 Here's a health care story that unfortunately is far too common in America, so you don't hear much about this from the media at all. Notice how the left complains about the media too. I love that. Everybody complains about the media. Like the right thinks the media is just in the hands of the left and it's completely left propaganda machine. And the left like goes, oh, the media is completely corporate. They couldn't care less about Americans and they're completely on the right. Stories like this because to them, it's not even really a story. It's called Tuesday. This happened. We could go on one road. By the way, there's a reason this isn't a story. We'll get to that when he tells the story. In America that has 20 houses and probably three of those people have a story exactly like this. Three out of 10. But it's noteworthy. 30% of Americans have a story like this. Watch, watch this. I mean, that's the kind of stuff that he says and people go, yeah, yeah, three out of 10, 30% of Americans. Really. And this person who spoke up did something that's actually pretty courageous. So let me show you here. This is Lori, L-O-R-I. Her Twitter handle is at iCounterSpin and it says the following. I'm in tears. My husband is so sick. Our debt costs more than we make each month. And here's the best, cheapest plan available to me to keep my husband alive this coming year. There's no way I can afford this. No way. Now, there's a reason the media doesn't cover this because it's one story. And has the media covered lots and lots and lots and lots of stories about people losing their health care, people not having insurance, people suffering millions of stories? So what's he talking about? That they haven't covered one more? Another one that, what is this? If not just an appeal to emotion, right? We'll talk about the concrete, but a complete appeal to emotion. Yes, so husband's dying. I'm sorry, he's sick. And he's going to die if I can't get insurance. Really? Now, is that true in America today? Do people literally die if they can't get insurance? I mean, as far as I know, if you're so poor that you can't get this insurance, you're probably eligible for Medicaid. You go on Medicaid and get healthcare. Now, granted, Medicaid sucks. It's a government program. It really, really sucks. It's actually studies that show that people without insurance get better treatment than people with Medicaid. But if you want insurance, if you want somebody else to pay for it, Medicaid will do it, right? If you're poor enough that you can't afford insurance. Also, I don't know any hospital. Indeed, it's illegal for hospitals to turn patients away if their life is threatened. So why not take your husband to an emergency room? Why don't appeal to charity? I mean, there are a million different things you could do, lady, other than bitching and complaining about the cost of insurance. Now, we'll talk about why the cost of insurance is so high. Nobody, you know, God forbid Kyle should actually talk about that. But all right, I mean, it's sad that your husband is sick. Now, why are you in the position where you're buying insurance off of Obamacare? The need that you work, do you not get health insurance through your employer? Did you have health insurance through your employer? Now you've lost it? Well, why not question why you had health insurance to begin with through your employer and you didn't have health insurance yourself? Then you wouldn't have lost it when you lost your job. Maybe you lost your job because you're sick. But in any case, if you own the health insurance policy, instead of your employer owning the health insurance policy, you would have still had it. So why aren't these the kind of questions that people want to consider? Why aren't these the kind of questions that people think about? Why is the question, why is the obvious question that comes up is, how can this happen in America in 2019? How can this happen? I mean, why isn't the government doing it? And then she shows the details of the plan that's available to her. The best plan that's available to her, by the way. And look, do you know why it's so expensive? One reason why it's so expensive is because she's buying this plan after her husband is already sick. Now, the insurance company can't price it that way. It should be much more expensive than this. This is way too cheap because they know he's sick, but they're not allowed to use that information in pricing the health insurance plan. They have to assume he's healthy because they have to cover pre-existing conditions. Now, if you cover pre-existing conditions, then what happens to the insurance rates? They go through the roof. It's not insurance anymore. It's a redistribution of wealth plan. Now, it's expensive to redistribute wealth from healthy people to sick people, but that's what we're doing. That's what health insurance is in America today. It's not insurance. Pre-condition, pre-existing conditions should not be covered by insurance. Now, if you own your own insurance plan, if you bought long-term insurance, if you bought it when you were healthy under the conditions, and I think these conditions would exist in a free market, that the insurance company couldn't take it away from you if you got sick, then it would be a completely different story. Or when you're young, you should be able to buy insurance against pre-existing conditions, against you getting sick and having a problem finding insurance at that point. So, there are all kinds of market solutions to the pre-existing conditions problem. And even today, when you can't just impose the market right now because the market's been screwed up for so many years, that one could argue that for a while the government's going to have to have a role here, you could have all kinds of risk pools that deal with pre-existing conditions without destroying insurance markets for the rest of us for those who don't have pre-existing conditions. Again, that's where the thinking needs to go. How do we create healthy, competitive, value-adding, individualized health insurance industry rather than what we have today? But that's not where anybody like Kyle can go, or anybody today left or right can go. They immediately go to collectivistic solutions. They immediately think what the government can do. They immediately talk about the failure of the American healthcare system. Yeah, it's failing. I agree that it's failing. I'm not for repealing Obamacare without replacing it, but the replacement has to be free market healthcare. And there's a lot of ways to do it. But at the end of the day, it means getting the government out of healthcare, which at the end of the day means that the government doesn't do Medicare or Medicaid either, because Medicaid and Medicaid completely and utterly distort the insurance markets and the healthcare markets and the pricing of healthcare. And until you get rid of them, everything you do is better than... I see a monthly premium of $1,549.91. That's expensive. Cheaper than my insurance. A deductible of... Cheaper than my insurance, because I have to pay for healthcare in this condition. That's why my insurance is expensive. $13,000 and an out-of-pocket maximum of $16,300. I don't know where this woman lives, but I've never seen a $13,000 deductible. But I've actually looked, because I want an insurance policy with a $13,000 deductible. If anybody can find an insurance policy with a $13,000 deductible, please let me know. Well, I know it doesn't exist in Puerto Rico, because I want that. I want a high deductible. I want insurance to be insurance, to cover me only, only when I need it, which is an emergency, when expenses are going to be massive. I don't buy car insurance to cover scratches. I don't buy car insurance to replace the oil. I don't buy car insurance to replace the tires. I buy car insurance for an accident. Big accident. My car is totaled if the costs are going to be thousands of dollars. All right. Holds on the... Supercheck questions. I told you to hold a few minutes ago. You're like... You're blowing this up. So I'll get to all your questions, but you've got to stop asking them. All right. Let's go on. I'm probably not going to show the whole video. I just want to give you some illustrations. So first, notice the pealtary motion, which they all do. Republicans do the same thing. They'll go, here's a story about an illegal immigrant who murdered this family. Illegal immigration. It raises crime in America. I mean, what's the two got to do with one another? One story does not make a statistic. One story does not prove anything. And again, instead of asking questions about immigration, it's immediately we have to outlaw that. Instead of asking questions about insurance here, you immediately have to replace it all with a one size fit all. All right. Here we go. Let me ask you a question. How many people... What percentage of people you know have $16,300 laying around? My generation? What does laying around mean? Oh, come on, guys. You're not stopping with the question. Stop. What does laying around mean? I mean, I don't know anybody who has $16,000 laying around. In a bank account, I know quite a few people, but what's the point? You know, we go into debt to buy cars. We go into debt to buy homes. We go into debt for the grossest. Why wouldn't you go into debt to pay off your health bills, your medical bills? You pay it off over time. It's a big expense. $16,000. Okay. Why is that so shocking? I mean, did this woman buy her car with cash? Did Kyle buy his car with cash? And I think healthcare is more important than a car. So you finance it the way you need to finance it. I used to live in credit cards. I was in massive debt when I was in my 30s. So what? Has like no savings. The millennial generation has like nothing in savings. That's right. Because you go out to eat every night. You drink. You live it up. And you don't think about the future and you don't save. Now I have to admit, I didn't save until probably my late 30s. Maybe until I was 40. So what? So that's what debt is for. It's to cover you over while you don't, when you don't have savings, when you have a big expense, you don't expect. I'm, again, if you've taken my finance stuff, you know, I'm not anti-debt. I do think that is a good thing. Now, yes, they have, as Jonathan says, they have worthless degrees and huge student debt. But okay, don't get a worthless degree. And if you're going to take on huge amounts of student debt, get a valuable degree. But that's on you, the students. You know, if you're going to study English or even worth feminist studies or whatever it is, gender studies don't take on debt. You know, it kind of makes sense because you're probably not going to make money. But that's on you, your generation. 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. All right. Here we go. Yeah, cut him off because I was too eager. Here we go. 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Let me just say bullshit on that one. But this is the kind of stuff he says, right? With passion. 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Okay, there was one survey early into 2018 that showed that in a particular group that was asked, I can't remember who asked the question. I, you know, I researched this. 78% said they live paycheck to paycheck. Paycheck to paycheck was never defined. 78% of Americans, really? 78% of Americans? I mean, that means only 22% of Americans don't live on paycheck to paycheck yet. The upper middle class plus the wealthy is more than 22%. And don't tell me the upper middle class live paycheck to paycheck. And if they do, then that's really their problem. I have no sympathy for them. I mean, anybody in the middle class, what does paycheck to paycheck mean? I mean, I for many years spent my entire paycheck and didn't save. Is that what you mean by paycheck to paycheck? Okay, if you have two kids and if you're starting out in your career, and yeah, it took me until my 40s until I had enough, making enough money to put money aside and not live paycheck to paycheck. Who cares? But it's 78% is just a lie. Other surveys have shown it to be 60 others, 40. Nobody knows. It's not a legitimate question. There's no statistic that tells us this number. But of course, you choose the highest number to make your point. You say it with confidence with a little bit of model outrage. 78%. It's like, you know, 90% of scientists believe X. Has anybody measured this? No. Has there really been a survey? No. So you can pick and choose your silly statistics, but they're all silly. They're all meaningless. 78%. That's basically 8 out of 10. Live paycheck to paycheck. There you go. Liar. I'm speechless. Yeah, me too. This is the best plan that they offer. It's $18,600 a year for the premium and with a deductible of $13,000. I mean, if somebody's sick and their husband is dying, they basically have two choices. I've told you this before, right? They have two choices. They can come to me and ask for my help. And I might, if I like them and if I have spare cash, I might help them out. And I might provide them with the money necessary to treat this disastrous disease. But I might not. I might turn them away. That's my decision, my choice. The alternative is for them to pull the gun out and force me to pay. And that's what Kyle wants. He wants everybody who has one of these, who's sick, who can't afford their insurance, to knock on my door and pull out a gun and steal my money. That's what he wants. That's what he thinks. Constitutes a moral, just, ethical society. A society of highway robbery. A society in which those who have are robbed to pay for those who don't. Now, I don't consider that legit. I don't consider that thievery legitimate. And I don't consider democracy where we vote to steal people's money. A way to legitimize thievery, thievery theft, stealing is immoral, no matter if done by an individual or a majority or a gang or a group or a mafia or anybody. Stealing is stealing is stealing. You don't get to live off of me without my consent. And I have not consented. So you want to present it as some moral outrage, but the moral outrage is that you expect me to pay for her healthcare. Not expect. Sorry, expect is too nice. You demand. You want to put a gun to my back and force me to pay it for her healthcare. No. Not doing it. And hopefully, never do it as it is. I pay for her healthcare because my premiums are so expensive on my insurance. Guys. Be speechless. It's amazing. I know that this is just Tuesday in America, but it shouldn't be. So this is a story that deserves attention. And this is a story that's only going to get attention from people like you and from shows like mine covering it. True. It's not going to... CNN is not going to talk about this. MSNBC is not going to talk about this. Fox News is not going to talk... He's even blaming MSNBC for being too right-wing. Just... It's pretty funny. But it's pretty funny how left and right view each other. That to me is part of the entertaining value. It's... Just think about what it means that everybody thinks the media is bad, no matter what... I mean, there's no objectivity anywhere out there. The nightly news is not going to talk about this. Just so you know, they view poverty as like a personal failing, like an individual failing. The media? MSNBC views poverty as a personal failing. Even Fox doesn't view it that way. What are you talking about? Like, oh, you're just not of sufficiently moral character. There are more of these, you know, sob stories on the New York Times and anywhere else than almost any other coverage. What are you talking about? And the same by the way, Fox, just look, watch Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson cares. Didn't you see the story about the evil hedge fund guys? Tucker Carlson cares. You didn't work hard enough. And if you respond to them, well, no, I actually work a full-time job. Like, oh, we'll get a better one. You see their perception of the system? It's that this system is pristine and you need to try to fit yourself into that system. Notice the storm ending here. Now, I would never say the system is pristine. The system is awful. The system is actually designed to fail and designed to penalize that woman and to penalize the average working guy. The system, as we have today, is destructive to the workers of America. The problem is the workers of America want to vote for candidates like Trump and Sanders who would destroy it even further, who would make it even worse for them. But, yeah, the system's not pristine. The system's a disaster. And the fact that somebody would have to pay $1,500 like that for a policy with $13,000 deductible is outrageous. But that's a consequence of the mixed economy. Not a consequence of what you think of as markets and capitalism. You can't do it in a way that's beneficial to you. That's your problem. Our perception is the opposite. Our perception is the system should be crafted to meet the needs of the people. To meet the needs of the people. To meet the needs of the people. When people need iPhones, the system should provide it to them. When they need food, the system should provide it to them. It does so well in Venezuela. No. The system should be designed to allow people to pursue their happiness free of coercion, to allow people to pursue their values, to make choices, to design their lives the way they see fit and suffer the consequences that they're designed. So for the consequences of their choice of values, but the system should be designed to leave them free, to live their lives free, to live their lives based on their own judgment, based on their own rational thought in pursuit of their own values. And if they fail at that, they fail. And if they succeed, they succeed. And if they fail and they want help, they can ask for it. But the system shouldn't be designed for people's needs other than the