ApexNomad

While the cost of Medicare for All is high, calling it a path to bankruptcy ignores the potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies. The real question is how to finance the program fairly and ensure the transition doesn’t cause undue disruption—a political challenge, not an economic impossibility.

Profits generated by insurance companies are just one piece of the puzzle. However, the broader issue lies in the profit-driven nature of the entire system, including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers. These entities often prioritize revenue over patient outcomes, which contributes significantly to the $4 trillion in healthcare spending. While an excess profits tax could address some inequities, comprehensive reform would require tackling these systemic inefficiencies and misaligned incentives to create a system that prioritizes prevention, affordability, and equitable access for everyone.

Cash is, and always be, king. Not going anywhere. Just ask Brenda from “Adventures in Babysitting.” Brenda: Uh, those are hot dogs, right? Hot Dog Vendor: Yeah, want one? Brenda: Mmm, yeah I'd love one. Hot Dog Vendor: That'll be two bucks. [Brenda hands him a check, he stares incredulously.] Hot Dog Vendor: A check? Brenda: Yeah, but it's a good check. See, Chris' mom wrote it to Chris 'cause Chris bought her something, I can't remember what. Then I bought Chris some press-on nails, I gave Chris the difference, and she wrote the check over to me. So I'll write the check over to you, you keep the difference, and I'll take the hot dog. So, you got a pen? Hot Dog Vendor: Get outta here! Brenda: Wait! I'm starving, you'd rather throw it away than give it to me? Hot Dog Vendor: I work on a cash-only basis. Brenda: But it's a perfectly good check! Hot Dog Vendor: No! I'll make it very clear. You slip me the cash, and I'll slip you the weiner. Brenda: But I don't have any cash! Hot Dog Vendor: Then I don't have a weiner!

You’re right, these issues aren’t unique to healthcare, but are part of broader systemic problems that span multiple areas of society.

You’re absolutely right—it’s deeply disturbing that people are celebrating such a heinous act. Regardless of frustrations with the healthcare system, violence is never the answer, and cheering for the murder of a CEO—no matter how flawed the company they represent—is morally indefensible. Supporting the alleged shooter or sending him money not only glorifies violence but also sets a dangerous precedent, undermining both the rule of law and any legitimate critique of systemic issues by associating them with extremism. At the same time, dismissing this entirely as victimhood or madness risks oversimplifying the deeper issues at play. While the alleged shooter’s actions are reprehensible, they stem from a broader context of frustration with systems that many feel are broken and unresponsive. Recognizing these issues is essential to preventing similar tragedies, but it must happen without romanticizing or condoning violence. Calling for reform is not an empty statement—it’s a commitment to addressing systemic problems through peaceful, democratic processes rather than succumbing to despair or extremism. What we are witnessing is a real-time example of how the wealthy can leverage their resources for superior legal defense, further exacerbating existing disparities in the legal system. The alleged shooter’s wealthy family has hired a former ADA, one of the best criminal defense attorneys, to represent him. This highlights how access to resources can significantly impact legal outcomes. In many ways, the alleged shooter is doing exactly what the CEO he killed did before him—cheating the system or, in the latter case, profiting from misery. It’s a troubling irony that those with wealth and influence can bend the rules in their favor, even in the face of something as severe as murder. While some may feel the CEO, who profited off others’ suffering, brought this tragedy upon himself, such frustration with systemic inequality does not justify violence. As philosopher John Rawls argues, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” Rawls’ philosophy stresses that justice must always be the cornerstone of our institutions, ensuring they are set up to benefit everyone—especially the least advantaged—regardless of wealth or influence.

It’s true that healthcare is complex, and solutions are not simple. However, the frustration many feel isn’t born from ignorance—it’s a response to the real, visible inequities in the system. While the U.S. leads in innovation, it consistently ranks poorly in areas like affordability and access compared to other developed nations. Many Americans are left with crushing medical debt or go without necessary care. A major reason for this is that the majority of healthcare services in the U.S. are delivered by private entities that aim to generate profit. This profit-driven model leads to higher costs for patients, limited access to care, and a focus on treatments rather than prevention, further contributing to disparities in outcomes. The need for reform is not a lack of understanding, but a recognition of these systemic flaws and the possibility of a better approach.

