You conceded that you weren't clear and and called me an idiot for not being able to understand what you meant to say. However, I do apologize for calling an ignorant piece of dog squeeze a dipshit.
No. I called you an idiot for your inability to understand that which you are commenting on.
I understand that if more people are working part time jobs in order to get money from the government to pay for their health insurance there are a number of unintended consequences. Here are two of them off the top of my head.
One: Their state and federal Income taxes are lower, since they are based on gross earnings, resulting in less tax revenue to the federal and state governments.
Two: Their contribution to Soc Sec and Medicare are less, resulting in a lower Soc Sec benefit at age 65 and less paid into Medicare to keep that program solvent.
Since you think you understand the CBO report, did you see where the money to pay for the additional 2.5 million people that will get government money to pay for their health insurance comes from?
Dear TooTall LoneLaugher and Company:
These are all good points, except for personal comments pointed at people instead of the content of arguments.
Keep in mind, that since both sides are coming into this NOT BELIEVING the arguments of the other, this is not unlike the creation/evolution debate.
From the very onset, both sides seek to defend their beliefs from imposition by the other.
The bill was passed in this manner, and will always be flawed because it imposed a national law WITHOUT PROOF and WITHOUT CONSENT of the taxpayers affected.
All arguments will be interpreted differently, depending which side is defending THEIR BELIEFS about health care and how it should be paid for.
This conflict was not resolved by consensus between pre-existing beliefs (which WILL NOT CHANGE) before passing the bill, so it will never be agreed upon as written and enforced.
Even if this plan "proved to work" it would STILL be against the beliefs of people who disagree with federal government implementing it without amending the Constitution first, and being granted authority by CONSENT of the states and the people VOTING on this change to Constitutional policy and authority. Even if it worked, the objections would remain.
The way I see to resolve this conflict is to SEPARATE policies by belief system, such as by Party, and dividing the taxbase to represent views of the taxpayers in groups, and where they wish to invest their taxes without imposition or conflict with other people or parties.
Under that, I would hold the Democrat Party responsible for implementing and funding the ACA and allow nonsupporters equal option to invest in their own party's alternatives. The transition I support for health care reform is to balance the prison budgets with public health care; along with immigration reform through "earned amnesty" collecting restitution for past violations in order to pay for health care and education instead of charging law abiding taxpayers who committed no crimes. The Greens and Libertarians can either set up their own party-based health care network, or lobby for reform through the other major parties. Let everyone fund and participate freely in their health care system of choice.
Once these plans are proven to work in groups WILLING TO SUPPORT THEM, then other citizens can have a free and equal INFORMED choice of buying into them BY CONSENT.
INSTEAD of being forced by law WITHOUT PROOF and/or WITHOUT CONSENT which is a blatant violation of religious freedom and equal Constitutional protections of individual rights. Otherwise this imposition constitutes taxation without representation and INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE by forcing people to "give up our labor" to pay insurance companies we did not agree to contract any business with under terms we didn't vote on.
