Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we will react to recent reports that Medicare will start paying AI companies what could be considered a bounty for every health coverage claim that their AI software rejects.
Hello, welcome to the growing I See it podcast.
I'm James Keats, and joining me today is a man whose smooth delivery certainly can give you plenty of reasons to smile.
[00:00:35] Speaker B: Tunde.
[00:00:36] Speaker A: Ogonlana Tunde, you ready to show us why your takes are still untouchable?
[00:00:41] Speaker B: Was that a reference to Big Daddy Kane's Smooth operator from like 1988?
[00:00:47] Speaker A: I'd leave those references ambiguous, my friend, but you can take whatever reference you like.
[00:00:51] Speaker B: You wouldn't be calling me old, would you?
[00:00:57] Speaker A: Not indirectly, man.
[00:00:59] Speaker B: Cause we're doing a show about hospital and healthcare. Now I'm old, huh?
[00:01:03] Speaker A: Hey man, you better be careful. Yeah, that AI is going to take that into your coverage claim decision.
So before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe or like the show on YouTube or your podcast app. Doing so really helps the show out. Now recording on September 9, 2025. And I want to jump right in here, Tunde. We know that AI artificial intelligence has been used for some years now to reject health coverage claims.
And actually that there's like class action lawsuits going on about this. You know, where AI software is being used to process these claims and rejects a lot of them. Some, I think, UnitedHealthcare, there's one that reportedly has a 90% error rate, but they're using that to evaluate and reject these claims.
But this recent report looks to be a little bit more than this. What's your reaction to this report? That Medicare, like the government, you know, last chance insurer, so to speak, will start paying AI companies, incentivizing them, paying them a share of the money saved from any claim that their, their software rejects.
[00:02:07] Speaker B: It's an interesting version of socialism. That's what I think.
[00:02:14] Speaker A: Private, private industry.
Think about it though.
[00:02:17] Speaker B: It's a fascinating concept that you're taking taxpayer dollars and giving them to private companies to help them make, you know, maintain more profitable stance.
[00:02:31] Speaker A: Well, no, because Medicare supposedly, with this would save money, you know, so that's saving taxpayer money by rejecting claims. So the Medicare is not going to pay the claim and then they'll pay a piece to that, to the AI company. So, I mean, so, so let's go.
[00:02:45] Speaker B: Let'S, let's tease that out a bit because the important word here again is incentives. What are the incentives of the different players involved?
So, you know, let's say you and I, we would be patients in One of these scenarios. So our incentive would just to be get great healthcare and get whatever our health issue is solved. And then if you're the government, you're the government. So the incentives there will be who's in the government and what is their ideology.
[00:03:11] Speaker A: Depends on who's in the government. Yeah.
[00:03:13] Speaker B: So I mean, if you're the type of person in the government, you know, in terms of a leader and an elected official who believes that the government's role through Medicare, Medicaid and these things is to redistribute the wealth of the nation in a way that helps those who can't afford it to be able to realize good health care, then you're going to, you're going to implement, you're going to have it that way. If you don't believe that and you believe that, you know that some of these programs should be dismantled and maybe you've announced that you'd like to destroy the administrative state, so on and so forth, then this, this, the incentive of that person is to, number one, like you said, save money on the federal budget and then also find a way to get people off the federal budget and kind of the, I don't say the payroll, but, but the roles of programs like Medicare and, and, and Medicaid, things like that.
So it's a very, that's what I mean by, it's an interesting thing to take taxpayer dollars so that, so when they don't give care to Americans, we're going to reward them with giving them a piece of the savings.
That's just interesting, James.
[00:04:23] Speaker A: So no, no, I mean, well, the incentive piece is to me what where this rubber meets the road here because this plainly creates an incentive for the AI company to come up with software not that accurately evaluates claims, but, but rejects as many claims as possible.
