• 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

SenorXm/Sirius said:
The point is he has other options. His whole political career has been based on repealing ACA, he shut down the government because of ACA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you guys wouldn't pissed off about that. :roll:
 
Mycroft said:
Absolutely!

It would totally boggle my mind...except I've grown accustomed to such things from the left.

It like enacting a law that requires hospitals to provide health care services...even if the patient cannot pay for it, and when that causes prices to skyrocket they pass Obamacare to "solve" the problem. :roll:
Click to expand...

And then they refuse to admit that their stupid policy is at fault.
 
Zyphlin said:
A. Pay for completely out of pocket for insurance, which is still impacted and affected by the ACA due to the regulations and rules placed upon insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Yes, he can and should get private insurance if he is to remain ideologically pure. The insurance regulations (read: improved standards of coverage) are impacted by the ACA, but we're talking about the options he has control over.

Cruz put himself in this paradoxical box, not liberals.
 
GOP candidates Kasich and Paul have already started throwing bombs at the bomb-thrower Kamikaze Kruz. as coined by the WSJ.

Cons want to dismiss the $24 billion that Kruz cost Joe and Jane taxpayer in October of 2013.

Not to mention the untold amount spent on repeal with NOTHING to replace it with.

What GOPs are really afraid of is that their REPLACE will look very much like ACA.
But until they put their plan on the House floor, which we haven't seen with much of any useful issue since 2011, we'll never know .

SenorXm/Sirius said:
As soon as the name calling starts, I bow out. There's no reason to call people who happen to have a differing opinion names. I thought that's what made this country great. But maybe differing opinions get in the way nowadays. Limbaugh called a woman who he disagreed with a slut for 3 days on his show. You get on a forum and call people who voted differently from you idiots. Cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, you guys wouldn't pissed off about that. :roll:
Click to expand...

Blame Cruz for being the anti-ACA champion. He cost the government billions during his shutdown over the ACA (go go fiscal conservatism!). The least he can do is save the government a pittance and opt out of his Obamacare employer coverage.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, and why did you snip the other parts of my post out?

People who can't see that they are being used by a hypocritical politicians are idiots to me. You're free to think whatever you want about people. That's what makes America great.
Click to expand...

I snipped it because anyone who votes has been duped by politicians. You think because you vote GOP that you are not being duped? Are you kidding me?
 
Amadeus said:
Blame Cruz for being the anti-ACA champion. He cost the government billions during his shutdown over the ACA (go go fiscal conservatism!). The least he can do is save the government a pittance and opt out of his Obamacare employer coverage.
Click to expand...

Yes, the least he can do is break the law. :roll:
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I snipped it because anyone who votes has been duped by politicians. You think because you vote GOP that you are not being duped? Are you kidding me?
Click to expand...

When did I say I vote GOP? I've voted for many Democrats as well. I vote for the candidate who doesn't dupe me because I don't vote for someone because I think he "cares about me!" or he "wants to help my family get healthcare" or "he wants me to get a good job" or he's going to bring "hope and change" and do it "outside the Washington way" or because she promises to "make my concerns her number one priority", and so on. I vote for the politician who is most likely to stay the hell out of my life. Politicians don't make our lives better.

Those idiot voters are in both parties. You for some reason are very defensive about blanket words I made.

The people who voted because of the ACA and because they bought into the crap like "$2500 premium reduction" and "cheap care all around" were stupid.
 
tres borrachos said:
People who can't see that they are being used by a hypocritical politicians are idiots to me.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be referring to people who support what Kamikaze Kruz (WSJ) is doing would you.

From the GOP politicians and spinners I'm watching on FOX and through their direct quotes on other networks,
Kruz has much more to worry about from his own party.

DEM pols certainly need to remain quiet.

Btw, L. Graham is coming right up on Wolf about Bergdahl .
 
Amadeus said:
Yes, he can and should get private insurance if he is to remain ideologically pure. The insurance regulations (read: improved standards of coverage) are impacted by the ACA, but we're talking about the options he has control over.

Cruz put himself in this paradoxical box, not liberals.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. No matter what choice he made liberals would have been pissed off about it and bitched about it endlessly. Oh, and every plan is ACA. Thanks for not paying attention.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, the least he can do is break the law. :roll:
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to break the law. He can get private insurance, which is only impacted by the regulatory aspect of the ACA. Here's another option: Cruz can get private insurance and simply not use it out of spite.
 
Zyphlin said:
What options does he have?

A. Pay for completely out of pocket for insurance, which is still impacted and affected by the ACA due to the regulations and rules placed upon insurance companies.
B. Utilize his employer provided health care option, which is through the ACA
C. Break the law and pay a fine.

