But I feel like you're dismissing this despite pretty interesting circumstances.
It isn't the circumstances that I'm dismissing...it is the conclusion.
I fully agree with you...funding for Obamacare was done illegally. I also fully agree with you that taking funds from FnF was done illegally.
I disagree with the conclusion that these two wrongs mean that FnF is funding Obamacare when we have so much evidence that FnF funds wouldn't fund even a majority portion of Obamacare, and there have already been so many studies for how Obamacare was funded that don't included FnF, and the Treasury Secretary specifically stated that FnF is not funding Obamacare.
I can't get behind speculation that flys in the face of facts.
I do not have the years of experience in the space that you say you do, which I have no reason not to believe.
We all have our own individual experience that Im sure helps with analysis. I have worked for nearly 13 years in HealthCare...specifically around purchaser agreements and clinical quality performance analysis...so I'm definitely no stranger to the exchange markets created by ACA.
Others on this board have tax experience that I don't have...and others have housing experience that I don't have...it's just playing to our strengths to help the common good of sharing knowledge.
And of course you wouldn't see articles on it - you can barely get articles that cover the GSEs that aren't entirely bank-friendly.
And in a world where a lack of articles is made to be evidence of what the articles aren't reporting on, I would stipulate that Elvis and John Lennon had a love child named Pumpernickel.
Trust me...if the news starts reporting on FnF and its funding of Obamacare (and please don't cite me infofake.com articles), then trust me...I'll listen. But that likely won't happen because all of the evidence points to the fact that ACA was not funded by FnF.
