Glaucoma-related vision loss is often preventable, but many can't afford treatment
Charisse Brown, a 38-year-old Columbia, S.C., resident, talks about her journey with glaucoma and keratoconus, which led to vision loss in her left eye. Underinsured and not qualifying for Medicaid, she had to search for a local nonprofit to pay for her sight-saving surgeries. (Photo by Nada Hassanein/Stateline)
COLUMBIA, S.C. — It's as if she's squinting through a smoke-filled room. But it's Charisse Brown's eye condition, glaucoma, that diminishes her vision.
Brown, 38, has worked all her adult life, with a personal policy of keeping two jobs at once. But when she started losing sight in her left eye last year, she was forced to quit her call center job. That left her with one income stream, her marketing research job, to pay her $1,300 monthly rent and other bills.
If glaucoma is caught early, monitored by a doctor and properly treated, it's possible to stall the progression of the disease. Eye drops are necessary for keeping eye pressure down to slow glaucoma-induced damage. Without insurance, the monthly cost of the medication can run anywhere from $80 per bottle for a generic version to $200 or $300 for a brand-name one.
As an adult without children, Brown doesn't qualify for Medicaid in South Carolina, which has not expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act.
She's enrolled in the lowest-premium plan on her state's health care insurance marketplace, but ophthalmologists in the area won't accept her insurance.
She said she called 211, a hotline for community services in South Carolina, but her voicemails weren't returned. In medical debt and about to get kicked out of her apartment, she had to choose between her medication and paying for daily necessities like food and feminine care items. One food stamps enrollment worker told her: 'We can't approve you. If you go and have a baby, this will be a lot easier.'
'Single people — we're struggling,' Brown said. 'I feel like I'm getting punished for trying to do what's right.'
Glaucoma is a group of eye diseases that can cause a buildup of pressure that damages the optic nerve. Long called the 'thief of sight,' it's the leading cause of blindness in Black Americans like Brown. Black people are five times more likely to have glaucoma, and lose their sight at six times the rate of white people. Hispanic and Latino communities suffer similar disparities.
Among Black patients, a timely diagnosis is paramount: Glaucoma occurs on average a decade earlier — and advances faster.
But diagnosis and treatment can be costly and out of reach for many.
In the Deep South, health care fights echo civil rights battles
In South Carolina and the other nine states that have not expanded Medicaid, opponents of expansion say it would be too expensive to provide health coverage to more people, even though the federal government picks up 90% of the tab. But forgoing expansion also has costs. People without insurance or not enough insurance are more likely to visit the emergency room, as glaucoma and other chronic diseases take their toll. When it comes to eye diseases, vision can deteriorate without coverage for preventive care. And racial health disparities are higher in states that have not expanded.
'You see a lot of end-stage disease,' said Dr. Rebecca Epstein, a glaucoma specialist and ophthalmologist at South Carolina's Clemson Eye, which was not involved in Brown's care. 'They don't have insurance, and so they will delay care. And then they come in, one eye is already gone, another eye is on its way — and I'm sitting here having to tell them I've got to operate on their only eye.'
For about two months, Brown was fully blind in her left eye. Surgeries to address her warping cornea, a condition called keratoconus, and another to relieve pressure causing her glaucoma would cost upward of $10,000. Asked if they could offer a payment plan, her doctor's office staff said no.
For days, Brown and her siblings called dozens of charities, asking for help to pay for her surgery. They called doctors across the state, asking if they had the necessary surgeon specialists and whether they accepted her insurance. Some nonprofits told Brown she was too young, that their help was reserved for older adults.
She finally landed on the South Carolina charity Lions Vision Services, affiliated with Lions Club International. The group offers eyeglasses, vision screenings and reimbursements to local doctors for surgeries patients living below the poverty line can't afford. The charity told her it could pay for her eye surgeries, and Brown was in disbelief.
You don't give them access to care. You let them go blind, and then you're going to pay for their disability when they go blind?
– Dr. Rebecca Epstein, ophthalmologist at Clemson Eye
'Access shouldn't be this hard. Our state should do a better job of making sure that we have coverage for people and that they have access to care — before they're blind,' Epstein said. 'Here's the crazy thing to think about: So, you don't give them access to care. You let them go blind, and then you're going to pay for their disability when they go blind, right? How backwards is that?'
Had she not gotten the surgeries, Brown would have lost sight completely in that left eye, doctors told her.
Before she found Lions, the search had been so frustrating that she told her mother through tears, 'Maybe I should just let this eye go.'
Since Brown could no longer drive, she'd take Uber rides across town for her frequent appointments. For appointments in Charleston with her surgeon, her mother would drive from Myrtle Beach to Columbia, 2 1/2 hours away, for another two-hour drive to Charleston. After one surgery, she developed an infection and had to visit her Columbia doctor daily — $30 roundtrip — because her case was so critical. Knowing she couldn't afford the appointments, her doctor stopped charging her at follow-ups.
Servants for Sight, a faith-based nonprofit that helps South Carolinians in poverty pay for vision care, offers to pay for surgeries, treatments and Uber rides to eye care appointments. Rideshares have helped people 'not only start their care, but complete their care,' said Amy Evette, executive director of Servants for Sight.
The group also runs a mobile vision screening unit that visits communities across northwestern South Carolina. Volunteers and staff screen for signs of diseases such as glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy inside the white-and-green van, and connect patients to ophthalmologists for further care. The van is equipped with retinal imaging equipment and rows of free sunglasses. On the outside are logos of various eye care centers and nonprofits who volunteer to help.
'If people don't have insurance or are not able to afford an eye exam once a year, it's very difficult for them to detect any kind of eye disease,' said Sandra Torres, an ophthalmic technician of 17 years. The group works with homeless shelters, and she says many people end up on the streets because they lose their sight, and then their jobs.
The vehicle saw a busy recent Thursday morning in Spartanburg, a city of about 38,000 people roughly 30 miles southeast of Greenville. Stationed in the parking lot behind a free medical clinic, staff prepared for nearly three dozen patients scheduled that day.
Multiple residents filed into the van throughout the morning, many with thick contact casts wrapped around their calves and feet, used to heal and protect diabetic ulcers. Diabetes, which increases the risk of glaucoma, disproportionately affects people with lower incomes and communities of color, amid structural barriers to affordable health care and healthier food.
Angela Garrett, a local pastor, has been grappling with blurred vision and diabetes. Uninsured, she came to the unit to get her eye pressure and vision checked. Garrett, 55, is also recovering from a recent open-heart surgery. A caregiver for older adults, she said she'll apply for Medicaid as soon as she's recovered and can go back to work. In South Carolina, the income limit for a single person who is blind or living with a disability is $15,650.
She's passionate about caregiving, a pursuit 'from the heart,' even though her job is 'the bottom of pay in medical,' she said. Despite her modest income, she may not qualify for Medicaid.
Often, patients don't know help is available, or they stop coming to their appointments because they can't drive and lack transportation, or they're unable to pay, said Dr. Peter Daniel, another ophthalmologist and glaucoma specialist who works with the nonprofits. He recalled a glaucoma patient who stopped showing up for appointments. The man began to weep when Daniel told him not to worry about the cost and connected him with the charities.
'They're in very difficult socioeconomic and complex situations,' Daniel said. 'And those are the folks that I worry about going blind.'
Columbia optometrist Kendria Cartledge sees late-diagnosed glaucoma 'daily.' She said the majority of her patients are on Medicaid, and that not enough eye care providers accept the public insurance program, putting more pressure on the ones who do.
The state Medicaid eligibility redetermination process has complicated matters. Patients may have had Medicaid in the past and are still struggling financially, but as states cull the rolls, they may lose coverage without knowing it. With glaucoma patients and others at risk of losing vision, timely care gets interrupted.
'A lot of these patients are getting lost to follow-up,' said Cartledge, who has been treating whole families with the disease among multiple siblings for years, building a relationship with them. 'Some expansion would definitely help out these patients have better outcomes, have a better quality of life.'
The gigantic tax and spending bill the U.S. House approved last week could make that situation worse. The measure would cut federal Medicaid spending by $625 billion over 10 years, largely by enacting new work rules and additional paperwork requirements. The changes would remove about 7.6 million people from the Medicaid rolls over the next decade, according to initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.
