• 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:
No, we don't. The government is not there to innovate, explore space, or to feed the poor. Defense is actually a power of the government and it exists for that purpose.
Click to expand...

The government is not there to innovate or explore [outer] space.

...

The government is not there to innovate or explore [outer] space.

...

jiFfM.jpg


That is one of the single dumbest things I have ever read at DP. Please, do us all a favor and move to Somalia or some other country where you won't have to suffer the horrible burden of cutting-edge technology or space travel that is funded by taxpayer dollars.

The government is not there to innovate or explore [outer] space. Actually, wait, I have a better idea than moving abroad: Put in a job app to Fox "News." You'd fit right in.
 
tres borrachos said:
So? Why should they sign up for COBRA? As an employee of the Congress, he gets insurance coverage just like the rest of them do. He can't sign up for the insurance that the rest of the bloodsuckers had been getting courtesy of the taxpayers because the law they championed (the ACA) rendered that old way of getting insurance obsolete, and now all of them have to sign up for exchange insurance - again, because the law they passed says so.

If this happened prior to January 1, 2014, it wouldn't have made the news - even the partisan sites. It would have been simply one more DC staffer or politician getting insurance through their federal insurance offering, and you and I and the left wing partisans and the Kardashians and everyone else would never have heard about it.
Epic fail for the partisan effort to make this a bad reflection on Cruz.
Click to expand...


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.
he can't lay out another few hundred a month?

"Epic Fail" for you tres barrachos.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
The government is not there to innovate or explore [outer] space.

...

The government is not there to innovate or explore [outer] space.

...

jiFfM.jpg


That is one of the single dumbest things I have ever read at DP. Please, do us all a favor and move to Somalia or some other country where you won't have to suffer the horrible burden of cutting-edge technology or space travel that is funded by taxpayer dollars.

The government is not there to innovate or explore [outer] space. Actually, wait, I have a better idea than moving abroad: Put in a job app to Fox "News." You'd fit right in.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I disagree with your opinion!
 
tres borrachos said:
Why would he decline employer funded insurance (aka "subsidy")?

It isn't his fault his employer decided to make their insurance plan be part of the Exchanges that the law that they passed set up.
Click to expand...

You'll have to take that up with Rafael. He's the one who said he'd decline the taxpayer contribution/subsidy.

And if he declines the employer contribution, there is nothing tying him to the exchange.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Oh no, I disagree with your opinion!
Click to expand...

Don't dance around the bush. Are you seriously suggesting that NASA is unconstitutional?
 
Ted Cruz renounced his communist Canadian citizenship, adopted country music, moved to Texas, etc. He shut down the government. He spent umpteen hours reciting Dr. Seus books to faux-filibuster Obamacare. The least he could do is distance himself from Obamacare as much as possible. Does he incur a financial burden for doing so? Big deal. You set yourself up as the ideologically pure candidate, you put yourself in that box.
 
mbig said:
<snip>
"Epic Fail" for you Tres barrachos
Click to expand...



You're going to keep posting partisan drivel from hyper partisan sites, and expect to make points? Only with other partisans - not me.

If Cruz wants to take advantage of the benefits that everyone else in his position, everyone else in his staff, and everyone else in the staffs of his counterparts have, he has to go on an Exchange. He has no choice. Prior to January 1, 2014, if he had signed up for his employer's insurance, you and everyone else wouldn't say one word.

And where his wife works has nothing to do with him signing up for employer sponsored insurance. In fact, he is an advocate of employer-sponsored insurance - the very insurance that Barack Obama famously said needed to be eliminated.

Ted Cruz is finally signing up for his employer-based insurance, and people are losing their marbles about it. The irony is absolutely delicious. Keep the humor coming.
 
JasperL said:
You'll have to take that up with Rafael. He's the one who said he'd decline the taxpayer contribution/subsidy.

And if he declines the employer contribution, there is nothing tying him to the exchange.
Click to expand...

He's signing up for his employer-based insurance. Like I have, and most people with a job have.

His entire income is paid for by the taxpayers.

This is priceless. Keep at it!
 
Henrin said:
No, but is it a problem if I was?
Click to expand...

Then you need to clarify your line that "the government is not there to innovate or explore space." Because that's sure what it sounded like. Hint: The Constitution says that one of Congress' duties is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." ;)
 
tres borrachos said:
If Cruz wants to take advantage of the benefits that everyone else in his position, everyone else in his staff
Click to expand...

That's right. Ted Cruz is no better than any American who takes advantage of Obamacare and/or government benefits. It is financially beneficial for him to do so. He could remain ideologically pure and reject those benefits, but he's looking out for himself and his family. Like many Americans who benefit from Obamacare.
 
Phys251 said:
Then you need to clarify your line that "the government is not there to innovate or explore space." Because that's sure what it sounded like. Hint: The Constitution says that one of Congress' duties is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." ;)
Click to expand...

Lol! That's the copyright clause.



"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Fail.
 
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.
 
Amadeus said:
That's right. Ted Cruz is no better than any American who takes advantage of Obamacare and/or government benefits. It is financially beneficial for him to do so. He could remain ideologically pure and reject those benefits, but he's looking out for himself and his family. Like many Americans who benefit from Obamacare.
Click to expand...
DOH!

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:
Henrin said:
Lol! That's the copyright clause.



"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Fail.
Click to expand...

You are dodging your original point. For the third time, clarify your sentence that "the government is not there to innovate or explore space," and prove that NASA does not apply to that contrived restriction.
 
tres borrachos said:
He's signing up for his employer-based insurance. Like I have, and most people with a job have.

His entire income is paid for by the taxpayers.

This is priceless. Keep at it!
Click to expand...

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."
 
Phys251 said:
You are dodging your original point. For the third time, clarify your sentence that "the government is not there to innovate or explore space," and prove that NASA does not apply to that contrived restriction.
Click to expand...

That I disagree with your ideology of ever growing duties of the state? That I happen to think that the only logical duty of the state is to protect the peoples rights?

"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
 
Henrin said:
That I disagree with your ideology of ever growing duties of the state? That I happen to think that the only logical duty of the state is to protect the peoples rights?

"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
Click to expand...
:lamo
 
Dovkan said:
:lamo
Click to expand...

Yes? Btw, I disagree with the god part, but if the state is to exist it can only logically act in the defense of the people.
 
Henrin said:
Yes? Btw, I disagree with the god part, but if the state is to exist it can only logically act in the defense of the people.
Click to expand...

I think defense also includes healthcare for the people, caring for the people seems to me to be defense of the people, in a sense. The "state" has to do alot more than just defend the people.
 
Dovkan said:
I think defense also includes healthcare for the people, caring for the people seems to me to be defense of the people, in a sense. The "state" has to do alot more than just defend the people.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
That I disagree with your ideology of ever growing duties of the state? That I happen to think that the only logical duty of the state is to protect the peoples rights?

"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
Click to expand...

That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending your ridiculous comment from earlier. Fourth time, try again. I, and probably Dovkan, are pretty convinced that you are unable to do so.
 
I dislike Cruz. I dislike the ACA. I acknowledge the fact that the ACA is the law of the land. I respect Cruz, despite his dislike of the law, for following it and acting like a regular, everyday American.
 
It's mind-boggling how liberals have completely missed Cruz' point.

He's trying to show that he is willing to suffer the same system American citizens are, while members of Congress like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are opting out of Obamacare as the bill was written to allow them.

The hypocrisy on is liberals, not Cruz.
 
Phys251 said:
That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending your ridiculous comment from earlier. Fourth time, try again. I, and probably Dovkan, are pretty convinced that you are unable to do so.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom