 So, down in this quadrant, you're going to spend someone else's money on yourself, okay? And that's kind of where we're starting off with this. There, you don't care so much about price, but you care about quality, and you want to make darn sure that you get the quality you want, but you don't really care what it costs someone else to provide you what you want, okay? This is sort of the equivalent of being a welfare or Medicaid recipient. And then the last quadrant is the worst kind of spending you can do. And that is to spend someone else's money on someone else. When you're in that quadrant and you're spending, you don't care about the price and you don't care about the quality. And when you create a third-party payer medical system, that's what you have, okay? People are not buying their healthcare in a direct transaction. The healthcare is bought with premiums that you have no idea what the cost is and you don't care. How many of you people are employed and covered under employer insurance? Do you know how much it costs you every month? Okay, we got one guy. Do you know how much comes out of your paycheck? Dollars and cents? Okay. Yeah, so it's variable, but the number of employees that actually know what's being taken out of their paycheck and whether those are pre or post-tax dollars and all sorts of elements, if you go to an ER, do you know how much money you're going to pay? Okay. So you pay $100 and then you're covered 100%, you don't have an $80, $20, anything like that? Okay. All right, so most people, they don't know how much is being taken out and they don't know what it's going to cost when they show up for care. So this creates another moral hazard because you're down in this quadrant. You don't care about price, you don't care about quality. So this situation was made worse by the 1942 Stabilization Act. We're in the middle of World War II. A lot of America's men in the workforce are off-fighting war. And the thing you got to realize about labor is like anything that's bought and sold or anything that scares, it has a price. So wages could potentially go up during this time of economic hardship, which could put a real strain on employers. So there was a lot of political pressure to freeze wages and that's what they did. But all of a sudden, employers were hamstrung for competing for a very limited labor supply. So what happened then is the government allowed employers to compete for scarce labor by offering benefits such as their health insurance to not be considered wages under that Wages Act. So what happens then is these are pre-taxed dollars and they're not taxed. So that amplifies this whole effect. So remember, price controls will always create shortages. They applied price controls on wages, which created a shortage of labor. So they had to find an end around and their end around was to offer benefits. Or things that were not counted as wages under the Act. So then what happens? Get the wrong button again. And I didn't go to Southwest Texas like Keith did. The IRS gets involved. In 1943, they made certain that any premiums paid by employees in a group plan were exempt from federal income tax. And they decreed that health insurance premiums are now a legitimate cost of doing business. And they can be deducted from the employer's taxable income too. So this has collectivized things both on the employee and the employer side. Okay. So collectivism is incentivized. So these tax incentives were available to anyone that got their health care collectively through employers. But it was not applied to individuals who individually bought their insurance policies for themselves, who wanted to stay independent, who wanted to try to preserve as much as possible that relationship between themselves and their doctors. So they were financially punished for trying to remain independent. So what are the logical consequences? Employees become unaware of the costs of what they're seeking. And because it's bought with pre-tax dollars and there's no apples to apples comparison with what that really means in terms of your salary. Especially since taxation rates are gradated, the first money that you make is taxed at a lower rate than the middle money that you make, which is taxed at a different rate than the top end money that you make. So it makes it very hard to perform any economic calculations. Employers ensure the group without any concern for the given individuals circumstance. So you may have very peculiar or particular health care needs based on pre-existing condition, congenital problems, but it doesn't matter. They're ensuring the collective, the whole. That's their concern. There's no concern for the individual anymore. And worst of all, it feels like an entitlement. It feels like something that just comes along with being employed. When I'm employed, I have benefits. I'm covered for my health insurance. And it engenders a buffet mentality, okay? You've paid in a certain amount for your premium and now when you go to a buffet, there's a lot of fruit in front of you, you had to pay $14 to go to the buffet. Are you really going to stick to your diet or are you going to get your money's worth by gorging yourself? That's the problem with a buffet. That's the problem with the logical consequences of making this sort of system. So then what happens next? Well, prior to 1965, there's always been indigent care. There's always been a need to care for the poor or the elderly who became destitute, either because of their actions or innocent of their actions. And prior to 1965, this was done on a charity basis by almost every doctor in the country. There were entire charity hospitals for providing care to the indigent. If it wasn't a charity hospital, almost every hospital in this country had a charity wing, which is separate from the rest of the hospital, where charity care was provided to those who needed it. But what Medicare and Medicaid wanted to do, they promised not to control medicine, we just want to pay the bill. But the real point of the thing was not just to take care of the elderly and the poor. The point was to spare them the humiliation of means testing, to actually spare them the humiliation of having to put their hand out and say, I need help. But that is the difference between a charitable act and an act of force. Putting your hand out and saying, can you please help me versus putting a gun to someone and say, give me this. The other thing that it did in the insurance companies rather like this is it removed anyone over 65 from the insurance pool. Okay, so you're a commercial insurance company. You just took the totality of your highest risk covered lives out of your bailiwick and you don't have to worry about it anymore. The public sector is going to take care of that. So your profit margins just went through the roof and it shifts the cost on the government, which is you, the taxpayer. Oops. So what are the logical consequences of that? Remember, at every step of this process, when we screw up, we don't go oops and go back. We go oops and double down. So what's the oops? Baby boomers. Holy crap. The hugest population explosion in the history of our country was going to come to fruition under this act. Okay. So what happened is you're promising care to a huge number of people who paid in when it was extraordinarily cheap. But you've created a system where the cost of providing that care has to go up exponentially. So now you have a situation where if you're going to keep this thing propped up from one election to the next, which is very important because that's also a demographic that votes and votes with their self-interest very much in mind. If you doubt it, the baby boom generation has screwed you young guys. They know that they were at the beginning of a Ponzi scheme and they are more than happy to pass that debt off on to you. You're going to pay for this with money you're not going to earn until you're 50 years old. Okay. So how do we keep propping this up from one election to the other? Well, we've got to control costs. Well, we do that by limiting treatment to what is considered appropriate or medically necessary and we try to limit payment to doctors. The other thing I did is it outlawed any supplemental payment by the patient to the doctor. So they start limiting how much they pay doctors. Doctors don't want to see Medicare patients anymore. Well, a lot of people that were forced into Medicare say, eh, I'm well to do. I got plenty of money. Doc, I'll pay you the difference between what you'd get from a third party insurer, someone that pays out of pocket. I'll pay you the difference between what Medicare pays you and what you would have gotten. Well, guess what? The government will not allow the doctor to do that if he participates in Medicare. So if you take that kind of money from someone, you are subject to a federal crime that's going to send you to jail and you're going to be subject to fines, which under federal law have treble damages, which mean whatever they decide to find you, you owe three times that amount. Okay? If someone in your office finds out, there's something called qui tom, which is a whistleblower statute that says, not only do you pay treble damages, the person that rat-finked on you, whose payroll you meet, gets treble reward too. So you end up paying six times the fine that's levied against you. So this has huge teeth. Okay? So what's the next thing that happened? That wasn't enough. It didn't stop it. Next thing was DRGs, diagnosis-related groups. This came about in 1982 and it was courtesy of a couple of academics by the name of Robert Fetter and John Thompson who were public health and epidemiology experts from Yale. And they came up with this system of paying doctors in what are called diagnosis-related groups. And what they did was they standardized different diagnosis through this giant manual called ICD, which is, I can't remember what it stands for, International Compendium of Diseases or something of that nature. But what it boils down to is if you get admitted to the hospital-