Shame only applies to people with empathy, unfortunately.
December 15, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Shame only applies to people with empathy, unfortunately.
That doesn’t really address what I said. I wasn’t debating consumption or boycotts, just whether ‘the art stands alone’ answers concerns about context.
December 12, 2025 at 6:01 PM
That doesn’t really address what I said. I wasn’t debating consumption or boycotts, just whether ‘the art stands alone’ answers concerns about context.
The art standing on its own doesn’t mean the context disappears—it just means some people are choosing not to weigh it. 👀
The photos are more about who someone keeps company with, not whether Annie Hall still works. ✌️
The photos are more about who someone keeps company with, not whether Annie Hall still works. ✌️
December 12, 2025 at 5:19 PM
The art standing on its own doesn’t mean the context disappears—it just means some people are choosing not to weigh it. 👀
The photos are more about who someone keeps company with, not whether Annie Hall still works. ✌️
The photos are more about who someone keeps company with, not whether Annie Hall still works. ✌️
Why defend the private system that drives consolidation, and then blame the one reform that tried to put basic guardrails on it?
December 11, 2025 at 2:33 PM
Why defend the private system that drives consolidation, and then blame the one reform that tried to put basic guardrails on it?
@mcuban.bsky.social name the ones open to it.
And open to what?
Actual reform? Or just destroying the existing protections and calling that ‘starting fresh’?
Because “openness” without a plan isn’t openness. It’s a blank space where a solution is supposed to be.
And open to what?
Actual reform? Or just destroying the existing protections and calling that ‘starting fresh’?
Because “openness” without a plan isn’t openness. It’s a blank space where a solution is supposed to be.
December 11, 2025 at 2:29 PM
@mcuban.bsky.social name the ones open to it.
And open to what?
Actual reform? Or just destroying the existing protections and calling that ‘starting fresh’?
Because “openness” without a plan isn’t openness. It’s a blank space where a solution is supposed to be.
And open to what?
Actual reform? Or just destroying the existing protections and calling that ‘starting fresh’?
Because “openness” without a plan isn’t openness. It’s a blank space where a solution is supposed to be.
They don’t opt out of Medicare now — because Medicare is the single largest, most reliable payer in the country.
If the biggest insurers vanished tomorrow, hospitals would freak out.
If Medicare vanished tomorrow, hospitals would collapse.
If the biggest insurers vanished tomorrow, hospitals would freak out.
If Medicare vanished tomorrow, hospitals would collapse.
December 11, 2025 at 2:07 PM
They don’t opt out of Medicare now — because Medicare is the single largest, most reliable payer in the country.
If the biggest insurers vanished tomorrow, hospitals would freak out.
If Medicare vanished tomorrow, hospitals would collapse.
If the biggest insurers vanished tomorrow, hospitals would freak out.
If Medicare vanished tomorrow, hospitals would collapse.
And if doctors prefer simpler, predictable billing, why keep the system that forces them to juggle 20 insurers instead of 1?
You’re pointing at symptoms of a broken, fragmented system and blaming the only part of it that actually works as intended.
You’re pointing at symptoms of a broken, fragmented system and blaming the only part of it that actually works as intended.
December 11, 2025 at 2:01 PM
And if doctors prefer simpler, predictable billing, why keep the system that forces them to juggle 20 insurers instead of 1?
You’re pointing at symptoms of a broken, fragmented system and blaming the only part of it that actually works as intended.
You’re pointing at symptoms of a broken, fragmented system and blaming the only part of it that actually works as intended.
If Medicare/Medicaid paperwork is overwhelming, why keep defending the Byzantine multi-insurer maze that creates that paperwork?
If private insurers are draining billions from public programs, how is expanding their role the solution?
If private insurers are draining billions from public programs, how is expanding their role the solution?
December 11, 2025 at 2:01 PM
If Medicare/Medicaid paperwork is overwhelming, why keep defending the Byzantine multi-insurer maze that creates that paperwork?
If private insurers are draining billions from public programs, how is expanding their role the solution?
If private insurers are draining billions from public programs, how is expanding their role the solution?
@mcuban.bsky.social how about you explain what republicans have done to make healthcare more accessible to all?
December 11, 2025 at 1:58 PM
@mcuban.bsky.social how about you explain what republicans have done to make healthcare more accessible to all?
• Eliminated surprise medical billing across the entire country.
• Extended Medicaid in states where Republicans didn’t block it.
• Added out-of-pocket caps for seniors’ medications starting in 2025.
• Extended Medicaid in states where Republicans didn’t block it.
• Added out-of-pocket caps for seniors’ medications starting in 2025.
December 11, 2025 at 1:57 PM
• Eliminated surprise medical billing across the entire country.
• Extended Medicaid in states where Republicans didn’t block it.
• Added out-of-pocket caps for seniors’ medications starting in 2025.
• Extended Medicaid in states where Republicans didn’t block it.
• Added out-of-pocket caps for seniors’ medications starting in 2025.
• Capped insulin at $35 for Medicare.
• Gave Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices for the first time ever.
