• 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

Henrin said:
It defended it perfectly. You feel as if the government should do an ever expanding list of things depending on what the people want or need at a given time. It's a useless ideology with no real constraints to speak of. I don't happen to agree with the state, but if it exists I do not find it useful or desirable to follow your ideology as it must undermine the peoples rights to do so. For example, you can not logically support the peoples rights and at the same time force people to provide for other peoples healthcare, education, housing, food, clothing, etc.
Click to expand...
No one is forced to do any of those things, I suppose they are "forced" to pay taxes that the government redistributes through programs to help people, if that's what you count. I don't want my taxes going to defense, but we have to realize that's not how it works.
 
mbig said:
I can't believe this.
He declared his candidacy yesterday saying he was going to repeal every single word.
It may be mandatory, tho I see no reason he couldn't get private insurance and pay a penalty if required. That would be more consistent with his politics until now.
No, this is not April Fools, this is a real headline.

Ted Cruz going on Obamacare
By Dana Bash and MJ Lee, CNN
Updated 5:54 PM ET, Tue March 24, 2015
Ted Cruz going on Obamacare - CNN.com

[VIDEO interview with Dana Bash]
Click to expand...

His flip flop collection might be larger than mitt romney's.
 
Henrin said:
The state doesn't "need" to do anything, so that is a non-starter. Maintaining your own health is your responsibly and has nothing to do with my comment or the quote I provided.
Click to expand...

How can you maintain your own health if private insurance companies deny you if you have a pre-existing condition, and you lack the wealth needed to get medical care? Or how about cancer treatments costing tens of thousands that insurance companies only pay a fraction of, raise your rates afterwards, the state doesn't "need" to do anything, but defense, according to what I've read from you. That will obviously work well /s
 
Phys251 said:
Yessssss. Preciousssssss. It defended the Precioussssssss perfectly.
Click to expand...

What many people like yourself do is put together a belief system that undermines itself and when criticized over this fact you start to stay stupid and nonsensical things that only makes your obvious lack of thought towards concepts like the state even more apparent and obnoxious.
 
mbig said:

Ted Cruz Wants You To Believe He’s Legally Required To Sign Up For Obamacare. He’s Not.
BY IGOR VOLSKY ...
Click to expand...

Ah, so what you and the collective left have your panties in a wad over is that Cruz chose not to use his personal wealth to bypass Obamacare because he wanted to use the same exchanges the average American is forced to use because they don't have that option financially?

Clearly the worlds greatest monster. :roll:
 
Dovkan said:
How can you maintain your own health if private insurance companies deny you if you have a pre-existing condition, and you lack the wealth needed to get medical care? Or how about cancer treatments costing tens of thousands that insurance companies only pay a fraction of, raise your rates afterwards, the state doesn't "need" to do anything, but defense, according to what I've read from you. That will obviously work well /s
Click to expand...

Is anyone acting towards your health by denying you insurance or medical care? If not, then it has nothing to do with my statement or the quote I provided.
 
AJiveMan said:
His flip flop collection might be larger than mitt romney's.
Click to expand...

This is a biggie though. Bigger then any flip flop by Mittens. The fact that he didn't take COBRA and then make a big deal by saying 'see we don't need ACA we have COBRA' doesn't make any sense to me. Him signing up for something he hates when there were other options is amazing. Unless he has something up his sleeve this was a pretty big **** up.
 
Dovkan said:
How can you maintain your own health if private insurance companies deny you if you have a pre-existing condition, and you lack the wealth needed to get medical care? Or how about cancer treatments costing tens of thousands that insurance companies only pay a fraction of, raise your rates afterwards, the state doesn't "need" to do anything, but defense, according to what I've read from you. That will obviously work well /s
Click to expand...

There are lots of different sets of regulation that can be used to solve those difficulties.
 
joG said:
There are lots of different sets of regulation that can be used to solve those difficulties.
Click to expand...

60% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses and costs. So no, there really isn't a lot of regulations to solve those difficulties. Unless of course you are counting going bankrupt as one of those options.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
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.
Click to expand...

What's unprincipled about getting employer-based insurance?