Option A has him getting insurance that's connected to the ACA. Option B has him getting insurance that's connected to the ACA. Option C is him breaking the law.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but please tell me what option he has that:

1. Gets him insurance
2. Does not interact with the ACA
3. Does not break the law
Click to expand...

COBRA and private are not ACA. I have employer HI and that has nothing to do with ACA. I don't know where you are coming up with this.

Anyway he shut down the government. The GOP House has voted to repeal ACA about a million times. I don't give a rats ass about the costs, the subsidies, any of that. Just on principle he should have used another option. The man is not poor, he is highly educated. He can't be getting in bed with something that he and others have said will be the ruin of this country. He had other options.
 
Amadeus said:
He doesn't have to break the law. He can get private insurance, which is only impacted by the regulatory aspect of the ACA. Here's another option: Cruz can get private insurance and simply not use it out of spite.
Click to expand...

Every last plan falls under the law. Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?
 
tres borrachos said:
When did I say I vote GOP? I've voted for many Democrats as well.
Click to expand...

Which ones? You're clearly a conservative, and agree with conservative and Republican ideology on like 98% of issues. I'm curious which Dem you voted for.
 
NIMBY said:
You wouldn't be referring to people who support what Kamikaze Kruz (WSJ) is doing would you.

From the GOP politicians and spinners I'm watching on FOX and through their direct quotes on other networks,
Kruz has much more to worry about from his own party.

DEM pols certainly need to remain quiet.

Btw, L. Graham is coming right up on Wolf about Bergdahl .
Click to expand...

Kruz? You mean Cruz? I support him getting employer-based insurance. I love mine. His wife probably loved her. Too bad for him he opted to work for that cesspool otherwise known as "The Senate" and now he's stuck having to access his employer-based insurance through the Exchanges. I'll bet his supporters who have employer-based insurance love theirs, too.

Cruz has no chance - zero - of winning his party's primary. Up here in NH nobody seems to like him. Plus rumor has it that Perry is going to enter the race soon. The Texan face off, or something like it.

11 weeks off the cigs, Nimby. I'm proud of myself but it ain't easy.

Lindsey - can't stomach him. I wish Kelly Ayotte would find a new buddy to hang out with before she starts to annoy me too.
 
NIMBY said:
Through all of yer posts on the contentious issues.
Did you ever see my thread on RIPOs ?
Click to expand...

I voted for Romney, and McCain, and Bush twice. His father, once. Reagan, twice.

Local elections and non-POTUS elections, a 50-50 split.

Now I would consider voting for Joe Manchin if he was the Democratic candidate - especially if his opponent was someone I know I would never vote for, like Ted Cruz. The opponents of the Republicans I listed for POTUS that I voted for - they were disgraceful.
 
Henrin said:
Every last plan falls under the law. Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz Wants You To Believe He's Legally Required To Sign Up For Obamacare. He's Not. | ThinkProgress

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.
Click to expand...

The ACA mandates that Cruz get insurance, not that he has to suckle at the government teet and grab all the Obamacare goodies he can.
 
tres borrachos said:
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...
Click to expand...

Let's try this again:

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...

I've bolded the relevant sections. If you want to recognize what's in bold and respond, that's great. If not, that's fine too, but I'm not getting drug down a rathole with you on this.
 
tres borrachos said:
When did I say I vote GOP? I've voted for many Democrats as well. I vote for the candidate who doesn't dupe me because I don't vote for someone because I think he "cares about me!" or he "wants to help my family get healthcare" or "he wants me to get a good job" or he's going to bring "hope and change" and do it "outside the Washington way" or because she promises to "make my concerns her number one priority", and so on. I vote for the politician who is most likely to stay the hell out of my life. Politicians don't make our lives better.

Those idiot voters are in both parties. You for some reason are very defensive about blanket words I made.

The people who voted because of the ACA and because they bought into the crap like "$2500 premium reduction" and "cheap care all around" were stupid.
Click to expand...

60% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. We have a huge health insurance/health care problem in this country. ACA is not the answer, but what we had before ACA wasn't working either. Hospital rooms around here are $5,000 a night. WTF? Simple procedures are $50,000. What middle class family can afford that?

I'm not smart enough to know the answers. But I do know something needs to be done. If you're poor and have nothing with or without ACA you will get treatment and lose nothing. If you're rich obviously you can afford treatment. If you're middle class you're get treatment but if you don't have insurance you will lose everything. There's something seriously wrong with that.
 
Zyphlin said:
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".
Click to expand...

IMO, the whole "follow the law" argument misses the point.

The right has been arguing that the exchanges, and the subsidies that go along with them, are a form of theft that takes from some people (the wealthy, the healthy, and the young) and gives to others (the sick, the elderly, the poor, women of childbearing age, etc). Cruz is clearly in this group of people who oppose the govt funding of health care. Therefore, his participation in the exchange (if he chooses to go that route) can be seen as participation in a theft.

He has also criticized the funding of the exchanges. By purchasing through an exchange, he is either helping to fund them (if he doesnt take a subsidy) or benefitting from that funding (if he does) even though he is not required to.

Also, he is allowed to purchase his own insurance outside of the exchange. By purchasing through an exchange, he is tacitly admitting that this is his best option, which runs counter to his description of them as disasters.

He has also spoken out against "govt run health care" and its' dangers. Now, he is paying for it when he is able to buy his own insurance outside of an exchange
 
tres borrachos said:
No, he's signing up for his employer-based insurance, which he has not advocated against. His employer-based insurance is through the Exchanges, which is a rule that the Democrats wrote into that law.

He doesn't find employer-based insurance reprehensible.
Click to expand...

No,insurance purchased through an exchange is not "employer based insurance"
 
I have a different take--I voted against Nixon, Carter twice, Reagan the 2nd time.
For Clinton twice--against Bush-43 twice and for Obama twice.
I have voted in the GOP primaries since 1972.

Was heartbroken to lose Gov. Ogilvie in 1972 when I was 18 to future jailbird DEM Walker--not from what he did as governor--though he should have been.
Since he signed the law to shortchange our public pensions that Ogilvie wouldn't sign.
And Ogilvie signed the law giving me my full tuition since I was in as field with a critical shortage--Chem/Physics/Math.

Ogilvie and my Sen. Percy were the ultimate RINOs, which is why I will never vote for another GOP as President.
Though I like Kasich the best--then Bus--notice both were invited to the Adelson summit .

tres borrachos said:
I voted for Romney, and McCain, and Bush twice. His father, once. Reagan, twice.

Local elections and non-POTUS elections, a 50-50 split.

Now I would consider voting for Joe Manchin if he was the Democratic candidate - especially if his opponent was someone I know I would never vote for, like Ted Cruz. The opponents of the Republicans I listed for POTUS that I voted for - they were disgraceful.
Click to expand...
 
Why would anyone expect otherwise- Principles are for others- If this was a Dem doing the same thing for a Rep Bill that was law that provided access- they would do the same.
Please spare me the Oh he was against it.
They are against it until they are for it.

Here is one from the other side of the media on Cruz.

The Truth Behind Ted Cruz
This month, Cruz released a short video that’s the best evidence yet for what a Cruz presidential campaign might be like. It’s called “A Time for Truth,” and the title has to be intentional irony.

Cruz’s Politifact track record for publicly-asserted falsehoods is the second-highest among front-runners, totaling 56 percent of all statements they’ve looked at. The only other leading contender with a higher rating is Ben Carson, who has a 100 percent “pants on fire” history, the result mainly of his brief time in the national spotlight and only having given Politifact one assertion to check—that people choose to be gay. (The investigative process on verifying that claim could have been entertaining, had Carson taken up Dan Savage’s invitation to take a very personal version of the Pepsi Challenge. Politifact chose a less experiential approach.)
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Kruz? You mean Cruz? I support him getting employer-based insurance. I love mine. His wife probably loved her.
Click to expand...
I refer to the name given to him by the right-wing WSJ--Kamikaze Kruz--after he shut down the government and cost you and I $24 billion.
If DEMs had a brain like the Koch brothers, they would have started hammering GOPs right away after Christmas.
Just as the GOP did to such Senators as Hagan over the ACA roll-out.
Too bad for him he opted to work for that cesspool otherwise known as "The Senate" and now he's stuck having to access his employer-based insurance through the Exchanges.
I'll bet his supporters who have employer-based insurance love theirs, too.
Click to expand...
Cruz made a choice to run--just as we all make choices in life.
There's no greater calling than to make a difference in your government.
I do see positives so far this term--for another post.
Cruz has no chance - zero - of winning his party's primary. Up here in NH nobody seems to like him.
Plus rumor has it that Perry is going to enter the race soon. The Texan face off, or something like it.
Click to expand...
Kasich/Sandoval is the winning ticket for me right now.
Kasich locks up Ohio and much of the rust belt and the upper Midwest.
Sandoval brings on his NV plus CO and NM--the southwest gambit.
11 weeks off the cigs, Nimby. I'm proud of myself but it ain't easy.
Click to expand...
I'm uneasy about the described side-affects--I'l be asking my Doctor tomorrow.
I may be down to half a pack--but still unacceptable.
Lindsey - can't stomach him.
Click to expand...
He ripped on the Taliban five on Wolf--once in a while he gets a conscience like McCain.
I wish Kelly Ayotte would find a new buddy to hang out with before she starts to annoy me too.
Click to expand...
I saw her on Greta last night.
A little deer in the headlights but much less partisan on foreign policy.
It's all about 2016 and McConnell will cut her slack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom