What if single-payer healthcare is the wrong debate?
The amount of the check matters more than the number of entities writing it.
Maybe we should debate pricing first.
danmunro.substack.com/p/why-…
Dan Munro retweeted
Twitter.
Twitter. Twitter.
Twitter. Twitter. Twitter.
Twitter-Twitter-Twitter-Twitter....
Dan Munro retweeted
"Tesla Cybertruck orders surpassed 1.9 million just days after Elon Musk detailed that "demand for the vehicle is so off the hook, you can’t even see the hook" (July 21, 2023)
2026: It ends here: 70,000 sold
(Tesla sold ~30 times less than it claimed to have "orders" ;)
The decision to halt production of Tesla’s polarizing polygonal pickup marks the end of an error. buff.ly/1hGjNVQ
Dan Munro retweeted
We're reporting only a fraction of measles cases in the US; some estimates put it as low as 20% in states like PA. This outbreak is much larger than what's reported and is spilling into highly vulnerable communities like babies and pregnant women. We will lose our Measles elimination status this month, and it will take years of responsible public health management to get it back.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Dan Munro retweeted
Latest Russian internet joke: "Trump's 7th and greatest bankruptcy, the Republican Party!" The goal now must be to prevent America from becoming the 8th.
In case you didn't know how it works:
Calley Means, who served as senior advisor at the 'department of health' under #RFQJr, revealed that 'chief of staff; susie wiles, "bowed to unrelenting pressure from lobbyists" to undo policy on the amount
1/ rawstory.com/susie-wiles-267…
Dan Munro retweeted
Tesla's inflated valuation ran out of hype five years ago and it's been circling the drain ever since.
Five years ago, you could have put $150k into $TSLA or an index fund, or stuffed it under your mattress.
After inflation, that $150k is now worth:
S&P 500: $193k
Mattress: $124k
Tesla: $104k
Grandma's S&P 500 index fund is up almost 29% after inflation. Even grandpa's mattress beat @ElonMusk.
In an AI-fueled bull market, $TSLA lost to Walmart, Costco, Philip Morris, Exxon, the New York Times, and literal garbage collectors.
Musk cashed out ~$40 billion of Tesla stock. His shareholders were left holding the bag: a stock down 15% in five years, a shrinking and aging lineup, 2% global market share, "Full Self-Driving" that still needs a babysitter, and robots that can barely stand up.
Tesla has been dead money for five years.
There is no "universal healthcare." There is universal COVERAGE and that distinction is critical in both defining universal coverage AND the price of it.
Just adding new/different coverage tiers w/ new/different prices isn't magically universal coverage.
hc4.us/sp
Dan Munro retweeted
Fight the narrative:
It's not RETRIBUTION.
It's about ACCOUNTABILITY
AND THE RETURN OF THE RULE OF LAW
This 66% is getting used a lot, but it isn't full picture.
YES - 66% = Gov responsible BUT:
* 31% = split b/w gov & private programs
* 35% = single/nat'l gov program
Is ensuring health care coverage a government responsibility? What Americans think | Pew Research Center
... and the 5-year cumulative departure from the original Medicare Advantage contract (for any reason) is ~48-53%.
Medicare Advantage is heavily advertised - and "works" if you don't need actual healthcare - but once you do, it's a race back to traditional Medicare.
More GOP fiction.
Five-year cumulative departure from the original MA contract for any reason ~48–53%.
Medicare Advantage is great - as long as your healthy - and the success is due largely to HEAVY advertising - which traditional Medicare doesn't do.
Interesting proposal, but look beyond the MCare expansion.
Most important provision is all-payer rate setting - which mirrors what Maryland has done successfully for decades.
Core issue is amount of the check - not how many entities are writing it.
hc4.us/sp
Here’s a new universal health care proposal from @rosadelauro. Love the all-payer rate setting. delauro.house.gov/media-cent…
Dan Munro retweeted
By blaming "the war," which is congealing as a talking point on Fox as well, they hope to avoid discussion of the massive corruption and also of the elephant in tbe room- a president who is unhinged and focused on himself and on other mens' bodies more than the economy and delivering for Americans.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
Voters aren't waiting. Likely to see more of this populist campaign finance reform as fiscal influence is challenged more directly.
There's a lot to focus on right now, but "The richest man to ever live just spent $200 million to support the Republican Senate candidate in Texas, and his man lost by double-digits in a statewide wipeout" is a completely insane sentence.
Put another way, the most expensive US Senate race before 2020 was $200 million. *One guy* spent that amount in Texas, and it doesn't seem to have made any difference. It might have hurt in a kind of Streisand effect way, in that the spending level was seen as obscene to people sympathetic to the argument that billionaires shouldn't "buy" elections.
The implications here seem pretty interesting! Especially re the limits of billionaire political power and/or the diminishing returns of money in politics.
Dan Munro retweeted
My favorite point about health costs as a voting issue. It was one element of voters’ cost of living concerns, NOT a separate issue, and underscoring the point, health costs, gas, and food are all tied:

Dan Munro retweeted
Zohran Mamdani on Iran:
I have to say that I find it quite ironic to read a post from the vice president as if he's describing the actions of a different administration.
He's the vice president of the United States of America. He is not just some commentator online.
And there has to be a reckoning of the fact that this is a war that they started. It's a war that they can end.
If they think it was a part of their political demise, then why don't they actually start to take some action to reflect that?
Dan Munro retweeted
Zohran Mamdani is on fire. 🔥
🇺🇸JD Vance at 6:00 PM: We lost due to the Iran war which causes household inflation for Americans
🇺🇸Zohran at 7:00 PM: "Bro you are VP of USA, not a random Twitter troll. You can't post like it's someone else's war. You started it, You can end it. Stop tweeting and crying, start acting."
Brutally Cooked 👏


























