- Topics:
- The only valid comparison to President Trump, is President Hillary
- Would her border solution have been as good or better?
- What would her solution have looked like?
- 80/20 Rule applies to our future border security solution
- Improve the worst 20% and get 80% improvement
- Dems are fighting the President, not a secure border
- Everybody wants better border security
- Lots of historical video shows Dems agree with the need
- Dems just don’t want the credit to go to the President
- Everybody wants better border security
- President Trump’s border security strategy
- He’s put ALL his political capital on the line for this
- Result will be a substantial improvement
- Even critics will agree solution is even better than his promise
- Never underestimate Dems ability to shoot themselves in the foot
- How do we improve healthcare, without it costing everyone a fortune?
- Lowering healthcare cost is the key
- Diff Rules, regulations, startups potential can lower costs
- If Government makes a big push for better healthcare, lower costs
- Objective: Universal Healthcare for all…without increased cost
- If everybody’s healthcare was tracked, would help all
- Giving up your privacy, isn’t necessarily a bad thing
- Gays used to be in the closet, was that a good thing? NO
- Staying quiet and privacy was a problem for acceptance
- They “gave away” their privacy by coming out of the closet
- Coming out…benefitted their community immensely
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here.
Find my WhenHub Interface app here.
The post Episode 393 Scott Adams: Democrats Once Again Winning the Game No One Was Playing appeared first on Dilbert Blog.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Sunday version of coffee was got Adams on, and this is my coffee. You probably have something like this, too, might be a different
but I'll bet you're the copper mugger advisers, time, probably a jealous, maybe a furnace. But it's time now to join me.
for the simultaneous, raise your mug, your lashes earners and join me. So
upholding furred different news in our new news, something
something we have already talked about. The fears that that's not doesn't happen. So, let's talk more about
governance, reopening and border security
Though I heard Rick Santorum say something unseen hand with Anderson Cooper. That was it's one of those things that makes you feel bad because you didn't already think of it. So I tweeted heads
suddenly, we have already seen it, but the singular. How bad you are that you didn't think of saying what wreck Santorum said: here's what he said! He said there that, if your blaming Trump for keeping the gun,
closed? You care, also blame him and say he's doing the wrong thing by opening or to put it in his words. If.
If not doing what Nancy Pelosi wanted was wrong and then
Does the reverse? It gives Nancy policy what she wants, which is opening the government. They can't both be wrong and I watched if he watched the cliff is great because
Thurston Powers and Maggie Hebron and were soon began to choppers there sitting here, listening to that, a new thinking.
that sort of a point I dont know how to argue against it
be wrong if you're, not
doing a thing, and then, when you do the thing that you're still wrong both ways if it really exposes.
what's going on, which is that there is some gonna horse racing going has nothing to do with the good of the country and Sarah. So I thought that was kind of brought here. Use everything I'm thinking about the what people are saying is killing the president's carrier. He's caving he's giving in thinking if you are playing a chess game and you sacrificed a pawn.
Would the people watching the chess game say he gave them? He gave he caved in? We celebrate celebrate, or with these
play. Chess say:
You probably want to wait till the game is over, because that chest with that point was not very important.
So do you remember when the president was Kennedy Tromp was running for president and when he was running for president, he said. If you let me I will close the government and not pay a hundred thousand people. Remember when the president promised us sea would do that now it. Nobody promised that,
what he promised a law? So if you re, a government has not exactly a big thing.
Is closer, was never a promise open,
there was never a promise nother. They sing
terribly close to the thing that people
women and let them which was better border security here. Here's the other thing, there's another cognitive blind spot here.
That in a way is all areas, and I think it's a blind spot, but it could be just the other side trying to be persuasive, acting like they can see the obvious, but here's the setup.
The trump supporters say they want a wall.
They want a wall, but it's also true correct me. If this is disagree but
Hasn't present tromp said from the beginning, the
it's not one long continued continuous wall, but that there will be real smart choices based on where you put large
occurs, etc and that it would be a variety of solutions. Is it not true that President Trump has been saying that from the beginning now here's the emphasised it for persuasion purposes, he'll just called the wall,
one is pressed consistently and every time he ll say.
Metal Wall one hundred percent of the way. So that's always been true and I'm pretty sure that his base has at least you know in the past year, or so has certainly heard it. That way, they've heard that it was never meant to be a continuous, solid, concrete wall
Promised better border security in the form of a wall and he doesn't get that, but what he gets is an expert panel.
Who says for the amount of money that we can catch whatever? It is five billion or somewhere in that in that range? Where does that turns out to be the best way to secure the border? If Stalin?
this five billion dollars the following way, some of its more scanning. Maybe you do something without judges, because everybody agrees. Fewer kids in cages and a better system would be good for everybody. They may say, and they might
that's what the experts are going deliver, assuming that there really exports is the most cost effective way
give voters what they wanted when they said. We want a wall so how hard, as it were, Trump to sell the following the following proposition:
this base. I promised you all.
We got a lot of money and the experts said we can give you some
better than a wall for this
five billion will build something
Far more far more suited for the terrain, far more focused, far better
list of the money cuz. You don't want to be building a wall and places that no wall is needed. How hard will it be for trump to sell to his base a better solution, a better solution on a dangerously better solution than what he promised
so the Democrats have decided that guarantee the victorious lame now because they forced the president into accepting
a better engineering solution for what he wanted. That looks like we're. We're headed it looks like
and this will be some money allocated, though, probably be some other comprehensive elements of immigration that might be handled it
I will say, but no moon really care about that much. So it seems
the inevitable direction of this, as the experts will say
You wanted a wall, here's something a little bit better and the Democrats who say how are you, how is he possibly going to explain to his base there? He spent the money better than he promised. I got more effective solution because
Listen to the experts that really problem. That's the problem here.
That's kind of the problem I want for the phrase somebody just said: smart Wall as the president used the phrase more lives as something somebody also say, because a kind of works mechanical.
Smartwall is sort of what we're going to get and I don't think that's a terrible explanation of it now. Here's the next point that I made in a tweet and I made yesterday President Trump- has never been competing against Nancy Pelosi. That's not the that's! Not the comparison that makes sense he's trying to work with her and she's, not she's, not
which is different from competing with her. You know if I use this example yesterday. If I hire a plumber and the plumber doesn't fix my leak, you would not say that the plumber competed with me in one.
You say that you say I heard a guy. You didn't do his job. The president does a higher rank one speaker, the house he's trying to get her to do her job in a way that he wants and she's not she's, not coming through.
does well with it does not do the job so and then I said provocatively that the real, the real comparison that you have to make here is when voters said we choose trunk over Clinton and the election, a big reason they did that
Does that terms version the border security and immigration was the one they like compared to the Hillary Clinton version.
Does everybody believes that if Hillary Clinton was president, we would get as much of whatever is gonna commanded us as much immigration spending and as much of an emphasis on it? Does everybody believed that, because you would have to believe that Hillary Clinton would have done as well or better than president from getting border security of southern form, some kind of smart wall or any other kind of improvement summits is wrong. The good argument wrong. So a number of people came to me
said her had how ridiculous you can compare apply. I'm, like president chums plan to an imaginary president. You cannot compare him to an imaginary present, no ceo somebody said until this morning. No ceo is compared to an imaginary seo, who doesn't have the job to which I say. Yes, they are every time every.
Oil, is compared all the time to the senior you have in your mind the one that the one this the other one and the moment
I feel that you have is, in your opinion, less good than the ceo that could have had the job the imaginary
One you fire the ceo every time the ceo is always competing against the imaginary seo not competing against. The ceo is not competing against the secretary not competing against the
The people in quality assurance the seal is only competing against your imagination.
one. Another seal would do in the same situation as it.
if I give you a proposal for an investment and salmon, the big companies
say where's vendor million dollars, and we want to do it this way. The first thing you boy says: if your boss is qualified, is what's the second best thing we could do for this lesson. In the same vein, the two to solve the problem, and then he said the second best thing. The second best thing is imaginary, does is the one you're not
The bill and the proposal that you may it is also imaginary when you, when you are considering proposals, you're always filtering to imaginary propositions, is the only way stuck
people are telling me. I kept compare imaginary things to which I say: no, that's the only thing you can do because we're talking about the future. The future hasn't happened if you're comparing plans for
future there always imaginary. That's it. There's no exception to that. There's no such thing as a real plan. That's happened in the future. That's what's the future. So when people say to me no, no, you can't compare resin trump to the imaginary situation where Hillary Clinton became floated present. I say if you like,
how to compare things. Let's say you took economics say you have an mba lotta people of engineering degrees will confirm that this is true. It's the only comparison that makes sense.
president dropped now to what you would have gotten is important for the other candidate
this comparison, that smart, relevant and coherent and somebody says a moving the goalposts. Here's why that stuff.
As I was saying, is moving the goalposts because that you say you comparing into an imaginary person. I have always said this, so you can compare what.
I'm saying to what people who were not me have said at different times who had different gold books, you can compare my consistent goalpost there from day. One has always been comparing a present to the imaginary.
something had certain public. It is literally written in my book that I just handed in in the first draft. It has always been my preferred way. Somebody says goalposts move yet again. Try to listen
Try to focus a little bit harder, on my words, my goalpost, as has never moved. It has always been the only smart comparison. This to the president, you didn't get if this presidency.
More security than what you think you out from the other one. That's the only.
post. I've ever had. So if your complaint,
someone who is not me have a different opinion:
you're, not really only logical conversation here.
because I'm not really responsible for the opinions of strangers. I will acknowledge the strangers had different goalposts than mine, which have always been the same video. So when you see when you hear me say something like this,
Same critics, Cunningham and they're just so mad, but they don't have reasons, do if you're cute
moving the goalposts you're on very thin, very thin ice, because what you're trying to do is compare my goal posts and have always been saying to some stranger and not responsible for somebody else's goalposts. Why would I be
Now would it have been fun if President Trump had prevailed and Nancy? It said my god. I can keep this government closed one more day, the pressures to hard. I give you your budget and hears you all.
That would have been cool and unambiguously, I would have said under the situation. I guess he did a good job of negotiating their, but president trumpet never promised us an open, Reclose government. President John never said, if you will let me I will defeat Nancy Policy in a immaterial contest. It was never my goalposts, it was fun to watch and I would have enjoyed it if it go in a different way, but the way went gets us to this current situation here. Support that the pundits can the anti trumpets, especially ah somebody's, going this bs spin, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry for the people, who think
This is spin, if, if you think you spend you're going to have to answer to, why is it that all economist and NBA's would compare things the same way I? Why is it that my goal post that never changed? In fact, it's the only it's written that talk about a long time, and you would also have to explain why I've been saying since.
maybe some of you, have a better idea. How long I've been saying how long about I've been saying that the only way this would end up with the engineers, you could say the experts, but the experts, the engineers are the same.
Group. Essentially, how long have I been say that this is world and up
because I'm the one who predicted it
Far as I know, the first
Person in the world to say that this is done
well, some expert group does its heels.
they d get another. The political argument castor moving over to them, the technocrats engineers don't make budgets yes in all caps, so somebody says engineers, Domini budgets and finally, that's a good question. So, finally, I gotta criticism. That's a good question now is my answer to this working group is going to be a combination of experts that border security engineers who know what things cost and was the best way to do things, and then political people who will be the primary ones were negotiating the budget. The experts will give them a range of a range of options. If you spend this much, this is what I'll get you. If you can spend this much. I get this. If you spend this much, I get your this. So ever said engineers to come up with a budget, you actually write the engineers come up with with a cost and then the political people, they're gonna, have to decide how much less costly commit to if they commit to this much. They didn't get this much wall if they commit to this much. We get this much wrong, but in every case it's the engineers and the experts who will tell you what's the matter
noble way to spend that much money. So yes, you rightly the budget decisions. Political decision and people keep your eye on me, but the engineers can't do it alone. You have to have experienced border patrol people and of course, that's true.
The correct people to have in the room or engineers border security experts, the people actually do the job of border security and the politicians are gonna, make some budget. This is
those are the ones who should abandon the room all along, and it was obvious that we would eventually get here
Only personal told you. This is where we would end up.
So if you tell me, I'm moving the goalposts these that Michael,
Both are alone going to not now take responsibility for anybody else's without what's about was wall is permanent, so some people are saying that the wall is better.
All is permanent verses and the other thing you do. That's not a wall would be not permanent. Have you heard of a gate? There's no such thing as a permanent wall. There's no such thing as a permanent wall is the next administration wants. People do not be stopped.
The wall. Do they signal set itself, my god, we built a wall, but one
really wanted people to get through it. I can't
imagine any way to fix this
He opened the door, maybe stop trying to stop them when they climb up
maybe let them leave the latter against both sides.
A wall doesn't stop anybody unless the human beings wanted to its, not the physical wall, the stops. Anybody is the physical wall plus the humans who want the world work. If the human said where we built of all, but
really wanted to work. The wooden does the same day that the government said we have
The wall, but we really don't care about working the the immigrants would come up with
oaks and ladders thrown over the wall, and they would just leave those rocks and letters, there
The only thing that stops people from going over Wall is ready.
Some way to get over it, the isn't immediately taken down by humans. If the humans want people to get over the Wall Sunday in the future, they just won't take down the latter's. They just won't, remove the ropes made
lock. The doors is easy to let people through a wall, so perhaps some users walls were you're you're such a different conversation. It, of course, was work in terms of creating fiction. Of course they do, but they only work if the people who built the wall are doing the human part of making all work, the shortest at the walls do not work and citizens can overcome the stake moves letters I suppose, as citizens could do that, but inevitably, as the government stops enforcing border security, it's not gonna help you that a walser they just want people just go somewhere. There's no one for securities debt issue, nothing's gonna change. Well, let me ask you this. If we get, maybe somebody can check check me on this. The reason trump is asking for five point: seven billion in the budget and the reason is being resisted. Correct me. If I'm wrong
is that it is not the normal maintenance level of just the ordinary improvements to the wall. Am I wrong that the five point seven billion is is by everybody's understanding? More than would have happened if the baseline budget had just continued and they had some young ordinary maintenance in there. That probably isn't the budget.
So what we re Clinton had said, oh
More than just baseline maintenance of authority in the budget, let's at another five point- seven billion wakes up problems and when we're talking about the two hundred miles of new security, how important is that on a two thousand mile border only two hundred miles well here? So I would look to the eighty twenty rule to answer this. First of all, half of the border probably couldn't but of all the runway preserved mountains. There's water hazards see really talk about a thousand miles, so you talking about two hundred miles that you're improving and of a thousand miles of that thousand miles. We should assume that much of it is already secure, loosely parcel with emotion.
I would imagine that the two hundred miles that need extra help are the most critical on the border because, whilst where they put it there, unless those are the critical places, so probably there's an eighty twenty rule going on that, if they, if they do a good job and a twenty percent of the border, this problem that the biggest problem we'll get about. Eighty percent of the benefit, so does it make sense to spend twenty percent to get an eighty percent benefit yeah, of course, or signals on talk about the Starbucks guy yeah,
I forget his name Schulz, our jobs seo founder of Starbucks is reportedly concerning third party rotten and if he did, people think you're sokolov votes from the Democrats and pleasant lose again, and I thought that I don't see it happening. It's our shields, not Charles! Ah, I don't see it happening because I don't see a world in which Schulz can be so popular for creating Starbucks. It's a pretty popular thing to be the central Starbucks. I don't see him going from the popular founder of storybooks to the guy who got Trump reelected. Do you think he was to do that? I just don't see it happening now. I suppose it falls into the category of anything can happen. Now. If I were him, I would make the following calculation.
The calculation go like this tromp. You can hold trumped up thirty percent of the vote you can hold. Maybe we Democrats to thirty percent about and he can still in so I think the only way he would give them is a third party is if he thought he could eat split both parties. So if he did some boy you he said I can take, I can take. It definitely have the Republicans that I can actually degradable size and have a plurality if he thinks that that's that would be to me it seems highly unrealistic. I will say whose end
The aim is Andrew, be the founder of the island is Mcafee. Campaigning, yes,
By independent Ruth database Ginsburg, because if she isn't healthy enough to go on that risk of vessels focus everybody's attention on the Supreme Court, let me that when we ask of us so at the end of this three weeks or in my opinion,
I get extended again, so I don't think the three weeks is gonna hold. I think it'll get extended at the end of it is anybody, thinks we'll have worse border security than before we started here's. What voters are going to look at when they look at Trump? Tell me which part of this is unlikely k, which part of this is unlikely.
Twenty two twenty? Were you gonna marry for the vote? They re election and the president's present supporter of the following things to be true,
Number one thing: that's true as others, this president promised them tight border security in the form of a wall. That's true
It is true, as the gambled all of his political capital, together down when he said,
again, while we watched this president, who other people say is obsessed with popularity, just check that assumption right. This present, who is critic say, is obsessed with being
Been popular gambled, his entire legacy and his re election on this one promise. True
pulse the present gambled everything right in front of us and intentionally to deliver this one thing now: do you think they his? Do? You think that his base hasn't noticed the risk that he took to deliver this succeed or fail
It looks to me obvious the he gambled at all. He didn't leave everything on the table. He gamble that all now in terms of effort, could he asked for more than that? Well, of course, you want him to succeed right. You liked him to get. Everything may be thought he should.
Something a little bit differently but understood on one dimension of: did he put his skin and again did he gamble his entire legacy, his personal fortune, in the sense, in all his reputation?
his brand did he gamble and all to give his base the thing he promised me answered. Yes, he gambled at all, because that's why the Democrats,
Play so so hard not really fighting it because of the issue
Democrats as, as has been well reported, Democrats light border security too.
Maybe in a different way, but they're not fundamentally, philosophically opposed the border security. There very opposed to the personality, the president and his success.
so the President gambled it all right in front of you
Put it on line now.
No matter what you think about the wall, a border security- I just don't think you can argue that point.
He put it all on the line he gambled everything he had built its entire life to deliver this one promise. I says the first thing I think I think he can sell that. Does it's just unambiguously truly gambled at all
A year old might be the wrong word, I would say he may be gambled, but he.
people in his skin in the game, and he put everything at risk- yeah your wrist at all, right, better better. Where is risk, he risked it all to deliver the promised how many politicians have done that when was the last time you saw a politician who said maybe not explicitly for sale. I made this promise during
the campaign and I'm just gonna gamble at all. On this thing, maybe Obama Obamacare, possibly less good, good analogy.
I saw it, wouldn't I would not deny that abundant in the same thing with Burma CARE, but maybe not is not as dangerous another's vigorous, thus offers here's the. Secondly, at the end of this process, will peoples will
reasonable people say even the critics will reasonable people say at whatever the under this problem. Does this process that the president improved border security in a cost effective way? Probably
I don't see any scenario where he doesn't get substantially more money.
Something in the low billions and that they do something that the experts endorse. That is actually more efficient and a better use of money. Then the wall,
so here, the three things people are gonna now here he risked all for the voters. Level reform rested on
every everything he cares about. According to his clinics, he put on the line for this one promise. It was that important.
two, he will get more than Hillary Clinton would have done and three the specific form of what he gets will be by even his critics opinion a better solution, a very useful
let me, then, what you promised so he's gonna put on the line. He's gonna have something looks like substantial improvement border security.
And he will be able to reasonably argue that even his critics agree, he delivered a better solution than you promised, which that is wrong, which part of that is not true. Of course. The assumption here is that they wouldn't have this working group on Leslie unless they plan to,
something that wasn't going to happen anyway. Right and may not be five point. Seven. It may be more money for scanning that it is for walls, but if the experts say that's how to spend the money is Trump going to go to his base and say well, the experts said we should do it this way and that would give us the most bang for the buck. Reducing
I am reducing immigration, so I decided to agree with the experts. This is basically say. No. I wanted a wall because I'm so dumb I could not accept a superior solution when it's offered the the big assumption, the biggest something that the critics are making.
Is that true supporters are so dumb? They will not accept a superior solution. Do you think? That's true. Do you think the drums supporters are so dumb
that when the experts say a wall will get you something, but it's very expensive and these other solutions, this bag of solutions, including better scanning and some other things, is actually a better use of the body. Is it
This can say no, we are experts at walls. We we're so smart,
We're smarter than the experts on border security, and we should,
We should build a wall instead. Will they somebody says yes, while the edge courses in some well, some percentage of his supporters will actually be that dumb, but I'll think most of em. I dont think most of them will be that damn simplify. Now now could President trunk
sell his base. If he s was a year to work on before the next election. If he has over a year to work on, can he convinced
that is more or less better than them all, and can he convincing or.
their security than there would have been an can. Listen, listen to the experts.
and putting money where it makes. Most difference was smarter than this by building a big dumb. All I think that's the easiest sale everybody made is the easiest sale. Anybody can ever make.
What about the state of the union still union? I guess it's just a wait and see soberly.
