 imposed from a number of left-wing sources that are basically saying, this is nuts. This is truly nuts. At least, Sanders is honest enough to say, Medicare for all is going to cost a fortune. Taxes are going to have to go up. We're rich in a country that's fine, so taxes will go up. What Elizabeth Warren is doing is fudging the numbers and raising taxes and lowering payments to doctors and hospitals by more than what Medicare has already lowered them today. So destroying what a couple of shows ago, I talked about the production side of healthcare. So let's go over a little bit of kind of Elizabeth Warren's numbers. Now, notice that I think Democrats are panicking. They're panicking because she is now the leader. I have come to think, given the left response, the establishment response to Elizabeth Warren, that she probably is not going to be the candidate. I don't know who is, but I think there's growing chances that Elizabeth Warren will not be. So I've read a number of stories now about big donors, particularly on Wall Street, saying they will not give the Democratic Party at all. Not only in the Democratic Party, including senators, in Senate races, if Elizabeth Warren is at the top of the ticket. So the Democratic Party is in massive panic mode around Elizabeth Warren. I think, again, Wall Street fears her more than they feared Bernie Sanders, and I gave you the reason for that when I talked about Elizabeth Warren versus Bernie Sanders in the past. She is much more dangerous than Bernie Sanders is. All right, let's do some numbers. One campaign estimates a plan of finance, universal health care, comes in at the staggering 52 trillion over a decade. Remember, government spends now about 4 trillion. This is a 52 trillion over a decade, that's 5 trillion a year. That's doubling government spending, right? Now she says no because much of that is already being spent on Medicare, so she actually believes that it would only cost an additional 20 trillion. So you'd only be increasing government spending by 50% from 4 trillion to 6 trillion a year. But everybody, it seems, left and right, thinks that is a massive understatement. The numbers that almost everybody is projecting for Medicare for All is 35 trillion dollars of additional government spending over the next 10 years, which means three and a half, which means almost doubling government spending. And now that is astounding rate. And now we're put, by the way, government spending in the United States, federal, state and local, at a higher level, as a percent of GDP, than those amazing Scandinavian countries that the left loves to talk about. We would spend more as a percentage of GDP if you take in all government programs across all different levels of government than Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway do. If we actually spent an additional 35 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now all estimates about spending on healthcare by government, historically, have always been lower than the reality. So the 35 trillion is probably much less than what will actually happen, or what will actually be demanded. And that's where the rationing, the controls, the price controls, everything else will have to play a role because there's no way they'll be able to keep it at 35 trillion. But notice she's already cheating by 15 trillion in order to be able to say no, no, what do you call it, no middle class tax increase. Now how does she finance all this? Well, all kinds of new taxes and all kinds of economic activity, mostly targeted at the wealthy, not at the middle class, so at least that's the attempt she is making to present it that way. And the main way she's going to penalize the wealthy is, you remember she originally included a tax on anybody that had more than, I think it was, 50 million. It was going to be a wealth tax of 3%. Well she's going to double it. She's going to make it 6%, 6%. And you know she frudges the numbers here too because there's only 15% of people of dollars will actually be avoided where everybody agrees that it would be much, much higher than that. But okay, so she's going to raise it to 6% and of course there's no economic consequences to that, right? We know that because you know what were those rich people going to do with that money? They were just going to put it in their mattress. They were just probably going to hoard it. They were just going to, I don't know, dig a hole in the backyard and stick it in there. So again, people ignore the fact that it's the wealthy that invest their money and that investment is what creates jobs, that investment is what creates economic activity, that investment. So yes, you're not taxing the middle class but who's going to suffer from the 6% wealth tax? Well the rich, they'll have 6% less money. I don't know how impactful that'll be on the quality of life, this standard of living. But the middle class and the working class who won't have jobs, whose factories will shut down, whose productivity will decline, whose wages will be flat to down, who cares about them? We didn't increase taxes on them. So we're okay. We didn't increase taxes on them. We're okay. It's such an ignorant display of economics that you see over and over and over again presented by people. It's just stunning to me that they think they are free lunches. They think that they can just take money from some people and give it to other people and somehow miraculously, there are no negative consequences to that, particularly when they're taking them from the most productive people in the economy, from the investors in the economy, from the people who know stuff in the economy and using it for consumption, which is what healthcare is. Not for investment in healthcare, not for innovation in healthcare, not for progress in healthcare, not for production in healthcare, but for consumption of healthcare. Now she also assumes that she's going to give a lot more money to the IRS and the IRS is going to get tougher with all that tax evasion, and that she's going to raise $2.3 additional trillion dollars over the 10 years doing that. Now funnily enough, that is 40 times, 40, 40X, 40 times what the Congressional Budget Office estimates the IRS could generate from new enforcement initiatives. So it's the things that by legalizing immigration, the current illegal immigrants in the country, which I don't oppose, but if you legalize them, then that would add another $400 billion in taxes. So she's got all these little things that she is proposing and are going to generate, you know, going to solve all our problems. Whoops. What did I just do? I just opened a bunch of windows that I did not want to open. It's stunning. It truly is stunning what she's trying to do. But the good part is, the good part is that she's getting real pushback, including from places like the Washington Post, including like places from like, you know, the New York Times, Atlantic Magazine has a story about, you know, this doesn't make any sense. The other thing, of course, that her plan includes, which was always also being ridiculed by many of these publications, it estimates that she's going to pay doctors, particularly specialists, a lot less money. Now Medicare, then Medicare pays them today. Now Medicare already pays them a lot less money than private insurance. Imagine what's going to happen to the number of specialists, how many of them are going to go galt, are going to shrug when they're reimbursements from Medicare for all so they have no private insurance, they have nobody to increase their fees on, tumble. Not just to today's Medicare rates, but lower than that. How many doctors go out of business? How many hospitals go out of business? How many rural hospitals go out of business? And then of course, she's assuming, this is stunning, that she is going to generate in this plan, in the plan she presented as her plan, she's a woman of plans. She is going to reduce drug prices in the United States by 70%, 7-0. That's how she got the lower cost of Medicare. I mean imagine what that would do. How many drug companies would go out of business? How many of them would go bankrupt? How much drug innovation would happen? And basically her plan would destroy healthcare for the world globally. Now the only thing I'll say about all this, so you guys don't get too depressed, is that she'll never pass this. She's clever, she's smart, but she'll never pass this. Even Democrats in Congress, with the exception of AOC and a handful of others, don't want a plan like this to pass. They know what it would do to them. I mean remember how people got upset because they couldn't get their own plans under Obamacare. I mean this would destroy healthcare completely, and people would rebel. So she'll never, even if she wins the election, she can never get it passed, she can never get it by Congress. And given the opposition she's generating right now within the Democratic Party, there's good reason to believe that she can't even win the election. All right. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broods. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. You will 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 slash support, 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...