All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:14
Episode 395 Scott Adams: Creepy Kamala, Healthcare, Manchin’s Brilliance, Climate Change
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I hope you're getting your morning exercise, or possibly just your cup of coffee, or possibly you just come here to find out what the future looks like.
And here you are.
Grab your beverage. Put it in a mug, a cup, a glass.
I don't care if it's a stein, a thermos, or a chalice.
Put your favorite beverage in there.
I like coffee. And join me for the simultaneous sip.
It's now! Speaking of coffee, do you know what Howard Schultz's biggest political advantage is?
Can anybody guess? What is Howard Schultz, who was the founder of Starbucks, considering running for president as an independent, what is his biggest advantage?
The answer is coffee.
Now, I will be the only person to tell you this.
But I think you know it's true, partly because you watch these periscopes and you have noticed that I have intentionally used the association with coffee, which people like, to make them think, ah, coffee.
Coffee was Scott Adams.
I like coffee. Maybe I like him too.
So there's a crossover effect.
Our Our impressions of one thing can bleed over to anything that's associated, and the positive association can be transferred.
I do that intentionally, and you know it.
I tell you that, so it's not a secret.
And it still works.
A lot of people tell me how addicted they are to coffee with Scott Adams, and a lot of that is just the coffee and the association.
It's not so much what I'm doing.
It makes it positive.
So, Howard Schultz has this enormous, enormous persuasion advantage.
Because when you think of him, you think of coffee.
And do you know what coffee does to you?
Makes you feel good.
It's a really big advantage.
Now, is it enough?
Is it enough of an advantage that he could win the presidency?
I don't think so.
I think the teams are too said in their ways.
People just don't like to change teams.
And as others who are smarter have pointed out, there really are no such thing as independence.
There are only people who say they're independents but then always vote the same way.
So there's no real such thing as some group of unserved people who really wish somebody else would run in the middle.
It's not a thing. But if you haven't seen my tweet of the heckler, Who called out to Howard Schultz at an event recently.
You have to play it somewhere where nobody is listening, because there's a bad word in there.
But it's the funniest heckler.
It's the best heckling you've ever seen.
All right. Let's talk about Kamala Harris.
Have you noticed that she has a creepy laugh Has anybody noticed that?
I saw two people independently, without seeing each other's comment, respond to her demeanor as creepy.
One comment was that her laugh was creepy, and then another one just something about her demeanor was creepy.
Here's one of the things that I've tried to teach you about assigning nicknames.
People have been trying to come up with clever nicknames for her, you know, as if they're inventing their own kill shots.
Here's the trick that everybody gets wrong.
People are trying to use something about the name to make it sound clever with the name, like Cold Kamala or something about her, you know, thing with Willie Brown.
None of those are effective.
And the reason they're not effective is that they're just sort of surface-y comparisons that sound interesting with their name.
There's nothing that connects.
It's just sort of surface-y.
So what you want to look for is something that people already believe about the candidate.
I'm going to have to say that twice because it's so important.
You have to start with what people are already feeling.
If you don't start with that, it doesn't matter what the nickname is.
So the reason that Crooked Hillary worked is because you already had that feeling.
That there was something there.
You didn't know what it was.
She hasn't been prosecuted for anything.
But it felt like there was something crooked there.
And people felt that.
So when that nickname was assigned, it fit.
Same with low-energy Jeb.
As soon as you heard low-energy, you thought to yourself, he does look low-energy.
It just fit the person.
So it felt...
Oh, shit.
I'm going to have to change my...
Here we go.
Power source.
So having seen now two independent people refer to her as creepy without being prompted, and having it match my own sense, when I watch her laugh, she's not a comfortable laugher.
Have you noticed that?
Her laugh is just sort of out of sync a little bit, like it's a nervous or a creepy laugh.
I don't know exactly. But by coincidence, creepy works well with Kamala.
So creepy Kamala, should that catch on, and I don't know that it will, would be a lot stronger than the ones that are just sort of rimey.
So somebody was saying Cruella DeVille or Kamala DeVille.
That doesn't work.
And the reason that the Cruella stuff doesn't work is that she's out there selling health care for all and helping the poor.
And it is compatible with her brand as a Democrat.
So the Cruella doesn't really strike me as what I feel about her when I see her.
When I hear her talk, she's talking about helping people.
You can disagree with the mechanism to help people, but that's what she's talking about, and I don't think she doesn't want to help people.
In her inner soul, do you think that she's saying, I don't really want to help the poor.
I'm just going to say that to get elected.
Well, I mean, they're all politicians, so they're going to say more than they might believe.
But basically, anybody who runs for president wants to help people.
I don't think we get any candidates who just absolutely don't care about people.
That's not really a thing.
So I think that was a dead end.
Creepy feels unfair.
It's not supposed to feel fair, is it?
Is fairness an objective?
Not really. Now, let me tell you what else doesn't work.
I'm seeing a lot of people on social media say that the implication is that talking about her dating of Willie Brown, a notable politician from California, Who has admitted that he helped her get positions and helped her career.
People are saying that that's going to work against her.
I just don't see it.
I just don't see it working against her even a little bit.
And here's why.
It's 2019.
Nobody cares about that stuff.
And the main charge that Willie Brown helped her career, he admits.
And I imagine she would admit it too.
So there's nothing hidden. And as long as there's nothing hidden, and it's 2019, and you've got a President Trump who's maybe not your role model for family interaction, I just don't see that it matters.
It's weak. And it just bothers me when I see it, because I think you're wasting your energy on that attack.
Just let that go. And by the way, I've been consistent All the way from Kennedy, through Bill Clinton, through Donald Trump, and now through Kamala Harris.
I'm just not going to say any of that stuff that they do in their personal life is my business, and it's not important.
We're not really hiring role models, right?
We didn't do it for this president, and we're not going to do it for the next one.
You may have seen that Morning Joe has, at least Joe, anyway, has endorsed Kamala Harris.
And you know that Rachel Maddow has also threw her weight behind Kamala, and now CNN did a town hall with her to put her at the top of the pack.
So the two main entities that matter in terms of assigning us our opinions are On the left are MSNBC and CNN, and they have clearly chosen Kamala.
Now, the reason that they would choose her is they think she's the strongest, most credible candidate.
And I think that's probably true.
It's the same thing I said.
And she's peaking too early?
No, I don't think so. I think she's clearing out the field.
I think she's playing, she's doing sort of a Donald Trump, which is she's trying to absorb all the energy early, And just starve everybody else of energy, and she's doing it really well.
Somebody's saying, did she date Willie Brown or have an affair?
Here's my answer to that.
Did Kamala Harris date Willie Brown or have an affair?
Still doesn't matter.
I don't care what word you put on it.
You can't make me care.
You can't make the country care.
Willie Brown called it dating.
Good enough for me. I don't care.
And I don't think you should care either.
But you're welcome to care.
Whatever you like.
Now, Kamala said in her town hall with CNN a few things notable.
Number one, she said she wanted some kind of universal health care.
Have you noticed people are saying he was married?
Well, Well, I guess I can't leave this point.
Willie Brown was married.
It is also reported as recently as this week that Willie Brown was known for showing up at events, public events, with his wife and his girlfriend.
So Willie Brown was known publicly for showing up at public events At the same time, with his wife on the left and his mistress or girlfriend on the right, and everybody knew it.
So whatever Willie Brown's situation was with his wife, you're making a lot of assumptions to assume that there was a problem here, because I don't think there was.
I don't think that Willie Brown had a problem.
I don't think his wife Had a problem with any particular thing he did.
It seems that they had something worked out.
So if you're assuming that there was a problem, it was number one, mostly willies to deal with.
And again, I don't care.
Let's talk about universal health care.
My point about the universal health care is that now you've heard it so many times.
You've heard it from Bernie and AOC and lots of other Democrats.
You've heard it from Now, Kamala, correct me if I'm wrong.
Hasn't the idea of universal healthcare moved from nutty idea that only Bernie could have, because it's so impractical and we'll never be able to pay for it, to something closer to inevitable?
Am I wrong? Now, I'm talking about the persuasion and the way we think about it.
So I'm talking about a normal evolution of what starts out as being crazy talk and then just becomes normal.
Remember when President Trump announced it was crazy talk that there could be a President Trump?
Just crazy. Absolutely crazy that he could ever become president.
And then it became normal over time.
It feels to me that the idea of universal health care, somebody says you're losing me, stop thinking that I'm telling you my opinion on universal health care.
I'm talking about the public and how the public is responding to it.
Try to stay with me, all right?
You guys, some of you, are so locked into your teams that even mentioning the topic makes you go, I'm out!
I'm out! I can't listen to this anymore!
I can't listen! I'm out!
Just listen to the point, alright?
Here's the point. I believe the public has been softened up To the point where the thought of universal healthcare has really just boiled down to can we afford it in some way?
And the answer is no at this point.
But I think it has gone from fringe to something closer to mainstream.
So that's important.
Because if you're worrying about it coming, I think it's inevitable.
I think that the public...
It's sort of evolving to, we've got to get there one way or another.
Now, to reiterate, my personal view is that I think you can't have a great country without health care for everybody.
That's my view. I also have no idea how we could possibly get there by raising taxes, because there's just not enough money to make it happen.
I do think We should make it a national objective to figure out how to get there and to figure out how to do it without just raising taxes.
And I think we could get there through innovation.
I think we could get there through changing regulations and rules, maybe change the laws, maybe make things more competitive, maybe focus more on innovation, maybe try some things.
But the goal would be to get a more competitive situation in which the market can do its thing and lower the price.
If you lower the price enough, then maybe you can start talking about more people having it.
So if you get two things right, the economy is just screaming, which it is now, Unemployment is very low, which it is now, so that helps a lot of people get healthcare right there.
And then you've got to focus on bringing that cost down, at least for the things where that's possible.
I'll talk more about that at some point, but there's just all kinds of stuff happening where the startups are targeting the high-margin parts of healthcare.
So within healthcare, there are things which are hugely profitable, and a lot of startups are looking at those things and say, well, I'm going to take a piece out of that by making the MRI that's cheaper, the EKG that's cheaper, etc.
So we should see something along those lines.
I'd like to see the Republicans package their healthcare products.
I won't call it a proposal, but a preference.
You know, package it better and sell it better as competition needs to get us there, not taxes.
I'm going to give a shout-out to President Obama.
So, ex-President Obama did something that was one of the smartest things you'll ever see, and I called it out when it happened, and I've called it in a few times, but I'd like to remind you of it.
President Obama said in public, so this is not me reading his mind, he said this directly, that Obamacare was a bad plan, but it would, I'm paraphrasing, but he said it would essentially get the country a little bit pregnant on spreading health care, and once that happened, there would be no turning back.
So in other words, President Obama said directly that Obamacare is a bad plan.
He said that.
He said it's a bad plan.
But, it almost certainly will get the country moving in a direction where they have to fix it.
And they'll fix it while covering more people.
Because you just can't go backwards.
It's one of those things where no politician can say, I have a plan to give people fewer, less health care.
You know, it's just political suicide.
So, Here's the shout-out.
From a strategy and persuasion perspective, it was a brilliant play.
He called his shot, and then he hit it.
Because we're in it right now, right?
Obama called.
He called the fence he was going to hit this whole run over.
He hit it over, and everybody called him a failure.
Because the thing he said was a bad plan, and would fall, It was a bad plan, and it's, of course, under attack all the time, but the national conversation is exactly where he told us he was going to put it, which is we're all talking about this topic.
So he moved the national consciousness, he did it intentionally, he told us he was doing it, and then he did it right in front of our eyes.
You know, you can hate his policies, You can hate anything else about him.
I'm not going to defend his presidency or anything like that.
But on that one point of political, strategic, persuasive talent, he nailed it.
You can't take that away from him.
Another thing that Kamala talked about on her town hall, I didn't see it all, but apparently she repeated the Conspiracy theory hoax that the president said at the Charlottesville tragedy that the neo-Nazis were fine people.
Now, she said a lot of other things, and it was not Jake Tapper's job to fact-check her in real time, but it's very disappointing that he let her say that, which is so demonstrably untrue.
Because when he said there are fine people on both sides, he was obviously talking about both sides of the statue question, of which there are fine people on both sides.
The news illegitimately created a conspiracy theory in which they claimed that the President of the United States had said that the neo-Nazis were fine people.
That didn't happen, and when he was asked to clarify, he made sure we knew.
In very clear language that he disavowed that group.
So Kamala has started off with a conspiracy theory that CNN is allowing to live.
And I have to say I'm disappointed in that because I just don't think that the country is served by letting that conspiracy theory Passes fact.
And when it's so easily debunked.
All right. Let's talk about Joe Manchin, Senator Joe Manchin, West Virginia, who I have dubbed the smartest senator in the country.
Why? Because two days ago on, I guess it was Meet the Press, he said...
What I think all the senators should be saying at this point.
Let's turn this border security question over to the experts and engineers.
Experts and engineers.
Those are the magic words.
And that makes Joe Manchin the smartest senator in the country, smartest politician in the country, because he went on television and said the words that can solve the problem.
Because until the politicians release on making engineering decisions, which is what they've both been trying to do, President Trump, of course, was trying to sell a political solution, And in so doing, he simplified to the point where he became the engineer.
He simplified it to the point where he was defining what a wall looks like and how much of it there is.
That's really engineering work.
As persuasion, it worked well up to a point.
But once you get down to getting in the room and trying to actually come up with a budget, trying to come up with a specific idea, which is what the working team is doing, you have to defer to the experts and the engineers.
Now, I also like somebody who's prompting me here in the comments.
I love the phrase, smart wall.
Because if you think about it, that's far better than my solution.
I had suggested long ago that instead of calling it a fence or a wall, you call it a wence, and then everybody wins.
But wence is like an ugly word and, you know, didn't really catch on.
But the two words, smart wall, that kind of gets you there, doesn't it?
Because who doesn't want a smart wall?
Well, it has a wall in there, so you could say, well, I got a wall.
It's a smart one. And who's going to say that an electronic defense mechanism isn't a smart wall?
Well, it kind of is.
So you want to give both sides the ability to say they got what they wanted when it seemed like they wanted different things, but they never really did.
Both sides always wanted a smart engineering solution to make the border...
More secure. Both sides want that.
And calling it a smart wall is a pretty good way to get there, because those words are, you know, they're good words.
Smart and wall are both good words.
They work well together. They're catchy.
I think it's a good solution.
So, Joe Manchin, smartest senator in the country right now.
All right. I wanted to give you an example of what I've been talking about for political topics in general, but I'm going to use climate change as my example.
Now, if you've been watching me for a while, you know that I've been doing kind of a deep dive on climate science versus the skeptics and trying to figure out who has the advantage here or to see if I can do something like my own research and get to the bottom of it.
Here's what I've discovered.
Now, my opinion on climate science is always subject to change, so I've sort of evolved.
Here's my bottom line based on everything I can learn about climate science.
Number one, both sides are dealing with BS. So, it was easy for you to take any side and say, oh, I'm a skeptic or I'm a believer, and then you'd say, to support my side, I'm going to point out all of the BS happening on the other side.
It turns out it's really easy, because both sides have a really big chunk of completely ridiculous claims.
Now, one of those sides is also right.
I don't know which one, but one of those sides has the right answer.
But both of them are, let's say, they're trying to market their views with things that are so transparently ridiculous that they do come off as hoaxes.
So climate science, the way it's marketed, now I'm not talking about the science, I'm talking about the way it's marketed to the public, Looks like a hoax to me.
It's just complete BS, and I'll talk about that specifically.
But the skeptics, who are trying to market, essentially, their view that none of this climate science is real, they're pretty, you know, they're pretty unconvincing most of the time.
Now again, there are lots of different skeptics, so I'm not saying that they're all equal in their But here's my take.
The science of climate science, if you count just the chemistry and the physics of it, feels like that could be pretty solid.
That's not a final answer, but if you were going to believe the consensus of scientists on the scientific stuff, the stuff that we've known since the 1800s, we know that CO2 can cause warming, etc., the basics of it, that's probably pretty solid.
I could change my mind someday, but so far that feels solid.
Here's what's not solid.
In order for the scientists to sell their vision of a dangerous warming world, they use these models.
The models, just the models, now I'm not talking about climate science in general, not talking about the science of it, I'm just talking about the models, are such transparently ridiculous that it makes the science look fake as well.
But probably, This is a preliminary opinion.
I could change this later.
Preliminarily, it's probably well-meaning scientists who, in general, have the right idea, but they don't know how to sell it to the public.
And so they thought, well, if we put it in these models and we show them what's going to happen, and then we calculate what's going to happen in 80 years, now we've got a marketing hat that's Unfortunately,
the marketing of it is so ridiculous and so unconvincing, and there have been predictions that were way off, etc., that it's not credible to the public, or at least to a big part of the public.
Likewise, there are many skeptics saying ridiculous things, such as, the climate scientists forgot to include the sun.
When you hear people say, I think all the scientists in the world who are studying the climate forgot to include the effects of the sun, that's not credible.
I don't really need to dig too deep to find out that that didn't happen.
But here's my point.
If you're trying to do your own research on this topic or any other complicated topic, here's the well that you're going to fall into.
You'll start at the top with a skeptical claim.
I'll use climate science again as my example, but this would apply to gun control and lots of other complicated topics.
You'll start with a claim that you understand.
Let's say the claim is, the ice is melting.
So therefore, the planet's getting warm.
And you say to yourself, I understand that.
I understand that if the Earth is getting warm, the ice would melt.
And then the scientists say, we're measuring the ice and it's melting.