need to be left alone. Other than the need to be free. That's the only need that the system should be designed to provide. If the system is above us and all these people are struggling to find their little spot in that system. The socialism is more above us than this. Much more above us. Because it's not doing its job. Shouldn't the whole point of any system be to meet the needs of the people? To meet the needs of the people to be free. To meet the needs of the people. Not to meet the needs of the people per se. People can meet their own needs. I don't need you or some bureaucrat or some politician to give me what I need. I just need to be left alone so I can go and pursue it myself. In an efficient and effective way. No. It's like, again, they view it as a personal failing. Because the fact is, the fact is, and this is an important point, you can't know what I need. Nobody can know what I need except me. Only I can make value choices. Because what do you need? Needs are, I mean a broader sense of need. Needs are your values. I need a shiny sports car. You don't know what my needs are. You don't know what my values are. Only I know what they are. So this is the falsehood of central planning. You cannot serve people's needs because you don't know what they are. I don't need, when I'm 20, I don't need full health insurance coverage. I'm young, I'm healthy, I'm a risk taker. I want to pour all my money into my startup. And I'm willing to take the risk that I'll get sick. That's my need. But you, Kyle, it attacks me and provide me with the healthcare which I don't need right now. Do that later. This is a really, really important point about capitalism, about the relationship between politics and us. And it's not about Kyle. This is everybody left and right. Everybody believes in the state running our lives to any degree other than in protecting us, other than serving as a self-defense mechanism. You can't know what my priorities are. For example, we have decided that everybody needs to save. So we have self-security. Not that that's saving, but let's pretend it is for a second. And the Chilean alternative, which is better than the American, is force-saving. The government doesn't take your self-security, but you are forced to save a certain percentage of your income every month. That's force-saving. What if I don't want to save? What if my hierarchy of values right now it's more important for me to take that 12% that is stolen from me through social security and invest it in my business? Or pay for healthcare because I've got a sick kid? Or pay for my parents? Or whatever. No central plan. I can know my values. Know my needs to use his language. That's why central planning has to fail. I mean, there are the economic reasons, but that's the fundamental ethical reason why it has to fail. Epistemological reason why it has to fail. The ethical and epistemological reason is only you using your mind knowing you who you are can choose your values for you. Nobody else can do it. And only you can do it using your mind, using reason, using facts, using reality. It's hard even for you to figure out what your values are. You want somebody else to do it for you? But that's what central planning always necessitates. Whether it's central planning of trade, whether it's central planning of retirement, whether it's central planning of medicine. I mean, somebody says why it's fatal concede. No, Hayek gets it all wrong. Hayek says it's computationally impossible to figure it out. I'm saying it's metaphysically impossible to figure out. It's epistemologically impossible to figure out because the nexus of value is you. It's not that we don't have enough data. We don't have enough powerful enough computer. In the fatal concede he kind of says it's a weakness of reason. No. It's because we're individuals. It's because as individuals we only individuals can think for themselves. Only individuals can desire for themselves. Only individuals can need stuff for themselves. And therefore only individuals can decide on their values and on their needs. All right, I'm going to do another couple of minutes and then God, I don't know how we're going to do super chair questions. You don't have good health care? What did you do wrong? Oh, that's not the way that makes sense. Guys, other developed countries don't have to deal with this. No, people just die waiting. Did you have a, when you was a kid, the Dr. Seuss book, there's a section there waiting for this, waiting for that. I love that book. That's such a good book. You know, in the UK, under NHS, in Canada, you just wait to die. You wait for the MRI. You wait to see the doctor. And a big chunk of people just die waiting. And there's no statistic of how many people die waiting because that's not how they categorize things. But yes, they don't have to deal with these kind of problems. That's right. They steal the money up front. They distribute it inefficiently, but that's an understatement. They distribute it in ways that are impossible to distribute because central planning, as I said, is impossible in ways that actually destroy human life. We spent seven trillion dollars in Iraq when all of a sudden done. Not true, but a minor issue. By the year 2053. That's when you add the interest on it. 2053, maybe by 2053 it's true. I don't know. I have no idea how you calculate that. But good luck. Seven billion. Seven trillion is a good number. Seven trillion. Really? And we can't afford Medicare for all. Nobody batted an aisle. Nobody says we can't afford it. Of course we can afford it. We just spent the money. What's the problem? On the cost of the Iraq war. Nobody even talked about the cost of the Iraq war. They just said, it's a moral necessity. We have to do it. Now, of course it wasn't a moral necessity, but it shows you that if they think something is a moral necessity, then they just do it. This is, by the way, a point I've talked about many times. If we're convinced that Medicaid is a moral necessity, we will do it. We will do it. So why are they not doing that for health care? Because they don't care. They have good health care. They don't care that you don't. Oh my God. Seven trillion dollars in Iraq, at least two trillion dollars in Afghanistan. Two trillion dollars. It's one trillion. I did a show on this a while back. Maybe by 2053. Fourteen trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. Bailout of Wall Street? All that money? I mean, I'm against the bailout, but all that money came back wasn't 14 trillion dollars. Where does he get these numbers from? I mean, again, he says it like it's obvious, like everybody knows these numbers. Fourteen trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street? Top was 800 billion. An awfully big number. Horribly big number. But all of that was paid back with interest. Government made money on top. This is where we're squandering everything. But regular people who will go bankrupt from health care bills, they get nothing. They get nothing. 500,000 bankruptcies every year from health care bills. All right. Enough of this. So, you get the point, right? Not asking the right questions. Emotional appeal, moral outrage, and making up numbers. That is typical punditry today. Left and right. Again, right does exactly the same thing on things like immigration. It does exactly the same thing on any kind of status program. Trade, all the stuff. Oh, the one I was going to use. I'll just say this and then I'll go on. Trump's the greatest economy the world has ever seen. I mean, it's exactly the same thing. Stock market has gone up 50% over the last three years. And now that's true. It has gone up. But it went up over that in the first three years of Obama. It went up more than that in the first three years of Clinton. And I could go back and find other presidents that did better. Is that really the measure? Economic growth at they just revised it upwards. They just revised it up for 1.9% to 2.1%. 2.1% is about, that's Obama numbers. That's anemic. Should be well over 3%. So those are the kind of and again unemployment rate 3.5, good number, great number. But we used to care about we used to care about you know labor participation rate. How many people actually actually in the working as a percentage of the population. Not just people looking for work and you could go on and on and how they spin numbers. So when Obama was president, the right always talked about the labor participation rate. With Trump in the White House they always talk about the unemployment number. And nobody cares. The media doesn't care. Nobody cares. Nobody points this out. Nobody makes an issue of it. The left flips, the right flips in terms of the numbers they use. And nobody cares. Nobody, nobody cares. But you know it's what sells because Kyle has 230,000 Twitter followers and almost 750,000 YouTube subscribers and he's lightweight as compared to some of the other lefties and righties out there and Tucker Carlson has a show on Fox. One of the most watched shows ever. So go figure. The American people want to be deceived, want to be lied to, want to be manipulated. They don't know any better. And instead of listening to facts, logic, truth which is what you get here. You're the lucky ones. That's what they listen to. All right. Have you ever... Tell us the value of selfishness. Use another word. Self-esteem. The value of selfishness is that you esteem yourself as a value that you leave according to your nature which means by the judgment mind and you respect your own mind. You respect your own ability to do the right thing. Therefore you respect the possibility of being a morally virtuous person. And you regard yourself as a value worth preserving. Let me bring it down from Kant a little bit to a bromide that I had drummed into me as a child and maybe you've heard it. Happiness comes from making other people happy. Oh, yes. Who hasn't heard it? And that's the trouble. Let's aim at the day when people will not hear it anymore. Because it isn't true. It isn't justifiable. And the first question you would have to ask is why? Why is it good to want others to be happy but not yourself? And I suppose you will be told that well, but they will work for your happiness with their own. Well, it's like an exchange of Christmas presents that neither party wants but that you have to exchange presents and you're not allowed morally to do something for yourself. Whereas what I say you can make others happy when and if those others mean something to you selfishly. If you love them then you want to make them happy. Fine. If you don't love them that's not a moral crime. You cannot love everybody because it's a meaningless expression. You can love only those whom you value and if they contribute to your happiness you contribute to theirs. That's fine. But each one of you has to be selfish about it. Supposing somebody were in love with you and said I love you because you're so bad so I sacrifice myself and I'm going to love you. Would you accept that or would you say I love you the most? No, sir. I wouldn't either. That's the most insulting saying anyone could have said to you and yet that's what altruism would demand and there is a great Russian writer who tried to practice it, Dostoevsky who did marry a poor stupid little seamstress whom he didn't love at all out of the desire to make her happy. The end of it was she committed suicide because that is an altruist practice. That's what altruism leads to. How about it's more blessed to give than to receive? Well, that's obviously the welfare state. That's a clearly motivated slogan to please give me something and you'll be blessed but I will keep your material good. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you actually supported the show for the first time, so I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to Iranbrookshow.com or go to subscribestar.com, Iranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next