 Thank you. I suppose this isn't a practical snare, but I thought this topic of health care regulation and snivels was interesting, and you wrote up recently the expectation that diseases will be treated, this is my question for Dr. Grover, obviously, that diseases will be treated not for emergency rooms or even doctor's office as a cost for health care, for example, as making hospitals less state because of the snivels, because of bacteria and viruses. That the regulations might lead people by way of an expectation that health care will pay and treat anything that this might be a hidden cost. Is that what you're saying? Is that a reasonable one? I'll just say it quickly, just to clarify. All I said was, because emergency rooms are free, right, they have to treat you no matter what you... If you go in the evening to an emergency room, you're right, they don't take a day off of work, they all go in the evening. And I mean to emergency room with real issues in the evening. And what you get is long, long lines of people because they're not feeling well. Not because they have a life-threatening disease, but because they're not feeling well. They use it as their primary care physician. And that cost has to be borne by somebody. He says it's borne by those people who pay insurance. And that's the, that's the right of problem that you get in the health care markets as they were before Obamacare. And it's still long because so many people still are uninsured. But that's just the important clarification. I think it's essential. Do you want to take another question? If you're concerned with that kind of stuff, you go to Western Europe. The US has a very peculiar system because we provide health insurance only for the elderly. And that comes from social security. That's the only country in the world. So it's for the elderly. So that doesn't happen if you go to Europe you will see health in most Western European countries on the basis of being a citizen. Like Astoria said about public care. So once you have that and there is a mandate of the state of doing that, the costs are lower too. And they do treat everybody in hospitals. And it's cheaper. And they do have better health outcomes. So should we debate this? Since we brought it up. So we might as well end with this. Yeah, I disagree. I come from a socialist medicine country. My father was a doctor in a socialist medicine country. A country that has more doctors per capita than any country in the world because it's a Jewish country. And if you're really sick, if you're really sick, my father would advise you to get on a plane and get to the Mayo Clinic if you can afford it. In spite of all of that. If you look at survivability rates. If you look at catastrophic stuff. If you look at the number of people who in the NHS in England die waiting for an MRI. Die waiting to be diagnosed. Yes, we pay more for health care in the United States. Cool. I paid more for health care because I got treated and I got examined. And I was told, I once had this weird thing going on. And I was told, there's no problem, you're okay. There was worth the money to be known that. If I'd been in Israel, I would have waited three weeks. And if I had something, I would be dead. So, and as I said, the fact that we still have private health care in the United States subsidizes the health care for the rest of the world. So no, health care outcomes here are much better. If you look at the numbers. So let's look at the numbers, right? If you're a Swede in the United States, you live as long as a Sweden, Sweden, or maybe longer. Look at the data. If you're a Japanese in the United States, Japanese live longer than 80 people on the planet. If you're Japanese in America, you live as long or longer than a Japanese in Japan. When you control for the fact that we are so diverse and that there are enormous genetic factors that determine longevity, then the differences in life expectancy disappear in the United States. And that's true of a lot of things when you go piss Scandinavia to America. If you look at Scandinavians in America versus Scandinavians in Scandinavia, they're just as happy if not happier. They're wealthier than the Scandinavian brothers. Come on, man. That's true. Yeah, sure. It's true. If you get Scandinavians that arrive in the 19th century, that are white and blonde, and are part of the wealthy part. Yeah, sure. They're done very well. They don't have the best health care kids. It doesn't matter if it's private or not. And then you're putting together African-Americans that we impose 400 years of slavery, and according to you, it's all tough luck. And then you have, obviously, they push down some of the health outcomes, and you're telling me, oh, you have to screw them. No, that's exactly what I'm saying. And that's the important thing for them. But let me say this, because I think we should definitely understand this. This is an important point because you said, who cares? Who cares about inequality? It's all about these three problems, poverty at the bottom, cronism on top, and growth. And again, you pay lip service to the solving the problems at the bottom, because your solution means those black guys that have, say, higher rates of diabetes. Screw them. They should. It's their problem. It's their responsibility, even though part of the reason why they're there is because they are poor, because we're pressed up over years, because we have issues associated to obesity, and all of those things that come with low income. So the notion, if you're not going to pay lip service to that, yes. The way to think about, and the other thing, you think of medicine as being just curative. You don't think of the role that preventive medicine is a good part of our problems. We let the problems accumulate. Whereas a good chunk of what happens in Western Europe is that we have preventive medicine. And so most of the problems are caught early on. And so you don't need the expensive care. So if you wouldn't be there, because you wouldn't need the three things, weeks in advance, hopefully, because you would have some other thing going on that would help, and it wouldn't lead to these sort of stuff. So the notion that we have better outcomes is very hard to defend. It's post-factual, I would say. No, it's empirically true. And I'll say, I don't give lip service to the poor. I care about poor kids. I care about poor kids that are priced out of the labor market by minimum wages. I care about poor kids that are priced out of jobs because of licensing laws. I care about poor kids that don't have a job because we've limited growth in jobs that are not being created in this country. The way to solve the problem of poverty is by more freedom and more jobs, not by more regulations and more controls and more redistribution. We'll stop it there.