Forum Thread

Ted Cruz Eats His Own Words


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 37 Prev 1 2 3 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    His salary prevents him from accepting any subsidies and how many other congressmen and women have their health care needs taken care in their own State instead of enrolling in the national health care plan? Following a Law you don't either like or believe in does not give anyone the right to not follow that law at least not without penalties, I never liked locking up dime or nickel baggers as it was a waste of time and resources according to me that is, but I followed that Law but I did have some personal discretion when to apply it, was I being a hypocrite in not following that particular Law or I am a hypocrite if I enforce that law even though I don't like or believe in it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: His salary prevents him from accepting any subsidies and how many other congressmen and women have their health care needs taken care in their own State instead of enrolling in the national health care plan?
    You aren't getting it. He is not getting a subsidy, he is getting a benefit. Most workers benefits come from their employer, but Federal Employees benefits come from the American taxpayer. So when it comes to Federal employees, the terms subsidy and benefit mean pretty much the same thing because the American taxpayer is paying for it.

    We aren't talking about other Representatives in Congress, we are talking about Ted Cruz. And Mr. Cruz could have chosen to not accept the American taxpayer's *benefit* and instead purchase insurance in Texas, but he chose to take the American taxpayers money so he could get cheaper health coverage.

    He is not required by law to purchase health insurance in Washington D.C. There is no where in the law that says Representatives must purchase health insurance in D.C. So your comparison to throwing small time drug users in jail doesn't really make any sense because he can still follow the law and purchase insurance in Texas.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    J.C..,
    Many millions of citizens now have medical insurance now because of the Affordable Care Act. Is that bad because
    1. This all happened because of a Black man (which is my guess)
    2. This all happened because of a Democrat
    3. These are Poor people so they don't count or matter. No insurance for the poor will eventually strengthen the gene pool.
    4. Expecting anything from the wealthy medical industry is not acceptable.
    Or you can explain why you're against the uninsured losing their un
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Affordable Care Act mandates that your employer supply a health care benefit, Sen. Ted Cruz's employer is the U.S. government, so he enrolled in the plan afforded him by his employer, what is the problem,your argument is that the taxpayers pay for his plan , would not the Citizens of Texas pay for his plan if he was enrolled there? and isn't Ted Cruz and his wife taxpayers, so they are paying into this plan visa their taxes, correct. Again what's the problem? Is it because he can afford to pay more for a better plan and chooses not to do so? And I am sure he is not the only member of the legislature to advantage of the national health plan.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To T.J: This thread is not about what I think of the Affordable Care Act or what it does or doesn't do, if you like to read about my thoughts on that Act ,please refer back to any of my earlier postings on that subject
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The Affordable Care Act mandates that your employer supply a health care benefit, Sen. Ted Cruz's employer is the U.S. government, so he enrolled in the plan afforded him by his employer, what is the problem,your argument is that the taxpayers pay for his plan ,
    Ted Cruz's employer is the U.S. taxpayer, not the U.S. government. I'm not sure you fully understand what you are saying sometimes. In your drive to always stick up for the Tea Party and all things Republican you sometimes seem to forget elementary school civics lessons.

