So, are you just trying to help prove that you are a con tool. Lets see what you have here in the first and only link you have provided to support your contention. You go to a forbes opinon piece. Forbes is neutral enough, but they provide articles from far left and far right sources. Opinion pieces are fine, if you have a neutral source. But if you do not know that the author is impartial, a quick check will tell you what you are looking at. So, the author is Avik Roy. Familiar name?? Yes, indeed. He was involved with Romney in his campaign. You remember, the guy who said he would repeal Obamacare immediately.
So, he is a Senior Fellow, at the Manhattan Institute.
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research - SourceWatch
He also writes regularly for National Affairs, The American Spectator. In 2012, he served as an adviser to the Romney campaign on health care policy.
Manhattan Institute Scholar | Avik Roy
So, Oldstyle, you found a right wing con tool who did a very biased piece for Forbes. Nice job, oldstyle. On the up side you showed you could use google and produce a link. But the idea is IMPARTIALITY. I am sure you are going to argue this point, because you can not find an impartial source you like. But you failed again in the area of INTEGRITY. Here is an example, should you not understand that simple idea. I could get an article from MoveOn authors. But i don't. You see, I value impartiality, and do not like to ruin my integrity. Look it up, Oldstyle.
So, you found a con tool who bent a CBO piece from earlier this year, which I am very familiar with. It said only that they increased the costs of the ACA in their estimates. Which is something that they tend to do. And they increased them only marginally. Not as much as, say, private insurance companies have raised insurance rates to consumers for many years. But again, you just want to show the ACA as being a bad idea.
But here is the more important thing, and one that you are ignoring. In a more recent release, the CBO has said that eliminating the ACA and going back to whence we came, as in private insurance that you so like, the costs would be INCREASED to the consumer, and that the result would be an increase in the DEFICIT by $1.8B. You are giving me whiplash. You absolutely want to decrease the deficit. Typically, cons say that the deficit is the biggest economic problem. But at the same time, cons universally are against the ACA, which is projected to decrease the deficit. Why would that be? Simple enough, oh economic expert. Because the health insurance companies PAY republican politicians. Big time pay. And I would be very, very, very surprised if they did not pay your source, Mr. Roy.
So, I suspect it is too much to ask for a non partisan source, eh, oldstyle. Say the CBO itself.
So, you have managed to again keep padding your right wing con tool credentials. You said, oh great con tool, that you only read impartial information. Lying again, eh oldstyle???
