Free streaming is a public health intervention. Evidence links live music to lower stress, better mood, and social connection, yet ticket prices, travel, and disability exclude millions. If health systems fund parks and libraries, funding free concert streams is consistent. It doesn't have to undercut artists: ads, sponsorships, and merch can cover it, and a free stream can grow an audience that later buys tickets. RoberRed's revenue concern is fair, but access shouldn't depend on ability to pay. Health equity matters more than a paywall.

Imagine a homebound patient whose depression lifts after watching a live show. That's not a luxury; it's a health intervention. RoberRed is right that concerts cost money, and artists need income. But the answer isn't to make access optional, it's to fund the stream publicly, through ads, sponsorships, and health budgets, not by hiking ticket prices. A mandate doesn't force artists to eat the cost; it says society values the health benefit enough to pay. All matters because partial streaming still leaves the poorest and sickest behind. Letting artists choose which shows to stream keeps health access a lottery.

I'll grant RoberRed the strongest version of that point: a badly designed mandate would squeeze small acts. But that's an argument about funding, not about access. Fund the streams publicly, the way health systems already fund parks, libraries, and vaccination drives. Those cost money too, and we accept it because the public benefit is real. The alternative RoberRed offers, let each artist choose, means the poorest and sickest get the health benefit only when someone happens to volunteer it. That turns access into a lottery. Fix the funding, keep the universal rule.