    The hypocrisy is that he has railed against Obamacare since he became a Senator and now he is taking advantage of the benefits afforded to him as a United States Senator with regards to the law. As I said earlier--he is not required to purchase health care in D.C. The only reason he did so is because he felt like billing the American taxpayer instead of paying for it himself. How in the world can you not see that glaring hypocrisy? Try to take your blinders off and think critically for once.
    johnnycee Wrote: would not the Citizens of Texas pay for his plan if he was enrolled there?
    No, they would not. That is the ENTIRE POINT! The great state of Texas would make him pay full price for his health care and not give him taxpayer dollars to do so.
    johnnycee Wrote: and isn't Ted Cruz and his wife taxpayers, so they are paying into this plan visa their taxes, correct. Again what's the problem?
    Saying Cruz is a taxpayer is like saying a drug dealer is a pharmacist. Cruz gets paid $166,700 a year by the American taxpayer and then pays his taxes by giving some of that money back. I would suggest that paying your taxes by using the money other people give you to work a few days a week for a few months a year hardly makes you a typical taxpayer.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You guys are a riot with your self proclaimed bias against anything that is not in line with the democrat party line, for the last time I am not a member of the Tea Party nor the Republican party , it seems to me that you feel that if someone has wealth they should pay the full freight for everything they need health wise, even though they are allowed by law to enroll in their employers plan, you also feel that the US. government is not an employer but that the tax payers are the employers, using that logic then the IRS, the Treasury the Judicial and just about every function of the government is also a non- employer as they are also funded by the taxpayers, sounds pretty silly now doesn't it, When was the last time you heard a State Dept. official say that the tax payer funded workers of the State Dept. were granted a pay raise, no they say the employees of the Sate Dept. were granted a raise, of course that doesn't comport with your bias narrative. Also what does this have to do with Sen. Cruz's health plan? it appears to me that he chose the best plan for his family and at the price what he wants pay. Also if someone dispenses pharmacy drugs without a prescription then they are merely unregistered pharmacists, although technicly they are drug dealers,
    . BTW, a taxpayer is anyone who pays their taxes, they are not defined as to the amount of taxes they pay but to any taxes.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: What is there to twist? Sen. Cruz's wife left her job and was entitled to the benefits offered by the COBRA plan but instead her husband opted to go into the National Health Plan which he is allowed to do, The Affordable care Act mandates that everyone have a health plan or be fined, so all Sen. Cruz did was to follow the law . Where is the twist in that.
    He could have gone to Texas and paid more, but he chose to take advantage of the law he wants to 'repeal every word of.' That's the hypocrisy of his actions. Yes, he is required to purchase insurance, but he is not required to do so through the D.C. exchange. He isn't required to take a government contribution, which is in effect the American taxpayers money that we generously give to the Senator so he can purchase health insurance at a lower rate in D.C. He could have just as easily obtained insurance in Texas, which would not give him a taxpayer subsidy, but he chose to take our money instead.
    Well put
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: You guys are a riot with your self proclaimed bias against anything that is not in line with the democrat party line, for the last time I am not a member of the Tea Party nor the Republican party , it seems to me that you feel that if someone has wealth they should pay the full freight for everything they need health wise, even though they are allowed by law to enroll in their employers plan, you also feel that the US. government is not an employer but that the tax payers are the employers, using that logic then the IRS, the Treasury the Judicial and just about every function of the government is also a non- employer as they are also funded by the taxpayers, sounds pretty silly now doesn't it, When was the last time you heard a State Dept. official say that the tax payer funded workers of the State Dept. were granted a pay raise, no they say the employees of the Sate Dept. were granted a raise, of course that doesn't comport with your bias narrative. Also what does this have to do with Sen. Cruz's health plan? it appears to me that he chose the best plan for his family and at the price what he wants pay. Also if someone dispenses pharmacy drugs without a prescription then they are merely unregistered pharmacists, although technicly they are drug dealers,
    . BTW, a taxpayer is anyone who pays their taxes, they are not defined as to the amount of taxes they pay but to any taxes.
    It's not about towing the party line. It's about being consistent with your words and actions. This is a man who wants to be represent our nation and deal with foreign powers but he consistently says one thing and does another. The truth doesn't seem to be important to him as he constantly says what ever he feels is a fact instead of actually checking with reality.

    This situation with Obamacare is a prime example of this. Yes, he is legally required to have some form of healthcare. Yes, signing up for Obamacare meets those legal requirements. But the fact that he used the government option that he has been fighting tooth and nail to stop and repeal makes him a hypocrite on this subject. Obamacare is not the only option. There are plenty of private options that he could choose from (especially since he speaks so highly of them.)

    If Obamacare was his only choice, and he was legally required to sign up for it, that too would be a different story. But that is not the case either.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just to put this into a broader perspective. Ted Cruz and his two kids were previously covered by his wife's health insurance at Goldman Sachs. I would expect that the Goldman Sach contribution (premium or benefit or subsidy) to the Cruz family was quite generous, like any employer with the financial resources to cover their employees. I don't know what that premium was as he hasn't shared that information, but I would expect it to be in the range of 70 to 80 percent of the total cost.

    With his wife taking a leave of absence, she would have to cover that premium herself out of Ted Cruz's salary. That's the so called COBRA option. I was eligible for that from my company when I retired early, and I will say it's not cheap. That's when I decided to convert to a high deductible plan.

    So Cruz most likely checked out all the options, both getting private insurance outside of the ObamaCare Exchanges or finding one of the many plans offered to Federal Employees through the Exchanges. I have read where the average contribution (or premium/benefit/subsidy) paid by the Federal government as an employer is about 72 percent.

