ApexNomad

Food, clothing, and housing are also fundamental needs, and while no one is suggesting they must all be provided for free, we do acknowledge a collective responsibility to ensure people don’t starve or freeze. That’s why we have programs like SNAP, public housing, and shelters. Healthcare is no different—it’s about protecting lives and giving people the chance to contribute to society. A system that allows people to die or suffer unnecessarily because they can’t afford care is one that undermines the very fabric of our humanity and community.

The fact that Medicare’s administrative costs are around 2%, while private insurers spend 15-20% on overhead and profits, isn’t a partisan claim, but a well-documented statistic. The issue here isn’t whether Medicare is perfect, but whether we could improve efficiency and reduce costs in the system by addressing these disparities. Independent research has consistently shown that Medicare operates at a much lower cost than the private sector. Fraud exists in every system, but comparing Medicare’s fraud issues to the waste and exploitation within the private sector is misleading. Private insurers are notorious for denying claims, overcharging, and hiking premiums—practices that directly harm consumers. (Have you seen the news lately?) While Medicare is not immune to fraud, it has far better oversight and the capacity to address these challenges more effectively than the profit-driven private insurance system. The debate here isn’t about whether Medicare is flawless, but whether our current system is serving everyone efficiently. The private sector model has shown that its profit-driven incentives often come at the expense of preventative care and cost containment, leaving many Americans with inadequate care and skyrocketing medical costs. Healthcare is a fundamental right. Choosing not to seek preventative care is one thing, but ignoring the systemic barriers that prevent many from even having the option of affordable care is another. Dismissing the systemic inefficiencies in the current model doesn’t solve the problem—it just kicks the can down the road.

I hear you, I do. I understand your concerns. You’re right that the current private sector system involves massive spending, but I think it’s important to examine where that money goes and the inefficiencies within it. The private insurance system incurs high administrative costs—about 15-20% of premiums go toward overhead and profits, compared to Medicare’s 2%. These costs don’t directly benefit patient care, and reducing them would free up substantial resources. The profit-driven model of the private sector doesn’t prioritize preventative care. This leads people to delay necessary treatment until it becomes more urgent and expensive. This is a form of rationing—rationing by price—where those who can’t afford care suffer the consequences. While countries with socialized healthcare do face some waiting lists, these are often overstated compared to the U.S., where lack of insurance or underinsurance results in similar or longer delays for the most vulnerable. You’re right that Medicare for All would be expensive in the short term, but over time, bulk purchasing, negotiating drug prices, and eliminating the profit margins of private insurers would save the country trillions. The U.S. currently spends far more on prescription drugs than other countries, largely because we lack the ability to negotiate prices with Big Pharma. Socialized systems negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, saving billions. The real question for me isn’t whether the transition would be flawless, but whether we can afford to continue a system where healthcare is driven by profit, leading to preventable deaths because people can’t access the care they need.

It’s easy to point to the gaps in Obamacare as proof that it didn’t work, but I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In many ways, Obamacare represented the first real attempt to address systemic issues in our healthcare system on a national scale, something that previous administrations had failed to do for decades. Was it perfect? No. But is it fair to call it a massive failure when it expanded access to millions of people, eliminated the pre-existing condition loophole, and reduced the uninsured rate to historic lows? I don’t think so. What we often forget in the criticism of the ACA is that, despite its shortcomings, it fundamentally shifted the conversation about healthcare in the U.S. Yes, premiums and drug costs still remain high, and there are gaps, especially in states that chose not to expand Medicaid. But to dismiss the law outright ignores how much it helped millions of Americans who were previously shut out of healthcare. When we hold any system to a standard of perfection, we risk losing sight of the progress it made. In fact, even today, millions of people benefit from its protections—especially in terms of ensuring access to care for the most vulnerable populations. The reality is that healthcare reform is never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and any attempt to solve these deep-rooted problems will face hurdles—whether it’s Obamacare, Medicare for All, or something else entirely. What I think we need to focus on is not just criticizing what hasn’t worked, but also finding ways to improve and build on the progress we’ve made. It’s not perfect, but Obamacare was a critical step toward a more inclusive healthcare system. And any future solutions will require learning from its challenges to create something that works for everyone.

A seminal piece of work. One of the greatest albums of all time. It deserves to be held so much higher than this.

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.