- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yeah, you guys wouldn't pissed off about that. :roll:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Yeah, you guys wouldn't pissed off about that. :roll:
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.
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.
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?
People who can't see that they are being used by a hypocritical politicians are idiots to me.
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.
Yes, the least he can do is break the law. :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
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.
Through all of yer posts on the contentious issues.When did I say I vote GOP?
When did I say I vote GOP? I've voted for many Democrats as well.
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 .
Through all of yer posts on the contentious issues.
Did you ever see my thread on RIPOs ?
Every last plan falls under the law. Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?
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.
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...
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."
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.
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".
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 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.
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.)
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.Kruz? You mean Cruz? I support him getting employer-based insurance. I love mine. His wife probably loved her.
Cruz made a choice to run--just as we all make choices in life.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.
Kasich/Sandoval is the winning ticket for me right now.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.
I'm uneasy about the described side-affects--I'l be asking my Doctor tomorrow.11 weeks off the cigs, Nimby. I'm proud of myself but it ain't easy.
He ripped on the Taliban five on Wolf--once in a while he gets a conscience like McCain.Lindsey - can't stomach him.
I saw her on Greta last night.I wish Kelly Ayotte would find a new buddy to hang out with before she starts to annoy me too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?