    So Ted Cruz did what any of his fellow Harvard College graduates would do. He followed the money and found a plan to his liking in the ObamaCare exchanges. It saves him roughly 72 percent of the cost of the premium that he otherwise would not have obtained had he gone outside of the exchanges and purchased his family insurance unsubsidized (for his salary) much like self employed people have to do. For Cruz and his family, the cost of insurance is not cheap and would have taken a big bite out of his income. The cost of living in and around Washington D.C. is not cheap, especially for the life style that he and his wife want to lead. Doing it on a single salary instead of the combined incomes of the two of them, means some belt tightening for Cruz. He did the sensible thing.

    What his situation highlights though is how many people opposed to ObamaCare, get a substantial contribution to their insurance from their employer and are rather ignorant and oblivious of the plight of people who do not have that option and have to buy insurance on their own. I hope it's a wake-up call for Cruz.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well said, but some employers unlike Goldman -Sachs, do not have the financial re
    Schmidt Wrote: Just to put this into a broader perspective. Ted Cruz and his two kids were previously covered by his wife's health insurance at Goldman Sachs. I would expect that the Goldman Sach contribution (premium or benefit or subsidy) to the Cruz family was quite generous, like any employer with the financial resources to cover their employees. I don't know what that premium was as he hasn't shared that information, but I would expect it to be in the range of 70 to 80 percent of the total cost.

    With his wife taking a leave of absence, she would have to cover that premium herself out of Ted Cruz's salary. That's the so called COBRA option. I was eligible for that from my company when I retired early, and I will say it's not cheap. That's when I decided to convert to a high deductible plan.

    So Cruz most likely checked out all the options, both getting private insurance outside of the ObamaCare Exchanges or finding one of the many plans offered to Federal Employees through the Exchanges. I have read where the average contribution (or premium/benefit/subsidy) paid by the Federal government as an employer is about 72 percent.

    So Ted Cruz did what any of his fellow Harvard College graduates would do. He followed the money and found a plan to his liking in the ObamaCare exchanges. It saves him roughly 72 percent of the cost of the premium that he otherwise would not have obtained had he gone outside of the exchanges and purchased his family insurance unsubsidized (for his salary) much like self employed people have to do. For Cruz and his family, the cost of insurance is not cheap and would have taken a big bite out of his income. The cost of living in and around Washington D.C. is not cheap, especially for the life style that he and his wife want to lead. Doing it on a single salary instead of the combined incomes of the two of them, means some belt tightening for Cruz. He did the sensible thing.
    ather ignorant and oblivious of the plight of people who do not have that option and have to buy insurance on their own. I hope it's a wake-up call for Cruz.
    What his situation highlights though is how many people opposed to ObamaCare, get a substantial contribution to their insurance from their employer and are r
    sources and are circumventing this piece of legislation by cutting hours to avoid paying the health care requirements or worse ,laying them off instead, forcing these people to seek healthcare thru the Affordable Care Act, and it seems to indicate that the numbers become inflated because of this, and just to/day it was announced that with the approval of both the Senate Majority Leader and the Minority Leader passed a Bill to amend the portion of the Act which affected payments to Doctors, without which ,based on time constraints, doctors would longer get paid thru Medicare for some treatments, so the doctors would have ceased taking on new Medicare patients, I mention this only to show that this Affordable Care Act was and still is too complex for it to go thru with out constant scrutiny to make needed changes.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Well said, but some employers unlike Goldman -Sachs, do not have the financial re
    Schmidt Wrote: Just to put this into a broader perspective. Ted Cruz and his two kids were previously covered by his wife's health insurance at Goldman Sachs. I would expect that the Goldman Sach contribution (premium or benefit or subsidy) to the Cruz family was quite generous, like any employer with the financial resources to cover their employees. I don't know what that premium was as he hasn't shared that information, but I would expect it to be in the range of 70 to 80 percent of the total cost.

    With his wife taking a leave of absence, she would have to cover that premium herself out of Ted Cruz's salary. That's the so called COBRA option. I was eligible for that from my company when I retired early, and I will say it's not cheap. That's when I decided to convert to a high deductible plan.

    So Cruz most likely checked out all the options, both getting private insurance outside of the ObamaCare Exchanges or finding one of the many plans offered to Federal Employees through the Exchanges. I have read where the average contribution (or premium/benefit/subsidy) paid by the Federal government as an employer is about 72 percent.

