 Instead of now in a stimulus bill having a hundred billion dollars to give to hospitals, money they won't see for another year or so, probably. Why wasn't the emergency legislation to allocate, I don't know, ten billion dollars for hospitals to be able to rent out spaces to set up emergency rooms or whatever. Whatever hospitals need to expand and to grow their capacity to deal with this. Why isn't that being done right now? Why isn't money being allocated to that if you're going to allocate money to hospitals? Instead, we've got a hundred and eighty billion dollars to basically nationalize the hospital system, which I think is the ultimate goal. If a leadership in Congress, at the White House, in the state houses really cares about this thing, really cares about saving the lives of seniors, why aren't they focused on saving the lives of seniors? Because they're not. They spend much more resources shutting us down and then bailing us out. Shut them out, shut down the economy and then bail it out and increase your power. I mean, we have this amazing still, this amazing productive capacity in the United States. We have a dynamic, innovative system in the United States still with all its problems. Why haven't we used it? Not used it by forcing companies to make it. Used it by incentivizing companies to make it, which is the American way, not the fascist way. And the same with antivirals, well testing we talked about antivirals and vaccines. We should be pre-buying them. We should be encouraging companies to invest in them. And we should be taking all the roadblocks away. Just to give you an example of a roadblock, the masks, the cotton in the masks has to be produced in the United States. I mean, that is nuts. As I've said before, tariffs should be lowered to zero. Requirements to be made in the U.S. should be eliminated. Regulations should be eviscerated if we care about human life. If we care about the lives of the people who are going to die of this disease. Then what are we waiting for? What is this government waiting for? They're sitting on their hands. No, they're not sitting on their hands. They're using their hands to strangle us hard-working Americans. To strangle you, the small business owner. To strangle you, the employee of the small business owner. They're killing you. In the name of what? Safety. Safety the excuse for a Theratarians. Who's safety? If you care about the people who are likely to die of this, people over the age of 70, then do something about it. Not by strangling me, but by increasing the resources available to them. There are so many ways in which unleashing American innovation, imagination, entrepreneurship, profit-seeking would solve. Instead, we got bureaucrats standing in everybody's way, destroying our economy, limiting our freedom, telling us when we can go outside, where we can walk, who we can walk with, how many people can get together. I can't share if I told this, but yesterday there was a guy swimming just outside where I live. Swimming in the lagoon here, and only guy. I mean, nobody, hundreds of meters away, there was nobody. Literally, one person swimming, and a police boat shows up to tell him to get out, to go to land. I guess you're not socially distancing yourself when you're swimming. No, because you were told to be in your home, not to be out-swimming, and you have to do what you were told. Rather than what you should be told is, you know, don't put yourself in a dangerous situation by hanging out with lots of people who might have the disease and you might catch it from them. That would be good instruction. That could be enforced, but no, we have to regiment the details. The day I can drive the car, when I can go walk my dog, where I can walk my dog, how far I can go. And the fact is that because from the beginning we haven't focused on old people. You see all these stories now coming out. The original, of course, deaths in the United States came out of an old atrium facility in Seattle, where number of patients were sick. But now it's spinning to other old, but if we had identified it as old people, and asked those facilities to lock down two months ago, then we wouldn't see all these parents and grandparents dying for nothing. And we should also put their deaths in perspective. And I know this is hard to talk about. It's difficult to talk about. But the fact is, if somebody's 85, 87, and they've got something, and we're going to stop the world, their life expectancy is probably three to five years out, we're going to stop the entire world. We're going to stop everything so that they don't die now. We're going to sacrifice everybody so they don't die now when they're going to die in two, three years. Max, it's insanity. Truly insanity. In Kentucky, Bree says they locked down the old age homes a month ago. It should have been done two months ago, and it should have been done nationwide. And it should have been done not just the old age homes. But the fact is, this is what people want. They want heroic government to write to the rescue. They want powerful politicians to tell them what to do and how to do it. So Daniel gives us some stats. A high-end ventilator, now this is high-end on ventilator pricing, is $50,000 per ventilator, which is probably on the, as he says, a high-end. There's probably cheaper ventilators. The US has showed about 760,000 ventilators. So let's say we take my 50% markup, and you don't have to make it 50%, you can make it 20%. You still have a good profit, but let's say the 50%. So I'm willing to pay $75,000 per ventilator. Imagine we put that out two months ago. And we're talking about 75, even for companies that typically charge 25,000 events, so they'll get a 300% markup. Even if all that was done, that would have cost us $57 billion, a huge amount of money. Huge amount of money. You could argue wasteful. But $58 billion is, I can't do math at this hour, and I'm kind of tired, take $2.2 trillion, how many times is $57 billion going to that? Well, 40 plus, about 40 times. And that's at 50% markup on the highest most expensive ventilator. Assume you set it at $55,000, so yeah, maybe the high-end ventilator. You know, I wouldn't have much of an incentive to make a lot more, the 5% or 1,000 is not bad, 10% markup. But all the people