As to the private plans, yes,..those are still impacted by the ACC. Whether it's a private plan or state exchange, Cruz is still being "impacted" and "effected" and given "benefits" of the ACA. If the mere notion of gaining a benefit compared to no insurance from ACA somehow makes him a hypocrite, than thst applies to him purchasing a private plan as well
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
yes, he can get a private insurance policy.. .but he would pay 100% of the premiums for that policy.. he would have to forgo his employer contribution ( which is 75%).
the same is true for any other employee in the country.. they don't have to go through their employer to get health insurance... they are free to purchase their own plan and pay 100% of the cost.
I doubt anyone here will fault any other employee on the planet for taking the employer provided health insurance benefits if it's available to them... Cruz is obviously special in this regard.
For some time, Cruz and the right have been loudly whining about how terrible it is that millions of americans have lost their plan and been "forced" to buy coverage in an exchange. Now that he has lost his plan, Cruz (whose wealth and position gives him as more options than most) has decided to buy a plan on the exchange because it the best option available to him
Why is it that when others choose the best option, they are being "forced" to do that, but when Cruz makes such a choice, he's doing the smart thing?
IOW, his choice illuminates the fact that his rhetoric about being "forced" to buy on the exchange is nothing but a lie. The truth is, for millions of americans, the exchange is best available option because of the benefits it provides. The people buying coverage there are not victims of coercion; They are recipients of a valuable benefit.
nobody has argued it's not the best option for other people to take advantage of..... nobody has argued they are not doing the smart thing.
most of the people buying into the exchanges are doing the only thing they can do.. and are mandated to do.... and nobody here is taking any of them to task over doing as much.
but the existence of the individual mandate pretty much renders your argument of " they're not being forced/coerced" to be incorrect on the merits.
And FWIW, it's in part a rhetorical distinction between a mandate to buy something and a fine if you don't, but I actually see the distinction as fairly significant. You don't in fact have to purchase insurance, but if you want to freeload, society has every 'right' and I'd argue a fiscal obligation to put a price on freeloading. If a freeloading uninsured person gets into a bad car wreck, the rest of us will pick up his $100,000 hospital bill. If he wants the 'right' to gamble, keep the premium savings, and shift his losses/costs to us if he loses his bet that he'll stay healthy, we have a 'right' to make him pay for that privilege - put a cost on that bet.
As an aside, the real problem with the mandate, IMO, is that it does require a fairly comprehensive policy. I think that's the right choice, but recognize that there is a good argument against comprehensive insurance in favor of catastrophic plans and MSAs or something. So, OK, if a conservative wants to propose that, and with it some way for the poor to afford the copayments up to the floor of the catastrophic plan, that would be fine. But for anything to actually work, we're going to have to cover everyone or mandate coverage.