has created this situation where he's not done anything wrong.
He has not fired Mueller.
At the same time, his enemies are going nuts, using up all their energy against the thing that hasn't happened.
Should he decide in the future to make it happen, all of their outrage will have been siphoned off.
Oh yeah, they'll still make a big deal about it.
I'm not saying they won't make a big, big deal about it, but the level of intensity is It's going to be totally lower because people just got used to it and bored by it.
And are we still talking about Mueller?
Mueller was so last week.
We already protested Mueller.
Don't tell me I have to protest Mueller again.
So the president is creating this brilliant situation of advantage without making the decision.
And my guess is he has not made that decision.
That he's just ready to make it, should he need to.
Now, here are some other points on the molar thing.
I believe there is zero chance Zero chance that we will never hear what Mueller has found out about the president, specifically.
I want to say that very clearly.
I think there's zero chance, under any scenario, that we won't find out any bad news about the president that came out of the Mueller investigation.
And the reason is that there are always leaks.
There are leaks. There will be legal things.
There will be documents left in printers.
There will be assistance who flip.
There isn't the slightest chance, the slightest chance, that the public will be denied whatever it is that Mueller found.
Do you know who would leak it?
Well, somebody close to Mueller, if not Mueller himself, if it mattered.
Imagine if it mattered.
Imagine if Mueller had the goods.
Imagine if Mueller had something that was like really good stuff.
First of all, we probably would know it by now because leaks, right?
Or people would have seen the signs of it.
You would have seen lawyers lawyering up in places you didn't expect and that would give you a tip off.
That sort of thing. So although Mueller has been excellent in preventing leaks, and I've got to say, you have to compliment the guy, whatever Mueller's group is doing to not have leaks is really impressive.
It's very impressive.
So you can't take that away from him.
But my guess is this, that there is a real issue about how many of the small trails Mueller takes before he wraps it up.
You know, is he bleeding out into fields that he shouldn't be, such as the president's taxes, or other people who weren't involved with the campaign, that sort of thing.
So I think that's a real question.
And here's how I suggest fixing it.
Are you ready for this? I don't believe in goals, I believe in systems.
So what would be a system that would make the people on the left happy while also ending the Mueller investigation on a timely basis?
And it would look like this.
If one of the issues is budget and the critics of the president are saying, no, you put Whitaker in that acting AG job because he's already said in articles before he was in this job, he said that maybe Mueller's budget should be shrunk to constrain him.
And so people are worried, oh no, it's a backdoor way to control Mueller by his budget.
So I would suggest the following.
Appoint a budget judge.
A budget judge, an actual judge, a sitting judge, who is the only person outside of Mueller's team who is allowed to look at what Mueller's doing.
And the budget judge would never talk, could not tell the president what he finds, can't tell Whitaker what he finds, but he can get into all the details and say, okay, Mueller, what do you have?
And Mueller says, okay, we've got this and this and this, and that part's done.
But we need this much more budget to look into these extra things.
And then the budget judge says, I judge that you should have more budget or half a budget or you should wrap it up, just budget wise.
Just budget-wise.
We'll get rid of all the people who say, I'm blocking all the people who say it's boring.
Ch-ch-ch-ch There we go. I'll block all the people who say that.
And I know you don't mean well, people who are telling me the topic is boring, but I'm blocking you anyway.
Because I don't need that kind of energy here.
So, a budget judge.
Because then the budget judge will be accountable for it later because later everybody will know what the situation was eventually.
We'll all know what the situation was and they'll be accountable.
Let's talk about some other systems.
I'm going to think outside the box now.
I'm thinking outside the box on guns.
You know that we've had, obviously, huge gun problems.
In this country and it doesn't seem like we're ever going to get to the point where we ban all the guns and nobody's ever going to be happy with allowing guns the way they are.
So we have two situations that can't last.
We can't have the current situation go on and it's hard to change anything because of the gun people.
So here's my out of the box suggestion for solving the gun problem.
Are you ready? Make it mandatory if you own a gun Mandatory membership in the NRA. It takes a while to think about why that makes sense, but let me tell you.
What's the first thing that the NRA is concerned about?
They're concerned that there would be some kind of a national registry of who owns guns.
But do you know who already has a national registry of who owns guns?
The NRA. The NRA has a list of its membership.
Pretty much 100% of those people own guns.
There might be somebody who gave away their gun and still wants to be a member.
But for the most part, the NRA does have a national registry of who owns guns and who cares about guns.
Now on top of that, The NRA is the most proactive organization for gun safety, as many of you were saying in the comments, right?
They're the most proactive on gun safety.
And here's the best part.
They also have the most interest in reducing gun violence.
Who but the NRA has that much interest in reducing gun violence?
Because it's their entire reason for being.
You and I have other things to worry about.
Gun violence is just one of the big things we're worried about.
But we have lots of other things to worry about.
The NRA has one thing to worry about.
Keeping guns safely.
It's the safely part that they need to figure out.
So what if you just take government out of the job and say, look, here's the deal.
If you want a gun, at the same time you have to sign up for the NRA. Because the NRA is going to be trying to educate you.
They're going to be trying to figure out more about their members.
They might even come up with, wait for it, the NRA might come up with its own gun control measures.
Why? Because as soon as you take the government out of it, and you say, okay, it's a private organization, we all get to vote within this organization, let's decide how we want to handle guns, but the government's not part of it.
The government won't be part of that.
So the NRA could collectively say, okay, now that the government is out of the decision-making, we're not worried about this slippery slope anymore because we're making our own decisions.
Gun owners are making the decisions.
Nobody else. Gun owners are making the decisions for gun owners, not the government.
Now, suddenly you're flexible.
Because you're saying, there's no slippery slope.
The gun owners are not going to screw themselves.
The government might screw us, but the gun owners are not going to screw themselves.
So if the gun owners say, let's have this kind of a check, let's have this kind of a requirement, let's try this somewhere, it's going to be a lot more palatable.
Now, you also don't want people to have to pay dues to the NRA, so you might have to have some kind of dual membership level.
If you're at a higher level of membership, maybe you get some more benefits.
But you at least need to be on the mailing list and at least need to be part of the organization.
Alright, now this is an out of the box idea and so I do not present it as a suggestion.
It's not a suggestion. It's just an out of the box idea.
Because when you first hear it, didn't you have the experience of, why is that a good idea?
Is that a good idea or is that a bad idea?
And then it starts to settle in with you that when you've taken the responsibility away from the government, which is where all the constitutional questions are, and you put it in private hands and you empower them and you make it their brand, make it their brand to take care of this kind of stuff, these shootings, maybe you have something.
Here's another idea. I have a hypothesis which could be tested.
Suppose you had an app or some kind of a social media add-on idea in which anybody could report any other citizen that they believe is a gun risk.
So here's the idea.
An app that anybody can report anyone they think is a gun risk.
Now, if you report your personal enemy and there's only one of you and it's just one report, well, the app just lets it sit there and it doesn't do anything because you don't want people to report people they don't like.
But suppose your app shows that the mother reported the son, the friend and the girlfriend have all used the app to report him, and it's all confidential.
Then it starts beeping.
And then the government starts asking questions.
Holy shoot!
We've got three people who are confidential.
So the girlfriend can say, I didn't report you.
The mother can say, I don't know what you're talking about.
They just use their app.
And then it starts gathering other information.
Maybe once somebody has risen up the line, then maybe law enforcement or other people start seeing their social media posts.
And then you're looking at their social media posts.
You see that they've got somebody saying that's a terrible idea.
I'm open to why it's a terrible idea.
By the way, there's plenty of room for reasons.
You don't have much room in your comments, but just make a reference to the category of reasons.
False negatives.
There would be false negatives, but they would be rare because you'd need multiple people from different positions coming in and reporting to somebody.
And it would not automatically mean that you lose your guns.
So it wouldn't mean that.
It would just mean that you've been flagged.
So you're way off on your last three ideas.
If you don't like those ideas, listen to this one.
It's about healthcare.
I'm trying to understand, and there might be a reason for this by the way, but I'm trying to understand why there can't be two separate healthcare tracks in this country.
One that's a single payer type of situation, but only the people who sign up for it.
And if they sign up for it, they're also the only ones who can ever be taxed to pay for it, now or in the future.
And then the separate one that is completely private, sort of like the current systems, but you can never get the benefits of being in the other one.
So you can switch sides anytime you want, and then things would be adjusted or prorated, whatever.
But they would be competing plans.
The country is so big that half of the country would account for bigger than a regular country.
So Why are we arguing about which way it should be?
Isn't that argument what dumb people do?
If you can test it, why don't you just do it?
What would stop people from volunteering to be in the system that was also competing against the...
Somebody's calling me a socialist.
Is it a socialist system to have two competing systems That are both public and you can freely go between them.
Is that what socialism looks like to you?
Because that looks like pretty much not socialism to me.
Some of you are saying yes, yes, yes.
I know a lot of my followers here have sort of a reflexive feeling about socialism.
But if socialism is optional...
I don't know if that makes it socialism.
If you personally never have to pay for somebody else's choice, is that really socialism?
That's a weird definition of it.
You're saying Antifa would flag all their enemies if there was an app that could point out crazy gun people.
I think there would actually be very little of that.
But here's the thing.
Those of you who are saying that my app idea is terrible, You're not thinking right.
Independent of whether the idea is terrible.
Because it could be tested.
Anything that can be tested small should be tested.
There's very little risk if you build this app and, let's say, bad people use it and report all the wrong people and it causes some problems.
Well, you just cancel it like a month into it.
It's like, well, we tried it for a month.
Antifa used it to make a bunch of false claims.
Can't tell what's real, what it was, isn't.
So we'll stop using it.
That's it. If you have a problem this big, you should be trying a whole bunch of stuff, seeing what you learn from it, what works, what doesn't.
It could be that building the app simply teaches you about something else that does work, and then you pivot to that.
But those of you who are saying that it's a terrible idea and therefore should not be tried, don't understand how anything works.
Everything that works big got tried small.
So if you're not trying stuff small, you're not really part of the reasoned debate on anything.
Yeah, there could be penalties for abuses.
We could figure it out as we go.
But doing nothing would certainly not make sense.
Now, if you were...
So, do you notice here that for each of my ideas, there seem to be people who hate them?
The people who are yelling socialism about any of these ideas are probably the least credible people in the conversation.
Because if all you're doing is labeling it with the first word that comes to mind, you're not really engaging in the idea.
You're just saying socialism, socialism.
That's more like Tourette's syndrome.
If every idea for how to reorganize or organize better the society we live in, if your first response to all of it is socialism, socialism, Then you're not really part of the serious discussion.
You go and try first, LOL. On what?
That's a ridiculous comment.
Now let's talk about some other cool things happening in healthcare.
I bought yesterday at my local CVS a device to take my temperature by pointing at my forehead.
Have you heard of this?
So I've got it downstairs, but it's about this size.
It's a little device, $40 or something, and instead of sticking it up your bud or putting it in your mouth or sticking it in your ear where you've got all these sanitary problems, You just hold it like an inch away from your head, push a button, and it tells you your body temperature without even touching you.
I was trying it out last night.
I think it works. I think it works.
You know, at least they gave me a body temperature that seemed reasonable.
And then I also saw there's commercials all over the place for a little device you clip to your phone and it can give you a FDA quality EKG. Yeah, EKG. So you can test your heart with your phone, just putting your thumbs on a little device that sticks into your phone.
The stuff that's coming It's really, really big.
We're very close.
A lot of you don't know this background, but after 9-11, when there was a lot of fear of poisons from terrorists, the government tasked industry, and the government labs especially, to come up with a way to test Blood very quickly in the field to find out what kind of poison the terrorists had used.
So we went from a place 15 years ago, whatever, where we couldn't easily test anybody's blood to shrinking it down to handheld devices.
We now have handheld devices that can test just with a little prick of blood All kinds of stuff.
And I believe you could probably stick them in your phone and get an answer pretty quickly.
So we're right on the verge of being able to do your own blood test, your own EKG, test your temperature.
I have a small investment in a company that will test your skin cancer with basically something like a piece of tape.
So instead of having to carve out the suspicious mole and send it to a lab and two weeks later you hear about it, it's literally a piece of tape.
You put it on your suspicious thing, you rip off the piece of tape, you put it in the machine, and it tells you if you've got skin cancer.
You're right there. Now that machine was desktop.
It was sort of like this big.
But I believe the active part of it probably can shrink and shrink to the point where you're sticking it in your phone.
Pretty close. So we're going to be so close.
And I also think that there are apparently big cost.
I've read articles where people are getting the cost of, say, I think it's a CAT scan or a PET scan.
A CAT scan, I think.
That if you organize differently, you do some things differently, if some laws change, the cost of a CAT scan will come way down to a fraction of what it is.
So if you start combining all of these little bits of technology that are coming online from all these disparate sources, we're very close to being able to piece together Almost a self-healthcare situation.
We'll be adding doctors to my app, the interface by WenHub app.
I'll give you more of an announcement of that at some point.
But we'll be onboarding some doctors so that you could Call up, you know, use the app, and for a low price, you can get a doctor immediately.
You just pick one that's online at the moment, go boop, boop, boop, boop, and you have a video call with a doctor.
Now the doctor says, well, maybe you should test this or that.
And you use your devices on your phone, or maybe your neighbor has a device, you don't have one, but you go borrow your neighbors.
And suddenly, you've got the best advice in the world.
You've got Google to check things.
You can get a second opinion also on the app.
You can test your blood, test your skin.
And you can sign up for a CAT scan that's 10% of the cost.
So it seems like we're very close to where we could get something like 80% of our healthcare needs taken care of somewhat locally outside of any kind of a healthcare system.
Then you need something like a catastrophic coverage just for hospitals and such.
And I'm sure that there are many healthcare costs which could come down in that.
I noticed that the government is also talking about lowering pharmaceutical costs.
How do you lower pharmaceutical costs?
I don't know what the idea is for that.
Are we just telling the pharmaceutical companies to lower their cost?
How does that work? Well, I hope it works.
But it seems to me that our pharmaceutical companies should be giving us great deals in the United States and overcharging other countries to pay for it.
I don't know if that's an option, but I'd like to see it.
Doctor will say you need to make an appointment.
The telemedicine doctors don't say that because they don't make appointments.
So obviously there are cases where you do have to have somebody go in to be checked out in person, but the telemedicine model is not built that way.
The telemedicine model is trying to fix things on the phone whenever that's practical.
I also wonder about the cost of insurance.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever heard of the phrase self-insured?
It refers to big companies.
They're so big they don't need insurance for a building, for example, because even if the building blows up, the company itself is so large that it can afford to pay for a new building.
So self-insured means that you're such a big entity that any part of you can fall apart and you still got plenty of money to fix it yourself.
You don't have to pay an insurance company for that.
It seems to me that the government has that going for them.
If the only thing you did with healthcare was remove the profit from the insurance companies and say the government will pay for whatever you need because the government is essentially the insurance company too.
But there's no profit in insurance from the government.
They simply print more money or raise your taxes or whatever they need to do if they need more money.
But there's no Insurance industry profit.
If the only thing you did to health care is say, okay, this half of the country doesn't need insurance because the government will act as though they are the insurer even though there's no insurance involved.
Wouldn't that take down the cost of health care of 30%?
Am I wrong? How much is the insurance cost on top of the actual service?
It's a lot, right? Is 30% high or low?
I don't even know. But I would guess that there are lots of gains that could be made.
Anyway. I'm just looking at your comments right now.
That is universal healthcare.
Yes, I just described a single-payer system.
But what I'm asking is why doesn't the single-payer system automatically take 30% off the costs?
Because it gets rid of insurance.
Somebody's saying 50%.
More than 30% people are saying.
Somebody's saying 70%, I'm not going to buy that.
The government is not competent to execute.
I wonder if the government even needs to be very involved.
If you had a single-payer system, How much does the government actually get involved except for writing the checks?
And they'd need some kind of auditing to make sure they weren't getting screwed.
But if you had the single-payer system running parallel with a private system, wouldn't you always know who's getting screwed?
If you had those two systems, they could both look at each other and say, wait a minute.
Why are these single-payer people paying less than we're paying over in this free market?
And then suddenly things would adjust.
Alright. Brian Danes.
There's your shoutout. Anyway, I want to frame everything I said in terms of ideas today as just out-of-the-box thinking.
I'm not presenting them as good ideas.
There may be perfectly good reasons why nothing I said is a good idea.
But I don't know those reasons.
If somebody does, let me know.
▲
Export Selection