• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz going on Obamacare

Dovkan said:
I mean regulations on setting back when women can get abortions, telling them to watch videos, etc.
Click to expand...

I would prefer the regulation of throwing their happy ass in a prison cell and losing the key. That would be progress.

Abortion is an issue of women's health
Click to expand...

Bull****. Contract killing has nothing to do with "women's health." Pregnancy is a perfectly normal and healthy condition.

I'd rather have my taxes go to healthcare for all then defense spending, but that's just me..
Click to expand...

We spend far too much on defense, but we shouldn't spend a dime on healthcare.

Article I, Section 8. At least defense spending is something the federal government is actually allowed to do. Healthcare, doctors, hospitals, insurance... none of these things are mentioned, not once. Congress has no authority to dictate anything about healthcare.

We could have a surplus today, right now, if Congress would abide by its Constitutional limits. And we need a surplus for a long, long time if we are to ever pay down the ridiculous debt we have accumulated.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
According to those on the right, including Mr Cruz, the exchange is an example of the govt taking from some people to subsidize others. It is a form of theft.

So Cruz should refrain from participating in it.
Click to expand...


Cruz is too stupid to realize that any and all insurance is , by nature, subsidization via sharing of group risk to lower individual cost.
 
JayDubya said:
I would prefer the regulation of throwing their happy ass in a prison cell and losing the key. That would be progress.



Bull****. Contract killing has nothing to do with "women's health." Pregnancy is a perfectly normal and healthy condition.



We spend too much on defense, but we shouldn't spend a dime on healthcare. Article I, Section 8. At least defense spending is something the federal government is actually allowed to do. Healthcare, doctors, hospitals, insurance... none of these things are mentioned, not once. Congress has no authority to dictate anything about healthcare.
Click to expand...

Wait, throwing them in prison? I cannot fathom words to describe how insane this premise is.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
no, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Educate yourself, please.

It is a physiological state. It is not any kind of disease or malady. It is perfectly normal. Pregnancy is a state of organs doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Your delusions change nothing.
 
Dovkan said:
Wait, throwing them in prison? I cannot fathom words to describe how insane this premise is.
Click to expand...

If you think it's insane to throw someone in prison for killing another human being without just cause, then I suppose you must oppose entirely the concept of prison or any laws at all.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, it is. Educate yourself, please.

It is a physiological state. It is not any kind of disease or malady. It is perfectly normal. Pregnancy is a state of organs doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Your delusions change nothing.
Click to expand...


if it's normal, why does it require the participation of another human to occur?

it it's healthy, why does it kill women, and/or cause miscarriage


oops, maybe you should use words that are accurate.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
if it's normal, why does it require the participation of another human to occur?
Click to expand...

I believe I already covered this with "educate yourself."

Apparently you never got a "birds and the bees" discussion from your parents. There's this thing we mammals and lots of other types of organisms do called sexual reproduction. Feel free to research it on the internet.

it it's healthy, why does it kill women, and/or cause miscarriage
Click to expand...

And of course, now you're talking about diseases and complications that are secondary, and highlighting specifically rare ones at that.

Which, understandably, changes nothing.

Placental abruption, for example, is a serious medical condition. Pregnancy is not a disease or any kind of malady. You do have to be pregnant to have placental abruption, but that does not make pregnancy a disease.

In medical science, pregnancy is considered a physiological state, not a pathophysiological state.

oops, maybe you should use words that are accurate.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony.

You have demonstrated you cannot do such.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
If you think it's insane to throw someone in prison for killing another human being without just cause, then I suppose you must oppose entirely the concept of prison or any laws at all.
Click to expand...

If you want to throw women in prison over controlling there own bodies by aborting a fetus, you need to see a psychologist.
 
Dovkan said:
If you want to throw women in prison over controlling there own bodies by aborting a fetus, you need to see a psychologist.
Click to expand...

If you think killing your own kids is just controlling your own body, then your last statement is just you projecting.
 
JayDubya said:
If you think killing your own kids is just controlling your own body, then your last statement is just you projecting.
Click to expand...

Wow, just..... Wow. I have no words. I won't even bother discussion with you, no wonder women are concerned for there rights.
 
ludin said:
:doh

COBRA is only for people that have quit or lost their job. please show me where Cruz has quit or lost his job?
it even says that in the article. now if his wife has left goldman sachs then yes she would qualify for cobra on her existing healthcare plan.
you have no idea what you are talking about or just want to ignore facts.
Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’?
he has to and must purchase a plan on the exchange according to the ACA. it was passed by congress and approved by Obama himself.
so please explain how it is a sell out on principles to do what the law says you must do.
Click to expand...
HE and his wife CAN USE COBRA. Probably cost a few dollar More to Maintain his Principles.
Of course, if she worked for Goldman Sachs (and will again), a few dollars more a month is no biggie!

AGAIN from my post:

"...He could sign up for coverage through COBRA, the law that requires employers to offer their employees health insurance for 18 months after they quit. If Cruz is the very optimistic type, he will need coverage for 20 months — from now until the election next November. So his coverage could, theoretically leave him short.

The other problem with COBRA: it's expensive. Typically, the employer and the employee split the price of an insurance premium. But former employees on COBRA pay the entire cost.

Cruz could buy individual market coverage without using the exchange, although that shopping experience can be messy. Outside of the exchange, there's no central repository of health insurance plans that lets you explore different options. While Healthcare.gov did indeed have a disastrous launch, the website now is actually pretty good for comparing different plans.

Then there's the option of not buying coverage at all and paying a fine. This year, the Cruz family would pay either a $1,300 penalty for 2015 ($325 each for Cruz, his wife, and his two daughters) or 2 percent of their income, whichever is greater. That's likely cheaper than buying an insurance plan but also comes with the massive downside of remaining uninsured...​

So Mr Renegade could have even gone for No coverage too and Filibustered in REAL Life.

Man, you are Wrigid Wright-Wing Wrong on EVERY Issue.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
If you think killing your own kids is just controlling your own body, then your last statement is just you projecting.
Click to expand...

Dovkan said:
Wow, just..... Wow. I have no words. I won't even bother discussion with you, no wonder women are concerned for there rights.
Click to expand...

Can you guys take this to the abortion sub forum please?
 
Dovkan said:
Wow, just..... Wow. I have no words. I won't even bother discussion with you, no wonder women are concerned for there rights.
Click to expand...

You held up Obama as a purveyor of "progress" as opposed to Cruz because of his support for "women's rights." When asked to clarify, you of course meant that you want a special privilege to kill and you want the central authority to seize more individual property.

That sort of barbarism has been going on for thousands of years.

Progress would be ending it. Fortuitously, there are presidential candidates who could appoint literate and moral folks to the Supreme Court, and Cruz is among them.
 
JayDubya said:
The problem is you identified killing for personal gain is progress. No, it isn't. You held up Obama as a purveyor of progress because of his support for "women's rights." When asked to clarify, you of course meant that you want a special privilege to kill and you want the central authority to seize more individual property.

That sort of barbarism has been going on for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

I will take another posters advice and not continue this discussion.
 
Painter said:
Not that he ever had a chance to begin with...
But his mishandling of sound bytes has now sealed his fate.

Now that I think about it... it is quite ironic.
Normally Liberals have the facts on their side but get slapped around by sound bytes and imaging.
But this time it is a Republican who has facts on his side but is getting beat up by a one liner.
I love it lol...
Click to expand...

Liberals RARELY have the facts on their side.
 
Dovkan said:
I will take another posters advice and not continue this discussion.
Click to expand...

That's for the best if all you have is ad hominem.
 
Dovkan said:
"Women's rights" in this case refers to a women's right to get an abortion, easy access to birth control..
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Cruz is against abortion, with the basic notion that a woman's right doesn't extend to killing the unborn. But his position is that the federal government is not given the power to force their decision on the States, the Constitution leaves this to the States. Off the top of my head, I don't think Congress has ever passed a law making abortion legal.
 
Anthony60 said:
I'm pretty sure Cruz is against abortion, with the basic notion that a woman's right doesn't extend to killing the unborn. But his position is that the federal government is not given the power to force their decision on the States, the Constitution leaves this to the States. Off the top of my head, I don't think Congress has ever passed a law making abortion legal.
Click to expand...

I don't want someone in office who wants to let states control women's rights, or gay marriage, but I guess I'm a psychopath.
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
I'm pretty sure Cruz is against abortion, with the basic notion that a woman's right doesn't extend to killing the unborn. But his position is that the federal government is not given the power to force their decision on the States, the Constitution leaves this to the States. Off the top of my head, I don't think Congress has ever passed a law making abortion legal.
Click to expand...

Correct. Under the 10th Amendment, the feds have no authority to dictate this specific element of each states' criminal code.

The federal government has authority to set the criminal code in this matter only on explicitly federal territory.

I hope to see appointments to SCotUS who would uphold the 10th Amendment and constitutional limits on federal power... Cruz is someone who would do that, at least.
 
Dovkan said:
I don't want someone in office who wants to let states control women's rights, or gay marriage, but I guess I'm a psychopath.
Click to expand...

It's really not up to the president at all. It shouldn't be a big issue for a candidate, the president can't do much about abortions. Although Obama has decided to try and do things that are unconstitutional and not in his power.

It's just plain not in the Constitution for the federal government to control this. It's up to the States, not a decision that involves the president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom