• 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

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.

Obamacare gives him limited choices. He makes the best decision under those circumstances...just like everyone else. But that doesn't mean Obamacare is any good for anyone and it doesn't mean he should stop fighting to dump that crappy law.

It's just like a liberal/progressive/socialist/Democrat to screw people over...make them abide by the crappy conditions of their law...and then criticize them for abiding by the law. Typical hypocrisy.
 
This is his employer-based insurance. When did he lobby to eliminate employer-based insurance?

Once again, he's signing up for Obamacare which is what he has advocated against. He has other avenues if he truly finds it immoral.
 
ACA gives you two options: buy health insuranceor pay the fine. He's not committing murder by not buying it.

Again, the fine represents breaking the law. A government mandate is not a suggestion, but an order that you are supposed to do a certain activity or face government consequences. The people were not offered a suggestion to buy healthcare or pay a fine, but ordered to buy healthcare or pay a fine for not following the law.
 
Obamacare gives him limited choices.

Yet he still has other choices.

It's just like a liberal/progressive/socialist/Democrat to screw people over...make them abide by the crappy conditions of their law...and then criticize them for abiding by the law. Typical hypocrisy.

If you are referring to me, I have been a strong opponent of ACA from the beginning. It is another law that benefits the elite (in this case the insurance companies) while screwing over the little man.
 
Again, the fine represents breaking the law. A government mandate is not a suggestion, but an order that you are supposed to do a certain activity or face government consequences.

And once again, he can afford those consequences. My God, a man got re-elected mayor after being caught with cocaine and a hooker. I doubt refusing to buy into ACA would doom Cruz's campaign (he can do that with his other whacko political theories).
 
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.

I have an answer about him, I believe he is nuts.
 
Once again, he's signing up for Obamacare which is what he has advocated against. He has other avenues if he truly finds it immoral.

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.
 
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.

Those examples you give are laws put in place to protect others from harm (speeding, smoking in a restaurant, etc.) The law Cruz would be breaking hurts Cruz and Cruz alone.
 
Gotta love where we've come to in politics and as a society

"A politician is choosing not to violate the law. HOW DARE HE!"

You can't make this crap up sometimes
 
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.

I love how you twist things, tres. :roll:
 
Those examples you give are laws put in place to protect others from harm (speeding, smoking in a restaurant, etc.) The law Cruz would be breaking hurts Cruz and Cruz alone.

So if he opted to not buy any insurance at all, and instead took his family to the emergency room for medical care, that wouldn't harm others? That certainly isn't what we heard as this deplorable law was being debated ad nauseam.
 
Those examples you give are laws put in place to protect others from harm (speeding, smoking in a restaurant, etc.) The law Cruz would be breaking hurts Cruz and Cruz alone.

Ah, so your standard isn't that the breaking of the law is only punishable by a fine, but whether or not it's hurting others.

So I'm guessing you're politicians critical of laws against prostitution and drug prohibition should be going around ****ing independent hookers or shooting up cocaine to be sure thier morally pure to you as well. You know, since those don't hurt other people either.
 
Ah, you voted for the hypocrites who did that. I get it.

I'm glad I didn't. I wasn't hosed by their hypocrisy. Probably why I'm not melting down about Ted Cruz now.

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.
 
I love how you twist things, tres. :roll:

And I love how you ignore the facts.

Had he already been on the insurance he gets as a US Senator, you wouldn't have heard anything about it when on January 1, 2014, all of the members of Congress and their staffers had to move from the previous plan to the Exchanges.

It's convenient to pay attention to it now because it involves Ted Cruz, someone the left simply loves to attack (as evidenced by this thread).

He is getting employer-based insurance. That employer-based insurance is administered through the ACA Exchanges because Congress made that a law, effective date January 1, 2014.

That is the unfortunate reality that doesn't fit neatly into the talking points.
 
Ah, so your standard isn't that the breaking of the law is only punishable by a fine, but whether or not it's hurting others.

So I'm guessing you're politicians critical of laws against prostitution and drug prohibition should be going around ****ing independent hookers or shooting up cocaine to be sure thier morally pure to you as well. You know, since those don't hurt other people either.

Those types of people get into office for sure. But I would never vote for them and hope most Americans wouldn't either since their reckless lifestyles would obviously affect their decisionmaking and be a distraction for the country.

But I do love how you would compare not buying into ACA to doing hard drugs. You can't make this stuff up. ;)
 
And once again, he can afford those consequences. My God, a man got re-elected mayor after being caught with cocaine and a hooker. I doubt refusing to buy into ACA would doom Cruz's campaign (he can do that with his other whacko political theories).

I don't know anything about his hooker or drugs habits nor do I want to know anything about them, but the point still stands that government officials should follow the law and not be doing things like standing by principles when the law disagrees with those principles.
 
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.

Hey, there are probably 100 posts in this section alone that were made today by left leaning posters calling anyone who has any right leaning tendency on any issue a name. If you want, I'll hunt some down for you so you can wag your fingers at those people. You're of course fair and totally impartial, yes?

I don't call people who vote differently from me idiots. I call people who vote for politicians without knowing they are being used and duped idiots. Why are you worried that I call people who don't post here idiots? See, because the rules are, we don't call each other names. In other words - I didn't call you a name.
 
Gotta love where we've come to in politics and as a society

"A politician is choosing not to violate the law. HOW DARE HE!"

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.
 
And I love how you ignore the facts.

Had he already been on the insurance he gets as a US Senator, you wouldn't have heard anything about it when on January 1, 2014, all of the members of Congress and their staffers had to move from the previous plan to the Exchanges.

It's convenient to pay attention to it now because it involves Ted Cruz, someone the left simply loves to attack (as evidenced by this thread).

He is getting employer-based insurance. That employer-based insurance is administered through the ACA Exchanges because Congress made that a law, effective date January 1, 2014.

That is the unfortunate reality that doesn't fit neatly into the talking points.


In other words he is buying through ACA. I cannot help the fact Cruz took Obamacare up as his crusade. He has other options. The man cannot walk the talk. End of story.
 
You're kidding right?

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.
 
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.

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
 
In other words he is buying through ACA. I cannot help the fact Cruz took Obamacare up as his crusade. He has other options. The man cannot walk the talk. End of story.

In other words, he's getting insurance through his employer, and his employer made a law (that he didn't vote for) that said the employer-based insurance has to go through the Exchange.

He never advocated for the end of employer-based insurance, and he didn't vote to move the Federal plan to the Exchanges.

The "walk" and "talk" are only in your mind.
 
Gotta love where we've come to in politics and as a society

"A politician is choosing not to violate the law. HOW DARE HE!"

You can't make this crap up sometimes

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:
 
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

Why, who holding elective office would break the law? Who seeking elective office would break the law? Beats me.
 
Back
Top Bottom