How could she vote for concealed weapons in bars? Oh....she took money from the NRA. She is a good lobbyist. See linkhttp://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2014/sep/10/letter-donors-money-behind-comstock-foust/

Haven't ou learned, Barbara Comstock is almost always on the wrong side of the issues.

Haven't you learned? Barbara Comstock is going to win.

And, God forbid she support the Constitution.

Bob1972 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How could she vote for concealed weapons in bars?
> Oh....she took money from the NRA. She is a good
> lobbyist. See
> linkhttp://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2014/
> sep/10/letter-donors-money-behind-comstock-foust/

All the more reason for me to vote for her. Foust has his nose up Obama's ass and would vote like Gerry ConMan and James P. Moron.

tea leaves Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Haven't you learned? Barbara Comstock is going to win.
> And, God forbid she support the Constitution.

LOL! There's not a right-wing asstard alive who does not absolutely HATE the actual US Constitution. Fucking goobers want only to get rid of it.

Here's the problem with the dems at times. They portray ALL reps as far-right crazies regardless of where they really are on the spectrum. Sometimes the reps run candidates who may have occasionally dabbled in right-wing activities merely as a result of being in the rep party. But in many cases - as with Comstock - the rep candidate is clearly NOT a far-right crazy and it just doesn't work to portray them as such. It's a nice try but despite what the dems say not all reps are right-wing crazies.

LOL..... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tea leaves Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Haven't you learned? Barbara Comstock is going
> to win.
> > And, God forbid she support the Constitution.
>
> LOL! There's not a right-wing asstard alive who
> does not absolutely HATE the actual US
> Constitution. Fucking goobers want only to get
> rid of it.


Nah, that would be the current occupant of the Oval Office. For a man that taught Constitutional Law, he should read up on separation of powers.

No amount of reading can help you though.

Actually, I'm one of those Republicans who think abortion should be legal. However, I am amazed that abortion on demand is the most important issue to Democratic women. "Womens Health Issues" is just an euphemism for "abortion". I just cannot understand why Democrats are so hung up on this. Is abortion the most important issue in their lives?

My main issue is jobs and the economy. Foust has a great tv ad--but it is bogus. He has always voted to raise taxes. I haven't seen many budget cuts in his votes and he supported stopping the Metro because he didn't want it above ground at Tysons. He also was against Comstock's legislation to remove the requirement that only contractors with unions work on the Silver LIne. That legislation saved lots of money.

Also, please note that Foust thinks Obamacare is a "good thing". 250,000 Virginians just lost their coverage because of Obamacare and costs are going up. Is this going to help Virginians?

RDRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL..... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tea leaves Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Haven't you learned? Barbara Comstock is
> going
> > to win.
> > > And, God forbid she support the Constitution.
> >
> > LOL! There's not a right-wing asstard alive
> who
> > does not absolutely HATE the actual US
> > Constitution. Fucking goobers want only to get
> > rid of it.
>
>
> Nah, that would be the current occupant of the
> Oval Office. For a man that taught Constitutional
> Law, he should read up on separation of powers.
>
> No amount of reading can help you though.

If he taught Constitution law why is it the press can't find any of his former students?

He only taught a few students. He was a part time instructor--not a professor.

RDRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nah, that would be the current occupant of the
> Oval Office. For a man that taught Constitutional
> Law, he should read up on separation of powers.

That's exactly what I was talking about -- low-life yahoo mouth-breathers who have absolutely no idea what the US Constitution actually says or means.

> No amount of reading can help you though.

Typically clueless right-wing moron. Look up ignis fatuus, you swamp-gas-sucking loser.

LOL..... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RDRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nah, that would be the current occupant of the
> > Oval Office. For a man that taught
> Constitutional
> > Law, he should read up on separation of powers.
>
>
> That's exactly what I was talking about --
> low-life yahoo mouth-breathers who have absolutely
> no idea what the US Constitution actually says or
> means.
>
> > No amount of reading can help you though.
>
> Typically clueless right-wing moron. Look up
> ignis fatuus, you swamp-gas-sucking loser.

Better yet, look up the multiple times that the Obama admin's executive overreach has been smacked down by the courts on Constitutional bases. Recess appointments, NSA data collection, Medicaid expansion, EPA re CAA, etc.

a dose of the Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, I'm one of those Republicans who think
> abortion should be legal. However, I am amazed
> that abortion on demand is the most important
> issue to Democratic women. "Womens Health Issues"
> is just an euphemism for "abortion". I just
> cannot understand why Democrats are so hung up on
> this. Is abortion the most important issue in
> their lives?

You aren't fooling anybody, asswipe.

> My main issue is jobs and the economy.

Then you would of course never vote for a Republican. Republicans as a group do not understand anything at all about economics. Look at the ridiculous slop that freaking Paul Ryan tries to pass off. Consider what the core of Romneyism is all about. Screw the poor and pamper the rich is all that it comes down to. Great plan, eh?

> Foust has a great tv ad--but it is bogus. He has
> always voted to raise taxes.

Foust or no, the simple fact is that revenues are too low. Taxes -- including both rate and structural changes -- are one means to boost revenues. Is that too much for you pinheads? Do you need more time to wedge it into your tiny little brains?

> I haven't seen many budget cuts in his votes and he
> supported stopping the Metro because he didn't want
> it above ground at Tysons.

Duh! We would all have been better served if the Silver Line had been underground through Tysons and at IAD. But short-sighted, money-grubbing TEAtard types made both of those things impossible. Thanks for screwing stuff up, assholes.

> He also was against Comstock's legislation to remove
> the requirement that only contractors with unions work
> on the Silver Line. That legislation saved lots of money.

No, it's merely lip-service pandering to a brainwashed worker-hating right-wing.

> Also, please note that Foust thinks Obamacare is a
> "good thing".

It wasn't so much good as it was absolutely necessary. Like Social Security, the system will be tweaked and adjusted over time. We are all better off for having at long last gotten the ball rolling.

> 250,000 Virginians just lost their
> coverage because of Obamacare...

Make up some more bullshit, you miserbale lying asshole.

> ..and costs are going up. Is this going
> to help Virginians?

The cost of everything goes up, dumbfuck, but the rate of increase in health care costs has been declining since PPACA was enacted. Too dumb to have figured that out? Meanwhile, what's good for Virginians -- ALL Virginians -- is health care coverage. PPACA creates a path toward affordable achievement of the sort of universality in coverage that virtually every other developed country in the world has long enjoyed. We have been the world's freaking laughing stock on health care for a long time. PPACA finally puts an end to that.

idliketoknow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If he taught Constitution law why is it the press
> can't find any of his former students?

A serious person would never agree to talk to the type of "press" that you refer to. There is simply no question that Obama was the guy in front of con law classes at the University of Chicago. There were indeed students in those classes. The rest of what the whimpering right-wing has to say about the matter is just more goober-level birth-certificate nonsense. You all are just a disgrace.

a dose of the Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, I'm one of those Republicans who think
> abortion should be legal. However, I am amazed
> that abortion on demand is the most important
> issue to Democratic women. "Womens Health Issues"
> is just an euphemism for "abortion". I just
> cannot understand why Democrats are so hung up on
> this. Is abortion the most important issue in
> their lives?
>
> My main issue is jobs and the economy. Foust has
> a great tv ad--but it is bogus. He has always
> voted to raise taxes. I haven't seen many budget
> cuts in his votes and he supported stopping the
> Metro because he didn't want it above ground at
> Tysons. He also was against Comstock's
> legislation to remove the requirement that only
> contractors with unions work on the Silver LIne.
> That legislation saved lots of money.
>
> Also, please note that Foust thinks Obamacare is a
> "good thing". 250,000 Virginians just lost their
> coverage because of Obamacare and costs are going
> up. Is this going to help Virginians?


Nobody "lost" coverage. Their plans may have been replaced, but nobody "lost" coverage. And it is called the Patient Protection and Afordable Care Act. Stop watching Fox News.

get real comstock supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Nobody "lost" coverage. Their plans may have been
> replaced, but nobody "lost" coverage. And it is
> called the Patient Protection and Afordable Care
> Act. Stop watching Fox News.


I "lost" the plan that I had which provided better coverage at much lower cost. My only alternative now is to move to an ACA-compliant plan at about double the cost for much less coverage. Whether you want to call that, "lost" or "replaced" doesn't change the practical effect for those of us who have to actually deal with this mess of a plan versus it being a pissing contest talking point for partisan dumbshits.

jt63e Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I "lost" the plan that I had which provided better
> coverage at much lower cost. My only alternative
> now is to move to an ACA-compliant plan at about
> double the cost for much less coverage. Whether
> you want to call that, "lost" or "replaced"
> doesn't change the practical effect for those of
> us who have to actually deal with this mess of a
> plan versus it being a pissing contest talking
> point for partisan dumbshits.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you "lost" some prior plan, it was because A) the carrier refused to renew it, or B) its coverage was so marginal as to be illegally low.

a dose of the Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, I'm one of those Republicans who think
> abortion should be legal. However, I am amazed
> that abortion on demand is the most important
> issue to Democratic women. "Womens Health Issues"
> is just an euphemism for "abortion". I just
> cannot understand why Democrats are so hung up on
> this. Is abortion the most important issue in
> their lives?
>
> My main issue is jobs and the economy. Foust has
> a great tv ad--but it is bogus. He has always
> voted to raise taxes. I haven't seen many budget
> cuts in his votes and he supported stopping the
> Metro because he didn't want it above ground at
> Tysons. He also was against Comstock's
> legislation to remove the requirement that only
> contractors with unions work on the Silver LIne.
> That legislation saved lots of money.
>
> Also, please note that Foust thinks Obamacare is a
> "good thing". 250,000 Virginians just lost their
> coverage because of Obamacare and costs are going
> up. Is this going to help Virginians?

Comstock campaign checking in. Welcome.

A few tips

The period goes inside the closed quotation mark, not outside.

Always put a clarifying word (noun) after the word "this." "Is this going to help Virginians?" "Is what going to help Virginians?"

It is the Affordable Care Act, not "Obamacare."

(See where I put the period?)

The term "Women's Health Issues" goes well beyond "abortion." have you ever heard of the HPV vaccine? How about "women's contraception being used as basic, preventive health care? How about women working with Doctors to prevent maternal death, low birth weight babies, and infant mortality?

How myopic you are.

Sandy O'Connor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Better yet, look up the multiple times that the
> Obama admin's executive overreach has been smacked
> down by the courts on Constitutional bases.
> Recess appointments...

Recess appointments are specifically provided for in the Constitution, dumbo. Maybe read it some day. What's not provided for of course is lame-ass efforts to pretend that Congress is never in recess so as to thwart to power plainly provided to the executive.

> ...NSA data collection...

CLUE (since you don't have one): The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld FISC authority and the periodic subpoena of Verizon phone records.

> ...Medicaid expansion...

Medicaid expansion is perfectly legal, numbskull. What's not legal is using funding for existing Medicaid coverage as a lever to prod states into proceeding with expansion. Wonderful how all this simply sails right over your head. It's almost as if you were a total incompetent or something.

...EPA re CAA...

Come on, fumble-fuck. The Court has TWICE upheld EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. Too bad they can't regulate the noxious emissions that come pouring out of your lame and worse than sorry ass.

Insurance Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jt63e Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I "lost" the plan that I had which provided
> better
> > coverage at much lower cost. My only
> alternative
> > now is to move to an ACA-compliant plan at
> about
> > double the cost for much less coverage.
> Whether
> > you want to call that, "lost" or "replaced"
> > doesn't change the practical effect for those
> of
> > us who have to actually deal with this mess of
> a
> > plan versus it being a pissing contest talking
> > point for partisan dumbshits.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you
> "lost" some prior plan, it was because A) the
> carrier refused to renew it, or B) its coverage
> was so marginal as to be illegally low.


A fine point needs to be put on it since otherwise the details and real effects are lost in the talking point bullshit. As they are in your post.

A. Carriers have no option but not to renew plans which are no longer compliant under the law. It's not some independent, unrelated decision on their part.

