Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

And here’s what it really comes down to…. saving money Programs like Canada’s MAiD, Medically Assisted in Dying, are really about saving money Bill Gates said “Is spending $1 million on that last 3 months of life for that patient…. would it be better not to lay off those... 10 teachers and to make that trade-off in medical costs? But that's called the death panel, and you're not supposed to have that discussion” The really horrifying part about this is that there were similar discussions in America under Barack Obama, but they want you to forget about this During the 2009 Affordable Care Act Debate (Obamacare) Sarah Palin wrote in a Facebook post, that the bill would create “death panels” where bureaucrats would decide whether her parents or child with Down syndrome were “worthy of medical care” based on subjective judgments of societal productivity This is how the “Death panels” phrase for popular that Bill Gates is referencing It targeted Section 1233 of a House bill (HR 3200), which would have allowed Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions with patients Fact-checkers rushed to call it a myth and distortion saying that would never actually happen But it was real enough that the provision was dropped from the final 2010 ACA due to the controversy So next time you think this couldn’t happen in America, think againshow more

Wall Street Apes

1,382,787 subscribers

40,522 просмотров • 5 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика Здоровье и велнес Финансы

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Diane Abbott, "I would not put my life or the life of anyone dear to me life, in the hands of a panel of officials" "It is perfectly possible to support assisted dying as I do, but not be prepared to vote for this bill" "This is so much that is problematic about this bill"

Diane Abbott, "I would not put my life or the life of anyone dear to me life, in the hands of a panel of officials" "It is perfectly possible to support assisted dying as I do, but not be prepared to vote for this bill" "This is so much that is problematic about this bill"

Farrukh

86,235 просмотров • 1 год назад

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

Wall Street Apes

115,691 просмотров • 1 год назад

Bynum: I want to start off by saying just how laughable it is to be calling this bill “beautiful” and I would like to replace that word with “trash.” It is a trash bill and here is why. It is a bill that threatens $300 billion in cuts to food assistance, it is a bill that puts health care further out of reach for nearly 14 million people. It is a bill that will make it so families have to choose between putting food on the table or filling a prescription. It is a bill that does nothing to lower costs or address the housing crisis

Bynum: I want to start off by saying just how laughable it is to be calling this bill “beautiful” and I would like to replace that word with “trash.” It is a trash bill and here is why. It is a bill that threatens $300 billion in cuts to food assistance, it is a bill that puts health care further out of reach for nearly 14 million people. It is a bill that will make it so families have to choose between putting food on the table or filling a prescription. It is a bill that does nothing to lower costs or address the housing crisis

Acyn

211,103 просмотров • 1 год назад

This Has the Potential to be HUGE! Idaho House Passed a Bill that would Allow the DEATH PENALTY for Heinous Pedophile Crimes— Which Could EXPAND Nationwide 🙌 Rep. Bruce, Skaug, R-Nampa, who co-sponsored the bill, along with Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, said that House Bill 515 is designed to give the steepest penalty to the most heinous of crimes committed against children 11 years of age and younger. And that HB-515 would be in line with that of first-degree murder. “There is a deep, dark, dark side in our culture, and it’s our job to protect the children. There are times when things are so wicked that retribution is appropriate. It would be very rare that this case would happen, but it will happen. And I say to you when you see that case, you read it in the newspaper you’re going to say this is the once case this needs to happen.” How this could be Applied Nationwide? There is hope that if this becomes law, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Idaho bill, and therefore issue a ruling that would EXPAND the eligibility for the death penalty in every single State! PLEASE LORD, let this happen Nationwide!

This Has the Potential to be HUGE! Idaho House Passed a Bill that would Allow the DEATH PENALTY for Heinous Pedophile Crimes— Which Could EXPAND Nationwide 🙌 Rep. Bruce, Skaug, R-Nampa, who co-sponsored the bill, along with Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, said that House Bill 515 is designed to give the steepest penalty to the most heinous of crimes committed against children 11 years of age and younger. And that HB-515 would be in line with that of first-degree murder. “There is a deep, dark, dark side in our culture, and it’s our job to protect the children. There are times when things are so wicked that retribution is appropriate. It would be very rare that this case would happen, but it will happen. And I say to you when you see that case, you read it in the newspaper you’re going to say this is the once case this needs to happen.” How this could be Applied Nationwide? There is hope that if this becomes law, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Idaho bill, and therefore issue a ruling that would EXPAND the eligibility for the death penalty in every single State! PLEASE LORD, let this happen Nationwide!

MJTruthUltra

58,297 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Right to Recovery Treatment evidence sessions in Scottish Parliament with Third Sector With You and The Salvation Army. What wording should replace “addiction” in the Bill to ensure people can access treatment without requiring a formal diagnosis? @GraemeCall78170 instead of answering his reply focuses on systemic access issues and the limitations of the Bill’s scope. Dr Sandesh Gulhane reminds him that the bill has narrow scope due to it not being a government bill and has to ask again about the use of the word addiction. Director of Addictions of The Salvation Armysays, "I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing". (Yes, its like a scene from the Ministry of Funny Walks) only none of this is funny, but deadly serious. Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Just on the point of addiction being used as a diagnosis, we heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, it was clear that perhaps the word addiction is not the right word to be used, and I'm sure that Douglas Ross, who is he member in charge of the bill, would be looking into that. So if we were to amend this because we need to say that you have something, not necessarily a diagnosis, but what is it that we should be saying in, in your opinion, as a way to have the right to have a treatment. Is it simply you would like to receive treatment or what exactly would you suggest?" @GraemeCall78170 "I think it for us, it's always been about access, right, so treatment is there. We recognise as an organisation we have a full clinical offer in England, not in Scotland, so we understand the importance of clinical process processes and in certain circumstances diagnosis is absolutely critical because there are other things that are going on, underlying mental health, underlying physical problems, so we completely recognise that. But the reality of the system is that people can't get access to the system, it's not about treatment. So services like ours here, all we do is we try and find ways to navigate the system to try and get people to where they need to be. But a lot of people that we engage with don't need a medical intervention, they dont. They just some mutual aid, some support, they need some practical stuff around their housing. So I think it's the disappointing thing as I read the bill as it was presented, it did feel narrow to me. I can't deny that. And I think it didn't reflect the experiences that we have as organisation." Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Being a member's bill it does need to be very narrow. It's not a government bill. If it was a government bill, that that's fair enough that this really does need to have enough scope. But my question was, what wording would you use in instead of a diagnosis of addiction? What wording would you like to see for people who do want to access treatment?" Lee Ball [Director of Addictions, Salvation Army] "For me, I think it's the person's right to want treatment. I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing. I don't envy your job trying to come up with a word for this because there are so many words that have so many different meanings."

Right to Recovery Treatment evidence sessions in Scottish Parliament with Third Sector With You and The Salvation Army. What wording should replace “addiction” in the Bill to ensure people can access treatment without requiring a formal diagnosis? @GraemeCall78170 instead of answering his reply focuses on systemic access issues and the limitations of the Bill’s scope. Dr Sandesh Gulhane reminds him that the bill has narrow scope due to it not being a government bill and has to ask again about the use of the word addiction. Director of Addictions of The Salvation Armysays, "I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing". (Yes, its like a scene from the Ministry of Funny Walks) only none of this is funny, but deadly serious. Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Just on the point of addiction being used as a diagnosis, we heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, it was clear that perhaps the word addiction is not the right word to be used, and I'm sure that Douglas Ross, who is he member in charge of the bill, would be looking into that. So if we were to amend this because we need to say that you have something, not necessarily a diagnosis, but what is it that we should be saying in, in your opinion, as a way to have the right to have a treatment. Is it simply you would like to receive treatment or what exactly would you suggest?" @GraemeCall78170 "I think it for us, it's always been about access, right, so treatment is there. We recognise as an organisation we have a full clinical offer in England, not in Scotland, so we understand the importance of clinical process processes and in certain circumstances diagnosis is absolutely critical because there are other things that are going on, underlying mental health, underlying physical problems, so we completely recognise that. But the reality of the system is that people can't get access to the system, it's not about treatment. So services like ours here, all we do is we try and find ways to navigate the system to try and get people to where they need to be. But a lot of people that we engage with don't need a medical intervention, they dont. They just some mutual aid, some support, they need some practical stuff around their housing. So I think it's the disappointing thing as I read the bill as it was presented, it did feel narrow to me. I can't deny that. And I think it didn't reflect the experiences that we have as organisation." Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Being a member's bill it does need to be very narrow. It's not a government bill. If it was a government bill, that that's fair enough that this really does need to have enough scope. But my question was, what wording would you use in instead of a diagnosis of addiction? What wording would you like to see for people who do want to access treatment?" Lee Ball [Director of Addictions, Salvation Army] "For me, I think it's the person's right to want treatment. I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing. I don't envy your job trying to come up with a word for this because there are so many words that have so many different meanings."

FAVORUK 💜

22,503 просмотров • 1 год назад

Naval Ravikant tells his favorite Elon Musk story “There was a story that I read about [Elon] that really affected me,” Naval begins. “He was talking to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates had just taken out some huge short on Tesla.” “Why would you do that? Why would you short Tesla?” Elon asked. Bill Gates replied, “I talked to my financial advisors, looked at the math, and it’s overvalued. So I’m going to make money on the short.” To which Elon responded: “What do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world?” Elon walked away in disgust and never talked to Bill Gates after that. Naval comments: “That’s when I realized Elon is a purist. He means what he says. Money is a tool for him to get to where he’s trying to go. And so I take him at face value… A lot of people set these audacious goals to inspire people, but they don’t really mean it. Elon I take at face value. I really do think he intends to get to Mars. I don’t think he’s joking about that.” He continues: “Elon doesn’t want to go down in history as the electric car guy or even the guy who saved America. He wants to go down as the guy who got humanity to the stars. And I’ll give him more credit than that. I don’t even think he wants to go down as the, ‘I got humanity to the stars guy.’ He’s just like, ‘I want to get to the stars, and I have to make it happen in this lifetime’… That’s so inspirational. I think that drives everything. And I think the government was just a thing that got in his way.” Video source: Scott Adams (2024)

Naval Ravikant tells his favorite Elon Musk story “There was a story that I read about [Elon] that really affected me,” Naval begins. “He was talking to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates had just taken out some huge short on Tesla.” “Why would you do that? Why would you short Tesla?” Elon asked. Bill Gates replied, “I talked to my financial advisors, looked at the math, and it’s overvalued. So I’m going to make money on the short.” To which Elon responded: “What do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world?” Elon walked away in disgust and never talked to Bill Gates after that. Naval comments: “That’s when I realized Elon is a purist. He means what he says. Money is a tool for him to get to where he’s trying to go. And so I take him at face value… A lot of people set these audacious goals to inspire people, but they don’t really mean it. Elon I take at face value. I really do think he intends to get to Mars. I don’t think he’s joking about that.” He continues: “Elon doesn’t want to go down in history as the electric car guy or even the guy who saved America. He wants to go down as the guy who got humanity to the stars. And I’ll give him more credit than that. I don’t even think he wants to go down as the, ‘I got humanity to the stars guy.’ He’s just like, ‘I want to get to the stars, and I have to make it happen in this lifetime’… That’s so inspirational. I think that drives everything. And I think the government was just a thing that got in his way.” Video source: Scott Adams (2024)

Startup Archive

95,825 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Nancy Pelosi on the Affordable Care Act in 2010: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what it is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Nancy Pelosi on the Big Beautiful Bill in 2025: "Republicans are rushing their bill because they don’t want Americans to know what it really does."

Nancy Pelosi on the Affordable Care Act in 2010: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what it is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Nancy Pelosi on the Big Beautiful Bill in 2025: "Republicans are rushing their bill because they don’t want Americans to know what it really does."

Resist the Mainstream

19,443 просмотров • 1 год назад

Naval Ravikant tells his favorite Elon Musk story “There was a story that I read about [Elon] that really affected me,” Naval begins. “He was talking to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates had just taken out some huge short on Tesla.” “Why would you do that? Why would you short Tesla?” Elon asked. Bill Gates replied, “I talked to my financial advisors, looked at the math, and it’s overvalued. So I’m going to make money on the short.” To which Elon responded: “What do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world?” Elon walked away in disgust and never talked to Bill Gates after that. Naval comments: “That’s when I realized Elon is a purist. He means what he says. Money is a tool for him to get to where he’s trying to go. And so I take him at face value… A lot of people set these audacious goals to inspire people, but they don’t really mean it. Elon I take at face value. I really do think he intends to get to Mars. I don’t think he’s joking about that.” He continues: “Elon doesn’t want to go down in history as the electric car guy or even the guy who saved America. He wants to go down as the guy who got humanity to the stars. And I’ll give him more credit than that. I don’t even think he wants to go down as the, ‘I got humanity to the stars guy.’ He’s just like, ‘I want to get to the stars, and I have to make it happen in this lifetime’… That’s so inspirational. I think that drives everything. And I think the government was just a thing that got in his way.” Source: Scott Adams (Nov 2024)

Naval Ravikant tells his favorite Elon Musk story “There was a story that I read about [Elon] that really affected me,” Naval begins. “He was talking to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates had just taken out some huge short on Tesla.” “Why would you do that? Why would you short Tesla?” Elon asked. Bill Gates replied, “I talked to my financial advisors, looked at the math, and it’s overvalued. So I’m going to make money on the short.” To which Elon responded: “What do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world?” Elon walked away in disgust and never talked to Bill Gates after that. Naval comments: “That’s when I realized Elon is a purist. He means what he says. Money is a tool for him to get to where he’s trying to go. And so I take him at face value… A lot of people set these audacious goals to inspire people, but they don’t really mean it. Elon I take at face value. I really do think he intends to get to Mars. I don’t think he’s joking about that.” He continues: “Elon doesn’t want to go down in history as the electric car guy or even the guy who saved America. He wants to go down as the guy who got humanity to the stars. And I’ll give him more credit than that. I don’t even think he wants to go down as the, ‘I got humanity to the stars guy.’ He’s just like, ‘I want to get to the stars, and I have to make it happen in this lifetime’… That’s so inspirational. I think that drives everything. And I think the government was just a thing that got in his way.” Source: Scott Adams (Nov 2024)

Startup Archive

32,145 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Q: What specific legislation will you commit to to make child care affordable? Trump: Well, I would do that and we're sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka… But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about that because the child care is, child care couldn't, you know, there's something you have to have it in this country, you have to have it... I want to stay with child care… So we'll take care of it. Thank you

Q: What specific legislation will you commit to to make child care affordable? Trump: Well, I would do that and we're sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka… But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about that because the child care is, child care couldn't, you know, there's something you have to have it in this country, you have to have it... I want to stay with child care… So we'll take care of it. Thank you

Headquarters

18,890,173 просмотров • 1 год назад

This contractor was called out to fix another contractor’s deck that was installed for the customer. In this video he’s making fun of them for leaving the deck full of gaps, saw marks, and practically unfinished. The good part about this is, this contractor knows his stuff and is really good. But bad part is the customer has to pay more money for a job that wasn’t done right, would you have hired somebody else or would you have made the redo it think you were happy with it?

This contractor was called out to fix another contractor’s deck that was installed for the customer. In this video he’s making fun of them for leaving the deck full of gaps, saw marks, and practically unfinished. The good part about this is, this contractor knows his stuff and is really good. But bad part is the customer has to pay more money for a job that wasn’t done right, would you have hired somebody else or would you have made the redo it think you were happy with it?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

56,680 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🚨 Five top Democrats on the Maine Legislative Council voted AGAINST a bill that would ban ai-generated child porn The vote kills the bill from reaching committee, so it will not even receive public debate House minority leader Billy Bob Faulkingham can’t believe it… “Well, that was interesting. Just got out of leg council today where I'm in Augusta. We were voting on bills — but the one that really blew my mind was a bill sponsored by a Democrat that would prohibit child pornography created by AI. And of course, even though a Democrat sponsored that bill, I voted yes for it because I think child pornography is absolutely disgusting no matter how it's created. Unfortunately, that bill failed to get entered into the second session because the majority of Democrats voted against letting that bill in, even though it was sponsored by a Democrat. I don't understand the reasoning why you would not want to go against child pornography, but that actually happened today”

🚨 Five top Democrats on the Maine Legislative Council voted AGAINST a bill that would ban ai-generated child porn The vote kills the bill from reaching committee, so it will not even receive public debate House minority leader Billy Bob Faulkingham can’t believe it… “Well, that was interesting. Just got out of leg council today where I'm in Augusta. We were voting on bills — but the one that really blew my mind was a bill sponsored by a Democrat that would prohibit child pornography created by AI. And of course, even though a Democrat sponsored that bill, I voted yes for it because I think child pornography is absolutely disgusting no matter how it's created. Unfortunately, that bill failed to get entered into the second session because the majority of Democrats voted against letting that bill in, even though it was sponsored by a Democrat. I don't understand the reasoning why you would not want to go against child pornography, but that actually happened today”

Wall Street Apes

940,947 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

This woman says Americans should be “outraged” over what Barack Obama did to our healthcare system “This is such a scam” “So I just went down the Affordable Care Act rabbit hole, and I'm genuinely shocked that Americans are not more outraged about this entire thing. The Affordable Care Act subsidies that the Democrats are requiring to extend in order to reopen our government are subsidies that are paid with taxpayers money Obama said, "You must use the Affordable Care Plan or pay a fine or get insurance elsewhere. You must have insurance. You must use Obamacare. It will be affordable." And then, it ended up not being affordable at all, so we had to subsidize the cost of it with taxpayer money that is paid directly to insurance companies who are causing the driving up of health care costs in the first place. This is such a scam and people aren't outraged? Like, it sounds so noble that the Democrats want people to have affordable health care, but Obama forced people to have affordable health care that wasn't affordable at all so taxpayers have to pay it, but we pay it directly to the private insurance companies that make health care unaffordable. — This is wild”

This woman says Americans should be “outraged” over what Barack Obama did to our healthcare system “This is such a scam” “So I just went down the Affordable Care Act rabbit hole, and I'm genuinely shocked that Americans are not more outraged about this entire thing. The Affordable Care Act subsidies that the Democrats are requiring to extend in order to reopen our government are subsidies that are paid with taxpayers money Obama said, "You must use the Affordable Care Plan or pay a fine or get insurance elsewhere. You must have insurance. You must use Obamacare. It will be affordable." And then, it ended up not being affordable at all, so we had to subsidize the cost of it with taxpayer money that is paid directly to insurance companies who are causing the driving up of health care costs in the first place. This is such a scam and people aren't outraged? Like, it sounds so noble that the Democrats want people to have affordable health care, but Obama forced people to have affordable health care that wasn't affordable at all so taxpayers have to pay it, but we pay it directly to the private insurance companies that make health care unaffordable. — This is wild”

Wall Street Apes

467,035 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

On a point of order, Labour MP objects to Danny Kruger's 'offensive' use of the word 'suicide' Kruger: "The value of actually have a bill in black and white is that we do need to see what the law really is: what this bill would do, it would amend the Suicide Act of 1961."

On a point of order, Labour MP objects to Danny Kruger's 'offensive' use of the word 'suicide' Kruger: "The value of actually have a bill in black and white is that we do need to see what the law really is: what this bill would do, it would amend the Suicide Act of 1961."

Josh Self

137,085 просмотров • 1 год назад

Scott Jennings on President Trump PRIORITIZING the SAVE America Act over the Housing Bill: “Well, I don’t think this is just his instinct. I’ve been all over the country lately and talked to a lot of people out there. This SAVE America Act, it’s not just him thinking about it. Millions of Republicans across the country are worried about it. They’re asking about it. They’re asking their members of Congress about it.” “You talk to a member of Congress, they’ll tell you the number of calls they’re getting on it.” “I’m sure he’s hearing about it. So I think I’ll just play devil’s advocate on the strategy piece. I’m not arguing the housing bill is bad. In fact, it might be good to campaign on.” “But you could see a world where if Republicans who love President Trump perceive that he was giving up on this thing that they actually really care about, that would be politically depressive to them heading into a midterm where, you know, off year turnout is already an issue for Republicans.”

Scott Jennings on President Trump PRIORITIZING the SAVE America Act over the Housing Bill: “Well, I don’t think this is just his instinct. I’ve been all over the country lately and talked to a lot of people out there. This SAVE America Act, it’s not just him thinking about it. Millions of Republicans across the country are worried about it. They’re asking about it. They’re asking their members of Congress about it.” “You talk to a member of Congress, they’ll tell you the number of calls they’re getting on it.” “I’m sure he’s hearing about it. So I think I’ll just play devil’s advocate on the strategy piece. I’m not arguing the housing bill is bad. In fact, it might be good to campaign on.” “But you could see a world where if Republicans who love President Trump perceive that he was giving up on this thing that they actually really care about, that would be politically depressive to them heading into a midterm where, you know, off year turnout is already an issue for Republicans.”

RedWave Press

10,251 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Rep. Brandon Gill WARNS Amnesty Bill Would Be 'Biggest Betrayal' to Americans Who Voted for Mass Deportations So-called GOP Rep. Maria Salazar is pushing for the DIGNIDAD Act — a massive amnesty giveaway. Gill is having NONE of it: "The name is in a foreign language because it’s a bill that benefits foreigners at the expense of American citizens." "It’s a bill that would immediately give amnesty to about 12 million illegal aliens who are in the country right now." "It is the biggest betrayal Republicans could possibly conceive of... it would rip our party apart and we would deserve to see our party ripped apart. So I’m going to make sure this doesn’t go anywhere in the House." Salazar is furious that Gill called out her bill as amnesty, but he's NOT backing down: "If you have to go on a massive media tour to convince people that your bill isn't amnesty, it probably is amnesty... This is the absolute opposite of everything we ran on... it’s insulting."

Rep. Brandon Gill WARNS Amnesty Bill Would Be 'Biggest Betrayal' to Americans Who Voted for Mass Deportations So-called GOP Rep. Maria Salazar is pushing for the DIGNIDAD Act — a massive amnesty giveaway. Gill is having NONE of it: "The name is in a foreign language because it’s a bill that benefits foreigners at the expense of American citizens." "It’s a bill that would immediately give amnesty to about 12 million illegal aliens who are in the country right now." "It is the biggest betrayal Republicans could possibly conceive of... it would rip our party apart and we would deserve to see our party ripped apart. So I’m going to make sure this doesn’t go anywhere in the House." Salazar is furious that Gill called out her bill as amnesty, but he's NOT backing down: "If you have to go on a massive media tour to convince people that your bill isn't amnesty, it probably is amnesty... This is the absolute opposite of everything we ran on... it’s insulting."

Benny Johnson

85,231 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Harry about why he chose to do residencies in certain cities on Zane Lowe “I think it makes the show better. I think you can build something that doesn't have to travel every night. I think the show itself is better. I think there's something in this that allows me to like stay in my life while I'm doing it and therefore I think allows me to take care of myself better, which I think makes me better at doing the thing. It's not like I'm saying I'll never travel again, but I want to see what it looks like if you do it a different way. And you know, people in my band have like families now and kids and some aspect of that, too. It's really important to me that they're on the road that I would love to like have them and I don't want to make it like near impossible for them to be able to do that with me.”

Harry about why he chose to do residencies in certain cities on Zane Lowe “I think it makes the show better. I think you can build something that doesn't have to travel every night. I think the show itself is better. I think there's something in this that allows me to like stay in my life while I'm doing it and therefore I think allows me to take care of myself better, which I think makes me better at doing the thing. It's not like I'm saying I'll never travel again, but I want to see what it looks like if you do it a different way. And you know, people in my band have like families now and kids and some aspect of that, too. It's really important to me that they're on the road that I would love to like have them and I don't want to make it like near impossible for them to be able to do that with me.”

