Ted Cruz for President

[silverscreenselect]

So the idea that the 'republicans' have no alternative to Obamacare is as truthful as "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was. It's just a slogan to rally the uninformed.

Perhaps a better statement would have been that Republicans have no realistic, workable alternative to Obamacare.

[SportsFan68]

Let me explain it to you.

The House Republicans have passed many amendments, alternatives and outright repeals of the AHA. All of them died on Harry Reid's desk. But we hear about the 'Do Nothing Congress', and it's blamed on the House Republicans. The actual bottleneck was in the Senate, by the Democrats and the go along republicans.

So the idea that the 'republicans' have no alternative to Obamacare is as truthful as "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was. It's just a slogan to rally the uninformed.

It's a lame analogy regardless of what you believe..... but feel free to use my equally lame graphic the next time you contribute nothing to a discussion...

lb13

I don't usually claim "Found it!" on your avatar changes, but Uly seems to have mostly decamped, and besides, I somehow think I'm getting a preview of this week's comic. Ugh!

Anyway, found it!

[Bob Juch]

Let me explain it to you.

The House Republicans have passed many amendments, alternatives and outright repeals of the AHA. All of them died on Harry Reid's desk. But we hear about the 'Do Nothing Congress', and it's blamed on the House Republicans. The actual bottleneck was in the Senate, by the Democrats and the go along republicans.

So the idea that the 'republicans' have no alternative to Obamacare is as truthful as "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was. It's just a slogan to rally the uninformed.

Oh sorry, they've done nothing but try to repeal Obamacare 54 times. You know what the definition of insanity is?

[flockofseagulls104]

So the idea that the 'republicans' have no alternative to Obamacare is as truthful as "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was. It's just a slogan to rally the uninformed.

Perhaps a better statement would have been that Republicans have no realistic, workable alternative to Obamacare.

You are assuming that Obamacare itself is realistic and workable. That is very much debatable.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let me explain it to you.

The House Republicans have passed many amendments, alternatives and outright repeals of the AHA. All of them died on Harry Reid's desk. But we hear about the 'Do Nothing Congress', and it's blamed on the House Republicans. The actual bottleneck was in the Senate, by the Democrats and the go along republicans.

So the idea that the 'republicans' have no alternative to Obamacare is as truthful as "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was. It's just a slogan to rally the uninformed.

Oh sorry, they've done nothing but try to repeal Obamacare 54 times. You know what the definition of insanity is?

I think you define it everytime you post something.

[Bob Juch]

Forbes smacks-down Cruz:

The noted conservative website Forbes.com published a scathing smack down of Ted Cruz’s decision to announce his candidacy for the presidency at Liberty University, a religious institution founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Forbes contributor Rick Ungar noted that Cruz “spent the first part of his speech extolling the virtues of Jesus Christ and the importance the Christian faith played in keeping his family together.”

Ungar went on to note that while he could understand Cruz’s motives for choosing the school for his announcement, “to appeal to the evangelicals who form the base of his political support,” he “could not help but feel that, in willfully ignoring our traditions, Senator Cruz was also willfully ignoring me along with the many Americans who practice a different faith or no faith at all.”

Getting to the crux of his indictment against Cruz, Ungar writes that Cruz’s announcement “disrespects the Founding Fathers,” writing:

Knowing what the Founders had in mind for our nation, one has to wonder how they would have reacted to Senator Cruz’s choices in making his announcement yesterday. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who launched his announcement to lead the American people with a long dissertation about Jesus rather than a dissertation on the greatness of the nation or the needs of its people. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who announces his candidacy from the halls of a religious institution that is dedicated to the needs and beliefs of some of the people, but certainly not all of the people.

Personally, I think most of our Founders were turning over in their graves.
Ungar finished up, writing:

Ted Cruz revealed that he was only interested in making the statement to the religious right that he is their man while making it clear that he could care less about the traditions of our nation which call for our leaders to represent and care for the concerns of all the people—not just those who share the candidate’s religious beliefs. […]

And while the Senator’s choice will likely be forgotten in the big picture—just as I suspect Ted Cruz will ultimately be forgotten in the big picture of American history—his choice served to, in a small but profound way, tarnish the proud traditions of this country.

If Senator Cruz really wants to ‘imagine’ a better America, he might begin by imagining a campaign that begins with a statement of inclusion and belief in all of America’s people, not just those who meet his own religious litmus test.

[SportsFan68]

BeginQuote="flockofseagulls104"

There's better ways to do it than Obamacare, but so far the Republicans haven't proposed any of them.

Hands Up, Don't Shoot.

I don't know what this means, and Flock has set it up so we'll never know, and he can blame it on us. “If [we] are tempted to believe what information comes out of these sources about him, just think ‘Hands Up, Dont Shoot’ and extrapolate.” That way, he never actually has to rebut anything, he just types, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” discussion over.

To quote Flock in the Dignity of the Office thread, “That is a very simplistic view of things.” I don’t see how he can really believe it.

Let me explain it to you.

The House Republicans have passed many amendments, alternatives and outright repeals of the AHA. All of them died on Harry Reid's desk. But we hear about the 'Do Nothing Congress', and it's blamed on the House Republicans. The actual bottleneck was in the Senate, by the Democrats and the go along republicans.

So the idea that the 'republicans' have no alternative to Obamacare is as truthful as "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was. It's just a slogan to rally the uninformed.EndQuote

That I can understand and hope for continued similar discussion rather than slogans.

[Bob Juch]

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. After all, a provision of the law requires members of Congress and some of their staff to purchase coverage through the law’s marketplace in DC and since his wife and current coverage provider is giving up her employer-sponsored plan to work on his presidential campaign, the family needed to enroll in a new policy.

“We’ll be getting new health insurance and we’ll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we’ll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash, adding that he would not accept the health care law’s subsidy.

“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 percent 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.”

[Bob78164]

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. After all, a provision of the law requires members of Congress and some of their staff to purchase coverage through the law’s marketplace in DC and since his wife and current coverage provider is giving up her employer-sponsored plan to work on his presidential campaign, the family needed to enroll in a new policy.

“We’ll be getting new health insurance and we’ll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we’ll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash, adding that he would not accept the health care law’s subsidy.

“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 percent 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.”

Whether it's Rush Limbaugh and prescription medications, David Vitter and prostitutes, closeted gay politicians supporting homophobic legislation, or Ted Cruz and Obamacare, it never ceases to amaze me how many politicians are willing to enact into law rules that they are not willing to follow in their own lives. And it's striking to me how many of the politicians guilty of this particular hypocrisy are Republicans. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Forbes smacks-down Cruz:

The noted conservative website Forbes.com published a scathing smack down of Ted Cruz’s decision to announce his candidacy for the presidency at Liberty University, a religious institution founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Forbes contributor Rick Ungar noted that Cruz “spent the first part of his speech extolling the virtues of Jesus Christ and the importance the Christian faith played in keeping his family together.”

Ungar went on to note that while he could understand Cruz’s motives for choosing the school for his announcement, “to appeal to the evangelicals who form the base of his political support,” he “could not help but feel that, in willfully ignoring our traditions, Senator Cruz was also willfully ignoring me along with the many Americans who practice a different faith or no faith at all.”

Getting to the crux of his indictment against Cruz, Ungar writes that Cruz’s announcement “disrespects the Founding Fathers,” writing:

Knowing what the Founders had in mind for our nation, one has to wonder how they would have reacted to Senator Cruz’s choices in making his announcement yesterday. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who launched his announcement to lead the American people with a long dissertation about Jesus rather than a dissertation on the greatness of the nation or the needs of its people. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who announces his candidacy from the halls of a religious institution that is dedicated to the needs and beliefs of some of the people, but certainly not all of the people.

Personally, I think most of our Founders were turning over in their graves.
Ungar finished up, writing:

Ted Cruz revealed that he was only interested in making the statement to the religious right that he is their man while making it clear that he could care less about the traditions of our nation which call for our leaders to represent and care for the concerns of all the people—not just those who share the candidate’s religious beliefs. […]

And while the Senator’s choice will likely be forgotten in the big picture—just as I suspect Ted Cruz will ultimately be forgotten in the big picture of American history—his choice served to, in a small but profound way, tarnish the proud traditions of this country.

If Senator Cruz really wants to ‘imagine’ a better America, he might begin by imagining a campaign that begins with a statement of inclusion and belief in all of America’s people, not just those who meet his own religious litmus test.

He is a Christian. Does he have to be an atheist to be acceptable to you and Mr Ungar? If so, you are bigots.

[flockofseagulls104]

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. After all, a provision of the law requires members of Congress and some of their staff to purchase coverage through the law’s marketplace in DC and since his wife and current coverage provider is giving up her employer-sponsored plan to work on his presidential campaign, the family needed to enroll in a new policy.

“We’ll be getting new health insurance and we’ll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we’ll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash, adding that he would not accept the health care law’s subsidy.

“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 percent 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.”

Whether it's Rush Limbaugh and prescription medications, David Vitter and prostitutes, closeted gay politicians supporting homophobic legislation, or Ted Cruz and Obamacare, it never ceases to amaze me how many politicians are willing to enact into law rules that they are not willing to follow in their own lives. And it's striking to me how many of the politicians guilty of this particular hypocrisy are Republicans. --Bob

First of all, Rush Limbaugh cannot enact anything into law, and let me remind you that Obama did various illegal drugs in the past as well. I agree with you there is a LOT of hypocrisy in government, but you are seeing it through your ideological lenses.

I fail to see the argument for any hypocrisy based on what BJ posted and what you quoted. I admit I can't even follow the logic of the explanation of the law that appears in this article. I can't even imagine trying to figure the whole thing out. He believes Obamacare is a bad law and if he gets elected, he will do what he can to see that it is repealed and replaced with a more market driven solution. Until then he is trying to comply with current law. What is hypocritical about that? Please explain. This quoted article has the tone of accusing Cruz of hypocrisy, but I have to admit, I don't understand the argument. And I certainly don't understand why where Cruz gets his insurance has any relevance to whether he should be elected President or not.

[Bob78164]

I fail to see the argument for any hypocrisy based on what BJ posted and what you quoted. I admit I can't even follow the logic of the explanation of the law that appears in this article. I can't even imagine trying to figure the whole thing out. He believes Obamacare is a bad law and if he gets elected, he will do what he can to see that it is repealed and replaced with a more market driven solution. Until then he is trying to comply with current law. What is hypocritical about that? Please explain. This quoted article has the tone of accusing Cruz of hypocrisy, but I have to admit, I don't understand the argument. And I certainly don't understand why where Cruz gets his insurance has any relevance to whether he should be elected President or not.

Contrary to what he says, he has multiple options as to where to purchase insurance for himself and his family -- COBRA from his wife's employer, for one. He chose Obamacare.

He's spent his entire tenure as a U.S. Senator trying to deprive me of the same choice he just made. (And when I was unemployed in 2013, I really wished I'd had that choice then.) That's what makes him a hypocrite. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I fail to see the argument for any hypocrisy based on what BJ posted and what you quoted. I admit I can't even follow the logic of the explanation of the law that appears in this article. I can't even imagine trying to figure the whole thing out. He believes Obamacare is a bad law and if he gets elected, he will do what he can to see that it is repealed and replaced with a more market driven solution. Until then he is trying to comply with current law. What is hypocritical about that? Please explain. This quoted article has the tone of accusing Cruz of hypocrisy, but I have to admit, I don't understand the argument. And I certainly don't understand why where Cruz gets his insurance has any relevance to whether he should be elected President or not.

Contrary to what he says, he has multiple options as to where to purchase insurance for himself and his family -- COBRA from his wife's employer, for one. He chose Obamacare.

He's spent his entire tenure as a U.S. Senator trying to deprive me of the same choice he just made. (And when I was unemployed in 2013, I really wished I'd had that choice then.) That's what makes him a hypocrite. --Bob

He would have a lot more choices if the federal government was out of the equation. Do his choices are Obamacare in DC, Obamacare in Texas or Cobra. Not much of a choice. And we're talking about insurance. That's not the same as healthcare.

[Bob Juch]

Forbes smacks-down Cruz:

The noted conservative website Forbes.com published a scathing smack down of Ted Cruz’s decision to announce his candidacy for the presidency at Liberty University, a religious institution founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Forbes contributor Rick Ungar noted that Cruz “spent the first part of his speech extolling the virtues of Jesus Christ and the importance the Christian faith played in keeping his family together.”

Ungar went on to note that while he could understand Cruz’s motives for choosing the school for his announcement, “to appeal to the evangelicals who form the base of his political support,” he “could not help but feel that, in willfully ignoring our traditions, Senator Cruz was also willfully ignoring me along with the many Americans who practice a different faith or no faith at all.”

Getting to the crux of his indictment against Cruz, Ungar writes that Cruz’s announcement “disrespects the Founding Fathers,” writing:

Knowing what the Founders had in mind for our nation, one has to wonder how they would have reacted to Senator Cruz’s choices in making his announcement yesterday. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who launched his announcement to lead the American people with a long dissertation about Jesus rather than a dissertation on the greatness of the nation or the needs of its people. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who announces his candidacy from the halls of a religious institution that is dedicated to the needs and beliefs of some of the people, but certainly not all of the people.

Personally, I think most of our Founders were turning over in their graves.
Ungar finished up, writing:

Ted Cruz revealed that he was only interested in making the statement to the religious right that he is their man while making it clear that he could care less about the traditions of our nation which call for our leaders to represent and care for the concerns of all the people—not just those who share the candidate’s religious beliefs. […]

And while the Senator’s choice will likely be forgotten in the big picture—just as I suspect Ted Cruz will ultimately be forgotten in the big picture of American history—his choice served to, in a small but profound way, tarnish the proud traditions of this country.

If Senator Cruz really wants to ‘imagine’ a better America, he might begin by imagining a campaign that begins with a statement of inclusion and belief in all of America’s people, not just those who meet his own religious litmus test.

He is a Christian. Does he have to be an atheist to be acceptable to you and Mr Ungar? If so, you are bigots.

If he were an atheist who was trying to force atheism on everyone else he'd not be acceptable either.

[Bob Juch]

I fail to see the argument for any hypocrisy based on what BJ posted and what you quoted. I admit I can't even follow the logic of the explanation of the law that appears in this article. I can't even imagine trying to figure the whole thing out. He believes Obamacare is a bad law and if he gets elected, he will do what he can to see that it is repealed and replaced with a more market driven solution. Until then he is trying to comply with current law. What is hypocritical about that? Please explain. This quoted article has the tone of accusing Cruz of hypocrisy, but I have to admit, I don't understand the argument. And I certainly don't understand why where Cruz gets his insurance has any relevance to whether he should be elected President or not.

Contrary to what he says, he has multiple options as to where to purchase insurance for himself and his family -- COBRA from his wife's employer, for one. He chose Obamacare.

He's spent his entire tenure as a U.S. Senator trying to deprive me of the same choice he just made. (And when I was unemployed in 2013, I really wished I'd had that choice then.) That's what makes him a hypocrite. --Bob

He would have a lot more choices if the federal government was out of the equation. Do his choices are Obamacare in DC, Obamacare in Texas or Cobra. Not much of a choice. And we're talking about insurance. That's not the same as healthcare.

Your reading comprehension is still faulty. He does not need to get insurance through an exchange. He can get insurance anyplace he wants. Since he said he's not going to accept a subsidy it doesn't make any financial difference.

[Bob78164]

I fail to see the argument for any hypocrisy based on what BJ posted and what you quoted. I admit I can't even follow the logic of the explanation of the law that appears in this article. I can't even imagine trying to figure the whole thing out. He believes Obamacare is a bad law and if he gets elected, he will do what he can to see that it is repealed and replaced with a more market driven solution. Until then he is trying to comply with current law. What is hypocritical about that? Please explain. This quoted article has the tone of accusing Cruz of hypocrisy, but I have to admit, I don't understand the argument. And I certainly don't understand why where Cruz gets his insurance has any relevance to whether he should be elected President or not.

Contrary to what he says, he has multiple options as to where to purchase insurance for himself and his family -- COBRA from his wife's employer, for one. He chose Obamacare.