B. Contrary to popular talking point bs, because a prior plan isn't ACA-compliant doesn't mean that it was "marginal" or "illegally low." It simply means that it doesn't meet the specific, largely arbitrary requirements under the new law. The bulk of the individual market was/is the many self-employed people out there. We have no real desire to buy "crap" insurance.

Fact is that my previous plan was better than what I can buy now for anywhere near the same cost. In order to get roughly the same level of coverage, I'd have to pay about 3X the cost with less options for structuring the plan to my needs and in most cases a more restricted network. I can't even buy the lowest level "Bronze" plan with a $5,000 - $6,000 deductible and a lousy 60:40 coverage level for less than about double what I was paying for a 90:10 plan. And I'm not particularly unique, The same applies to basically everyone in the same age range in VA.

All of which, if you actually were an insurance man, you'd understand.

You have got to be kidding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How myopic you are.

About 18th century myopic. These retrogrades are still of a mind that all a woman really needs is a man to tell her what to do. That's who these right-wingers are. Comstock...Schlafly...Bryant. All peas from the same outdated and hopelessly misguided pod.

M3XmL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A fine point needs to be put on it since otherwise
> the details and real effects are lost in the
> talking point bullshit. As they are in your
> post.

Horseshit. You were lying through your teeth and still are.

> A. Carriers have no option but not to renew plans
> which are no longer compliant under the law.

Yeah, that's called being illegal. Coverage so thin that it barely exists and is grossly insufficient. Under-insurance is de facto
no better than un-insurance.

> It's not some independent, unrelated decision on their part.

More assfuck lying. Non-compliant plans were grandfathered for reissue so long as terms were not substantially altered. Carriers simply dropped most of those plans. A small number do continue on however.

> B. Contrary to popular talking point bs, because
> a prior plan isn't ACA-compliant doesn't mean that
> it was "marginal" or "illegally low." It simply
> means that it doesn't meet the specific, largely
> arbitrary requirements under the new law. The
> bulk of the individual market was/is the many
> self-employed people out there. We have no real
> desire to buy "crap" insurance.

No one cares what your individual dumbfuck preferences are. You didn't lose any Cadillac-coverage because of PPACA. You lost bullshit insurance.

What's with all the bad language? Didn't your English teacher tell you that only dumb people resort to this type of language in their writing?

LOL..... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy O'Connor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Better yet, look up the multiple times that the
> > Obama admin's executive overreach has been
> smacked
> > down by the courts on Constitutional bases.
> > Recess appointments...
>
> Recess appointments are specifically provided for
> in the Constitution, dumbo. Maybe read it some
> day. What's not provided for of course is
> lame-ass efforts to pretend that Congress is never
> in recess so as to thwart to power plainly
> provided to the executive.


Supreme Court (unanimously) Rebukes Obama on Right of Appointment
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0


>
> > ...NSA data collection...
>
> CLUE (since you don't have one): The Supreme
> Court has repeatedly upheld FISC authority and the
> periodic subpoena of Verizon phone records.
>

Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/


> > ...Medicaid expansion...
>
> Medicaid expansion is perfectly legal, numbskull.
> What's not legal is using funding for existing
> Medicaid coverage as a lever to prod states into
> proceeding with expansion. Wonderful how all this
> simply sails right over your head. It's almost as
> if you were a total incompetent or something.


Which was as proposed by the administration and shot down by the court on constitutional grounds.


>
> ...EPA re CAA...
>
> Come on, fumble-fuck. The Court has TWICE upheld
> EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. Too
> bad they can't regulate the noxious emissions that
> come pouring out of your lame and worse than sorry
> ass.


But not its independent ability to "creatively" adapt and unconstitutionally extend law as it sees fit through regulation. Which was the specific aspect struck down.

Quite a few other examples.