HSNews

282,165 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson just CONFIRMED the GOP healthcare bill that passed tonight will DECREASE premiums by 11%, with NO ACA extensions for Big, Rich Insurance 🔥 "It gives persons more options, more flexibility in their health care and also it adds transparency." THIS IS HUGE! "We had the PBM, pharmacy benefit manager, transparency piece to it as well. Now contrast that with the Democrats, COVID era subsidy that they wanted to extend that would only impact 7% of Americans." "The bill we just passed impacts 100% of Americans. Their version would impact 7% of Americans and it would cost taxpayers $350 billion." "That is not the way to reduce the cost of health care. The Democrats do not want a solution, they just demonstrated, because they voted against this bill. They want an issue for the election. It is based on a false narrative." "The Democrats broke America's health care system. When they gave us the ACA, the unaffordable care act 15 years ago, they promised that premiums would come down that access would increase in quality of health care would increase. None of that happened because it's a flawed system." "Their response right now is to subsidize and continue to shovel taxpayer dollars onto a broken system. We say enough is enough!" "The Republican Party is the party that is bringing the ideas forward to fix this crisis and fix this problem for everyone. It is a serious problem." "We took a big step tonight to do that. We hope that this could sign in law quickly because it will have the desired effect. We hope the Senate can get this done in short order."

🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson just CONFIRMED the GOP healthcare bill that passed tonight will DECREASE premiums by 11%, with NO ACA extensions for Big, Rich Insurance 🔥 "It gives persons more options, more flexibility in their health care and also it adds transparency." THIS IS HUGE! "We had the PBM, pharmacy benefit manager, transparency piece to it as well. Now contrast that with the Democrats, COVID era subsidy that they wanted to extend that would only impact 7% of Americans." "The bill we just passed impacts 100% of Americans. Their version would impact 7% of Americans and it would cost taxpayers $350 billion." "That is not the way to reduce the cost of health care. The Democrats do not want a solution, they just demonstrated, because they voted against this bill. They want an issue for the election. It is based on a false narrative." "The Democrats broke America's health care system. When they gave us the ACA, the unaffordable care act 15 years ago, they promised that premiums would come down that access would increase in quality of health care would increase. None of that happened because it's a flawed system." "Their response right now is to subsidize and continue to shovel taxpayer dollars onto a broken system. We say enough is enough!" "The Republican Party is the party that is bringing the ideas forward to fix this crisis and fix this problem for everyone. It is a serious problem." "We took a big step tonight to do that. We hope that this could sign in law quickly because it will have the desired effect. We hope the Senate can get this done in short order."

Eric Daugherty

545,137 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Kenneth Clarke, "This bill is solely about asserting a fact to be a fact, regardless of any evidence, and regardless of the fact that the supreme court judges, five of them, unanimously considered that evidence and came to the conclusion that Rwanda is not a safe country" "It's no good blaming the Human Rights Act. I do not believe it would be in any way probable that the British courts would reach any other conclusion" "And if the Labour party allow this bill to go through I very much hope there will be a legal challenge. And the supreme court will consider it obviously objectively again. But I think its likely they will strike it down again, as incompatible with the constitutional arrangements which we prize so much in this country"

Kenneth Clarke, "This bill is solely about asserting a fact to be a fact, regardless of any evidence, and regardless of the fact that the supreme court judges, five of them, unanimously considered that evidence and came to the conclusion that Rwanda is not a safe country" "It's no good blaming the Human Rights Act. I do not believe it would be in any way probable that the British courts would reach any other conclusion" "And if the Labour party allow this bill to go through I very much hope there will be a legal challenge. And the supreme court will consider it obviously objectively again. But I think its likely they will strike it down again, as incompatible with the constitutional arrangements which we prize so much in this country"

Farrukh

534,801 просмотров • 2 лет назад