While I’m sure your intentions are well-meaning, your decision to publicly recommend therapy and medication under the guise of being a physician—without disclaimers or a direct professional relationship—is highly unethical. This is especially problematic in a forum where most users are anonymous, while the individual you’re addressing is a visible provider with their reputation and livelihood at stake. Publicly recommending SSRIs and therapy, without knowledge of the person’s medical history or context, could easily be seen as overstepping professional ethics. At the very least, such recommendations should be private and accompanied by disclaimers that no formal patient-doctor relationship exists, which I’m sure you know. I don’t agree with much of what TallMuscl37 says and have previously urged him to take his frustrations offline, away from a platform primarily made up of clients. That said, your approach here feels more punitive than constructive, as evidenced by your public blast to moderators. You’re not available to help him after making those recommendations, and by doing so, you walk a very dangerous line.

To read a book repeatedly is not to ignore the abundance of stories in the world—it is to honor the ones that grow with us, the ones that offer not just new insights but a deeper understanding of who we are as we evolve. For me, that book is To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s the reason I became a lawyer, and every time I return to it, I see something new—not just in the story, but in myself. What once inspired a young idealist now resonates with the perspective of someone who’s spent decades navigating the complexities of justice and fairness. Reading it again feels like reconnecting with an old mentor—one who grounds me in the ideals that shaped my path while reminding me why I still believe in the fight for equity. So yes, there are many fish in the sea, but some stories are oceans—vast, timeless, and worth revisiting for a lifetime.

Fancy seeing this. I met Edmund years ago at a party—I can’t remember where. This was before his first stroke, and we spoke a lot about Paris, which he missed deeply. He’s a very interesting man, to say the least. This book is so true to who he is—candid, reflective, and unflinchingly honest. The way he writes about love, longing, and connection is raw and often uncomfortable, but that’s exactly what makes it so powerful.

Beautiful smile!!

So many mornings I wish I had a urinal!

Wow!

@marylander1940 right after my own heart!!! I posted earlier about how one piece PJs on a man are the sexiest…. And here’s the thead!! 🙏❤️

This is why men should smile more often. Simply breathtaking.

I agree that it’s not the provider’s job to police the client’s emotions, but as the professional in this arrangement, I do believe it is incumbent upon the provider to set and enforce clear emotional boundaries to ensure a healthy, respectful dynamic—even if it means ceasing the provider/client relationship. Why? Because for many clients, the provider is the fantasy come to life. For a price! You may be the best sex they’ve ever had or will ever have, the best cock they’ve ever experienced or will ever experience, or the best body they’ve ever touched or will ever touch. For many clients, you may be the only body they can touch, and only because they are paying for it. You are giving them your time, attention, and physical affection, and for many clients, that creates an emotional connection. For some, that would never happen if they weren’t paying. For a novice, it’s easy to see why many clients can become emotionally attached. Knowingly leveraging a client’s emotional attachment to secure recurring business crosses an ethical line. Emotional attachment should never be manipulated for profit. Ceasing future interactions when boundaries are clearly crossed—and knowing when the attachment goes beyond the professional—is a necessary responsibility and obligation of the provider to protect both parties and maintain a healthy, respectful dynamic.

I’m not sure, but if I got his, I’m definitely the disappointment of the family.

@Whitman this might be my favorite thread of all. 😍 Thank you!

To be honest, this wasn’t even on my radar until I read it here! From the poster, he looks nothing like the guy I remember from Schitt’s Creek. I hardly recognized him… then I saw him shirtless… with just a scarf wrapped around his neck… and thought, Christmas came early this year.

Yes, if that’s what you want, he’s great at that. NYC.

This is equivalent to a hallmark movie. They’re already pushing the envelope here by going shirtless.

Was this the Lifetime Original Movie Boyfriend experience?

Can someone enlighten me and explain what the abbreviation “CD” means in this context of his profile? Thanks! Maybe something UR community has shamed U for such as CD,chub,race,gender

I think it’s great that you’re exploring something you’ve wanted to try for a while. My advice—focus less on the specifics of “equipment” and more on the quality of the person you’ll be engaging with. You want someone who will give you a safe space to explore without judgment—someone who is respectful, attentive, and professional. Since this is your first time, it might be worth asking if you can have a quick FaceTime or video chat with him. It’ll give you a chance to see if he’s sincere and to address any questions or concerns. At 21, he may be professional and capable, or he may not be—it’s something you’ll probably gauge quickly based on your interactions. Ultimately, all decisions are yours. Go with your instincts, and prioritize feeling safe and comfortable above all else.