M3XmL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Insurance Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jt63e Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I "lost" the plan that I had which provided
> > better
> > > coverage at much lower cost. My only
> > alternative
> > > now is to move to an ACA-compliant plan at
> > about
> > > double the cost for much less coverage.
> > Whether
> > > you want to call that, "lost" or "replaced"
> > > doesn't change the practical effect for those
> > of
> > > us who have to actually deal with this mess
> of
> > a
> > > plan versus it being a pissing contest
> talking
> > > point for partisan dumbshits.
> >
> > Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you
> > "lost" some prior plan, it was because A) the
> > carrier refused to renew it, or B) its coverage
> > was so marginal as to be illegally low.
>
>
> A fine point needs to be put on it since otherwise
> the details and real effects are lost in the
> talking point bullshit. As they are in your
> post.
>
> A. Carriers have no option but not to renew plans
> which are no longer compliant under the law. It's
> not some independent, unrelated decision on their
> part.
>
> B. Contrary to popular talking point bs, because
> a prior plan isn't ACA-compliant doesn't mean that
> it was "marginal" or "illegally low." It simply
> means that it doesn't meet the specific, largely
> arbitrary requirements under the new law. The
> bulk of the individual market was/is the many
> self-employed people out there. We have no real
> desire to buy "crap" insurance.
>
> Fact is that my previous plan was better than what
> I can buy now for anywhere near the same cost. In
> order to get roughly the same level of coverage,
> I'd have to pay about 3X the cost with less
> options for structuring the plan to my needs and
> in most cases a more restricted network. I can't
> even buy the lowest level "Bronze" plan with a
> $5,000 - $6,000 deductible and a lousy 60:40
> coverage level for less than about double what I
> was paying for a 90:10 plan. And I'm not
> particularly unique, The same applies to
> basically everyone in the same age range in VA.
>
> All of which, if you actually were an insurance
> man, you'd understand.

Most likely, your costs went up because your policy was not compliant with the new mental health parity laws. The mental health parity legislation was passed before "Obamacare." So don't blame the President on this one.

Insurance Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M3XmL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A fine point needs to be put on it since
> otherwise
> > the details and real effects are lost in the
> > talking point bullshit. As they are in your
> > post.
>
> Horseshit. You were lying through your teeth and
> still are.


Nope, I'm not. And every other self-employed person in VA who has to actually deal with this knows that I'm not. The problem that ideologues like you parroting talking points have in this case is that the costs and coverage details are very directly known by those affected and it's easy to compare what was versus what now is the case.

>
> > A. Carriers have no option but not to renew
> plans
> > which are no longer compliant under the law.
>
> Yeah, that's called being illegal. Coverage so
> thin that it barely exists and is grossly
> insufficient. Under-insurance is de facto
> no better than un-insurance.
>

Your earlier point wasn't to legality it was implying some arbitrary decision on the part of carriers. That's not the case. The cancellations are a direct result of the law. Because a plan was not structured to meet specific requirements does not mean that it was deficient in terms of coverage.


> > It's not some independent, unrelated decision on
> their part.
>
> More assfuck lying. Non-compliant plans were
> grandfathered for reissue so long as terms were
> not substantially altered. Carriers simply
> dropped most of those plans. A small number do
> continue on however.


They were grandfathered only for 1 year. That ends for the 2015 season. Which is why those of us who are affected are receiving the final cancellation notices.


>
> > B. Contrary to popular talking point bs,
> because
> > a prior plan isn't ACA-compliant doesn't mean
> that
> > it was "marginal" or "illegally low." It
> simply
> > means that it doesn't meet the specific,
> largely
> > arbitrary requirements under the new law. The
> > bulk of the individual market was/is the many
> > self-employed people out there. We have no
> real
> > desire to buy "crap" insurance.
>
> No one cares what your individual dumbfuck
> preferences are. You didn't lose any
> Cadillac-coverage because of PPACA. You lost
> bullshit insurance.


Those of us who are self-employed care. Most didn't have "bullshit" insurance. We had less expensive plans with better coverage than we can buy now for anywhere near the same cost. In fact, the law very likely will result in more under-insurance, care avoidance due to higher deductibles, and greater out-of-pocket costs.

The primary reasons for all of this are fairly simple. They dumped all of the sick, old, and poor people into what was a much more restricted individual insurance pool. At the same time they significantly increased coverage requirements and options for structuring coverage. If you don't understand why that causes costs to rise greatly, then you're not much of an "insurance man." Great deal for the relatively few who didn't have/couldn't get insurance and for the poor who don't have to pay for it. Not such a great deal for the bulk of those who were in the individual market prior to and now have to bear the much higher costs as a direct result.

I didn't have a "Cadillac" plan. They're mostly limited to larger employers. But the changes for those are coming soon too. As are other changes which will negatively affect the much larger group of people in the employer-provided market. That's when the real uproar will begin.

you have mental health coverage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Most likely, your costs went up because your
> policy was not compliant with the new mental
> health parity laws. The mental health parity
> legislation was passed before "Obamacare." So
> don't blame the President on this one.


It's a whole range of specific coverage requirements, with no options otherwise, which cause the costs to increase. Some of which is good. The problem is that in order to satisfy the desires of public health advocacy types who designed much of it to implement a health care delivery system for the poor and disadvantaged, they very much compromised the ability for the rest of us to use insurance as insurance.

e.g., I'm a 50+ year old guy who's been married for 20+ years with grown kids and a wife now with no ovaries. I'm relatively confident that I don't need maternity coverage. I have no option but to buy a policy which includes it not just for me but for everyone else in the pool whether they do or not. Similarly, as in the case of the any insurance, the best way to reduce premium costs while maintaining high-quality coverage in the even that you need it is to self-insure for a slightly higher deductible using, for example, an HSA. You can't do that anymore in a practical way and even if you could the costs now are such that even the plans at the same higher deductible are more expensive and provide lower coverage levels. Yes, they include, per your example, mental health services, but that's with a higher deductible, only 60:40 coverage level at the more reasonable cost levels, and higher out-of-pocket costs if you actually want/need to use them.

And I quoteth

"Re: In Fairfax County, an influx of immigrants has wide-ranging effects
Posted by: mGdP9 ()
Date: September 12, 2014 03:56PM


you are always using children as a shield you fairfaxdemocrat.org sack of shit

how about showing the mother fucker spending the money having kids on democrat money asking for money above hsi gov pay, and more after that, showing us sympathy pics ?">

LOL..... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RDRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nah, that would be the current occupant of the
> > Oval Office. For a man that taught
> Constitutional
> > Law, he should read up on separation of powers.
>
>
> That's exactly what I was talking about --

You don't know enough to talk about anything.

> low-life yahoo mouth-breathers who have absolutely
> no idea what the US Constitution actually says or
> means.

Really? The top law school in the state might tell you differently. But your third grade education couldn't grasp three minutes of a ConLaw lecture. The concept of separation of powers is as foreign as Farsi to your dumbass.


> > No amount of reading can help you though.
>
> Typically clueless right-wing moron. Look up
> ignis fatuus, you swamp-gas-sucking loser.

That's it? Gas sucking? That's rich coming from a gas head like you.

Your nothing but a dimwitted regurgitating parrot who spews whatever if force fed down your whiney throat.

Dems are in trouble Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's with all the bad language? Didn't your
> English teacher tell you that only dumb people
> resort to this type of language in their writing?

No, none of them did, asshole. Are you in church or something? If not, fuck off.

Sandy O'Connor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supreme Court (unanimously) Rebukes Obama on Right of Appointment

My God, but you're stupid. The Court said that a break of three days was too short to qualify as a recess. They of course confirmed the Constitutional power of recess appointments, none of which would have been necessary to begin with if asshole Republicans (pretty much the only kind) were not refusing even to consider nominees put forward.

> Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional

Sadly for you, that's a one-judge opinion piece ruling from the DC District, and enforcement of it was stayed pending a review by the full court. Had the Supreme Court thought the case (Klayman v Obama) significant, it could have accepted it on an accelerated basis, but it emphatically refused to do so earlier this year. Yet another slap-down for Snowden-loving privacy maniacs.

> Which was as proposed by the administration and
> shot down by the court on constitutional grounds.

Threats of withheld funding were proposed, just as they once were with respect to issues such as speed limits and drinking ages. That sort of leverage is what was shot down. Medicaid expansion is an entirely separate matter that is perfectly valid and proceeding in the vast majority of rational states.

> But not its independent ability to "creatively"
> adapt and unconstitutionally extend law as it sees
> fit through regulation. Which was the specific
> aspect struck down.

Face it, moron, the EPA has flat out kicked your butt in court. And will continue to do so.

YuVhM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, I'm not. And every other self-employed
> person in VA who has to actually deal with this
> knows that I'm not.

You are flat out shoveling low-grade manure.

> Your earlier point wasn't to legality it was
> implying some arbitrary decision on the part of
> carriers. That's not the case.

It IS the case, liar. Carriers refused to renew policies. That's where they all went. Wave after wave -- year after year. Carriers could have issued renewals, but they declined of their own accord to do so.

> The cancellations are a direct result of the law.

LOL! They were a direct result of loss figures projected by the carriers. Just as all the plan terminations were that went on before PPACA ever came along. How inexperienced are you exactly?

> Because a plan was not structured to meet specific
> requirements does not mean that it was deficient in
> terms of coverage.

Failure to meet minimally acceptable standards is the definition of deficient.

> They were grandfathered only for 1 year.

More total bullshit. They were grandfathered from March 2010. How long ago was that, would you say? Ask for help if you need it. Plan numbers have of course been dwindling ever since as carriers have simply pulled the plug on them.

> That ends for the 2015 season.

After a one-year extension that should never have been granted to begin with. Piss or get off the fucking pot, goober.

> Those of us who are self-employed care.

All you apparently care about is lying.

> Most didn't have "bullshit" insurance. We had less
> expensive plans with better coverage than we can
> buy now for anywhere near the same cost.

By "less expensive", you mean deficient.

> In fact, the law very likely will result in more
> under-insurance, care avoidance due to higher
> deductibles, and greater out-of-pocket costs.

What a farce! What were the deductibles and out-of-pocket costs of uninsured people? Come on, surely you have some lie to cover that.

> The primary reasons for all of this are fairly
> simple. They dumped all of the sick, old, and
> poor people into what was a much more restricted
> individual insurance pool.

Yeah well, things have been really tough ever since we got rid of Medicare and Medicaid. The individual market -- one of the most widely abused by insurers prior to PPACA -- meanwhile amounts to little more than 5% of the pie. Affordable plans are available. Subsidies are available. Your fallacious and unsupportable boy-who-cried-wolf wailings should not be available.

> Not such a great deal for the bulk of those who
> were in the individual market prior to and now have
> to bear the much higher costs as a direct result.

Cry me a river of those crocodile tears, oh worthless lying slime-ball.

RDRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't know enough to talk about anything.

I can certainly talk about how I go about stomping the living shit out of hopeless ignorant stooges and low-life yahoo mouth-breathers such as yourself. Here's the secret recipe...

1. Recover from the peals of laughter that the ridiculous posts of these toadstools bring on.
2. Point out how such posts are indeed the product of a toadstool.

So, there you have it. That's how it's done.

> The top law school in the state might tell you differently.

No, they wouldn't. No even marginally credible law school recognizes the Bozo Constitution over the US Constitution. The former of course is all that you have any familiarity with at all.

> Your nothing but a dimwitted regurgitating parrot who
> spews whatever if force fed down your whiney throat.

Is that your A-material? What a clod...

Insurance Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YuVhM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nope, I'm not. And every other self-employed
> > person in VA who has to actually deal with this
> > knows that I'm not.
>
> You are flat out shoveling low-grade manure.


I'm stating the facts as they are. You're the one talking shit.

>
> > Your earlier point wasn't to legality it was
> > implying some arbitrary decision on the part of
> > carriers. That's not the case.
>
> It IS the case, liar. Carriers refused to renew
> policies. That's where they all went. Wave after
> wave -- year after year. Carriers could have
> issued renewals, but they declined of their own
> accord to do so.
>
> > The cancellations are a direct result of the
> law.
>
> LOL! They were a direct result of loss figures
> projected by the carriers. Just as all the plan
> terminations were that went on before PPACA ever
> came along. How inexperienced are you exactly?


Wrong. Carriers cannot renew the policies even if they wanted to. They can no longer offer non-compliant policies.

>
> > Because a plan was not structured to meet
> specific
> > requirements does not mean that it was deficient
> in
> > terms of coverage.
>
> Failure to meet minimally acceptable standards is
> the definition of deficient.


Only in terms of the specific requirements of the law versus any independent standard relative to coverage or quality. Which was the point.

>
> > They were grandfathered only for 1 year.
>
> More total bullshit. They were grandfathered from
> March 2010. How long ago was that, would you say?
> Ask for help if you need it. Plan numbers have
> of course been dwindling ever since as carriers
> have simply pulled the plug on them.


Nope. Obviously wrong again. The various requirements under the law were/will be phased in at various times not based on when the law was passed. There was no need for grandfathering when there were no regs requiring change and no marketplace where you could do anything otherwise.

>
> > That ends for the 2015 season.
>
> After a one-year extension that should never have
> been granted to begin with. Piss or get off the
> fucking pot, goober.


According to who? You? lol!

The decision was made by the administration. If you have a problem with it, then you'll have to talk to them.


> > Those of us who are self-employed care.
>
> All you apparently care about is lying.


lol. Uhhhh... yeah.


>
> > Most didn't have "bullshit" insurance. We had
> less
> > expensive plans with better coverage than we
> can
> > buy now for anywhere near the same cost.
>
> By "less expensive", you mean deficient.
>
> > In fact, the law very likely will result in
> more
> > under-insurance, care avoidance due to higher
> > deductibles, and greater out-of-pocket costs.
>
> What a farce! What were the deductibles and
> out-of-pocket costs of uninsured people? Come on,
> surely you have some lie to cover that.


Not nearly the cost of this mess when all counted. That largely was a bullshit talking point to begin with. The uninsured were/are a relatively small factor in health care costs. Even so, we could have bought them all "Cadillac" policies or thrown them into Medicaid for far less money and without screwing things up for everyone else. Even with the changes we still have most of them. And if you haven't been keeping track, emergency room use has increased since.


>
> > The primary reasons for all of this are fairly
> > simple. They dumped all of the sick, old, and
> > poor people into what was a much more
> restricted
> > individual insurance pool.
>
> Yeah well, things have been really tough ever
> since we got rid of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> individual market -- one of the most widely abused
> by insurers prior to PPACA -- meanwhile amounts to
> little more than 5% of the pie. Affordable plans
> are available. Subsidies are available. Your
> fallacious and unsupportable boy-who-cried-wolf
> wailings should not be available.


The "affordable" "Bronze"-level plans in VA are double the cost of what was available prior to with lower 60:40 coverage ratios, $5,000 deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket costs. They're also not eligible for Federal cost-sharing subsidies. Premium subsidies are only available at lower income ranges and are scaled. The only people receiving any substantial subsidies are the relatively poor. Everyone else is paying significantly more. That's the simple fact which anyone who has actually had to deal with this and has priced the plans understands. That the individual market is a small part of the overall market doesn't make it any better for those of us who have to rely on it and are directly affected.


>
> > Not such a great deal for the bulk of those who
>
> > were in the individual market prior to and now
> have
> > to bear the much higher costs as a direct
> result.
>
> Cry me a river of those crocodile tears, oh
> worthless lying slime-ball.


There's lots more crying coming as this begins to affect more than the few of us now. Get used to it.

LOL.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RDRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You don't know enough to talk about anything.
>
> I can certainly talk about how I go about stomping
> the living shit out of hopeless ignorant stooges
> and low-life yahoo mouth-breathers such as
> yourself. Here's the secret recipe...
>
> 1. Recover from the peals of laughter that the
> ridiculous posts of these toadstools bring on.
> 2. Point out how such posts are indeed the
> product of a toadstool.
>
> So, there you have it. That's how it's done.
>
> > The top law school in the state might tell you
> differently.
>
> No, they wouldn't. No even marginally credible
> law school recognizes the Bozo Constitution over
> the US Constitution. The former of course is all
> that you have any familiarity with at all.
>
> > Your nothing but a dimwitted regurgitating
> parrot who
> > spews whatever if force fed down your whiney
> throat.
>
> Is that your A-material? What a clod...


You haven't been relevant since the Carter administration and we all know how shitty that was.

Foust's internals must be horrible if this is the shit he is resorting to.