90DayFinancier

Didn't the courts stop or delay that?

No they aren't compliant. Which begs the question, if the whole thing is supposed to be about self sufficiency and not being a potential burden, why even mention those as an option? 😉
Agreed. But they haven't really provided details on how or what will be acceptable proof, have they?

You should be able to add your spouse, as this is a "life change" event.

I'm not as convinced that people are taking the action as good faith, but I do think a lot of people agree that medical insurance is a must and this is one way to do so. Bad implementation at best.

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 love the optics outlined in paragraph 1.
It reminds me that good law and good theater are both good performing arts.

The original superpower bracelet

I've talked about this alot in the other threads going on and on about it.. 
 
A USC has never been required to have health insurance. Never was back then and never was now. SCOTUS defined that very clearly. Nor did the 'penalty' when it existed ever really have any teeth, and if anything gave some an incentive to not have insurance.
 
Now we can certainly say that it's a good thing that spouses and children buy insurance for whatever immigrant family members they bring over, but the point of the argument about health insurance was, at least from the R perspective, was that it was not up to the government to force a person to obtain health insurance. That is somewhat why I believe that some or part of the various policies trying to be implemented will have a difficult time getting through. There are other really terrible points, such as the LAW still saying to this day that immigrants are eligible for the ACA (subsidized or unsubsidized) and this completely butting heads with that. The ACA is not means tested benefits, and nothing has been changed to reflect it. It remains the law and the DHS policy on calling a subsidy in the realm of ''public charge'' doesn't change that.
 
Once you get past these issues, there is the path of implementation. It is one thing to want to make a change such as this, and quite another to not prepare properly for it. Insurance companies still continue to mislead people about how one can obtain insurance, and can provide a real barrier to some in trying to do so for immigrant family members. The proclamation which this thread is about actually obfuscated it further by neither defining or clarifying what exactly is expected of applicants and the DoS were clearly not ready for it.
 

Immigration law is the realm of congress. They could certainly address this as part of immigration reform if that is what they choose to do. However the president doesn't just get to make this stuff up. Hence he gets sued. Again.

Well..the one who speaks.

Well..the one who speaks.

I love the optics outlined in paragraph 1.
It reminds me that good law and good theater are both good performing arts.

I love the optics outlined in paragraph 1.
It reminds me that good law and good theater are both good performing arts.

As expected, a number of lawsuits were filed yesterday by a number of individuals and organization against the new "insurance rule", for sure will delay the implementation of such rule until court battles have settled. 
 
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/31/19103090.pdf

Sure, but turning over the swamp is not the same thing as draining the swamp. I get that some people may have believed the initial intentions, but I'm not sure why anyone still persists with the claims at this point. Trump didn't drain the swamp. He just remade it in his own image.

It's definitely a positive environmentally and probably a necessity in the long run. If they can get the taste and the price right, I would be on board.

We tried the ground beyond for taco night and it works well for texture or flavor. The whole idea of browning is different. The package seemed too excessive.
 
Maybe when the product scales and there is competition the price will change. Most factory processes do.
 
Ranchers hate the idea. It is really going to affect them if it expands. They need to scale back anyways and focus on quality grass fed. That means higher prices to the consumer for less meat. 
 
Some of the "factory farms" are borderline criminal, but the states are catching on.

I don't eat fast food, but I have seen these beyond meat products in grocery stores now. I will probably buy these and give them a try once the price is lower than real meat. I'm not opposed to the concept, and it is probably good as a sustainable practice. I've heard some good feedback about the taste,  but damned if I'm going to pay more to eat a plant burger. 

Are Beyond Meat’s plant-based burgers healthier than red meat? Dietitians say no.

 
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/03/are-beyond-meats-burgers-healthier-than-red-meat-dietitians-say-no.html

I have not had any of the fast food Impossible/Beyond burgers, but I have had them at local restaurants up here and down in the LA area. Actually pretty good! I don't eat much meat during the week as a personal choice, so having another choice that fits in with my meal planning is welcome. I am going to try making a meatloaf with some of the ground "meat" soon after reading a few recipes/reviews.

Search my words and show me where I said anything like "that now anytime the House is in the hands of the party opposite the Presidency, they should simply just conduct impeachment inquiries regardless".
I did not.

Purely a conspiracy theory. If you were deemed too risky you would not get a visa. 

Totally understandable. I was born here and feel that it is my patriotic duty to voice my perspectives.  I do control myself when it comes to my husband's country so I know what you mean. 

The Whistle Blower has been made irrelevant to the process by the fact that several people with first hand knowledge have described the President's attempt to shake down a foreign country. 
 
If the house is on fire, you don't have a committee meeting to determine who pulled the alarm.
 
Republican talk points need to pivot to something relevant. The hearings are going to go forward.