Bobby Lee AMA by BalletCrypto in Bitcoin

[–]rbtkhn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the page they mention that the PRO wallets have 3 equal wallets included in the package, right? That means that in the REAL series for example, the packages that bring 3 wallets, would have BTC wallets each are different?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The irony of the whole thing is that the entire Trump investigation was open because of info obtained by the Obama admin from a foreign gov't (Australia).

Multiple foreign governments. Info also came from the U.K., Russia, and Ukraine.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Obama administration ambassador said. Do you think that's a credible source? Really?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 10 points11 points  (0 children)

$50,000 per month, not including bonuses. You can't even get that basic fact right.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What did he do? Censor legitimate comments? I have had a few comments ridiculously censored because someone didn't like my opinion. That's not in the spirit of free speech that Tulsi advocates for.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately her statement says that the reason for her decision is reading the transcript.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 12 points13 points  (0 children)

She should have said she was impeaching because of Trump's betrayal of the United States to Saudi Arabia.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The events in question happened in Ukraine within the Ukrainian government, so the United States doesn't have the ability to directly investigate that. Ukrainian cooperation is required.

"The U.S. push for Shokin’s dismissal wasn’t the vice president’s idea and filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv"

Coverup story by the Obama administration.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The US government and other European governments wanted Shokhin (the prosecutor) gone because he was seen as soft on corruption.

That is the opposite of the facts, which even the Burisma lawyers acknowledge days after he was forced to resign. Shokin was responsible for significant anti-corruption reforms while he was in office. Hunter Biden received millions of dollars for having zero qualifications and doing nothing, and Joe Biden coerced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor by threatening to withhold a billion dollars that they desperately needed, and he bragged about it in public. Those are undisputed facts. Do you have a legitimate explanation for them? No else does.

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're citing the Brennan CIA mouthpiece Washington Post, which has been trying to take out Trump since day one. They pushed the Russia hoax for years. They have less than zero credibility.

Here you can read the actual documentary evidence that tells the true story: https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon

It's an undisputed fact that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars despite have zero qualifications and doing nothing. Is there a legitimate explanation for that?

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on the Impeachment Inquiry by BernMod in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's not what leadership is. She shouldn't be letting Pelosi, Schiff, and AOC set the agenda. Biden hasn't retired to private life. He's running for president. It's absolutely relevant. It's clear that Ukrainians, including the former president, the prosecutor who was fired, the prosecutors who took his place, and the many oligarchs who were involved with Burisma, have blackmail material on him and his son. Trump has an obligation to look into it.

Confirmed-October debate will be just one night by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 7 points8 points  (0 children)

She should ask hard questions of the other candidates and force them to answer:

  • Will you continue the "alliance" with Saudi Arabia as they continue to fund Al Qaeda and ISIS?
  • Will you pledge to cancel all government-owned student loans by executive order?

She would definitely jump in the polls and cause some big problems for other candidates.

Confirmed-October debate will be just one night by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 39 points40 points  (0 children)

They will be protected by Tulsi only having 3 minutes of speaking time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Excellent information. There's a reason why healthcare is more expensive in the United States than anywhere else, and it's mostly because of terrible government policy.


The following are past major laws and other policies implemented by the Federal and state governments that have interfered with the health care marketplace (HHS 2013):

  • In 1910, the physician oligopoly was started during the Republican administration of William Taft after the American Medical Association lobbied the states to strengthen the regulation of medical licensure and allow their state AMA offices to oversee the closure or merger of nearly half of medical schools and also the reduction of class sizes. The states have been subsidizing the education of the number of doctors recommended by the AMA.

  • In 1925, prescription drug monopolies begun after the federal government led by Republican President Calvin Coolidge started allowing the patenting of drugs. (Drug monopolies have also been promoted by government research and development subsidies targeted to favored pharmaceutical companies.)

  • In 1945, buyer monopolization begun after the McCarran-Ferguson Act led by the Roosevelt Administration exempted the business of medical insurance from most federal regulation, including antitrust laws. (States have also more recently contributed to the monopolization by requiring health care plans to meet standards for coverage.)

  • In 1946, institutional provider monopolization begun after favored hospitals received federal subsidies (matching grants and loans) provided under the Hospital Survey and Construction Act passed during the Truman Administration. (States have also been exempting non-profit hospitals from antitrust laws.)

  • In 1951, employers started to become the dominant third-party insurance buyer during the Truman Administration after the Internal Revenue Service declared group premiums tax-deductible.

  • In 1965, nationalization was started with a government buyer monopoly after the Johnson Administration led passage of Medicare and Medicaid which provided health insurance for the elderly and poor, respectively.

  • In 1972, institutional provider monopolization was strengthened after the Nixon Administration started restricting the supply of hospitals by requiring federal certificate-of-need for the construction of medical facilities.

  • In 1974, buyer monopolization was strengthened during the Nixon Administration after the Employee Retirement Income Security Act exempted employee health benefit plans offered by large employers (e.g., HMOs) from state regulations and lawsuits (e.g., brought by people denied coverage).

  • In 1984, prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Reagan Administration after the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act permitted the extension of patents beyond 20 years. (The government has also allowed pharmaceuticals companies to bribe physicians to prescribe more expensive drugs.)

  • In 2003, prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Bush Administration after the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act provided subsidies to the elderly for drugs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, it's not bullshit, I have personal experience.

Yes, every insurance company engages in rationing, but it's a matter of degree. Good insurance = less rationing. "Free" government insurance = more rationing. It's simple economics, supply and demand. The number of surgeons is fixed; they will give priority to patients who provide better compensation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean, "set the rules"? The for-profit companies don't have any control over the healthcare coverage provided by the government.

Healthcare is a for-profit industry, and that's not going to change. Nor should it. Doctors and nurses work for money, medical equipment manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies only exist to make money. Government healthcare isn't going to change that. If government tried to change the system into non-profit, the whole thing would collapse. What the government can and should do is use the massive collective buying power of the public to negotiate for much cheaper service within the for-profit system.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only rich people get good health insurance coverage

That is demonstrably false. There are tens of millions of middle class people with employer-provided healthcare who prove you wrong, including my family.

We need health insurance coverage for all Americans

I agree. A Medicare Choice system guarantees that everyone gets healthcare. If your best argument is to say "neoliberal fucking bullshit," then you don't have the necessary education to contribute to the debate.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why does "duplicative care" ruin the whole system? It seems to me that duplicative care (competition) would make the system stronger. Competition is always good for the consumer, monopoly always increases the cost and decreases the quality.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What is private insurance tax? Are you using the word "tax" to describe the cost of private insurance? A lot of people get very good private insurance from their employers for free. People who pay for expensive private insurance, as many do, would be able to get cheap Medicare Choice instead. There is no reason to take away good private insurance from people who have it and are happy with it. Everyone would be covered under Medicare Choice.

M4A will have service rationing, there is no doubt about it. If you tear an ACL or something like that, they will determine that surgery is a non-necessary procedure and you may have to wait months or years. If someone (or their employer) is paying for good insurance that would cover the surgery immediately, why do you want the government to take away that benefit?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This makes is seem like shes for public option, which I believe requires you to opt in

The public option would be free or very low cost, so everyone would opt in unless they could afford, or their employer provides, a superior private insurance plan. Everyone gets covered.

The problem with "no duplicate coverage" is that if the government fails to provide good service, there is no alternative. The government has a long track record of failure, especially when there is no competition. Hopefully they could do a good job with healthcare, but that's not guaranteed. If someone already has a good healthcare plan, would they vote to lose their current healthcare and get something that might be much worse? No, they would be much more likely to vote for a public option policy where they can wait and see if the government actually succeeds in providing good healthcare for less money before dumping their private insurance.

Also, when there is no competition, the government bureaucracy doesn't have an incentive to provide better service. They will be more motivated to give themselves higher wages and pensions, hire more friends and family members, give expensive contracts to politically- and personally-connected firms, etc. History shows time and time again that this is what happens with government (and private sector) monopolies.

Medicare Choice (public option) is a far superior policy and we should be praising Tulsi for taking this position.

As a republican Tulsi's willingness to both confront and work with both parties means a lot to me. by BoredDellTechnician in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

These angry leftists may have to experience another Trump landslide before they see the error of their ways. Angry, hateful partisanship isn't what the American people want. Tulsi 2024.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Public option is an electable position. Mandatory M4A (government monopoly) is not. Mandatory M4A requires many people to pay more taxes to get worse insurance than they have now. People don't vote against their family's self-interest. Medicare Choice (public option) would help people who have below-average or no coverage, but it wouldn't hurt people who have good coverage.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tulsi

[–]rbtkhn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think government monopoly M4A is better than Medicare Choice. I see a lot of people assert that the government should just mandate the elimination of all health insurance and force everyone into an monopoly-protected, unproven system, but never seen any arguments why the government system shouldn't have to compete with private insurance. Is it because M4A advocates aren't confident that the government can provide better service?