on what they look for, try to learn, and separate chatter that means nothing, that means everything. will do it see you tomorrow. tomorrow. >> we're the party of choice. . >> we are the party of choice. >> so say the democratics. >> if you like your doctors, you will keep your doctor. john: republicans say -- >> this is the most anti-choice administration in a long time. >> we like to have choices. i want to choose to have a pink mustache on minivan and act like a taxi driver. taxi drivers don't want me to do this. >> we have to pay big money for licenses, we have to have commercial insurance, pink mustache has nothing. john: also can there be too much choice? >> frappuccino, rappa chino, al pacino. >> and in the supermarkets. >> look at all these choices.

look at all these choices. so much choice, that's our show tonight.. john: when we talk choice, there's not much more important than health care. the president sold obamacare saying it would lower costs and yet give us more coverage and more good choices, win-win. some people would gain better insurance and even if you didn't, you wouldn't lose anything. >> if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. [ applause ] >> oops, that one didn't work out so well. millions have learned that no, you don't get on keep your doctor. six million policies were canceled. but millions of americans who did not have health insurance before now do have it. that's why obamacare is good, says dr. kathleen doctors for america, a group

that wants government to pay for more of our health care. on the other side, michael tanner of the cato institute wrote a book saying we need more competition, and less government. so, kathleen, i agree with michael. you say obamacare is a great thing? >> i'm looking at the number of people who have come in who before had to choose between paying their rent or paying for health care, or who couldn't get it because of preexisting conditions or other reasons who are now able to actually get coverage. those plans that were canceled weren't really good coverage. these were plans that when you got really sick, they were going to be gone. john: greedy insurance companies were selling junk to people? >> we know the number one example plans didn't meet obamacare standards, they didn't meet sufficiently lengthy time of a maternity recovery. that's fine. if i'm a 55-year-old gay man, i

am not worried about maternity coverage. john: we're all in this together. don't we want everybody covered? >> sure, let's give credit where it's due. obamacare covered about 8 million people. half of those have been pushed into medicaid, which isn't good insurance. in exchange for that roughly five million people lost health insurance were forced to get other types of policies. i can't buy the type of insurance i want today and pushed into insurance plan that has a very narrow network and might not include my doctor. john: i want a free market, i want people to have skin in the game. >> we did that. it failed. john: when? >> that's when we had before. we had a free market. john: no, we didn't. >> how did we not have a free market? john: 90% were paid by a private insurance company. doc, do i need this test, if i gave you the money, you wouldn't have a cash box to take it.

you're getting money from insurance company. >> go back 20, 30 years, we had that. go back 40. john: we haven't had it since world war ii. >> another way of incentive to higher employees. john: big government manage our lives, reducing our choices, and now we have more of it with obamacare. >> insurance companies are more of the issue you're discussing and the frustrations you're discussing. i don't disagree on that mark of it. honestly as a physician, i have more difficulty dealing with private insurers than medicare. >> that's not going to be the case for long. beginning 2017 when the independent advisory board, the government is going to reimburse the rates to physician, that's bound to lead to rationing. if you increase demand, decrease supply, you don't have to be an economic genius to recognize what's going to happen. john: somebody's going to ration, if it's the private insurance company or the government. >> it should be me, i should make the decision. john: then, pay your own bills.

>> i should, under obamacare i can't, i'm mandated to buy insurance and mandated to buy a specific type of insurance that the government thinks i should have, that has the benefits they think i should have. john: why do i have to buy alcohol rehab coverage and diet care and maternity care. >> that goes together. john: why don't i have a choice to get what i want? . >> at the end of the day, the dietary choices are stuff we're paying for, we have an obesity epidemic, diabetes is number one as an epidemic and we're paying for, we have alcoholism as an issue. that we do have all these problems. you pay now or later. it's a whole lot cheaper to pay it now. as for the maternity care, when we didn't have the mandate, when i was in medical school, i got pregnant when i was starting residency. there i am with md from yale, it was a preexisting condition, i couldn't get coverage, a physician. john: if you can afford the

tuition at yale. >> i would pay $20,000 a year as a resident and i couldn't get maternity care. >> look, there are ways to deal with preexisting conditions that don't involve healthy young people and making them subsidize older and sicker people. why should someone just out of college who has a $20,000 a year job be subsidizing insurance for warren buffet and bill gates. that's what obamacare does, it makes young healthy people subsidize older and sicker people. >> the one place it doesn't pay, lasik eye surgery, prices came down, and the doctors give out cell phone numbers because they want to please the patients. >> the same is true with cosmetic surgery and dental care. prices have not risen at the rate that insurance covered services have. >> you want to take the risk when you have bypass surgery you pay for that out of pocket. john: i want a catastrophic

policy that covers me being hit by a car or bypass surgery. the small stuff i want to pay myself. >> what are you going to do about the lifestyle issues the inherited diseases and everything else. we are a society. >> shouldn't people be responsible for their lifestyle issues. if i eat 20 big macs tomorrow and have a heart attack. isn't that my responsibility. >> you're going to ding people for having bad genetics. >> bad habits and bad lifestyle. >> what about genetics? they are born with missing a gene that is incredibly expensive therapy. that's their fault, really? >> we can deal with people with preexisting conditions. every proposal to replace obamacare includes some provision to cover team with preexisting conditions through risk pools. >> but no one dealt with it until obamacare happened. i'm not saying it's a perfect plan, it was the one we could get through the congress. it addressed preexisting conditions, rescission of care,

lifetime caps and all of the issues that we do have that weren't being addressed, and as we moved forward, we will continue to form it into something that is going to be better. john: since we're all in this together, you say, and others have to pay for my costs, should we ban cigarettes? alcohol? >> i believe in syntax. >> should we require mandatoryical thennics every morning. they do that in korea. john: thank you, now, another fight about health care and choice, to me a most basic and moral question is who owns your body? i would think you do, in a free society, that means you can take risks. go skiing, drive a race car, most importantly if you are sick, owning your body means try a medicine that you think might help you, any medicine. yet today in america, you can't. you can't try a medicine without government approval. some people die because the fda won't allow them to try a drug.

>> you have a terminal illness, should you have the right to try treatments that might save your life but are not yet officially approveed? >> mckayla knap died two days ago, keith knapp lobbied to save his life. >> the drug was approved just last week. in another case, two brothers have illness that is causing muscles to wither away until they die. there is no known cure, but the younger brother was lucky because the fda did allow him to try an experimental drug and that drug helped him. max is getting better but brother austin is not. >> my brother max can run and walk, i can only sit in the wheelchair and watch him. john: our government will not allow people to try something that worked for max, it might let him live. here's his mom. >> if austin is never given the

chance to get on the medicine, we know with 100% certainty he will die. john: people die because the government says no. three states, colorado, louisiana and missouri passed laws that say if you're terminally ill, the choice is yours, sort of. you may try an experimental drug if you can prove you are terminal. if the drug company will let you have it and if the fda doesn't order the drug company not to give it to you. this small step towards sanity happened because of the think tank, the goldwater institute. am i characterizing it correctly, free states allow you to beg and try to scheme and get something that might keep you alive? >> that's right. in the three states people who are terminally ill are allowed to go around the fda straight to a drug company to save their own lives. john: but the drug company may say no, i don't want to get in trouble with the fda? >> they. my there is no guarantee with

the laws. the whole show's topic is about choice. we're trying to give people who are dying the choice to try to save their own life without the government's permission. john: the fda says look, if you're dying, we have a compassionate use process, and they e-mailed us, we allow nearly every expanded request to proceed. >> sure, that's true. they do. except the problem with the compassionate use problem is it takes over 300 hours of bureaucratic paperwork and wrangling to get through the process, there have been a lot of documented cases of people actually dying while they're waiting for the fda to make a decision. john: it can take years, routinely takes years. >> routinely. john: they can say, we allow nearly every expanded access two, three years later. >> right, talking about terminally ill people here. they don't have 300 hours of bureaucratic wrangling time.

what right to try let's them do is say okay, i'm going to the drug company that has experimental drug, they're going to give me an answer right away, yes or no, i have the choice to try. john: josh thompson has als, his family initiated this process, what happened? >> took josh's family three years, he had to hire a law firm to get through the process. the crazy thing about josh's story is that the drug he wanted to try was manufactured in virginia by an american drug company, already legal in italy. he just wanted to try it three years. they finally gave it to him after he lost the ability to walk, talk, feed himself and even swallow. john: just bureaucratic narrow-mindedness? they're not mean people. >> no. look all of these safety procedures that are in place at the fda came because they're trying to keep people safe, right? there's a good time and a place for making sure the aspirin and

the tylenol and the zyrtec that we buy at cvs is not going to kill us. when you are terminally ill, option is certain death or maybe not, the fda needs to think about how they address those issues. john: thank you. to join this argument, tweet using hashtag choice or post on my facebook page. we'd like to know what you think about this. coming up, i put a pink mustache on my minivan to celebrate choice in taxi service. also, evil republicans and evil democrats. both evil because they won't let me make my own choices. i'll confront a democrat next. ta hey! searching for a great used car?

you got it! just say "show me millions of used cars for sale at the all new carfax.com" where now you can search with the power of carfax®. just say "show me cars with no accidents reported." boom! or how about "show me cars with only one owner".

pretty cool! plus, we're the only site where you get a free carfax® report with every car listed. so find the cars you want. avoid the ones you don't start your used car search at carfax.com

welllllllll, not when your travel rewards card makes it so hard to get a seat using your miles. that's their game. the flights you want are blacked out. or they ask for some ridiculous number of miles. honestly, it's time to switch to the venture card from capital one. with venture, use your miles on any airline, any flight, any time. no blackout dates. and with every purchase, you'll earn unlimited double miles. from now on, no one's taking your seat away. what's in your wallet?

. >> we're the party of choice, which is exactly why i'm tired of republicans and others saying to me -- i do respect your choice. don't get an abortion. john: that was democratic strategist julie raginski, democrats call themselves the party of choice. they are almost always talking about abortion, they're obsessed with abortion. but other kinds of choice? the right to choose your

child's school, not to join a union, to buy a gun, to pay people what you want to pay them in your own business, buy what you want to buy, democrats are not so big on choice. as they grow government we have fewer choices. here's senator rand paul on that. >> it's lightbulbs, it's toilets, it's cars, you name it, your freedom of choice is gone, for a party that says they are the pro-choice party. this is the most anti-choice administration we've seen in a lifetime. john: yes, as government grows, free choice shrinks. so let's turn the democratic big government apologet. >> i am a liberal who votes democratic, where else am i going to go. i don't speak for the party, i identify more with the l-word than the d-word, okay. john: let's start with school choice, why can't i take the government money and send my kid to whatever school i want.

>> in sweden, they tried it, didn't work. the milton friedman model. john: it did work. >> no, it didn't. it's not working. some of those schools, those private schools are getting out of the school business and the kids are getting screwed, and furthermore, the school gets to choose whether or not they're going to accept you. when the school chooses to reject you, there's less choice for the student. john: how is your way working out for poor kids. >> it will work out if we put more resources into public schools. john: guns, why can't i have the choice to buy a gun in new york city. >> you want the choice to have a nuclear weapon in you want the choice to have -- you want to be pro-choice on everything? i want a nuclear weapon on my front lawn. you want that? john: not talking about nuclear weapons. >> you are not pro-choice. why would i make that choice. john: unions, talk about unions for a moment. you're a union supporter.

when i worked at abc, i had to join a union called aftra, i didn't want to join i'm not an artist. >> sure you are, you're a television artist. look at you. the mustache is art. john: i want to be merits and skilled, i didn't want to be lumped in with geraldo and others at abc, i had no choice, new york is a union shop state. once the unions certify at abc, i have to join or i can't work there. >> you get the benefits whether you want them or not, and the unions historically have fought for weekends, paid hour days, some basic minimum wage for people. the right not to have child labor. beyond a reasonable doubts something that you benefit from. john: why do i have to? >> because everybody benefits. we work and live in a society where there is a collective well-being and you benefit, as

i've been mentioning for the things that union members fought for, you pay into it, you get the goodies, you have a pension, aftra has health care. john: i could form a group of correspondents and negotiate for a pension. >> wouldn't that be a union, forming your own union. john: it would be voluntary, voluntary is better than forced. >> forced, you use the word force. john: forced unionization in new york. >> but the fact is -- >> if i wanted to work there. >> there is mutual benefit for all and you benefitted from what unions accomplished. john: you want more government health care? >> i want the government to take over health care. health care should be a right, should be for all. john: government figure, more government control. >> some things, i'm not saying they should tell you what to eat. everybody should have health care, education, everybody should have a warm radiator in place of republicans. we have the resources to do it. we spend all this membership on war, no questions asked. john: thank you, alan colmes,

you're going to be buying people warm radiators. >> i want to announce now, i'm not running. john: good. should i point out republicans are anti-choice, too. many are not just antiabortion, they are anti-gay marriage, drugs, anti-gambling, anti-free speech in some cases. i'm confront a republican next. and then is it possible to have too much choice? >> mochaccino, cappuccino, rappaccino, al pacino. we asked people a question, how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going have to rethink this thing.

it's hard to imagin how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 3years or mor so maybe we need to approach things dferently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪

john: i . john: i call democrats anti-choice, pro-choice on on abortion, but they don't want to let me eat what i choose, hire who i want, buy a gun, not join a union, not buy obamacare and so on. this suggests that republicans, while anti-choice on abortion, are pro-choice about most other things, but they are not. they have their own things they

like to ban. tony perkins heads the family research council. why can't i take any drug i want? it's my body. >> it is your body, john, but the consequences are paid for by the broader society. john: we all pay by the damage caused by cigarettes and alcohol, should we ban them? >> we limit them, we restrickthem. we don't ban them, but what we're talking about here is something that has been illegal that we're trying to make illegal. for instance, in alcohol, we tried banning that, didn't work, we had something that was legal and tried to make it illegal. here's something illegal, that is drugs. they've been controlled, now talking about legalizing them. once that happens, there's no turning back the clock on that, and the consequences will be quite significant for society as a whole. we'll all pay the price for that. john: another example, i'm nervous that as i age and get sick, i will be in great pain.

i would like the control to end my own life when i want to. why can't i? >> it's a very difficult question, john, a lot of people have gone through that and struggled through the end of life issues, but let's look at what the actual numbers are on that. for instance, oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal for two decades, 20 years. john: vermont and washington have also legalized it. >> that's true. what we have is a history to look at here. in 20 years, we've seen increase in general suicide, up about 41% in oregon compared to other states, and there are costs associated with that because a lot of times people don't succeed, and literally we're talking millions of dollars a year that taxpayers have to pay as a result of that who try to end their lives unsuccessfully and health care costs related to that. john: but that's the aberration. if i'm in horrible pain why, isn't it my choice? >> well, again, it's human

life. we're talking about devaluing human life. you say it's your choice, your choice like the choices we make each and every day have impact upon other people, and we decided as a society there are certain choices that the impact is such -- they are so significant that it affects the broader society that is choices we don't allow. john: moving on, why can't i marry a man? >> well, let's talk about marriage. john: why can't i marry three people, two men and a woman. >> if you redefine marriage that's what we'll end up with. this is an issue of why is the government involved in marriage? why not get government out of marriage. let's talk about why government is involved in marriage and extends certain benefits to it, because marriage benefits society where. children grow up with the exposure to a mom and dad and the social science is overwhelming those children do better in society as a whole.

the reason government benefits marriage is because marriage benefits society. john: why can't i gamble? you support my right to buy lots of guns but can't get on this weekend's football games? >> if people want to gamble, that's their business. but the government becomes a party to it and promotes it and doesn't police it as they should, then i have a problem with it. john: can i burn a flag? >> i would be opposed to it as one who serve in the united states marine corps and have seen men give their lives for this country. i think there are some things we should hold as sacred. john: free speech, in the form of protests. >> out of respect for those who have given you that right, you should defer not to. john: i would never do it, but people should have a right to. >> well, we'll disagree there. john: should pornography be banned? >> again, it's the consequences that come from that. john: yes or no?

>> i think what the current standard is obscenity should be banned. when you look at what the consequences of that and people playing that out. john: should a woman be allowed to charge money to have sex, a boxer makes money off his body. >> i do not believe we should decriminalize prostitution. again where we see that happening is where the government wants to get involved in it and tax it, and end up promoting it instead of regulating it. john: thank you, tony perkins coming on, answering tough questions, we agree to disagree. next, let's go into the real world. what does real choice mean in your daily life? been to the supermarket latey? >> so much choice does. all this choice enhance our lives? i'm overwhelmed. my next guest says no, it doesn't. when we return. . my next guest said no, it

[ male announcer ] some come here to build something smarter. ♪ some come here to build something stronger. others come to build something faster... something safer... something greener. something the whole world can share. people come to boeing to do many different things. but it's always about the very thing we do best. ♪

. john: that song is 22 years old now. now i've got 557 channels with nothing on. we're fussier now. there is plenty of good stuff on, like this show. choice is a good thing. but do we have too much of a good thing? let's go to the supermarket. >> tomato dash, all-natural, vodka sauce, marinara. >> my small supermarket offers a zillion types of somethingety sauce. >> sicilian gravy, fire roasted. is that roasted garlic? >> reminds me of a rant by denis leary. >> coffee flavored coffee.

mochaccino, cappuccino, frappuccino, al pacino. john: they don't have a favor called al pacino. too much choice. here's a book about choice that argues more is less, that's the subtitle. the author is barry schwartz. barry, no, more is more. >> well, of course, more is more, the question is does more get you more? and with the research i summarize in the book suggests no. three things happen to people when there are too many choices. one is that instead of being liberated, they're paralyzed. john: that happens to me. >> you walk out with no spaghetti choice. when there are lots of options, and lots of dimensions to each option, chances go up that you make a mistake. third thing that happens, if you choose well, you end up

less satisfied because it's easy to imagine that one of the alternatives that you didn't choose would be better than the one that you did. >> you want the government to ban choices? >> i never said the government should ban. john: you're not a control freak, you're just talking about it. >> that's in my hat as a political actor not as a psychologist. i think people suffer when there is too much choice.metime should play a role. john: i have to say people are paralyzed, i don't see anyone walking out empty-handed. >> people don't walk out empty-handed, they walk out with less stuff than they would if there were fewer choices. john: stores aren't stupid. if that worked -- >> i beg your pardon, the stores are remarkably stupid, and there is enormous impetus on the part of produceers to offer more and more choice in the fight for real estate in the supermarket. pepsi offers 12 varieties

because every inch taken up by pepsi is not taken up by coke. john: paradise was the old soviet union. >> nobody is saying no choice is ideal. the ideal is the right amount of choice, if you say how much is that? i'll say, nobody knows. >> i'm glad you don't want to totally limit the choices. there is one area in my life where i'm selfishly glad the government did limit choice. television. clueless politicians had to put limits on cable tv to protect poor people because they're a threat to people. i worked at cbs and abc at a time when most of you were able to only get five channels. so millions of you watched me because you had few other choice. great for me, bad for most everyone else. in england when sensible politicians led to steak tv channels argued competition was

bad because it would lower the quality of tv. the bbc mocked the politicians. >> far greater range, for too long, broadcast is in the span of a small elite. we must expand and offer more choice. >> cutlery, sir? >> cutlery? use a plastic coffee stirrer. >> at least you've got a choice now. haven't you? they may be complete crap. john: so set your position and get more choice for getting more garbage? >> the answer is when you have more choice you get more garbage and get more good stuff. the 57 channels and nothing on, it was nothing on, there were three or four good things, now there are 800 channels, most are worse than crap, unimaginably bad but excellent options for people. john: going to the extreme example. people experience the option of too much choice and

dictatorships like north korea. "60 minutes" interviewed a man who escaped north korea. >> the most important thing was the thought that even a prisoner like me could eat chicken and pork, if i were able to escape the barbed wires. i still think of freedom in that way. >> that's what freedom means to you? >> people could eat what they want, it could be the greatest gift from god. john: choice of food is the greatest gift from god. not transparent that it was choice of food that was so great. what's great is actually being able to eat decent food. my guess is if we were stuck with chicken, it is a vast improvement over the north korean prison. i think it is a gift from god to eat nutritious and tasty food, and i would never dream of restricting the number of options people have. all i'm saying, when you give people when they say they want,

which is more choice, it doesn't make them better off. john: and starbucks is stupid for offering all these choices? how many people who go into starbucks order the same damn thing every day. but the model seems to works they keep opening new stores. >> people like to go there. john: people like to go starbucks, arguably in spite of the options that are offered, not because of them. thank you, barry, i'm glad you don't want to outlaw it. coming up, people may want to outlaw me and the pink mustache. >> we have to pay big money for licenses. we have to get fingerprinted. we have to have commercial insurance. pink mustache has nothing!

. john: you may have noticed there's a new thing out there called the internet, and these americans have smartphones. this innovation has changed life for the better by giving us much more choice. for example, there are new taxi services like uber and side car that offer an alternative to traditional taxis. you book the car in your phone and the driver pix you up, or if you want to make extra money driving people, you now can. i did it for a company called

lyft. lyft makes drivers put a ridiculous mustache on our cars, it's a marketing gimmick but helps a person who wants a pickup spot the car. i also have the passenger's phone number, unlike normal cabs, lyft drivers ipvite customers in the front seat. >> where are you headed? >> i think services like that are terrific. i could make money, people got a ride. so many people like the new services that uber is valued at 18 billion dollars. >> i think it's fabulous. i think go to town! it's causing so much buzz for the disruptors of the world. you don't want more regulation. you don't want rules. john: maybe we don't, there are rules. uber and lyft are illegal most places so what's going to happen to the extra choice? adam keeps an eye on this for the technology policy program at the mercada center, what's going to happen? the companies be growing but

legal. >> for far too long. regulation is put in place to protect consumer interest. the reality is we know regulation has unintended consequences and hurts consumers with higher prices, poor quality and no better example of that than the world of taxicabs, that's why uber and lyft are providing consumers with the option they want. john: consumers like and they're valuable and growing, but the taxi companies rightly point out, we have to obey rules to make sure we're safe and licensed and have insurance. >> that's not an excuse for keeping out new innovation or choice. the better answer is put everybody on the same level playing field by liberalizing markets and consumers have more choices. >> uber is in 111 cities. the laws are all over the place. two governors vetoed restrictions. three states let bills die, two have bills pending, two passed rules. and the companies are doing something we haven't seen in

business before. they're not saying mother may i, they're talking about permissionless innovation, they're going ahead and doing it. >> offering the options and consumers are showing they want the options. john: a million customers and the politicians are saying, maybe i'm not going to get elected if i enforce the rules. >> that's why i'm optimistic that ultimately the technologies and services prevail. there is clearly a demand for them. consumers were hungry for high quality service, they are tired of stinky cabs and getting options and want more. john: that's great for the internet businesses that work on my phone, but if you want to build a new car or a chemical plant or build homes in a new way, you can't do it quickly. the regulators crush you. john: harder in the old economy sectors. we need to give it a chance. john: the options keep growing, and regulators are not happy and cab companies are upset. they want to ban the

competition and san francisco held the protest. >> cabbies lined up cabs, then let them sit. >> we have to pay big money for licenses. we have to get fingerprinted. commercial insurance. pink mustache has nothing. john: you want to ban the competition. >> we're not trying to ban the competition. what we'd like is to be competing with companies that follow the rules. john: he's a taxi lobbyist, he kind of is trying to ban competition. >> yeah, they are, they're trying to stop consumer choice. trying to say we've always had it this way, want to keep it this way. that's because it served their interest, not the consumer's interest. we need to change the rules to benefit consumers not protect cronyist industries. john: virginia banned it, germany banned it and said oops, we're not going to ban it. >> consumers fought back and showed elected leaders that they wanted options. >> the lobbying continues. the sunlight foundation says

the taxi industry is spending at least $3,000 giving it to politicians for every dollar that uber, lyft and side car give. >> yep, more cronyism, john, we're seeing these companies benefitted from the regulations and want to protect what they've got. so they're going to lobby lawmakers to make sure the choices don't exist for customers. john: uber fights back with videos. anti-ride sharing regulation? no! this celebrates the benefits of choice and names places like orlando, florida that restrict it. >> it's great. consumers have the ability to take matters into their own hands. john: thank you, adam. a few more options from the sharing economy like shared meals in a stranger's house. >> thanks for having us. check out all these airline seats. lots of them, right? but when you try to get one by using your travel rewards card miles... those seats mysteriously vanish.

why? all the flights you want are blacked out. or they hit you up for some outrageous number of miles. switch to the venture card from capital one. with venture, use your miles on any airline, any flight, any time. no blackout dates. and with every purchase you'll earn unlimited double miles. now we're getting somewhere. what's in your wallet?

. john: my big government-loving friends sometimes say, stossel, what are you whining about? americans voted for big government. democracy is all about choice, you have a choice, you can vote the bums out. true. >> this is an election alert. john: democracy is a free market, we choose our representatives, but compared to a real free market, the political process is vastly inferior. we get to vote for politicians once every two or four or six years. if this is a market, it's a

slow and clumsy one. in the private sector we vote with dollars and vote often for more stuff, and to win our votes businesses must adjust constantly, not every four years, every day, every minute, competition requires businesses to innovate, or lose votes and die. also, and most important, politics is a package deal. vote for obama, you get obama policy in. the free market, you have a million choices. take food shops. lots of different supermarkets with a lot of differentand pric. suppose you chose food the way we choose politicians. two choices, donkey meat or elephant meat. maybe a third choice of other food producer gets enough signatures to allow them into the grocery store. but basically every four years people vote for donkey or elephant meat. then no matter how you voted, you have to eat what the

majority picked. but in the free market supermarket, i can pick elephant and you can pick donkey, we can each get what we want, and that freedom to choose forces entrepreneurs to compete, to give us better choices every second. government bureaucrats routinely try to crush this innovation, change makes them nervous. as my last guest said today thanks to the internet it's not just uber and lyft that have outrun the regulators. other cool parts of the sharing economy do it, too. >> websites allow cooks with strangers willing to pay people to eat with and meet with strangers in their home. they don't obey restaurant regulations but customers choose them, anyway. >> cheers! >> likewise, new home sharing

services like airbnb, if you live in new york, you can stay at someone's apartment for less. of course a predictable group, unions, the hotel industry, and the politicians whom they fund don't like this new competition. they released this video that purports to show how bad airbnb rentals are. now i'm sure some homes are this bad. just as some hotel rooms are this bad. the video doesn't mention that. but the beauty of the choice is you don't have to stay here. i don't think the anti-choice people get that their own commercial demonstrates that consumers are protected without government regulation. the complaints they site here come from public reviews. hosts and guests review each other. bad rentals like these won't sucker tourists again. as long as people are allowed to make choices and speak about them, consumers are better off.

we must not allow politicians to limit our choices. they don't know what we want or will want. 20 years ago a few people would have said america needs more coffee shops selling expensive coffee. but apparently that's what americans did want. who knew? government didn't. if we let government make the decisions we'll have far fewer choices. e should, the simplest super market a wonderous thing. 30,000 -- food is unbelieve abily cheap. aisles are wide, well lit, story istores open all of the time, they rarely poison us, they are america yet we take it for granted, next time you go

shopping, stop say, thank god for free enterprise and the choice it gives us. thaty our show, see you next week. >> warning, the following jokes are raunchy, risque, and for adults only. >> suzanne, you look great. i think i'll have your room sent up to mine. >> no one threw a better party, a better black tie, a-list, racy, raucous, hilarious party than the king of cool... >> dean martin. >> dean martin. >> deano. >> dean, you're a phenomenon. you look like cary grant and you smell like ed mcmahon. >> starvista entertainment and time life present the dean martin celebrity roasts. >> dean and i have been on more floors than johnson's wax.