who make them a 30,000 or 40,000 have a huge incentive. Imagine if you did it with masks, and if you did that with all the protective equipment, and you put aside $100 billion to do all that. A lot of money. But nothing as compared to the $2.2 trillion. And remember, the $2.2 trillion came after the first $8 billion, and then was a $30 billion, and then $2.2 trillion. So we've gone through, and now they're talking about another $2 trillion. Chandler's happy because he's going to get $1,200 bucks. Enjoy the $1,200 bucks. I hope you use some of it to support the Iran Book Show. That would be a good use of the $1,200 bucks. So that's the math for you. And then let's extrapolate, if you could extrapolate, what would it cost to make sure that every 70-year-old who couldn't afford, what do you call it, delivery food and delivery services had it? Okay. My guess is another $100 billion. Because a lot of them are already in their old age homes, and maybe we'd have to do a bailout of old age homes because it would become difficult for them because staff, attrition of staff. So let's say another $100 billion, $200 billion to support old age homes and to support poor old people who couldn't afford to get delivery food and people to take care of them. And you don't shut down the economy. Because, again, old people are not part of the economy for the most part. So we need to be outraged. We need to offer solutions. I just did. Market-based solutions. We need to focus on the vulnerable. That's a solution. We need to say no to new spending. No to shutting down our lives. No to shutting down our choices. No to shutting down our pursuit of our values. No to stimulus packages. We have to accept the fact that people are going to die. It's a fact. People die of lots of things all the time. Yeah, part of the solutions would be deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, get rid of licensee laws, get rid of red tape across the boards. We should be proposing ways in which we could privatize the function of the FDA, privatize the function of many of these medical institutions that could be private. We should articulate the case for what? How a free market, a pure free market, a real free market, a capitalist market would deal with the pandemic. I did that in a Twitter, in a long Twitter thing. I saw an objectiveist criticize that and say, you shouldn't do that because we don't know how a real free market would do it. You can't imagine. And I often say this. Often people say, well, how would a free market deal with this? And I say, well, I mean, who knows? The beauty of a free market is they come up with solutions I would never imagine. You got to at least indicate. You got to get some proposals. You can say, look, I don't know exactly how to work out, but here's some ideas. You got to show that we have answers and that people are going to say, no matter what, the hospitals are overcrowded. Why? If you isolate the people, if you isolate the people who are not, who need hospitalization, then they're not going to get infected and they're not going to need the hospital. You don't flatten the curve by keeping me home. You flatten the curve by keeping my parents home. You flatten the curve by keeping grandparents and parents from getting the illness. I can get the illness and I'm not going to overwhelm the hospital. They will. Keep me away from them. Don't allow me to visit them. And the problem is that people can't think scientifically, can't think. Young are carriers and asymptomatic, but the people who are in the hospital are not asymptomatic. The people who are in the hospital are people who are suffering because they got this. The people who are in the hospital are old people. And if the young or asymptomatic never went next to an old people, because you wouldn't allow old people to interact with young people, then the old people would not show up in hospitals and the hospitals would not be overwhelmed. And in a free market, hospitals would have spare beds, would have spare facilities, would have the capacity to deal with things that you throw at them. They'd have long-term planning. They'd plan for epidemics. Insurance companies would plan for epidemics. The only people who don't plan are politicians. They have no long-term incentives. We believe, and you hear this rhetoric over and over and over again. Markets are short-term. Business is short-term. But governments, governments think long-term. B.S. Business is long-term. Hospitals would plan for it. One of the reasons they don't today is there's no benefit to planning. Their capacity is dictated by regulation. Their capacity is dictated by government. The capacity in hospitals is not a choice hospitals make. Just ask the state board of medicine in the state of New York, which dictated how much vacant beds can be in a hospital. Hospital capacity is completely politicized. The state board of medicine would not allow a crisis like this to happen. It would plan for it. It would have contingencies. Businesses have contingencies. Have emergency procedures. Know what will happen if they lose 50% of their customers. Know what will happen if they lose 50% of their suppliers. Businesses think these things through. You go to any big business and ask for their contingency plans if things go bad. And any decent business has them. But unless we're willing to stand up and declare that with confidence, the statists win. And the statists are winning because the American people are open to them. They're not open to our ideas, and we won't even make them. There's so many people who follow me on Twitter and Facebook and here. Yeah, Femalk, it's a good except. Except when it's inconvenient. Except when we, we, I can't imagine how a free market would solve the problem. You couldn't imagine an iPhone. You couldn't imagine the Internet. You couldn't imagine anything that the free market has bought us. All right, I should stop yelling. 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, whims, 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 broad. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and 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 uranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com, uranbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...