Ophthalmologists like Daniel give care knowing they're losing money, even after partial reimbursement from charities.
'If a charity can carry that burden, why can't our state and federal systems help shoulder that burden? We do it for older patients, we do it for our Medicare population,' said Epstein, the Clemson Eye ophthalmologist. 'Why can't we do it for our younger patients?'
Clad in a bright yellow tunic and woven sun hat, Jekeithlyn Ross stopped by the Servants for Sight check-in table to introduce herself. Only she didn't have to. Marion Keller already knew Ross was the daughter of eye disease advocate J.C. Stroble as soon as she spoke her dad's name. Keller has a bobblehead figurine of Stroble in her curio cabinet.
Ross has been on a mission to relaunch her nonprofit, the J.C. Stroble Glaucoma Awareness Foundation. Dormant during COVID-19, the organization is named for her late dad, who had glaucoma and was blind. The eye care advocate and Spartanburg icon died in 2013 at 71.
'Trying to get services to those that are falling between the cracks or the socioeconomically challenged is a challenge,' Ross said. 'What we're trying to do is go to the people, try to get the services to decrease the rate of blindness here.'
A volunteer with the South Carolina Lions Club and speaker at churches and national and local civic events, Stroble was also well-known in the community for his boisterous order-calling at the local fast-food fixture, the Beacon Drive-In. The eatery, where he was nicknamed the 'Beacon Barker,' is popular among locals and as a stop on campaign trails. Inside, Stroble's portrait adorns the wall chronicling the diner's storied history, which includes presidential candidate visits, along with benchmarks like the launch of the internet.
Medicaid cuts may disproportionately affect Black, Latino doctors and their patients
At the Servants for Sight check-in table, the excitement was palpable: Ross and Keller talked about their mirrored missions as if they were old friends. Keller shared that she had a cornea transplant, and before they parted ways, she and Ross blew each other a kiss. 'This is a marriage. This is only the beginning,' Ross said.
Ross said she was aware of glaucoma because of her dad, but others without exposure might not know the importance of getting their eyes checked, or even that it runs in their families.
'We're back in action — because the need is great,' Ross said. 'Education, awareness is the key. It's essential, and it's not enough foot soldiers out there putting that message out.'
She's been going to churches, civic groups, clinics and mobile units to spread the word about the foundation.
'Nonprofits pick up the pieces. We have a little joke: 'When the government and all else fails, then you come to us,'' she said with a wry chuckle. 'Because what do you do? You help.'
Servants for Sight helped pay for glaucoma surgery and eye drops for 71-year-old Jimmie 'Coach Sheek' Robinson. The retired school bus driver and Little League coach said he's had trouble accessing Medicare.
'It was like looking through a plastic sandwich bag,' he recalled. 'I'm asking, 'Lord, what is happening to my eyes?''
Often running in families, glaucoma can sneak up in those with 20/20 vision all their life, like Robinson.
He couldn't see his fellow churchgoers' hands, extended to greet him with a handshake. He'd have to explain that his peripheral vision was waning.
Handshakes matter at Piney Grove Baptist, a small congregation with scarlet carpets in Anderson, about 30 miles southwest of Greenville. A 'flimsy grip won't do it,' said one deaconess at the podium on a recent Sunday. 'You can tell someone loves you,' she said, by their handshake.
'Shake my hand,' she exclaimed as parishioners laughed. 'Show up with love.'
That day, Robinson, donning glasses, was able to do that. Throughout the sermon, he'd wave his hand in prayer over his daughter and grandchildren, who filled the pew behind him.
'I'm not going to get depressed over my eye,' he said. 'God been good to me.'
Back in Columbia, with those costly prescriptions, doctor and rideshare visit costs adding up, Charisse Brown said she is now steeped in about $7,500 in debt, with Uber costs totaling $1,500 alone. She's kept a GoFundMe up to try to chip away at bills through donations.
She has just moved into another apartment, a gray-floored two-bedroom, where rent is $300 cheaper than her previous one-bedroom flat. Leaving lights on at night, along with the beaming lamppost right outside her back door, helps her navigate her apartment after dark.
'That's pretty much the only way that I am able to see, is enough light is coming in, especially in my left eye,' she said.
Brown said her friends have noticed her own light dimming.
Friends have always called her 'Kumbaya' for her outgoing and positive attitude. But after her vision crisis, she fell into despair. She stopped going out, self-conscious about the appearance of her left eye, which is sometimes swollen and has strabismus. Because she can't hop in her car for a spontaneous road trip like she used to, she's leaned on her personal avatar in the online game 'Second Life,' where she simulates going to the beach and streams her pastor's sermons, as if she's sitting in the pews.
She's trying to lift her spirits by writing poetry and tending to her plants. In the corner of her sparsely furnished living room sits a fern she's named Duchess, a pothos called Prince and a few other small pots, studded with budding succulents.
Sitting on the couch, she reads from her poem 'Overcome.' She'd been lying in the hospital bed after a surgery, using speech-to-text to write:
Darkness and light both dwell in the same universe, but light always outshines – so I nicknamed myself 'Bright,'
To be able to blind the Dark from coming my way.
It's so blinding that maybe he would give up
And leave me alone today.
This story is part of 'Uninsured in America,' a project led by Public Health Watch that focuses on life in America's health coverage gap and the 10 states that haven't expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
We Saw Medicaid Work Requirements Up Close. You Don't Want This Chaos.
Many of the Republicans pushing for Medicaid work requirements — permanent program cuts that will strip up to 14 million people of their health care coverage — likely have no idea what it takes to comply with them. We do. As legal aid lawyers, we were on the front lines helping low-income people in Arkansas keep their health care coverage when the state rolled out work requirements in 2018. The policy caused chaos for everyone involved: people receiving Medicaid, hospitals and health clinics, pharmacies, social services organizations and state agency caseworkers. No officials serious about governing should willingly create such problems for their own state. Over 18,160 people in Arkansas lost coverage in only five months before courts halted the policy. Many were our clients. Adrian McGonigal had chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, for which he received treatment. At the time he held a job working 30 to 40 hours a week at a poultry plant, which paid more than any other job he'd had before and should have satisfied the requirement. But the state's system for automatically identifying working people was faulty, and Mr. McGonigal struggled to navigate the complex monthly reporting system on his own. Unable to report his work, he lost Medicaid, couldn't afford his C.O.P.D. medications, wound up in the hospital emergency room several times, lost his job and never fully recovered. For the next several years he struggled in various minimum-wage jobs, earning much less than he had at the poultry plant. Sadly, he died in November. We saw many working people face similar challenges. Our clients ran the gamut of low-wage work: fast food workers, restaurant dishwashers and servers, construction workers, janitors, landscapers, motel cleaners, gas station clerks and nursing assistants. Many had disabilities, and their ability to continue working depended on getting treatment to manage chronic pain, asthma, injuries, cancer and mental health conditions. Some lost coverage simply because they couldn't navigate the policy's complicated requirements and labyrinthine reporting process. Others lost insurance because of the instability of low-wage work: Bosses cut their hours or laid them off without warning, limited public transit narrowed their options or they lived in struggling rural areas where jobs were hard to come by. When the state cut them off, their health worsened and many lost jobs, as well as the ability to work new ones. Nobody on Medicaid was free from the tumult. Despite outreach from the state, there was widespread panic, as people didn't know if they had the type of Medicaid that the new requirements applied to. People received confusing 10-page letters from the state Medicaid office, which often contradicted other coverage letters people received around the same time. The website to report compliance shut down every night at 9 p.m., and when it was running, it was so complex that we put together video tutorials to help people navigate it successfully. (Many still couldn't.) People spent hours on the phone or at agency offices trying to figure out their status or fix errors, often needing a lawyer's help. In some cases, they had to pester their employers for extra proof of wages or statements that met the state's requirements. All told, 18,164 people were terminated because of noncompliance with the work requirements, and thousands more people lost coverage because of related paperwork burdens. What's more, these penalties operated as a tax on key economic sectors. Hospitals and health clinics, many already barely surviving in rural areas, assumed additional costs to untangle billing nightmares, absorb more uncompensated care and help confused patients document their eligibility for coverage. Local nonprofits, including services for the homeless, domestic violence shelters, food banks, soup kitchens and senior centers, spent their scarce resources trying to help people comply. Pharmacists dealt with the desperation of people learning for the first time that they had lost coverage and would have to pay out of pocket for their prescriptions. The state Medicaid agency also bent under the weight. Agency management sloughed off the thankless and time-consuming tasks of cleaning up endless system errors, figuring out workarounds and calming frantic people to overburdened caseworkers. At one point, the state's call centers were so overwhelmed that the agency expanded its hours of operation, which still didn't prevent lengthy wait times. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill
Senate Republicans are trying to win over Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to back the party's ambitious tax cut plan amid fears they could lose a couple of conservative senators. President Trump has made it a priority to engage with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who all have concerns about the emerging package. But some Republicans worry Johnson and Paul could be particularly tough sells on the legislation, which makes winning over Murkowski and Collins all the more important in a vote where the GOP cannot afford more than three defections. 'It's shortening,' one Senate Republican told The Hill about the party's margins. Paul has long been viewed as highly likely to vote against the eventual bill as it includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. He's made it known that is a red line for him. But it's Johnson who is a more acute problem for leadership. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, Johnson on Wednesday got into an extended back-and-forth with Trump during the Senate Finance Committee's meeting at the White House, with one of the sources going a step further and describing it as 'contentious.' While Republicans think Johnson may still come to back the bill, the exchange only made GOP leaders more unsettled about him. That means they have to make sure Murkowski and Collins, who memorably voted against Trump on various issues in his first term, are in play on the bill. 'It's a very delicate balance,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill. 'Obviously, we have people that have different priorities, different equities that run the gamut in terms of the political spectrum.' 'We're hearing everybody out, finding out what's important to them, and figuring out if there's a way to address that in the context of the bill,' Thune continued. 'But it's a process.' Thune is bearing the brunt of the Collins-Murkowski work, multiple Senate GOP sources said. He's held a number of one-and-one and small group meetings. Both senators have big-ticket items they want to see revised in the bill. Murkowski has made clear her worries about potential Medicaid work requirements, as she believes her state will have trouble implementing them due to its outdated payment systems for the program, and the bill's potential nixing of renewable energy tax credits. The pair have both expressed concerns over what overall reductions could mean for key segments of their states, including tribes for Murkowski and rural individuals and hospitals for Collins. The Maine Republican also cited possible Medicaid beneficiary cuts when she voted against the budget blueprint in early April. The push is only expected to intensify in the coming days as relevant committees unveil their portions of the bill text. 'We're still building things on our side. … Everyone is pulling this gumby in lots of different directions,' Murkowski told reporters on Thursday, explaining that while there are provisions for energy and the Coast Guard that are very positive for her state, more is needed on the Medicaid side. Murkowski also indicated that while she has not gotten the call from Trump just as conservatives did, she also is in touch with other administration figures. Among those is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, whom she talked to briefly after he addressed a Senate GOP luncheon last week. The two are expected to speak early this week to discuss her concerns more in depth. Collins separately is expected to lean on a number of agency heads as she carries out what members have described as a methodical process. 'Susan works extremely hard, [is] very detailed, knows everything, has a lot of history. [There's] different issues in Maine than in a lot of other places and everybody respects that.' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. There are also political considerations at play, leading some to believe Murkowski will be easier to win. Collins is up for reelection next year in a state that voted for former Vice President Harris. Whether either backs the bill may depend on the impacts of the package on their respective states. Murkowski backed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in large part because the bill opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, which had been among her top priorities in the upper chamber throughout her tenure. 'If it works for Alaska, he's not going to need to pressure me,' Murkowski said when asked if it would be a mistake for Trump to pressure her during this process. 'If it works for Alaska, it works for me and gets my vote.'


Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated 'R' for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, 'I have a [expletive deleted] dream.' Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand 'toxic.' Walz told his fellow Dems: 'We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing.' It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: 'A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.' Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers 'win elections because their opponents were unpopular,' Levin wrote, 'and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.' It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy 'maybe' period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.