The liberals and leftists in Congress who supported the ACA while vehemently and loudly criticizing the model of employer-based insurance had employer-based insurance the entire time. They still do. Yet idiots keep voting for them.
 
tres borrachos said:
What's unprincipled about getting employer-based insurance?

The liberals and leftists in Congress who supported the ACA while vehemently and loudly criticizing the model of employer-based insurance had employer-based insurance the entire time. They still do. Yet idiots keep voting for them.
Click to expand...

I would gladly discuss this. But Idiots?

Good-bye.
 
JasperL said:
Another infamous tres borrachos rat hole.

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."
Click to expand...

One more time. His entire income is a "subsidy" if you want to call it that (which obviously you do). The contribution that is made by the taxpayers to his insurance coverage would have been made before January 1, 2014 no differently than it will be today. In other words, nothing has changed except his employer-based insurance plans are now on the Exchanges that his fellow lawmakers forced into existence with the ACA.

Sorry, no rat hole, much as you want to pretend there is. There is no story here. Just like if he had been taking benefits from the government as was his right all along (like most of them do), and come January 1, 2014, now those exact same benefits are coming from plans set up on the Exchanges.

But keep trying. I'll keep laughing at the weak partisan efforts to make this a story. It isn't. Unless we're going to discuss everyone else who is also getting this insurance. What does Nancy Pelosi get? Harry Reid? Maxine Waters? Chuck Schumer? Charlie Rangel? Are they all getting subsidized insurance too? This could make an interesting thread. How the wealthy Democratic politicians let you pay for their families' healthcare. Hmmm...
 
jmotivator said:
Ah, so what you and the collective left have your panties in a wad over is that Cruz chose not to use his personal wealth to bypass Obamacare because he wanted to use the same exchanges the average American is forced to use because they don't have that option financially?

Clearly the worlds greatest monster. :roll:
Click to expand...

They're pissy because he chose to use the insurance benefits that come with his job as a US Senator. I guess it's only okay when the other politicians do it.
 
Yet Kamikaze Kruz opened his kampaign campaigning against the benefits he would put in for the next day.

Versus honest nonhypocrital Governors like Kasich who took ME for all the reasons and coasted to victory. He's one I wouldn't be nervous about .
 
mbig said:
Ahh.
The usual Wrong quipping from Jmotivator, despite the fact it's already been busted a few time by me. (COBRA etc)

Hey, Righties, give him a few more likes for those empty wisecracks!

Ted Cruz Wants You To Believe He’s Legally Required To Sign Up For Obamacare. He’s Not.
BY IGOR VOLSKY
MARCH 25, 2015 AT 11:50 AM
Ted Cruz Wants You To Believe He's Legally Required To Sign Up For Obamacare. He's Not. | ThinkProgress

Newly-minted presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) admitted that he would grudgingly sign up for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday, just one day after announcing that he intends to repeal “every word of Obamacare” if elected president.
Cruz framed the decision as one of inevitability.
[........]
“I believe we should follow the text of every law, even laws I disagree with,” Cruz said. “It’s one of the real differences — if you look at President Obama and the lawlessness, if he disagrees with a law he simply refuses to follow it or claims the authority to unilaterally change.”

Cruz should consider the law more closely.

The Affordable Care Act does Not compel members of Congress to enroll in DC’s health care exchange; it simply cuts off the Government Contribution to their insurance plans if they buy their policies elsewhere. “The final rule extends a Government contribution towards health benefits plans for Members of Congress and designated congressional staff so long as the health benefits plans are purchased via the appropriate SHOP as determined by the Director,” a summary of the final rule says. “Nothing in the final rule or the law prevents a Member of Congress or designated congressional staff from declining a Government contribution for him or herself by choosing a different option for their health insurance coverage.”

In other words, Cruz “could purchase coverage in the outside market but would get no subsidy from the FEHBP program,” Tim Jost clarified for ThinkProgress, referring to the acronym for the federal health care program.

“It seems like the primary other option he would have is to take advantage of COBRA through his wife, though he’d be forgoing the employer contribution. He could also buy non-group coverage,” Larry Levitt, Senior Vice President at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said.

Cruz could also potentially purchased insurance through his presidential campaign’s presumptive health care insurance. In those instances, however, he would have had to give up his employer’s contribution and likely pay more for insurance than he is now being charged under Obamacare.

