This was a public execution!

It’s the disingenuous sealioning that is old @mcuban.bsky.social

Something has to give. In every country that made it work, it was prices and margins, not care delivery.

Canada isn’t proof UHC can’t happen. It’s proof it doesn’t happen overnight. The U.S. already spent decades building a worse system.

The sustainable funding sources are the boring ones: payroll/income taxes, premiums replaced by taxes, consumption/excise, employer contributions, etc.

Universal coverage doesn’t inherently kill innovation. The bigger question is how you set drug pricing and exclusivity so R&D is rewarded without unlimited monopoly pricing.

other universal systems don’t pay US-style… but doctors still exist. UK NHS pay scales (GP/consultant) are publicly listed and show the general shape of “universal system” comp.

Start with a strong public option + auto-enrollment, cap out-of-pocket costs, let Medicare negotiate drugs, then keep expanding eligibility until the public plan becomes the default. If it works, it becomes Medicare-for-All in practice without pretending you can flip the whole system overnight.

Funding source is irrelevant. Conditions define the program.

If accessing the 💵 as income means breaking the rules of the account & paying a fine,it’s not UBI or TANF.It’s a health subsidy being repurposed under financial stress. Calling it “TANF with more people” only proves the point: it’s conditional, punitive, and means-tested. That’s the opposite of UBI.

If your “UBI” only works when poor people raid healthcare accounts and eat penalties, it isn’t UBI. It’s austerity with branding.

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.

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. ✌️

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.

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.