Part of the push to use AI in this space generally, like I said, I think it's important to distinguish between the private insurers who are collecting premiums and then paying coverage, hopefully and denying claims, versus Medicare, which sometimes operates through private, but also is a direct payer at times. But when you're looking at the way this is done in the private sector, the one we got all these class action lawsuits because the AI is used in more and more to reject the claims, not because they're legitimately rejectable. But one thing I noticed in looking at this issue was that a lot of times the rejections are based on the forms being filled out incorrectly. So the incentive of that private insurer is to reject as many claims as possible. This has always been my issue with the business model of insurance anyway. It's just like they make more money by rejecting claims and they collect my premium either way. And so that to me is just rife for that. That is a, that's ripe for abuse. You know, it's just like, yo, you mean you, you, your way of profitability is to reject as many claims as possible? Like that's okay. Well that, that lets me know how I should be looking at you and treating you. From the Medicare piece, it's, it's more interesting because generally speaking, as you said, it can change based on who's in office. But Medicare has traditionally operated not necessarily to maximize profit, but to just take the, do what the quote unquote insurance game is supposed to do, Pool the resources and then distribute the money back out. You know, overhead should not be a big piece of that. Profit should not be a big piece of that because you take away from the ability to pool the resources and then redistribute it to where it's needed, when it's needed. Because sometimes it's supposed to be needed here, other times it's supposed to be needed here. And, and therefore so you can spread that out, you spread that risk out so that we're setting that incentive, bringing that incentive now to the government system now is basically one, it's going to encourage the AI companies that are going to be a part of this program. This is the lowest hanging fruit here is that, hey, the more claims you reject, the more money you'll make from this. So they're going to be incentivized to over reject. And then it's creating this situation with Medicare where they're no longer then looking to pool resources and then move them from place to place. They're basically going to be, we know how lobbying works. These AI companies are going to start having a role in how Medicare operates. Basically. They're going to become potentially an intermediary between the taxpayer and the person who uses the, has Medicare and the, between Medicare and the patient, you know, so to speak. And there's going to be the AI piece in the middle being like, okay, yeah, and they're trying to take the piece, sticking themselves in between the taxpayer and the government. So I think the incentives on this are as bad or worse than they look. And it's setting us up for this system. Like you said it, this would be done by somebody who wants to just get rid of the system. Because what's going to happen is people get mad at the system. People are going to hate the system. And then when you say, hey, well, let's just get rid of it, like, okay, yeah, let's get rid of it. Because this doesn't work anyway, you know, so you break and then it's easy to get rid of it.
[00:07:43] Speaker B: No, I don't think, you know, I don't think people appreciate, let me put it this way, how big, how much the federal government plays a role in everyone's day to day life and we don't realize it and that's for better or worse, I'm not here to make a case whether that's good or bad. I'm just saying that as we transition to the dismantling of a lot of things that have been around since the 30s, let's be honest, I think it's just going to be painful for Americans when they realize that these things have been in place and a lot of.
[00:08:17] Speaker A: It is right now, you know, we're starting to hear, you know, but the farmers people starting to be like, well, hold up.
[00:08:22] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean that's happening. But I think like consumer protection, for example, that plays into this thing with health care, right?
And to be able to throw people off, you know, health care roles and reject claims and, and I just think these are things that again are very like, it's a very vulnerable feeling when you're not well and when you go to a hospital or you go to a doctor and when you're denied care, that's not a joke. Like, you know, people have some real issues out there. And so I think that, you know, we need to be prepared. A lot of people are going to be frustrated, upset and like you said, then people are going to. Some people that are already biased towards these kind of ideas are going to say, yeah, you know what, let's just get rid of it all. And you know, the idea of safety nets and all that and quote, unquote, government handouts. I think, let me put it this way, James. We have a lot of myths in our culture and there's a myth that it's always that other person that's getting something from the government or that handout. And I think a lot of Americans, like you said, with the farmers starting to find out, no, a lot of these things that the federal government was involved with, involved me too.
And me as well, I should say, Me too. It means something else now, but we're.
