Affordable Care Act subsidy challenged by liar, David King, who was not harmed and has VA Health Care.

The guy who may just take away the health care of millions of people is completely clueless, partisan as hell, and your typical right wing low information voter. On top of that, he's now admitting that the law doesn't affect him, which takes away his ability to prove harm.

This story made the rounds because it was so breathtaking. David King, of King vs Burwell, is blabbering away like a tea party loon. Just to document how sad our nation is right now, here are a few exerts:

NY Times: Millions of people are waiting anxiously for the Supreme Court to decide the
fate of the health insurance subsidies. But David M. King, a plaintiff in the case, is not among them. Mr. King, 64, said recently that he was reasonably confident he would prevail in his challenge to the subsidies, a central element of the Affordable Care Act. “We have a good chance of winning,” he said in an interview at his home here.

King has no standing, and cannot show harm. Yet the Justices decided to take the case? 

But Mr. King said that he was not really worried, because as a Vietnam veteran, he has access to medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

When he sued the government in September 2013, Mr. King filed a declaration stating that he was not eligible for health insurance from the government or any employer. But in the last few months, he said in the interview, he went to an outpatient clinic for veterans in Fredericksburg and received a veteran identification card so he could qualify for discounts at Lowe’s stores. At the clinic, Mr. King said, he also received a physical examination. “I’m eligible for V.A. care,” he said.

King takes his shot at the "left."

If he wins, Mr. King said, “the left will blow it out of proportion and claim that eight million people will lose their health insurance.” But he said lawyers had assured him that “things are in play to take care of the problem.” Mr. King did not provide detail. Mr. King, a gruff but friendly man who likes to guard his privacy, expressed a generalized sense of grievance over the health care law and the way the administration had carried it out.

King even blamed Obama for giving the law his name, when it's just common knowledge Republicans came up with it:

The name often used for the program, Obamacare, is enough to upset anyone, Mr. King said, and suggests that the president is “a narcissist.” (The term was actually coined by opponents of the law, though Mr. Obama has sometimes used it.) 

Get the idea King doesn't like the "far left:"

“A lot of the Supreme Court seemed to be in our favor,” he said, and he offered contrasting impressions of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “I thought Roberts was supportive,” Mr. King said. “Ginsburg was not. She is far left.”

But again, King doesn't have standing, and he lied:

During the arguments, Justice Ginsburg asked whether the plaintiffs had established that they had standing to sue: “a concrete stake” in the outcome, not just an ideological interest.

Mr. King said he was aware of the legal issue, but he played down its significance. Regardless of whether he has standing, he said, other plaintiffs do. “This case is not about destroying health care. It’s about the law, the rule of law. You can’t have a pen and a phone and decide to change the world. I listen to everybody bitch and moan and cry about Obamacare,” Mr. King said. “We did something about it.