    So Ted Cruz did what any of his fellow Harvard College graduates would do. He followed the money and found a plan to his liking in the ObamaCare exchanges. It saves him roughly 72 percent of the cost of the premium that he otherwise would not have obtained had he gone outside of the exchanges and purchased his family insurance unsubsidized (for his salary) much like self employed people have to do. For Cruz and his family, the cost of insurance is not cheap and would have taken a big bite out of his income. The cost of living in and around Washington D.C. is not cheap, especially for the life style that he and his wife want to lead. Doing it on a single salary instead of the combined incomes of the two of them, means some belt tightening for Cruz. He did the sensible thing.
    ather ignorant and oblivious of the plight of people who do not have that option and have to buy insurance on their own. I hope it's a wake-up call for Cruz.
    What his situation highlights though is how many people opposed to ObamaCare, get a substantial contribution to their insurance from their employer and are r
    sources and are circumventing this piece of legislation by cutting hours to avoid paying the health care requirements or worse ,laying them off instead, forcing these people to seek healthcare thru the Affordable Care Act, and it seems to indicate that the numbers become inflated because of this, and just to/day it was announced that with the approval of both the Senate Majority Leader and the Minority Leader passed a Bill to amend the portion of the Act which affected payments to Doctors, without which ,based on time constraints, doctors would longer get paid thru Medicare for some treatments, so the doctors would have ceased taking on new Medicare patients, I mention this only to show that this Affordable Care Act was and still is too complex for it to go thru with out constant scrutiny to make needed changes.
    Boy, I screwed this posting up, I was trying to point out that that although Goldman _Sachs has the resources many smaller company's do not, so they resort to cutting hours or lay-offs to avoid that provision of the Affordable Act. Sorry Schmidt for lousing up your post.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: it was announced that with the approval of both the Senate Majority Leader and the Minority Leader passed a Bill to amend the portion of the Act which affected payments to Doctors, without which ,based on time constraints, doctors would longer get paid thru Medicare for some treatments, so the doctors would have ceased taking on new Medicare patients, I mention this only to show that this Affordable Care Act was and still is too complex for it to go thru with out constant scrutiny to make needed changes.
    Do you fully understand the difference between Obamacare and Medicare? You do know that they are two entirely different laws, right? This 'doc fix' agreement had to do with Medicare and absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare.

    And I'm also not so sure you fully understand that laws have constantly been updated and modified throughout our nations entire history. Updating and fixing laws after they are passed has been done time and time again for hundreds of years. That's how our system of governance is supposed to work. It's not like the only way we can ever fix issues in a law is by repealing the entire thing and starting over from scratch. It's never, ever worked that way. Why are you so insistent that we do it that way now?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Oh stop it Jared, don't get your panties in a bunch, I never said that Medicare was part of the Affordable Care Act, that is your wildly heightened sense of anything that strays from the democrat party line kicking in gear, my comparison was to show the complexity of Medicare as to the Affordable Care Act was similar and bears closer scrutiny. Geez, get a grip.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Oh stop it Jared, don't get your panties in a bunch, I never said that Medicare was part of the Affordable Care Act, that is your wildly heightened sense of anything that strays from the democrat party line kicking in gear, my comparison was to show the complexity of Medicare as to the Affordable Care Act was similar and bears closer scrutiny. Geez, get a grip.
    My panties are just fine. I'm just not going to let you get away with this though. Here is your exact quote:
    "...​and just to/day it was announced that with the approval of both the Senate Majority Leader and the Minority Leader passed a Bill to amend the portion of the Act which affected payments to Doctors, without which ,based on time constraints, doctors would longer get paid thru Medicare for some treatments"
    Your post said nothing about comparing Obamacare and Medicare, but instead said that the Senate Majority leader and Minority leader (which, by the way, is not accurate--it was the Speaker of the House and Minority Leader Pelosi who struck the deal) passed a bill that amends "the portion of the act." What act were you referring to? You were talking about Obamacare the entire time, not Medicare.

    I just can't stand it when far right zealots who want to take away millions of Americans health coverage state things as fact when they have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about and then try to walk it back after they are called out on it. If someone is going to make an argument then they need to be able to back it up with facts and not hearsay. I know you don't like it, but I don't like it when people spread lies and misinformation about things they have no knowledge of.