[00:09:35] Speaker A: Trying to make that point. No, he didn't mean it. Farmers, he didn't mean it.
[00:09:40] Speaker B: I'm only smart enough at a time I can't multitask.
[00:09:43] Speaker A: So.
[00:09:44] Speaker B: But, no, but, so the thing is, James, is if you look at the incentives, you know, and some of the stuff I wrote down just in my own preparing for today is kind of like, I felt like this is what it looks like kind of Gilded Age 2.0 is what it looks like when you have an organization like Doge going in there and smashing things to bits in the first six months of the no one really knows what they're doing. And now it comes out that yeah, maybe these 19 year old kids did start taking everyone's data and also burying all this AI stuff in different agencies and you know, start, start making these changes and we didn't really know what's going on. And then you've got things like, you know, it just, just like this is a change that is I think fundamental and I don't think a lot of people realize it. And what you're saying is basically like, not you personally, but I'm saying this conversation is like, this is how we're going to treat ourselves as Americans in a certain way.
[00:10:46] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I mean, and I think what we have to recognize now, I think the key word you said there is change. Like this is a change. And so we do have to be careful of like generally speaking, many people fear change, you know, and so anything that represents a change is going to draw this reaction of oh no, oh no, oh no. Now I think our focus on the incentives, the current incentives, how this changes and the current incentives aren't perfect or, you know, I definitely have some problems with the private insurance particularly and then with Medicare, you know, like we know waste and fraud, you know, is something that plays a role and that's one of the stated goals here, is to try to get rid of that stuff when change makes people afraid. So we're changing something that wasn't great. And the promise is that we can make it better. If you believe what's being promised, the incentives don't suggest that it's really trying to make it better, but nonetheless, is there a chance, I think, well, I just asked this or I should say it like this. We have to acknowledge that doing the status quo in this situation may not necessarily be the best thing. We've been wrestling with this, we as a country been wrestling with this health care issue for a really long time. And so, okay, how do we try to make it better? In many respects, a lot of times people are just throwing their leadership is just throwing their hands up or just throwing more money at it. And we're not actually going to try to make it better.
But you talk about how Americans are going to find out so much of what the government does. My concern with that is that when they do find that out, the bigger problem that we have is that Americans specifically, but people in general, are also very easily distracted from that. So once this works worse, yeah, it'd be great if then Americans were able to respond or could be united behind a mindset like, hey, this works worse because of the things that this person did or this group did. And so if we put other people in charge, they can fix it. But that's not how. While that's in theory how a democratic system might work, a lot of times when things stop working the way that people want them to or things, people get frustrated with the way things are working, they, they start blaming, you know, marginalized groups and just say, oh, you know, next in 10 years is going to be all the insurance doesn't work because of all the immigrants or, you know, people of color or the women or, you know, it's going to be some group that's going to be responsible.
[00:13:00] Speaker B: For blacks, Jews and immigrants. That's going to be the greatest hits.
[00:13:03] Speaker A: It'll be, yeah, those. You can blame a lot of problems in a lot of Western societies on any one of those groups. And people, a lot of people will say, oh, yeah, sure, that's it. That's exactly what's going on. And so to me, the concern there is that I, if the system isn't necessarily, it could be working better now, we make tweaks to it or we make big changes to it now there's going to be this aversion. But the problem that, or the bigger concern that I have is that when the other shoe drops is if it doesn't work the way it's going to, the way that, or if it does, if these incentives play out the way that you and I think they're going to play, then we're not going to be on our way to something better because then we'll learn from it and grow from it. It'll be okay. We'll just, we'll just lose this and then the blame will go to some other group.
[00:13:46] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, here's the interesting thing, James. I was listening this morning, driving and this. I'll bring it back here. This is not a tangent. I was listening to Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congresswoman from Georgia, speak about our foreign aid to Israel.
And in her comments, she said, why are we giving so much money to Israel when they have their own universal health care system and their government subsidizes, you know, university education there and we don't have that here in the US.
[00:14:16] Speaker A: My point is a fair question from.
[00:14:18] Speaker B: The standpoint of not necessarily not to bring up Israel.
[00:14:20] Speaker A: It's a fair question. Just, just real quick. I'm sorry, It's a fair question to bring up. Not. But it's the wrong question. Like it's not. The question isn't why are we giving them money if they have that stuff? It's like, why don't we have that stuff if we got money to give?
So that's where I'm going with it.
[00:14:36] Speaker B: Is not to bring it up because she mentioned Israel and all that.
[00:14:39] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly.
[00:14:40] Speaker B: It's just a reminder, like, wow, she's reminding me another first world country that has universal health care. And like we talk about, and especially in the part one of our show today is we have the largest economy by far. We have a 29 trillion dollar GDP. All this stuff that we know and we brag about, but yet we're the only country of this type of big country that doesn't seem to be able to figure out how to deal with some of these basic things that other countries have figured out. Why is that?
Is because people at the top don't want to pay taxes, period. And people like me, and I don't got, I'm not going to speak for you, but you know, people like us in the entrepreneur class, we get a lot of goodies and you know, I'll say it, speak for me again, I'll take advantage of them. And so my point is, is that that's the incentives in this country and that's, you know, I'm not going to say it's good or bad. It just, it is what it is. And like you said, well, but let.
[00:15:38] Speaker A: Me, let me jump in on that because I don't agree with you on that. The reason that we don't have that stuff is not because people don't want to pay taxes. I'm sure that people don't want to pay taxes in all these other well developed countries where you have rich people and all that.
But there is a common purpose amongst the people where it's like, okay, well we're going to make you pay taxes because we want to provide a certain base level of services. I think the difference here in the United States is that many Americans, not all Americans, but there are a significant portion of Americans that really have a crab in a barrel mentality and they don't, they are offended Upset, bothered by the idea of a rising tide. They want to rise and they want other people to stay down. And so you see this, you know, the classic example of this, which is just. It's inexplicable by any other, you know, kind of rationale, is in the south when integration was ordered on the public pools, and they said they're going to fill in the pool. So the example you give in Virginia where they shut down the public school system for. For. In certain counties for a period of time once they were ordered to integrate, and it was like, well, no, we'd rather not have pools that we can send our kids to if we got to share them with people. Or we'd rather not have public schools if we have to share them with people. And so, like, I think this mentality that's in America is one that. And that didn't go away. You know, maybe if you don't talk about it as loud or didn't talk about it as loud for a while. But that mentality, I'm not saying. I'm not pointing fingers at who that is. Like, that's a mentality that's in some people, and we can hear it in the way they talk or the way they act. But that's the reason why we don't have that stuff, because those people can always be turned to the side of the people that don't want to pay taxes. And they'll say they'll side with the people who don't want to pay taxes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't want universal health care if everybody gets it. You know, like, I'd rather not have universal health care. And we can have the system that doesn't really work if everybody's going to get it, including those people over there. And so that's why we don't have that stuff.
[00:17:26] Speaker B: No, you're right. And, you know, you're right. That is a big part of American culture. I wouldn't say it's unique to Americans because we're all humans, but I would say the way that our countries evolved, that's been very true. And you're right, it's.
[00:17:38] Speaker A: It's this more prominent, or it can be made more prominent more easily here. It has been tapped into more easily.
[00:17:48] Speaker B: Well, the thing about it, James, it's a lever that's been pulled by kind of the. The elite class for the entirety of this country's history. 1789, I mean. I mean, if you think about the height of the Gilded Age, also was the height of things like the Ku Klux Klan and the height of the xenophobia when we had the, you know, the, the first real strict immigration laws in 1924 that said that people couldn't immigrate from the entire Asian continent here and all that. So to your point, when the wealth.
[00:18:20] Speaker A: It was during the Gilded Age with crazy wealth concentration. And the reason why, the reason people would believe that they, they were poor is because of immigrants. Yeah.
[00:18:30] Speaker B: The first iteration of this in the late 1800s to early 1900s, you're right. When the wealth disparity got too far enough, people at the bottom were convinced that it was someone else and not.
[00:18:41] Speaker A: Not the people that had all the.
[00:18:42] Speaker B: Money or it's Cornelia Cornelius Vanderbilt or John, you know, Carnegie or all these other guys, you know, Mr. Mellon. It wasn't them who were hoarding all this wealth was the reason that they had problems. It was because of the Italian immigrant or because of the Chinese guy on the railroad or because of the black person who came up from the south to Chicago to find a better job. So it's, it's the same thing, man. And I think, you know, we're going to step back into this and this is going to be the example of how people are going to feel scarcity when, yeah, things that are very important to them, like their health care, are denied en masse. And they're watching the stock market in the NASDAQ go up because all these companies are saving billions of dollars and the shareholders love it. And they, and they're not getting a part of that. And I'll finish with this, James.
There's a tension because I'll give you an example. Me personally, I'm a shareholder of UnitedHealthcare. Like, I own shares in my IRA. They charge a $15. Sorry, $315 a share. I think they closed yesterday, roughly. I'm not giving any advice on here or anything like that. I'm just making a point that anybody can be a shareholder, you, one share will be $315.
And so my point is, is that as a shareholder, when I read an article like this, I'm kind of like, yeah, that's cool. Shoot. They're going to save all this money kicking all these people out. So that's like, that business side of me is like, yeah, that's cool.
[00:20:06] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:20:07] Speaker B: But I'll tell you this. I had a foot surgery last year. If you remember, I had a bone spur removed.
That procedure was denied three times.
[00:20:16] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:20:16] Speaker B: I'm lucky that the surgeon is actually a friend of mine. So you kept like, oh, man, tune it.
[00:20:21] Speaker A: Come on.
[00:20:21] Speaker B: You got to come back in. I got to write it this way.
[00:20:23] Speaker A: And that way.
[00:20:23] Speaker B: They kept saying that I was. They wouldn't pay for my surgery. And think about it. I have United Health Care as my health insurer.
[00:20:31] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:20:31] Speaker B: I have this. I have this dual relationship with United Healthcare as a shareholder. When I read that article, I'm happy. Like, yeah, they're going to. They're going to make a lot of money. I want my share price to go up as a patient, I read that, and I'm not happy.
[00:20:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:20:45] Speaker B: Because I've already dealt with.
[00:20:46] Speaker A: Because you experienced, you know, how orienting the system that way, you know, can be very difficult and painful. Yeah.
[00:20:53] Speaker B: And so. But here's the thing, James. It's funny. So I had a bone spur, basically arthritis on the knuckle where the big toe meets your foot and all that. So just as I'm walking, it's digging into my foot. It hurt.
They kept denying it because they said it was a cosmetic procedure.
I wear shoes all day. I'm like, no one's. Look, I'm not a foot model here.
I can't walk at this point. I'm 6 foot 4, 200 pounds. Every time I walk on that joint with taking all my weight, it hurts.
And that's my point, James, is they rejected it three times. On the fourth time, finally, after he wrote it, the surgeon wrote the letter 10 different times. And I guess they knew we weren't going to go away.
They accepted it. And so my point is that that's the interesting thing. It's a dilemma.
When I'm. When I'm the patient, I have one relationship with UnitedHealthcare. When I'm the shareholder, I have another. And is that the way it should be? I don't know.
[00:21:45] Speaker A: Well, but I want you to think about something also, because the whole thing is we're talking about we want to be more efficient and everything like that. Think of how inefficient that is. Like, this thing's going to get denied three times. It's taking up doctor time. It's taking up the insurance company time. It's taking up all this time for you guys to go back and forth with all this paperwork and. And it's like, okay, yeah. Then they finally cover it, and it's like, well, if you want to create, increase efficiency, even for the private insurers, but certainly for the Medicare, it would seem that getting to the right answer faster is better than dealing putting more barriers up in between. But obviously, the Gamble in that sense is that most people won't be diligent like you and your doctor were in that sense.
But there's something else I want to mention here because going back to the AI piece, I think that what it's important for us to realize and AI can be used to make people afraid, make people excited. Like it. It's one of those Rorschach tests in many respects because the possibilities are so limited. It's kind of like your reality is your focus. Whatever you think about is going to make you either excited or worried or anything like that. But the problem with this is bigger than AI because the reason we're saying, okay, yeah, they got these bounties that Medicare is talking about paying these companies, these AI companies. The reason that's a problem is not because they're talking about dealing with an AI company. The reason it's a problem is because they're talking about dealing with an AI company to help them reject people. The bias is built in already. And so if they were saying, hey, let's work with an AI company, we know that we have these rejections that get overturned or appealed and successfully appealed a lot of times because the forms are filled out wrong and we lose all this time and money and the doctors lose all this time and money when they're dealing with all these appeals and stuff. Let's build an AI system that makes sure all the forms are right when they go in.
The AI can look at the form and see if something's not right and send it right back. And we don't even have to have it. We don't have to go through this back and forth process. That would add some efficiency, that would save some money, that would save some time. But no, no, that's not what they want to use the AI for. You know, so it's. The AI is being used in service of, and I'm glad you brought up, you know, kind of the stock piece because it's being used in service of this perpetual growth mindset, applying that to health insurance. You know, like, should health insurance be an industry where perpetual growth is the expectation or the desire to. Because all of that's coming at the expense of coverage and health. You know, So I think that it's important for this to keep in mind that it's not the tool, so to speak, that is the villain of this story. It's how the tool is being organ oriented and then sicked. The tool is being sicked on. Deny people coverage. That's what the tool is being used for figure out ways to deny people coverage. I used to joke, you know, back years ago about how the biggest issue I had with. With the. The major banks was that they literally had people sitting around all day figuring out how to charge you more fees and get more money out of you. And, oh, well, we. If we. We can charge people more overdraft fees if we do these, these do the charges where we take the largest charge first, and then we hit all the charges all the way down to the smallest. And so it could be one overdraft if we did the largest charge last, but we can orient it in a way to do the largest charge first, and we can get 10 overdrafts. And it's like, this is what they're doing. They're sitting around all day figuring out how to get more money. And so it's this orientation. It's this things that some things, yes, growth mindset promotes very well. And other things, it's questionable. Like, again, nobody's applying a growth mindset to police departments or fire departments. And we kind of understand that. So you got to figure out where this stuff makes sense and where it doesn't sometimes. And in this case, using AI to figure out better ways to reject people, more, faster ways to reject people probably is the wrong orientation.
[00:25:23] Speaker B: Well, I'll say this. Remember, efficiency doesn't allow to steal as easily. So when you have all this, you know, muddiness and all. I'm being serious, man. Think about it. By them rejecting me three times, and like you said, I was a bit diligent. The surgeon's my friend. So I got maybe a more unique thing.
A lot of people may not have gotten. Been able to get that. That accepted. Right. So the shareholder part of me says, yeah, that's good. I want all that messiness because that helps United deny claims and keep more money, which is good for me as a shareholder. And you're right, as a patient, though, I don't like that. So that is. That is.
[00:26:00] Speaker A: Well, just because of the way the setup is. As a private insurer, that's what their job is to do, is to deliver more return to their shareholders.
[00:26:07] Speaker B: But let me, let me know whether that's right. Yeah. Because I know we want to wrap up too.
[00:26:12] Speaker A: Is.
[00:26:13] Speaker B: That's why I'll just finish on this. It's. It's about American people paying attention, which they don't seem to be because we keep complaining. And you made a good point about this overdraft thing. And I'm not here to get into politics and people are so like partisan. And so I'm not even going to name names. I'm just going to say we just had a prior administration that made a law that said overdraft fees of banks can't go over $5.
When the new administration came in this year, in 2025, they overturned that. And now overdraft fees can be whatever for 35, 50 bucks. That doesn't hurt me and you as much as it hurts someone who's earning 35, $40,000 a year because that's a much higher percentage of their, of their income. So what I'm saying is, goes back to 2003, Medicare Part D, which put an extra 2. 3 trillion on the deficit. We didn't have that before, we didn't need it. Right. That the ability for that was the first enclosure of trying to get private health insurers hands all over this Medicare Medicaid money. So it's again, it's, we're electing people that when they get to the government, you can either elect people that say, I'm going to look at the US treasury and his Medicare Medicaid budgets, all this as ways to help the mass of American people that may not be able to help themselves, or you can look at it and say I'm going to take this kind of like the Russian style gold, dismantle all these pieces for my friends.
[00:27:35] Speaker A: A gold mine for my friends. Yeah.
[00:27:37] Speaker B: And I'm going to piece them away to my buddies in business, the oligarchy. And so that's really about us. It's a democracy. We keep electing people into office every so often that look at us as products and look at the government as something to be broken up like it was part of a merger and acquisition.
[00:27:55] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:27:55] Speaker B: And that's it. We, we, this is what happens when we put business guys in government.
[00:27:59] Speaker A: And well, but yeah, and I mean, and also though there's a living memory piece and we'll wrap up here, but the living memory piece is that all of these things that we talk about, and I remember the overdraft thing, there was legislation about that, you know, post financial crisis that dealt with a lot of those egregious practices. But again that came from political will. People who are trying to look out for people with the government as opposed to, you know, use the government as a profit source for their friends. But the living memory, all of this stuff came into being, you know, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, all that stuff, all this stuff came into being because there were specific needs that were identified by prior Generations, like, oh, we don't want blank to happen anymore. So let's set this up with the government so that we can prevent blank from happening anymore. But then you go down a generation or two, nobody remembers that problem. And they're looking at this stuff like, oh, we don't need this stuff. And as you said, they don't realize like, oh, well, the government doing this make sure that I can do this or make sure that I can do that. And as a result, it's easy to just blame the government for stuff. Oh, the government, they do this poorly. So we should not have the government and have private business do this. I'll tell you this, private business, it doesn't have some flawless track record of doing things like private business messes up, just like the government messes up. So, but the orientation of private business, and I'm a person in favor of free enterprise, but the OR we have to understand again, as a tool, as a mechanism, as a method, the orientation is not necessarily to take what you have there and maximize the benefit, it's to minimize the benefit for the many and maximize it for the few. So for certain types of things, if you, if you have that orientation, if it's for health insurance, then of course when they have AI, when they use AI, they're going to deport, they're going to use it, they're going to deploy it to reject claims as opposed to make the application process easier or make the application process more efficient because they're not oriented in a way that is about delivering better coverage. Better benefit or more efficient coverage or better benefit. So watch the head fake of fraud and waste because again, they're not trying to get rid of fraud and waste so that they can then give that money back to benefits.
It's all about profit. So, but I think we got to wrap from there.
[00:30:07] Speaker B: That means I think we're still waiting on a five thousand dollar doge dividend, right?
[00:30:14] Speaker A: Hey man, we're gonna get a check from Mexico for the wall that was building too, man. There's a lot of promises out there. Yeah, I forgot. There's a lot. There's a lot. So, but, but see, you know, but this gets to the issue though. A lot of times people prefer to hear the big promise than worry about whether it actually comes through. Just tell the big promise and then nobody's keeping school for very few. So we'll wrap from there. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this call, on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast Rate It Review it. Tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time. I'm James Keys.
[00:30:42] Speaker B: I'm Tunde. All right.
[00:30:43] Speaker A: We'll talk soon.