He's spent his entire tenure as a U.S. Senator trying to deprive me of the same choice he just made. (And when I was unemployed in 2013, I really wished I'd had that choice then.) That's what makes him a hypocrite. --Bob

He would have a lot more choices if the federal government was out of the equation. Do his choices are Obamacare in DC, Obamacare in Texas or Cobra. Not much of a choice. And we're talking about insurance. That's not the same as healthcare.

You're wrong about this. He can buy private insurance without going through the marketplaces, just as he could before. Can't imagine why anyone would want to, but he could. The only choice he's lost is the ability to go without insurance without owing a tax penalty. He doesn't seem interested in going without insurance. And that's certainly not a choice I'd ever make voluntarily.

And you're talking about "Obamacare" as though it's a single policy. It's not. It's the process by which any qualified insurer that wants to participate in the marketplace may do so. In most parts of California (including mine), that's resulted in more insurers participating, better competition, and lower prices. Exactly what free-market conservatives are supposed to want. And exactly what the Act's opponents insisted would not happen.

I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that you don't understand how the Affordable Care Act actually works, and your knee-jerk opposition to it is based simply on pre-digested talking points or reflexive opposition to anything supported by President Obama. --Bob

[Flybrick]

I'll admit I am not intimately familiar with the ACA. But at 2,000 + pages, very few are, including, and especially, the legislature that voted for it. If it were so good, why all the illegal (IMO) exemptions, delays, and obfuscations regarding implementing it on the timeline required, especially the bits that were supposed to hit in 2014, but were Obama'ed until summer 2015 - and still Democrats want those employer mandates delayed yet again.

While no expert, I do know that the federal government, on pain of punishment to me if I fail to comply, has ordered me to purchase something simply because I exist. Whether I need, want, or would purchase the "it," in this case, health insurance, is a moot point.

I am ordered to buy something. I can be penalized financially, or even imprisoned if I choose to not pay the penalty, because I don't want to buy something.

I'm thinking that's just wrong.

To keep the thread on topic, the New Yorker published a piece where it called Cruz "uppity." It's since walked that word back with the non-apology apology of "If I offended anyone..."

Say, about those State Department e-mails, Hillary's brother, the head of ICE, at the time, and some were gonna be disapproved visas...

But, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about Ted Cruz' government-mandated insurance choice...

[SportsFan68]

Brick wrote:

I am ordered to buy something. I can be penalized financially, or even imprisoned if I choose to not pay the penalty, because I don't want to buy something.

I'm thinking that's just wrong.

That's what I thought about (a) car insurance and (b) house insurance. However, if I had followed through on (a), I would soon have lost my driver's license to non-renewal, plus a hefty additional fine the next time I got stopped for speeding or other infractions I did before my insurance premiums skyrocketed because of my age.

If I'd followed through on (b), which I seriously considered doing when my ex dumped me because I was trying to cut corners any way I could, the mortgage company would have purchased a policy without consulting me, and forget about getting it from my preferred insurance agent, whom I'd known since high school.

As President Obama said, health insurance (read: shared risk) works only if we're all in it, young and healthy as well as older and ill. This is one of the reasons I favor a single payer plan -- no one opts out, even if they want to obtain their health care elsewhere. As Flock points out, insurance and health care are not the same thing. But if everyone pays in, the program is solvent.

Even though I favor a single payer plan (Medicare, for example), I am still happy with the gains we have made due to the Affordable Care Act.

[BackInTex]

Brick wrote:

I am ordered to buy something. I can be penalized financially, or even imprisoned if I choose to not pay the penalty, because I don't want to buy something.

I'm thinking that's just wrong.

That's what I thought about (a) car insurance and (b) house insurance. However, if I had followed through on (a), I would soon have lost my driver's license to non-renewal, plus a hefty additional fine the next time I got stopped for speeding or other infractions I did before my insurance premiums skyrocketed because of my age.

There is a difference, huge difference, in my opinion. You are not required to own or drive a car, thus not required to purchase car insurance. Same goes for home insurance. Your 'legal requirement' to purchase car insurance or home insurance is tied to your desire to own/drive a car and own a home.

The requirement to purchase health insurance is very different. The only desire you have that requires the purchase is the desire to live. Period.