I get that. That's a solid, persuasive argument.
And then you go to the skeptic.
And the skeptic says, no, they measured that all wrong.
They measured that wrong.
Measured that wrong. And here's why.
And then you read the skeptical argument and you go, That's pretty convincing.
Here's NASA's own information that says that there's more ice gaining than loss, and you say, gosh, I don't know what those scientists were saying.
And then you go back to the scientists and they say, no, the skeptics were looking in the wrong place.
And then you go back to the skeptics and they say, we weren't looking in the wrong place.
Here's my link. And you go back to the scientists and they say, yes, that's a link, but you left out this other link that shows.
And you keep going down the well from claim to skeptic to claim to skeptic.
And at every level, the last thing you read is persuasive until Here's the fun part.
Until you go down the well far enough that somebody says something you either can't check, because you just don't have the resources, or you don't understand.
And let me give you my best example.
So I was arguing on Twitter the other day, and I was going down the well, you know, from claim to skeptic to claim, and I want to read you Something that somebody who knows a lot more about this than I do said.
I won't even tell you who said it, because it doesn't matter if it's a skeptic or a scientist.
So after I got far enough down the well, and I think, okay, I'm finally getting somewhere.
Now I'm going to be able to make my own decisions based on my great research.
I'll really know what's going on.
And then I get this.
The puzzle in Ice Age Theory is how to get a powerful 100 kiloyear glaciation cycle when main orbital cycles are 41 kiloyars obliquity and 23 kiloyars precession with 100 kiloyars eccentricity cycle week.
The Abe Ushi idea, building on Peltier's 1980s, isn't problem.
You got that right?
Does that clear everything up?
You know, you were probably confused before, but now I've cleared everything up.
This is every debate on climate science.
It's also every debate on everything else complicated.
You always get to the point when you go down the well of claim, skeptic, claim, skeptic, claim, skeptic, you always get to this.
Something you could not possibly understand, Or something you can't check, such as somebody changed some data and you're like, well, did they?
How would I know? And the same thing happens, let's take gun control.
You start with a simple gun control claim.
This country doesn't have guns and they have low crime.
And you say to yourself, very convincing.
There's a country that has gun control and Very few people have guns and they have low crime.
Very convincing. And then the skeptic comes in and says, no, here's why they have low gun crimes.
It has nothing to do with gun control.
And then the claim goes back in and again you go down the well until somebody says something that you can't check or you don't understand.
Now what happens when you can't check and you don't understand?
You get out of the well At whatever level agreed with where you started.
In other words, confirmation bias.
So the illusion is that you're doing your own research until you're reaching a wise opinion that you have determined on your own through your good thinking and good research.
Nothing like that is happening.
Nothing like that is happening.
Instead, you're just ping-ponging back and forth between the arguments until there's something you don't understand, and then you go back up to the level you did understand.
You go, well, glaciers are melting.
I guess that's it. Here's a picture.
Look at that polar bear.
I understand that. I see a polar bear.
I know what a polar bear is.
Anyway, so you should release on your confidence That you have done your own research and you understand climate change.
Okay? Let me say who is the most wrong in the climate change argument.
If your argument is that climate change absolutely is not a problem and you're 100% sure of that, there's something wrong with your mind.
You haven't done a good job.
If you think it's probably not a problem, well, you might be thinking accurately, and you might be right.
Likewise, if you think it's definitely going to destroy the world, the climate, there's something wrong with you.
If you think it's a 100% chance that the climate scientists have got it right, and their predictions are right, and things are going to go in the worst position, if you think that's 100% true, There's something wrong with the way you think.
If you think it's probably true, well, you might be right.
And you might be a good thinker.
So the people who are doing a good job of thinking about it are thinking in terms of probably, or I'm leaning in this direction, you know, so far this is what I think, or maybe we can't be sure, but we should hedge.
Those are the people you want to listen to.
Anybody who says it's definitely not a problem, and it's all a hoax, every bit of it, they're not credible players.
Likewise, the people who say it's settled science, there's nothing else to say, and, here's the important part, and we can predict what will happen, and it's dire, you don't need to listen to them either.
The two extremes are not, they're just not credible.
The probability people are the ones you want to listen to.
Alright. What else is happening?
Anything else happening? Some of you just wanted to talk about guns now.
You just mentioned guns and everybody goes crazy.
Your best podcasts were about the economics of climate.
Yeah, there'll be more than that in my book, Loser Think.
Oh, Venezuela.
Venezuela's kind of interesting, isn't it?
