90DayFinancier

Iowa has a football team ?

No, it seems  “more common than not” to those on VJ because the only people who post about it are those having problems - people don’t complain when things work well. There are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of people without SSNs who currently have health insurance. I know plenty H and O derivatives here in the Bay Area as an example, all have health insurance, none have SSNs. Clearly HR at the tech companies etc who deal with these cases are just more aware than certain other companies. Advantage of living in an area with lots of migrants.

In principle you are right, in practice  most systems depend upon a ssn. It took me weeks to straighten that out with insurance.

Good job NB!
 

Federal judge blocks Trump's health insurance rule for immigrants seeking visas
 
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-blocks-trump-health-insurance-rule-immigrants-visas

Thank you. As expected ... 

Federal judge blocks Trump's health insurance rule for immigrants seeking visas
 
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-blocks-trump-health-insurance-rule-immigrants-visas

Trump plays the downer and cheerleader , 24 hours apart
 
 

I'm sorry if I wasn't making myself clear -- it was the invasion of privacy I objected to. I am a woman, and I am perfectly familiar with having to give over such information on a regular basis at doctor's appointments. I am quite happy to give this information to medical professionals for diagnostic purposes. What I am NOT okay with is this information being given to political figures on a spreadsheet with identifiers, sent via email, for a purpose that isn't related to diagnosis. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/us-judge-blocks-trumps-health-insurance-rule-for-immigrants/%3famp=1
 

The latest on the "Health Insurance Proclamation" - Temporarily Halted/Blocked!
https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/civil-rights-coalition-halts

The solution is simple, treat men the same. For every perscription of Viagra, Cialis or, Levitra, force the doctor to ask and document: Have you discussed the use of this medicine with your wife? Will you use this for extramarital sex? Is this for recreational sex or will it be used for procreation? 
 
None of our business? A gross invasion of privacy? No compelling interest for the government to capture this information? Could hamper open dialog between a doctor and their patient?  Damn right. Keep these politicians out of our bedrooms and off of our bodies.

More family friendly than the transgender genitalia to thread that the mods let slide.

Bill never addressed my comparison, but no Democrats don't want the economy to tank.

The solution is simple, treat men the same. For every perscription of Viagra, Cialis or, Levitra, force the doctor to ask and document: Have you discussed the use of this medicine with your wife? Will you use this for extramarital sex? Is this for recreational sex or will it be used for procreation? 
 
None of our business? A gross invasion of privacy? No compelling interest for the government to capture this information? Could hamper open dialog between a doctor and their patient?  Damn right. Keep these politicians out of our bedrooms and off of our bodies.

I see your Ruben and raise you a Korean Fried Chicken with sweet and hot sauce and slaw on brioche bun.
 

It's neither here nor there really. We were discussing the current administration's handling of the health insurance rule. Not even sure why  DACA is being discussed except as a deflection.

The Trump index has it at 303K jobs added.  At least we now know the BS coefficient is 2.5.

Of course, America and Americans had nothing to do with slavery, Jim crow, lynchings and voter suppression. It was someone else's fault. / S

Pro tip: don't hack or cough during your interview, it could tip the scales against you <just joking!

I realize this is Wikipedia, but there are certainly a lot of questions especially regarding the four states that rescinded their ratifications.  What surprises me is that Virginia has not ratified it yet.  In reality, it is kind of outdated based on codified laws, but it would not be a bad thing to actually enshrine in the Constitution.
 
In the courts[edit]
On December 23, 1981, a federal district court, in the case of Idaho v. Freeman, ruled that the extension of the ERA ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, was not valid and that, ERA had actually expired from state legislative consideration more than two years earlier on the original expiration date of March 22, 1979. On January 25, 1982, however, the U.S. Supreme Court "stayed" the lower court's decision, thus signaling to the legislatures of still-unratified states that they may continue consideration of ERA during their spring 1982 legislative sessions.
After the disputed June 30, 1982, extended deadline had come and gone, the Supreme Court, at the beginning of its new term, on October 4, 1982, in the separate case of NOW v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982), vacated the federal district court decision in Idaho v. Freeman,[84] which, in addition to declaring March 22, 1979, as ERA's expiration date, had upheld the validity of state rescissions. The Supreme Court declared these controversies moot on the grounds that the ERA had not received the required number of ratifications (38), so that "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here."[85][86]
In the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller,[87] the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the final authority to determine whether, by lapse of time, a proposed constitutional amendment has lost its vitality before being ratified by enough states, and whether state ratifications are effective in light of attempts at subsequent withdrawal. The Court stated: "We think that, in accordance with this historic precedent, the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment."[88] However, this case was one where the Congress had not explicitly set a deadline, unlike the ERA proposal which explicitly contained a seven year limit. The Court, in 1939, upheld Congressional authority to determine in 1868 that the Fourteenth Amendment was properly ratified, including states that had attempted to rescind prior ratifications.[citation needed]
In the context of this judicial precedent, nonpartisan counsel to a Nevada state legislative committee concluded in 2017 that "If three more states sent their ratification to the appropriate federal official, it would then be up to Congress to determine whether a sufficient number of states have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment."[89] In 2018, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring wrote an opinion suggesting that Congress could extend or remove the ratification deadline.[90][91] However, these opinions run contrary to the fact the Supreme Court rejected an appeal in 1982 in NOW v. Idaho due to mootness, consistent with the position the Congress would have to resubmit the amendment to the states again for ratification.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

Pro tip: don't hack or cough during your interview, it could tip the scales against you <just joking!

https://www.abc4.com/news/will-utah-be-the-state-to-ratify-the-equal-rights-amendment/
 
 

I've gotta love this Administration. They just make me laugh. It's actually good for your health. 😂
 
So apparently, they rolled out a new form yesterday, form DS-5541 which I'll attached down here. There is a grand total of 4 questions. 
If I was filling out this form, I'd love to put "No" on question 2 and "Cash" for question 4, wondering what they'll do. 
 
All kidding aside, how in world a Consular officer sitting in an office half way across the globe is going to be able to determine whether or not someone will purchase health insurance 30 days after they arrive in the US? 
 
 
 
 Immigrant_Health_Insurance_Coverage.pdf