Sanders is apparently going to run for president. He doesn't have a chance, but you know what thing I tweeted I think yesterday is. You can never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot
when we're trying to when we try to imagine. What's it look like when it comes to the election day, the strong versus whoever the democratic candidate is
aren't you imagining that the Democrats, just sorta, don't make any big mistakes they just pick their best person is that person doesn't make any gigantic mistakes and then they go into the election and then, but your imagination to President Trump is that there will be all these Neil weaknesses that they'll rub against what happened. What happened this week when President Trump and showed respect for closing respect for the house and actually agreed with them to open the government, get back to negotiating and do what reasonable people wanted him to do his work,
pretty hard. It looks like it looks to me that the president has changed his approach for the election. Let me put it this way when he was running for election.
Being outrageous wasn't advantage when we say that again, when he was first running for election, had
Everyone present the more outrageous he was sort of an advantage because he got all the attention sucked all the attention away from competitors etc.
now, he will have done the president for a full term by election. It's a different gave and it's a different persuasion set of variables as president. His best play is to be less outrageous and to be more standard. So so they say he gave you coming late. So when somebody says our president negotiated with blowsy and then
decided that the humane thing to do would be to open the government. Do you say to yourself my god that, while ban, he agreed with the speaker of the house- and he opened the government because its humane and most smart people thought it was about time to do it? Who is gonna, say that's a problem. The most dangerous thing that Trump could do between now and election day is the abnormal the most dangerous thing you do. It's just that normal two year due to ratchet down his DEFCON ten level of flavour fight instinct that people have been for last several years. Just dial Adele is the strongest play, because the biggest complained about tromp, as is a big old, crazy, unpredictable impulsive, mad man. If he gives us if he gives us eighteen months of not be crazy, impulsive mad man looks to be a dictator. If you just doesn't be that person afraid two months, it's gonna be tough for Democrats to have something to run on, because what are they gonna run up credit just healthcare and the healthcare problem is that nobody knows how to do it. There is no there's no way to make the money the money work. Now, if I were running for president, and especially if I already has a Republican, but I think I would do the same if I read as independent way.
As a Democrat, if I ran for president, I would probably run as a Democrat which you're going to hate, but I probably would, and only because it's easier to win and I would say the following about health care. I think that in our modern world we should make it a goal.
though we don't know how to achieve this important part. We don't know how to achieve it, and we can't get there just by raising taxes, but we should make it a goal to get as close as we can to a hundred percent healthcare coverage for all citizens. Now I think that the way to get there is through the regulation changes more competition, start up, Seward, lowering the cost of things, etc. There a whole bunch of devices. Now you can connect your smartphone to do everything from a kgb to blood tests to you can to each test your oxygen, your blood, you re, cagey, whole bunch of stuff, so the cost of doctoring is gonna, be potentially dropping fast in the government
part of encouraging that without actually creating a department rising, but just putting attention attention where attention helps in the capitalist system to capitalist system. Some, in my view, the most
forward. Looking thing to do is to say the sort of removing shot. We don't know how to get there, but it should be our goal as adjust just humane society to take care of each other.
at least it where it comes to health care? Now you don't want to go socialist because we know that doesn't work and it turns you into Venezuela right.
So there's nobody here who says it's probably nobody on this periscope was a full socialism.
Like that is the only way you could get to universal Healthcare is just by raising taxes to you
two trillion dollars more or whatever it is that
it doesnt work. So it's not my suggestion that we do it away the doesnt work.
russian as we figure out a way to make it work and nobody's figure that out. But I dont believe that is on doable. Let me just say: I think it's doable. I think we can get there by being smart and it might take a while, but it should be issued, be Crystal clear
goal whether your republic is independently by else that you would like, without paying, for it
went without it coming out of your pocket. You should want your fellow citizens to have good healthcare, and I think you do right. You just don't want to pay for it. So how could we get there without you paying for it, and maybe even here's the good part? Maybe even your cost would go down to cuz if you can figure out if the government can figure out how to get.
Low cost healthcare to people who can afford it that almost certainly go lower your costs as well, because what it
Where does the lower costs for poor people will probably lower class for rich people as well? For example, if somebody events a gazillion dollars, if somebody figures out how to make one for a fraction of that that helps,
poor people, but it also helps people who were paying for health health insurance so that the best way to help the poor or the low income get Healthcare is to make it cheaper for everybody. No, you want that. You should want that. It could be that capitalism will get us there, but I think the government these be far more far more part of the process without creating a new bureaucracy. Part of the process, by putting a light on it, doesnt plus the government must focus on things
Guess is probably what we're getting their insurance companies yeah, there's, probably a lot one can do by changing regulations and rules and getting rid of artificial constraints and ass for them. Now I think I told you that I was in favour of the York City. Apparently New York City, whose their beloved, the plaza is
wants to have universal healthcare within the city here, and you know that govern usin was have universal health care in California. That's probably a much bigger ask, but I'm totally in favour of somebody. Try weathers New York City, that's probably good choice, actually weathers New York City or some other smaller city. I'd like to see somebody try it. Let me give you some anecdotes to tell you what what it looks like to drive down. Healthcare costs have been involved in all give details, but I've been involved lately with situations in which the biggest part of the healthcare problem for a person was to figure out what the heck is going wrong. So the biggest problem that may take years in both these cases and took years for somebody to find out what the real problem is, what is the real thing is causing the problem I ve been having for years, and this seems to me that if we got
of people tracking their healthcare data, as well as their lifestyle choices that you would be all the spot. Oh I have this problem and all the people who drink great fruit juice, wall jogging ten miles day have the same stomach problem. So you can find out whether a ridiculous example, but if you have enough data about people just their lifestyle choices and there,
comes here, you'll be able to eventually mine that data and find out wait a minute. There are all these people have exactly the same problem I do.
When you look for what we have in common, we just found, we also have to say this: this blood
Blood tests comes out a certain way plus were plus wars on age. Other obvious, a certain number of maybe genes right so were approaching the point where information should lower our healthcare costs.
Substantially I mean, maybe if I had to put a number of better information
Probably lower health poor choice, he healthcare choices by forty percent. That doesn't seem like too much think think. How often you take meds that turned out not to be there
once you just get rid of that, because you have a better idea. What are the right ones? I suppose you don't you go to the doctor ten times to figure out what you could have gotten on one try if you had better data, so probably something like forty percent of all. Our healthcare costs are involved in information and that information is definitely going to
So I do think. Ok, let me let me give you. Let me give you an example of a government effort that good lower healthcare costs. Potentially suppose the government made a big push on the
probation side and it might be working with you in his arm and Berkshire Hathaway and and.
This whenever they call it now, so maybe working with one of these big companies that is good with data and and figuring out how to get enough people tracking their data spoke. Garments of us are, let us both ass. I suppose the government said it is going to be a government planned to get the universe, a healthcare, but without raising any based taxes, but we're gonna we're gonna. Do everything clever we can together. We just don't know how but the it. But it's like a moon shot we're going to.
We're just not going to read your texts. I suppose the government said all right. We could probably lower everybody's health care cost if more of you were tracking your lifestyle and health outcomes. If you get enough people voluntarily doing it, you will all have their outcomes. If the government said that just had luck here, the ways you can track it, you know it's not us, it's, not a government tracking and the government. Actually,
I didn't have anything to do with the spanish government said we all want to get here. Here's one way you can really help how many Americans would immediately glove Fit bet.
Guess I'm going to have diarrhea get an app and start tracking their healthcare outcomes. If the government said it's an important like it's a patriotic thing to do, and we should all be working in this direction- and this is something that you can do right away just track all year,
A lot of people do it, you don't need everybody who do it. Somebody says big brother, no big brother would be mandatory. What I'm suggesting is that the government says with love and if more of you would volunteer, but it's not me,
If you do volunteer, will get enough data that we can have a better better health and comes at a low cost. Only health conscious people would do it. I think you could get enough of everybody like a poor people have
yeah and if it is its optional, poor people don't have of debts and poor people don't have to be monetary. Anything somebody says is not mandatory until becomes mandatory. Would there be true for everything? Are you afraid of anything this optional because it might become mandatory and if it did become mandatory, would you really hated about the tracking apps, offering the option to share it with the government? I don't even know if it's the governments want to share with you, I suppose better who has it the government can get to it, so they get the government can get anybody's database. It doesn't matter,
Government, as I guess they can get to it, twenty three be tried in the governments. Stop them you! I I did the twenty three me. If you haven't done, this is really fast. It did the twenty three be test and they continue to send the updates, because their learning more about what it means down mice,
every once in awhile southern, nothing at all. We also found that you do or do not have a propensity for this is that health problem
and they're actually updating gas we go, even though I only did one test. So to me it seems the twenty three me is already helping. My own comes through information cuz. It's telling me what I do have to worry about what I don't based on my genetic propensities and the Good NEWS, for example, is I do not have a propensity for Alzheimer's, that's good to know. I keep my dna private. I don't know that. I need to do that.
Of authors tease you that there is a chapter in my upcoming book about privacy in I think we may get it wrong. I'm privacy quite often low, but let me give you a quick argument years ago before a gay rights, gay people were in the closet, dishonesty, so if he were gay had to keep it to yourself.
does it be too dangerous? Was that a good environment for being gay? Israel has no was the worst, because you do that to you.
your true identity. Hidden and if it came out, you know you could lose your job. People discriminate. It was the worst thing in the world. So if you look at the experience of scary rides, privacy was their problem right. Privacy was all of their problems. How did they solve for the most part? How does it? How did the gay activists solve their biggest problem of getting equal rights? They gave away their privacy voluntarily. So the first
back to investigate now and said. I don't care what you say: gay amount queer, I'm proud whenever they said come.
Out of the closet, giving up their privacy solved their biggest problems right now. You watching the same thing happen with the the transition
community can happening right in front of you and you, a repeat of this Trans genders, who probably use to you. Maybe try them out of the right word is, but maybe not make a big deal of the fact that they change from
one thing to another thing in it and I want to. I don't want to accidentally use the wrong language cuz. I know there are a million minefields, hear about saying it in an insulting way, so I want to avoid being insulting, but it seems to me that the transgender community is following the the gay rights,
path. I saw the other day a transgender person who is on the news and was essentially out of the closet,
Look like my guess is born is a man and was in some part of that.
Some part of the becoming a woman efficiently. I guess again. I apologise if I usually the wrong language here,
I am genuinely empathetic to anybody whose outside the dead average,
society whatever. That is anybody
average? For any reason, weather is transit, gender gay any other recently of differently abled. Anyway, I have empathy for all that. It's no fun to be off the dead average near the boring average is just no fondant. Can you can cause you trouble
so I have sympathy for that. But I was a transgender are giving up their privacy as well, and it will have a good outcome. There are probably as many situations in which giving up your privacy helps you as wrong. Giving up your privacy hurts you. The worst situation is when some people have privacy and others doubt that's your dangerous situation in this wise misleading. If only a few people have privacy and other people, don't that's real problem because the people don't have privacy are gonna, be disadvantage, but if, if everybody that group would say, gay people just usually set an example if they all or most doesn't have to be, everyone would have most of them, give up their privacy. Ok, I'm gag on gay, that's a good situation.
I personally give out all my passwords to strangers. Yeah. I don't think you can compare giving out your passwords to, but you know what actually I'm going to argue with you. Somebody said you don't want to give out your password
Well, you know why giving out your passwords problem, giving out your passwords is a problem because other people doubt is everybody gave up all their passwords. You wouldn't be passwords that your first reaction to that's what it's crazy. If I gave up my password, somebody would go get
Go get my money, but if you gave up all your privacy, you would know who got your money, everybody we now, so they could do it
because you go over their house and say all you took my money, give it back or I'll kill you or the law will come and get you. So I'm not suggesting this, but let me just tell Angie or something in your assumption is it would be a mistake
give up your password. I would say I agree as long as we live in a world where everybody else is not giving up their password hypothetically and we would never get to this world was just so. It's just a mental expiry.
If everyone gave up all their passwords and anybody could check anybody's bank account, anybody can see who took want and put it where nobody could steal from
Because you would know they stole from you write the reason that people don't commit crimes in a crowd in a lesser, crazy or mad or something, but nobody commits a crime
watch a witnesses independent of whether the law is there, because the citizens would take her
but let me say you go into a crowd of people and the EAST are beating somebody up for no reason: it's not gonna work. The crowd will pull your work, so a complete giving up on privacy would make all of
the passwords unnecessary anybody who tried to troll you anybody you're trying to pretend to be you you'd know because they would give up their privacy do so. The sort of an interesting test of your assumptions about privacy,
and always go back to this test. If you're, the only one who gives up your privacy- that's probably terrible, but if everybody gave up their privacy, you might not have a problem all right. That's all for today and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Transcript generated on 2020-10-21.