Because on one hand, we don't want to go in and take over some other country.
It's the last thing we need.
On the other hand, we almost sort of can't.
Can't not. I mean, we almost have to have Direct involvement with Venezuela.
So I think that's going to happen.
It's going to be a question of whether we can make it look like we didn't go in too heavy-handedly.
Will I watch the State of the Union with you?
I think I might be traveling that day, so I don't know, but I might.
Senate postponed, borrows confirmation.
Boring. Carlos Hoyt, I don't know anything about that.
Oh, you want to hear something really interesting that will change the world?
Here's something that will change the world.
Periscope is working on a split-screen version.
In other words, I will be able to, as I understand it, very soon, Be able to do these Periscopes and have a guest.
So I'll be able to have a guest expert that I can interview on Periscope from a different location.
Now, if you think that I've been influential on anything up to this point, where do you see what I can do with a split screen?
Because then I can get the climate scientist or the climate skeptic on and ask some questions, and it's going to be fun.
You're going to learn some stuff.
Yeah, I've done it.
I've done the split.
I've done it with, like, another device, but the quality is low, so it's really a different situation.
All right. You may have noticed that If you're watching CNN last night, you saw that UnitedHealthcare, I guess their insurance healthcare company, they have a way that you can talk to your doctor with a video call.
But you have to be within their network to do that.
My startup, Interface by WenHub, that's the name of the app, Interface by WenHub, you can just search for that on the app stores, has a product, In which we'll be adding some doctors very soon.
I've got a big announcement about that coming up.
I'm just waiting for some details to get wrapped up.
But we will be providing you some, a variety of doctors who are licensed in individual states, and I'll make a big deal about that.
And this is part of what I was talking about, about technology lowering the cost of healthcare.
Because if you had the interface app, once we get our doctors loaded on there, we're doing that right now.
If you had that, and you wanted to talk to a doctor for a reasonable price for a single doctor visit, or even just a second opinion, you could do that without insurance.
You just pay as you go.
And then maybe you just get insurance for the big stuff.
And you're going to be in much better shape than if you didn't have healthcare.
Could the doctor be in India?
So the doctors that we're loading, that we're putting on there, will be licensed for individual states and multiple states in many cases.
So if the doctor is in India, that's going to be an issue between the doctor and you.
Whether or not you're happy with their certification.
We are a platform, so it will not be our job to vet any of the experts to answer your question.
So we wouldn't stop a doctor in India from giving advice somewhere else.
We're not going to stop it because we're like the phone company.
If somebody makes a phone call, it's not our business what they're talking about.
But But that's going to make a big difference.
Will it be covered by Obamacare?
Not that I know of.
So the idea is that you can get a doctor for a low cost, you know, a reasonable price anytime you want, and you don't have to be part of a network.
Yes, they can prescribe.
Yes, they can prescribe.
So the doctors we'll be bringing on will be able to prescribe.
And that's a big deal, right?
Yeah, they can write prescriptions.
How do we know they're doctors?
They will all be part of a network that vetted them.
So I'll give you more information on that when we're ready and we're almost ready.
So the group of doctors we're bringing on are part of an organization in which you can't be part of the organization unless you have the credentials.
When will this be up?
I'm still waiting for the final word, I hope, in the next few days.
We've done almost everything we need to do, just a couple things left, and as soon as those are done, I'll make a big deal about it.
No such thing as a reasonable price when it comes to healthcare.
Well, I guess it's directional.
You can certainly become more reasonable.
I'll give you the details of the names and everything else when we're ready to go.
I don't want to I don't want to aim too early.
When will we have AI doctors?
We kind of already have AI doctors, don't we?
How many of you have diagnosed correctly a problem by looking it up on Google?
Well, let me ask this question. This is good.
Some of you know I had a voice problem years ago, and I diagnosed it successfully using Google.
When I couldn't diagnose it with regular doctors.
I had to do a Google search or a Google alert that eventually kept up.
So look at all the people saying yes.
So you could argue that WebMD and Google searches are really sort of AI already.
It's not AI the way we usually think of it, but it certainly is organized intelligently and useful and many of us have become our own doctors.
Yeah, getting a prescription was the problem, and so that's one of the things that will be.
So imagine, if you will, you do your own research, you're pretty sure you have a diagnosis, but you just need a doctor to confirm it, and if it's right, to write a prescription.
Pull up your phone, bam, there's your doctor.
You got your prescription.
All right, that's enough for now, and I will talk to you all later.
▲
Export Selection