DESPITE initially telling CNN’s Dana Bash that Cruz didn’t pursue other alternatives because “Obamacare has wiped out the individual market, leaving Cruz with few options,”
his staff is now explaining to reporters that Cruz might skip the DC exchange and sign up for coverage in Texas, through that state’s federal exchange. “As it happens, Cruz appears likely to forego the 75% employer contribution he could get as a member of Congress and instead access Obamacare from Texas, which doesn’t have a state exchange,” The Daily Caller reports, adding, “That means Cruz would use HealthCare.gov to get health insurance, at the same time the Supreme Court is considering ruling taxpayer [subsidies] for federal exchange customers illegal.”​

So for probably a few hundred dollars a month more, he could maintain his integrity/Filibuster.
My God Clowns, his wife works/worked at Goldman Sachs! (just on leave)
Bonuses alone for mere secretaries are 30-50K there.

How bout another Wisecrack with No Content JM.
Your posts are a Disgrace to DP.
But hey, they're partisan enough to get lotsa likes from the boards most loyal gang.
Click to expand...
jmotivator said:
mbig said:
Ted Cruz Wants You To Believe He’s Legally Required To Sign Up For Obamacare. He’s Not.
BY IGOR VOLSKY ...
Click to expand...
Ah, so what you and the collective left have your panties in a wad over is that Cruz chose not to use his personal wealth to bypass Obamacare because he wanted to use the same exchanges the average American is forced to use because they don't have that option financially?

Clearly the worlds greatest monster. :roll:
Click to expand...
I'm NOT 'The Left', Not close.
(check my likes/given/received)
But YOU are 'The Right'.
and because you got your Butt Kicked to hell, you had to 'short quote' me and ALL relevant content, and go for Yet Another empty wisecrack. ('liked' by yet another extreme partisan)

Bad move, you just gave me the opportunity to Post the devastating truth again.
Enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Wait...do I understand this correctly?

Cruz is being criticized for following the law?
Click to expand...

He could just not get the health insurance, pay the fine (its not like he can't afford it), and still be following the law. He would also be walking the talk.
 
Geoist said:
He could just not get the health insurance, pay the fine (its not like he can't afford it), and still be following the law. He would also be walking the talk.
Click to expand...

The fine represents not following the law. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
The fine represents not following the law. :lol:
Click to expand...

Eh, I guess it could be seen that way. Either way, if you oppose something strongly enough and can afford it then why not pay the fine?
 
Geoist said:
He could just not get the health insurance, pay the fine (its not like he can't afford it), and still be following the law. He would also be walking the talk.
Click to expand...

This is his employer-based insurance. When did he lobby to eliminate employer-based insurance?
 
Geoist said:
Eh, I guess it could be seen that way. Either way, if you oppose something strongly enough and can afford it then why not pay the fine?
Click to expand...

Because you're a government official that should lead by example? Because when you're in government it might be a good idea to follow the law?
 
Henrin said:
Because you're a government official that should lead by example? Because when you're in government it might be a good idea to follow the law?
Click to expand...

ACA gives you two options: buy health insuranceor pay the fine. He's not committing murder by not buying it.
 
Geoist said:
Eh, I guess it could be seen that way. Either way, if you oppose something strongly enough and can afford it then why not pay the fine?
Click to expand...

Are there any other laws you (and apparently Americanwoman) suggest that politicians should not follow if they disagree with them? Shall a politician speed everywhere if he's against speed limits? Or perhaps if they're against laws that prohibit resturants/bars from allowing smoking, they should just be lighting up everytime they're in such a place in DC. Both of those violations of the law are similar to not adhering to the ACA laws regarding having health insurance; violations that's punishable by a fine.

I know, it's so just confoundingly crazy that a Politician running for office would choose to take an action that doesn't open them up to attacks of breaking the law....how utterly and completely strange of him.

I'm no giant fan of Rafael Edward Cruz's run for the Presidency, but I see nothing outlandish or condemnable of him simply adhering to the insurance allowances provided to him via his place of employment, as well as making the reasonable political move of going "I'm not a fan of this, and I know there's people out there stuck with it, so I'm going to show my solidarity by doing it as well".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom