Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 01, 2019

"She (Harris) blocked evidence -- she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California." -Gabbard

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gabbard 2020!

#1 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-01 09:43 AM | Reply

Besides that, she looked hot. You know Wokamala and Intersectional Gillibrand were insanely jealous.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-01 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2, Oh, yeah!

People both inside and outside of California need to be made more aware of Harris's crummy record as AG.

#3 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-01 09:52 AM | Reply

Gabbard will make a great running mate for whoever wins the primary.

#4 | Posted by qcp at 2019-08-01 09:59 AM | Reply

#4 QCP - Who do you see at the top of the ticket?

#5 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-01 10:01 AM | Reply

I want it to be Warren but I have no idea who actually has the best chance yet. It's still way to early to make a call.

#6 | Posted by qcp at 2019-08-01 10:12 AM | Reply

It won't be the people telling 150 million Americans they're going to lose their private insurance in favor of a government run system. That's the shortcut to losing.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-01 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tim Pool's analysis of the Gabbard/Harris thing (the Twitter issue is telling):

www.youtube.com

#8 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-01 10:44 AM | Reply

The woketards are now saying Gabbard is a Russian agent. Putin told me she's not, but he says that about all his agents.

She's shadow banned on twitter now. But at least it wasn't google cutting her off this time.

She's anti-war (like all vets), so that makes her a serious danger.

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-01 11:43 AM | Reply

The woketards are now saying Gabbard is a Russian agent.

It is mindblowing how easily the idiots in the MSM jump all over things like this:

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."

Unreal, yet the Useful Idiot mouthbreahers on the Left will eat it up, not realizing that is exactly the intended effect.

NBC News: Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-01 06:09 PM | Reply

"Unreal, yet the Useful Idiot mouthbreahers on the Left will eat it up, not realizing that is exactly the intended effect."

Sorry, but she going nowhere in the Democratic Party. We want no part of her, we're not stooges easily manipulated by Russians as Republican obviously are.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-02 11:35 AM | Reply

#11 Classic.

#12 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-02 11:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Harris deserves to be eviscerated for her record as AG in California. She was a right wing law enforcement stooge for all intents and purposes.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-02 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She was a right wing law enforcement stooge for all intents and purposes.
#13 | POSTED BY MODER8

So starting "racial bias" training is right wing?

Fighting to prevent a death row inmate from being put to death is right wing?

She was running the gauntlet, she has had some progressive wins/losses, and some conservative wins/losses.

Progressives and Liberals didn't complain much when she was AG. Much like today the left is complaining about Obama.

They have so little understanding of history, and they claim the country is moving "right".

#14 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-02 12:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Saw a poll on Facebook yesterday.

Said, "Which one of these front runners would you vote for, and only listed Kamala Harris and Joe Biden."

These are your DNC approved candidates.

The rest is for your entertainment.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-02 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It won't be the people telling 150 million Americans they're going to lose their private insurance in favor of a government run system.

Tens of millions of Americans already "lose their pricate insurance" every year when their employer changes plans, the employee changes jobs, the employee quits or gets fired, etc. This meme about "losing your insurance" is utterly meaningless when you consider the reality of our current marketplace.

Even if everyone was foisted onto Medicare, there's no reason it couldn't be structured to allow employers to offer supplemental insurance to "top off" peoples' plans to exactly what they are now.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-02 01:17 PM | Reply

"Sorry, but she going nowhere in the Democratic Party. We want no part of her, we're not stooges easily manipulated by Russians as Republican obviously are."

Ohemgee...I wish I was as woke as you.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 01:22 PM | Reply

"Even if everyone was foisted onto Medicare, there's no reason it couldn't be structured to allow employers to offer supplemental insurance to "top off" peoples' plans to exactly what they are now."

There is a reason if you listen to Bernie or Liz.

It's not so much about depriving patients to the right to seek out private healthcare...presumably Bernie would allow them to go overseas and do that without being penalized for it...it's about depriving doctors of the right to engage in private healthcare. Given the choice, doctors will prioritize patients who are going to provide the most money, and that's traditionally a function of privately funded healthcare.

But that's not how socialism works...which is why Bernie would prohibit private healthcare.

I'm with you. So is the rest of the world, actually. I don't think the Democratic Socialists understand that the European models they claim they want to emulate have heavy VAT taxes on everything, and aren't particularly upset by the availability of private healthcare.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 01:29 PM | Reply

There is a reason if you listen to Bernie or Liz.

Show me where in their plans they explicitly outlaw private supplemental. Otherwise your post is just hot air.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-02 01:37 PM | Reply

"Show me where in their plans they explicitly outlaw private supplemental. Otherwise your post is just hot air."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, late Tuesday reiterated his call for the elimination of private health insurance companies and moving to a single-payer, "Medicare for all" system of health care.

"You're damn right," Sanders wrote in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview earlier in the day.

In that MSNBC interview, Sanders said the "current system is incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful" and said universal health care can't be achieved "unless you get rid of the insurance companies."

"thehill.com"

You're welcome.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 01:51 PM | Reply

"Here's his quote in a bit more context: "You are not going to be able in the long run to have cost effective universal health care unless you change the system, unless you get rid of the insurance companies, unless you stand up to the greed of the drug companies and lower prescription drug costs." This is largely true!

What Bernie is talking about is a more radical "Medicare for All" plan that doesn't include the stopgap measure of a "public option," or a system in which people can keep their private insurance but have a universal public option they can use. Doing away with this system and replacing it with a fully public-funded universal option is really the only way we progress...

...The hurdle then becomes convincing the public to take that leap of faith into single-payer's arms. How we'll do that, most likely, is with more candidates doing... some version of this. Just coming out and saying it. Kill the insurance companies. Replace them with a federal system. You don't have to shop on the private market for firefighters when your house burns down, and there's no reason you should have to when you break a leg.

Sanders' own Medicare for All bill isn't perfect, but it's pretty close to what the country needs. And if accurately diagnosing the problem on national TV is the best opposition research the RNC can find, he's in pretty good shape."

splinternews.com

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 01:54 PM | Reply

At the heart of the "Medicare for all" proposals championed by Senator Bernie Sanders and many Democrats is a revolutionary idea: Abolish private health insurance.

Proponents want to sweep away our complex, confusing, profit-driven mess of a health care system and start fresh with a single government-run insurer that would cover everyone.

But doing away with an entire industry would also be profoundly disruptive. The private health insurance business employs at least a half a million people, covers about 250 million Americans, and generates roughly a trillion dollars in revenues. Its companies' stocks are a staple of the mutual funds that make up millions of Americans' retirement savings.

Such a change would shake the entire health care system, which makes up a fifth of the United States economy, as hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and pharmaceutical companies would have to adapt to a new set of rules. Most Americans would have a new insurer -- the federal government -- and many would find the health insurance stocks in their retirement portfolios much less valuable.

"www.nytimes.com"

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 01:55 PM | Reply

You can't have socialism when people have freedom. When they have choices. When they have opportunity.

Bernie ran with the Bolsheviks. He understands this.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 01:57 PM | Reply

MadBomber:

You can't have freedom when everyone has health insurance.

True or false?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 03:35 PM | Reply

You're welcome.

I said "Show me where in their plans they explicitly outlaw private supplemental." You didn't reference anyone's plan.

You're welcome.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-02 03:59 PM | Reply

"I said "Show me where in their plans they explicitly outlaw private supplemental." You didn't reference anyone's plan."

Dude, I literally referenced Bernie's plan in three different publications where he is literally saying ""You're damn right...in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview."

Let's just be Frank and admit that there is nothing I could provide that you would accept as proof of Bernie's intent to eliminate private healthcare. Can we at least do that? Surely you have some shred of honesty within you...

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-02 04:03 PM | Reply

A quote is not part of a "plan." I'm talking about written proposals. Do you really not get that?

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-02 04:33 PM | Reply

Bernie has s concrete Medicare for All proposal. It's S.1129. Show me where that outlaws private supplemental or just STFU already.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-02 04:35 PM | Reply

Would her prosecutorial record be "stellar" if she were white?

#29 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-08-02 07:25 PM | Reply

#27 | POSTED BY JOE

Section 105 of the bill would require "the automatic enrollment of individuals at the time of birth in the United States and at the time of immigration into the United States...."

Section 106, subsection (a) of the bill says that benefits would kick in "on January 1 of the fourth calendar year that begins after the date of enactment...." This date is significant, because the same section allows that individuals under 19 (who are eligible for the new government plan sooner) "may opt to maintain ... private health insurance coverage ... until the effective date described in subsection (a)."

In other words, within four years, Americans can kiss their current healthcare plans goodbye. Once the four-year period is up, we get to the issue of how the plan treats future private insurance.

Section 107 says that once the four-year period is up, it

"it shall be unlawful for -- (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act."

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-02 07:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Section 107 says that once the four-year period is up, it
"it shall be unlawful for -- (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act."

Idiot.

Supplemental insurance would not "duplicate the benefits" provided under Medicare. It would "supplement," i.e. "add to" those benefits.

Are you ever right about anything, ever?

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-02 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

God I love her. She's the only one banned and censored. With a little help from Putin our side could turn this into a real fight.

#32 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-02 10:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

When she sued google for $50 million I knew she was going to die with her boots on.

If you want to know the truth, look at what you cant read.

Soldier on lady, soldier on. I know you have no chance of winning, but at this point that doesn't matter, does it?

When your on death ground, fight - Sun Tsu.

#33 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-02 10:46 PM | Reply

Is Bernie lying when he says "You're damn right...in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview."

Do you think he really intends to keep it?

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-03 04:16 AM | Reply

I feel like you're calling Bernie a liar.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-03 04:18 AM | Reply

#34 Exaggerative rhetoric is frequently used to make the overall point that our current system is a scam. I look at his actual proposal to see how his plan would actually work. You can call him whatever you want.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-03 08:59 AM | Reply

"#34 Exaggerative rhetoric is frequently used to make the overall point that our current system is a scam."

I think Trump does that too.

As for being a scam...here's the thing. If you don't like health insurance, then don't get it. You're completely within your rights to pay for your healthcare requirements at the time of service.

Doctors will take money from you or health insurance companies...they're not picky.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-03 10:49 AM | Reply

"I look at his actual proposal to see how his plan would actually work."

Yeah?

You think he's got the funding all figure out?

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-03 10:53 AM | Reply

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed he would abolish private insurance. His plan doesn't indicate that, so you pivot to "wHaTaBoUt tHe fUnDiNg?" The only studies i've seen show that M4A would actually cost less than we currently spend on private insurance and out of pocket costs. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to share it.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-03 11:55 AM | Reply

"You're moving the goalposts. You claimed he would abolish private insurance."

I didn't claim that. He did.

I only repeated what he ad said.

"The only studies i've seen show that M4A would actually cost less than we currently spend on private insurance and out of pocket costs. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to share it."

What do you mean when you say "we" spend?"

Some people spend nothing on healthcare. They're going to pay less?

How about Jeff Bezos? Is his bill going go to go down?

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-03 02:45 PM | Reply

"we"

America.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 02:47 PM | Reply

"Doctors will take money from you or health insurance companies...they're not picky.
#37 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

Oh yeah?
Medicare is a health insurance company, that doesn't pay as well as other health insurance companies.
I guess we can just scrap all the others then. It will save trillions.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 02:48 PM | Reply

"I guess we can just scrap all the others then. It will save trillions."

Or quadrillions?

Is that a thing?

If you're making ---- up, go big.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-03 03:39 PM | Reply

"I guess we can just scrap all the others then. It will save trillions."
Or quadrillions?
Is that a thing?"

Are you now so stupid you don't know we spend trillions on health care each year?
You are, aren't you.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 06:01 PM | Reply

What do you mean when you say "we" spend?"

I mean Americans, collectively. Did you really not understand that?

Some people spend nothing on healthcare. They're going to pay less?

Then their employer can subsidize their Medicare premium and a private supplemental policy.

Anything else?

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-03 06:56 PM | Reply

"Medicare is a health insurance company, that doesn't pay as well as other health insurance companies. I guess we can just scrap all the others then. It will save trillions."

Yeah...but here's the thing. Doctors, being rational, are going to prioritize those patients who will generate more money over those who will generate less, leaving less incentive for doctors to accept patients on Medicare.

Which is why, under an MFA construct, Bernie would need to prohibit any alternatives that would be in direct competition with MFA plans. Because doctors might simply choose not to accept MFA.

We know this will happen because it is happening. Many doctors don't accept Medicare. It's the same with Tricare, which is very similar to Medicare. The plans don't pay well, so doctors choose not to accept them.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-04 03:21 AM | Reply

It's the same with Tricare, which is very similar to Medicare. The plans don't pay well, so doctors choose not to accept them.

Posted by madbomber

Both bull*hit. My MIL was in the hospital and rehab facility for 2 months. Medicare and TriCare.

ZERO bills.

#47 | Posted by americanunity at 2019-08-04 03:40 AM | Reply

AU,

I can't attest for all hospitals and delivery services, but I can attest that U of M health services Medicare patients below cost due to government mandated reimbursement rates.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-04 03:44 AM | Reply

#48

St Joe's just down the street in Ypsilanti limits the number of Medicare patients they will service. U of M, being a public provider, doesn't have that luxury.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-04 03:46 AM | Reply

#49 | Posted by JeffJ

If true (which I doubt), they should remove "Mercy" from their name

#50 | Posted by americanunity at 2019-08-04 03:54 AM | Reply

#50

My wife works in accounts payable at UM and this is where I'm getting a big chunk of this info.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-04 04:08 AM | Reply

"Both bull*hit. My MIL was in the hospital and rehab facility for 2 months. Medicare and TriCare."

I don't think you were paying attention. Your MIL found a provider who accepted Tricare. Not all do.

"According to the latest Medscape Physician Compensation Report, 7% of doctors are not accepting new-patient visits from Medicare beneficiaries. Another 4% will stop treating some or all of their current Medicare patients, and will no longer take on new ones. A surprising 16% of providers surveyed said that they are still deciding about taking on and treating new Medicare and Medicaid patients. Is this a new trend? In this blog, we review the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2018 and examine its implications for physicians dealing with Medicare."

"www.infinx.com"

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-04 04:42 AM | Reply

Even in the UK, doctors (specialists in particular) prioritize patients with private healthcare over those who are reliant on the NHS alone, and on average, a specialist will receive 50% of their income from private plans.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-04 04:59 AM | Reply

"If true (which I doubt), they should remove "Mercy" from their name"

Why?

If you can treat 10 patients in a day, why wouldn't you treat the ten who are going to provide you the most income? It's not like you're being merciful by refusing to treat a patient who can pay you more in favor of one who would provide you with less income.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-04 05:02 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort