They law may not work as logically as you assume.

In the U.S. a person can enter a homeowner's yard uninvited and without the homeowner's knowledge, slip and fall, injure themselves, and successfully sue the homeowner.

OK, switching from humor to serious. The above can be challenged in court. And being correct/innocent does not necessarily determine the outcome of a case. As a hostile lawyer once explained: the facts of the matter are irrelevant, my client can afford to go to court, you can not. See "pyrrhic victory".

Take ownership and control of the project.

Hmmm ... Find a way to sue the FSF, get ownership/control, relicense all GNU software.

He's sorry now, wait until some lawyer shows up on his doorstep with a bill.

Remember the back half of the HealthCare.gov website that hadn't been started when the whole thing was supposed to be done, that's the part that keeps track of people's enrollments, movement from one plan to another, pays the government's part of their premium, etc. That is where the real numbers will come from.

The administration's "we don't keep track of those metrics" line may be code for "the backend of HealthCare.gov is working yet".

The liberal New York Times is against the ACA and grasping at straws? They list insurance company after insurance company that states huge percentages are failing to pay and finalize their enrollment. One insurance company rep believes it is just people shopping around, perhaps some folks are being double counted and the non-payments represent these double signups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...

Payment is the final step in the enrollment process. No payment, no enrollment. Its pretty simple, if you haven't paid you haven't bought anything.

"Matthew N. Wiggin, a spokesman for Aetna, said that about 70 percent of people who signed up for its health plans paid their premiums ... "I think people are enrolling in multiple places,” he said in a conference call. “They are shopping. And what happens is that they never really get back on HealthCare.gov to disenroll from plans they prior enrolled in"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...

FWIW ... Non ACA compliant health plans are not necessarily deficient plans as the administration would like us to believe.

I did a side-by-side comparison of my legacy Kaiser plan (California, circa 2007) and the new ACA compliant Kaiser plans. The medical coverage was pretty much the same, the differences were really in deductibles and copays. My personal coverage would go from about $400 to $500 a month with greater out of pocket expenses for me for the closest match. Fortunately this legacy Kaiser plan has not been canceled. I realize its doomed, like all non-ACA compliant plans since it can't accept new members (i.e. the young and healthy).

Are you sure that you are not the one with the political blinders on?

Clue: Politicians don't have to lie when the facts coincidentally happen to be on their side. A talking point is not inherently erroneous.

That said I am not a reader of the GOP talking points, I recalled the stats from traditional media. From the liberal New York Times:
"WASHINGTON — One in five people who signed up for health insurance under the new health care law failed to pay their premiums on time and therefore did not receive coverage in January, insurance companies and industry experts say. Paying the first month’s premium is the final step in completing an enrollment. Under federal rules, people must pay the initial premium to have coverage take effect ...

Lindy Wagner, a spokeswoman for Blue Shield of California, said that 80 percent of those who signed up for its plans had paid by the due date ...

Matthew N. Wiggin, a spokesman for Aetna, said that about 70 percent of people who signed up for its health plans paid their premiums ... "I think people are enrolling in multiple places,” he said in a conference call. “They are shopping. And what happens is that they never really get back on HealthCare.gov to disenroll from plans they prior enrolled in" ...

Kristin E. Binns, a vice president of WellPoint, said that 76 percent of people selecting its health plans on an exchange had paid their share of the first month’s premium ...

One big company, Humana, said it had received 200,000 applications for insurance through the exchanges. “About 75 percent of the people paid, and 25 percent did not pay,” ...

Greg Thompson, a spokesman for the Health Care Service Corporation, which offers Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Illinois, Texas and three other states, said that “around 80 percent” of people choosing those plans had paid their first month’s premium ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...

Plus a huge number of enrollees have not actually made an insurance premium payment so they are not really signed up and insured. What was the percentage being reported, something like 15% to 20%?

Mozilla believes in freedom of speech? That is pure doublespeak. Being forced from your job for a politically incorrect or ill-advised or counter productive political opinion is not supportive of free speech, is not supportive of tolerance.

As long as he treats his employees equally, and a marriage certificate is not necessary to do so with respect to health care and other benefits, and treats his customers equally there should be no issue with his role as CEO.

"Totally working" is undervaluing their currency so that all goods and services that they offer to the US have an inherent built-in 30% discount.

Its not really the low wages that make manufacturing so attractive in China, its this 30% discount on *everything* compared to domestic US manufacture.

That was the point that I was trying to make, I phrased the first sentence poorly. I only meant to say that all the fees are paid by the merchant, unlike some atm transactions where the customer is charged. And that after trying credit card surcharges and cash discounts merchants just embedded to fees into the standard price.

If a car dealer can suddenly save $1,000 when selling a car due to a 3rd party he is not going to reduce the price of the car $1,000 immediately. We do not have similarity between cost increases and cost savings with respect to what the customer sees.

Also, a car analogy does not fit here. There is a difference between things that have a posted price (ex gasoline) and things that have a negotiated price (ex car) in the U.S. The courts have been through this before. Back in the day as people switched from cash to credit cards the gas stations, which operate on a very low margin, tried to pass on the swipe fee to consumers. The courts said no. The gas stations then tried to offer a cash discount. The courts said no, it was a credit card surcharge by a different method.

Therefore in the U.S. prices will reflect credit card swipe fees and any saving from a Bitcoin based transaction will go into the merchant's pocket, just like when we pay cash.

In the U.S. consumers don't pay the transaction fees on credit and debit cards, and in many states merchants are prohibited from adding a surcharge to cover this fee or offering a discount for a cash transaction.

Bitcoins only allow merchants to avoid the credit/debit transaction fee and receive a greater profit margin. Note merchants tend to convert bitcoins to USD immediately upon receipt, the fee for this conversion is usually far far lower than the credit/debit card fee. Sometimes even a flat fee for the month.