As President Obama said, health insurance (read: shared risk) works only if we're all in it, .

I believe Karl Marx and Mao Zedong said essentially the same thing.

[SportsFan68]

. . .

As President Obama said, health insurance (read: shared risk) works only if we're all in it, .

I believe Karl Marx and Mao Zedong said essentially the same thing.

I don't think so, but I'm not familiar enough with Marx and Chairman Mao to argue the point.

I do know that Medicare, a single payer system where everybody pays in, and where everybody above a certain age is in, works well for millions of people, and I don't hear anybody lobbying to end that particular system where everyone's in.

[Estonut]

You know what the definition of insanity is?

Saying (with a straight face), "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it?"

[Bob78164]

I am ordered to buy something. I can be penalized financially, or even imprisoned if I choose to not pay the penalty, because I don't want to buy something.

You're mistaken. You can't be imprisoned for failing to pay the penalty. The IRS is even forbidden from using most of its usual financial enforcement mechanisms to collect the penalty. About the only tool it has to collect the penalty is to reduce your refund.

By the way, you're also ordered to buy police services. You're ordered to buy a national defense. You're ordered to buy public broadcasting services. --Bob

[jarnon]

I am ordered to buy something. I can be penalized financially, or even imprisoned if I choose to not pay the penalty, because I don't want to buy something.

By the way, you're also ordered to buy police services. You're ordered to buy a national defense. You're ordered to buy public broadcasting services. --Bob

Here's a better analogy. Imagine ( ) if your town privatized its schools. Parents who need financial aid get a subsidy. People without kids in school have to pay a tax. I can't speak for Flock, Flybrick or Sen. Cruz, but conservatives around here would be jumping for joy. Now that's a lot like Obamacare. One big difference is that Obamacare is run by the Federal government, not states or towns. I know that matters to conservatives, but it doesn't deserve moral outrage.

[Bob Juch]

Brick wrote:

I am ordered to buy something. I can be penalized financially, or even imprisoned if I choose to not pay the penalty, because I don't want to buy something.

I'm thinking that's just wrong.

That's what I thought about (a) car insurance and (b) house insurance. However, if I had followed through on (a), I would soon have lost my driver's license to non-renewal, plus a hefty additional fine the next time I got stopped for speeding or other infractions I did before my insurance premiums skyrocketed because of my age.

There is a difference, huge difference, in my opinion. You are not required to own or drive a car, thus not required to purchase car insurance. Same goes for home insurance. Your 'legal requirement' to purchase car insurance or home insurance is tied to your desire to own/drive a car and own a home.

The requirement to purchase health insurance is very different. The only desire you have that requires the purchase is the desire to live. Period.

As President Obama said, health insurance (read: shared risk) works only if we're all in it, .

I believe Karl Marx and Mao Zedong said essentially the same thing.

I think we had this discussion five years ago. <sigh>

If you don't have insurance who's going to pay your multi-thousand dollar bills when you wind up in the hospital? Before Obamacare most bankruptcies were for medical bills. That means the hospitals and doctors have to charge the rest of us more money for their services. I benefit when you have to have insurance.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I think we had this discussion five years ago. <sigh>

If you don't have insurance who's going to pay your multi-thousand dollar bills when you wind up in the hospital? Before Obamacare most bankruptcies were for medical bills. That means the hospitals and doctors have to charge the rest of us more money for their services. I benefit when you have to have insurance.[/quote]

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.full

First, they fail to provide a causal relationship to support the claim that medical spending contributes to “half of all bankruptcies” (54.5 percent). Our analysis of their data finds a causal link in only 17 percent of personal bankruptcies. Nor do their data support their contention that “solidly middle-class Americans” are threatened. Four decades of studies that have explicitly addressed the bankruptcy–medical spending connection lend credibility to our conclusion. These studies, which we discuss below, support a much smaller figure than half, as does a more recent national consumer survey sponsored in part by the Harvard School of Public Health.3 As for the “solidly middle-class” citizens who face “impoverishment,” Himmelstein and colleagues report an average household income of $25,000 for their respondents—a level more accurately characterized as “marginally middle class.”