capacity problem. So I don't know if your 5G phone is going to give you 5G speed right away every place you would use it, but probably it'll start out pretty good.

And here's the thing you need to know about speed. Speed doesn't just help you do what you were going to do anyway but make it faster. This kind of speed will change what you do. You'll be able to do things that you couldn't do before. I don't know if that means holograms or 3D or virtual reality worlds. Probably all of that. I don't know if it means just completely changing how you commute. We almost can't see the ways this will change things.

Let me give you my example. If you have a car that can go 5 miles an hour, you can use it to tool around locally but you're not going to take it very far. But if you have a car that can go 100 miles an hour and it can drive for hours and hours, then it's a whole different application. It's not something you use around town. It's something you can take a long trip with. So this 5G stuff is way bigger than you think it is, and it'll take a while for all the reasons that that's true to seep into your consciousness. This is gigantic.

So I tried watching the Supreme Court nominee hearings for ACB, Amy Coney Barrett, and I thought the whole thing was so worthless I couldn't really watch it. Is anybody trying to watch that thing? I feel sorry for the news networks that are covering it because they kind of have to cover it. It's big news. But there's literally nothing happening because apparently the Democrats don't want to go too hard at the nominee because it might backfire. But on the other hand they have to act like they're putting up a fight or they have to use their time to complain about the president or Obamacare. So it turned into nothing but theater. We took this important government process and just turned it into Kabuki theater or something. It doesn't have any functional purpose at all. And yet we're going to still do it. That's the weird thing about people, I suppose. As the Dilbert cartoonist I'm glad it happens, but people will do things they know don't make sense just because of inertia or the way things are. So that's what we're seeing. I would say that's worth about zero minutes of your time to watch those hearings because you know where that's going to go.

Are you disappointed with the Republican and Trump plans on health care? I feel as if Trump has a far better opportunity to sell his health care method if he would package it up better. But the way it's being framed right now is that there's this thing called the ACA or Obamacare and that Trump wants to kill it. And that's the frame: he wants to kill it. And he doesn't have anything that has a name on it that's sort of packaged as its replacement. So if you're a senior citizen or you're just somebody who thinks you're at risk of losing your health care, what are you going to think about this situation? You're going to say to yourself, I kind of know what Obamacare is because I think I have it, and the Republicans are offering freaking nothing.

Now that's not true. They are actually offering a bunch of stuff but they haven't packaged it in any way. So when you think about it you don't think of it as anything. You say, well, I'm glad that maybe there's something about drug prices going down and I'm happy that maybe the mandate won't be there and I might be happy about telehealth being allowed over state boundaries, etc. So if you thought about it there'd be a whole bunch of individual things that you liked but they don't feel like a replacement for Obamacare. It just feels like you're losing something.

And have I told you before that the threat of losing something always feels more oppressive than the opportunity to get something? So the way human psychology works is that we're way more concerned about losing something we already have than we are excited about getting a new thing. And that's very important to know about people. So right now what the Trump administration is offering is less. How would you like to have less stuff? No, that is not an accurate description of what they're offering but it feels like it. And they've sort of allowed that frame to take form: that there is this health care thing — yeah, it's not perfect — but even that's going to go away. That doesn't describe what would happen but that's the frame that has taken form. And I think the Republicans have to answer for that.

I would go so far as to say that if Trump loses and let's say the Republicans lose the Senate as well, and if it turns out that the reason that that happened was people were concerned about health care and they didn't think the Republicans had enough of a plan, I would say they earned the loss. I would say the Republicans deserve to lose under those conditions. Now I don't want that. I don't want that to happen. I would hope that they would do a little better job in the next few weeks of saying what they would do versus the ACA. But at the moment they have framed it in a way they deserve to lose, honestly, because health care is kind of what's left now.

If they did lose because of that, the irony would be that Trump would have succeeded so well that he succeeded himself out of a job. Meaning that the only thing left to talk about was the thing he didn't make enough of an impact on. Because we wouldn't be talking about ISIS because he took care of it. We're not going to be talking about NAFTA because he renegotiated it. We're not going to be talking about North Korea because they seem to be sort of not a problem at the moment. We're not going to be talking about renegotiating with China because that will be already underway. We're not going to be talking so much about even the border because the border looks like it became somewhat less of a problem because immigration slowed down, I believe because of coronavirus. So the president, by doing a good job, has reduced the number of topics we care about. And even the economy is recovering well. People would say, well, I think it's on the right path. That'll probably do okay under a different administration. So he really has narrowed the targets down to the one thing that he's not strong on, which is health care. He kind of needs to fix that and pretty quickly, I would think.

And as I say, there's plenty to talk about. And here's what I think the Republicans have done wrong from the start, and I've said this: the Democrats have a better goal but the Republicans have a better system. Now I favor systems over goals, so therefore I favor the Republican approach. But they haven't framed it right. They haven't packaged it right. And here's how I would package it. I would accept the Democrat's goal and I would say yeah, even as a Republican, it is our absolute goal that everybody will have health care, affordable health care. We'll just get there in a different way. And what we would hope is that we would take it from whatever it is now — I don't know, 12 percent, 8 percent, whatever — how many people don't have health care at the mome