Cruz sold himself as the #1 opponent of ACA. Then he signs up for it? Just on principle alone he should get insurance through his wife's job's COBRA or get it on the private market. At one time I remember many Republicans saying we didn't need ACA because we have COBRA. Now Cruz signs up for ACA? Hilarious!
And the people in Texas who have no health insurance will happily vote for this guy again. Wow, politics aside this guy is a worm.
"The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize."~F.D.R.
"Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other."~Mark Twain
So now that I answered your question- he DID have options - you Fold like a tent.
He was willing to Shut the country down for his "ideology", and cost Millions/Tens of Millions of People, Billions of dollars.
His whole campaign IS "ideology". His not a Deal maker/Nickel and dimer/compromiser.
That IS his constituency.
Now he's a Penny-Pinching HYPOCRITE whose made a mockery of himself.
Last edited by mbig; 03-25-15 at 02:09 PM.
I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
Here's your question: "Why would he decline employer funded insurance (aka "subsidy")?"
The answer is simple - I do not know. Ask Rafael why he is declining employer FUNDED insurance, since it was Rafael who announced he was going to decline the "government contribution."
"Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups." - Frédéric Bastiat