• Expanded ACA subsidies so millions pay under $10/month for coverage.
• Gave Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices for the first time ever.
• Expanded ACA subsidies so millions pay under $10/month for coverage.
December 11, 2025 at 1:57 PM
• Capped insulin at $35 for Medicare.
• Gave Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices for the first time ever.
• Expanded ACA subsidies so millions pay under $10/month for coverage.
• Gave Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices for the first time ever.
• Expanded ACA subsidies so millions pay under $10/month for coverage.
Republicans blocked the public option, blocked a Medicare buy-in, sued to kill the ACA entirely, and refused to expand Medicaid in 10 states.
High deductibles were the compromise forced to get anything passed when one party refused to participate.
High deductibles were the compromise forced to get anything passed when one party refused to participate.
December 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Republicans blocked the public option, blocked a Medicare buy-in, sued to kill the ACA entirely, and refused to expand Medicaid in 10 states.
High deductibles were the compromise forced to get anything passed when one party refused to participate.
High deductibles were the compromise forced to get anything passed when one party refused to participate.
Lowering the Medicare age, drug-price negotiation, hospital price transparency, a public option, capping out-of-pocket costs… those are short-term steps. They’ve literally been on the table for years.
December 11, 2025 at 1:50 PM
Lowering the Medicare age, drug-price negotiation, hospital price transparency, a public option, capping out-of-pocket costs… those are short-term steps. They’ve literally been on the table for years.
You built a company proving drug prices can be lower. Medicare proves admin costs can be lower. Other countries prove coverage can be universal. So what exactly makes America the exception?
December 11, 2025 at 12:57 AM
You built a company proving drug prices can be lower. Medicare proves admin costs can be lower. Other countries prove coverage can be universal. So what exactly makes America the exception?
pretending it’s impossible when we already run the biggest single-payer system in the world (Medicare) is just avoiding the conversation.
The same way we got Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, employer insurance, and ACA: incrementally.
The same way we got Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, employer insurance, and ACA: incrementally.
December 11, 2025 at 12:44 AM
pretending it’s impossible when we already run the biggest single-payer system in the world (Medicare) is just avoiding the conversation.
The same way we got Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, employer insurance, and ACA: incrementally.
The same way we got Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, employer insurance, and ACA: incrementally.
The real question you should ask is this:
Are you okay with the most expensive healthcare system on Earth delivering worse outcomes than countries that spend half as much?
Because that’s the status quo you’re defending.
Are you okay with the most expensive healthcare system on Earth delivering worse outcomes than countries that spend half as much?
Because that’s the status quo you’re defending.
December 10, 2025 at 11:48 PM
The real question you should ask is this:
Are you okay with the most expensive healthcare system on Earth delivering worse outcomes than countries that spend half as much?
Because that’s the status quo you’re defending.
Are you okay with the most expensive healthcare system on Earth delivering worse outcomes than countries that spend half as much?
Because that’s the status quo you’re defending.
Voluntary or not, a religion isn’t just another hobby club with a newsletter. When a belief system claims divine authority and tries to steer secular policy for everyone else, that’s a different category. Advocacy is fine. Governing through theology isn’t. Like I said, beautiful sentiment. ;)
November 13, 2025 at 2:49 AM
Voluntary or not, a religion isn’t just another hobby club with a newsletter. When a belief system claims divine authority and tries to steer secular policy for everyone else, that’s a different category. Advocacy is fine. Governing through theology isn’t. Like I said, beautiful sentiment. ;)
True, though it’s not misunderstood. Those groups should weigh in. But religious institutions stepping into politics is a different story, and that’s where the tax-exempt status stops making sense. 🫡
November 13, 2025 at 2:17 AM
True, though it’s not misunderstood. Those groups should weigh in. But religious institutions stepping into politics is a different story, and that’s where the tax-exempt status stops making sense. 🫡
Yeah, no kidding. And if they want to keep weighing in on policy, they can help pay for it.
November 13, 2025 at 1:55 AM
Yeah, no kidding. And if they want to keep weighing in on policy, they can help pay for it.
Beautiful sentiment, but if the Church wants a louder voice in public policy, it can start by paying taxes like everyone else.
November 13, 2025 at 1:02 AM
Beautiful sentiment, but if the Church wants a louder voice in public policy, it can start by paying taxes like everyone else.
Reposted
I would love for a single democrat to reckon with the fact that conservatives are not in fact motivated by reasonable concerns. They are — just as they were with ‘concerns’ over blacks and gays and numerous other minorities over the last five decades — motivated by bigotry.
September 20, 2025 at 8:18 AM
I would love for a single democrat to reckon with the fact that conservatives are not in fact motivated by reasonable concerns. They are — just as they were with ‘concerns’ over blacks and gays and numerous other minorities over the last five decades — motivated by bigotry.
“All these people disagreeing with me is psychotic!”
June 9, 2025 at 5:28 PM
“All these people disagreeing with me is psychotic!”
I’m sure you believe that.
June 9, 2025 at 5:09 PM
I’m sure you believe that.