|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 27 2015 03:48 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." It can be a bad program but still work OK, at least temporarily, for the end user. I've said it before, but the ACA just treats the symptoms of an underlying problem with the US healthcare system. The real problem is out of control prices for treatment. Big pharma can charge basically whatever they want because insurance companies typically pick up the tab for the patients. If insurance wasn't a thing, prices would fall, because otherwise no one could afford any treatment. Big pharma would have no choice, either lower prices so they can actually make sales, or keep prices high and go out of business. The ACA forces everyone into an insurance plan, which just further keeps prices high. It's essentially just kicking the can down the road. You have to think long-term.
Sorry but nope, the free market doesn't solve everything.
Big pharma would keep prices relatively high because you have no real choice to not pay if you can afford it and the rest will simply die in the streets.
|
Nobody would die, they'd just make health-related expenses into the new student loan market.
|
On March 27 2015 03:59 Jormundr wrote:
Nobody would die, they'd just make health-related expenses into the new student loan market.
As if it isn't already. Just because you have insurance through the ACA doesn't mean it's all that much cheaper. It often covers very little, has huge premiums, and huge deductibles. They rarely cover well-visits, meaning preventative care often doesn't get done, especially dental work.
Having insurance really isn't that much better than not having it, unless you get lucky and can get a great package.
|
On March 27 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:59 Jormundr wrote:
Nobody would die, they'd just make health-related expenses into the new student loan market. As if it isn't already. Just because you have insurance through the ACA doesn't mean it's all that much cheaper. It often covers very little, has huge premiums, and huge deductibles. They rarely cover well-visits, meaning preventative care often doesn't get done, especially dental work. Having insurance really isn't that much better than not having it, unless you get lucky and can get a great package.
I think that's the case with almost all insurance policies in America, not just the ones purchased through ACA. The entire system is fucked up, can't wait til singlepayer becomes a thing in America.
|
On March 27 2015 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 02:18 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections.
Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state.
"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement.
A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state.
On Wednesday, leaders from the Disciples of Christ church said that if the bill was signed into law the church could possibly move its planned 6,000 person General Assembly meeting in Indianapolis to another location.
Just a week before the NCAA's March Madness Final Four games in downtown Indianapolis, the NCAA released a statement saying it was "examining the details" of the bill." The statement did not condemn the legislation but it did say that it was for "an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events." Source I don't know why they don't just frame it as freedom of business to choose whether or not they want to accommodate guests? Without having to put a 'religious' spin on it, targeting specifically same-sex couple... Make it an issue of freedom of business owners to choose who they want to provide services to, rather than one targeted at a subgroup of people like lgbt community... legally, it wouldnt make much of a difference. instead of a facial challenge (i.e., the language of the statute is unconstitutional), it would face an as applied challenge (i.e., the language is fine, but how it is intended to and actually applied is unconstitutional).
The only real question is if it make its to the Supreme Court or if it gets shot down in the lower Federal Courts. I doubt this law will even be able to be applied once before it is challenged.
|
On March 27 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 27 2015 02:18 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections.
Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state.
"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement.
A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state.
On Wednesday, leaders from the Disciples of Christ church said that if the bill was signed into law the church could possibly move its planned 6,000 person General Assembly meeting in Indianapolis to another location.
Just a week before the NCAA's March Madness Final Four games in downtown Indianapolis, the NCAA released a statement saying it was "examining the details" of the bill." The statement did not condemn the legislation but it did say that it was for "an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events." Source I don't know why they don't just frame it as freedom of business to choose whether or not they want to accommodate guests? Without having to put a 'religious' spin on it, targeting specifically same-sex couple... Make it an issue of freedom of business owners to choose who they want to provide services to, rather than one targeted at a subgroup of people like lgbt community... legally, it wouldnt make much of a difference. instead of a facial challenge (i.e., the language of the statute is unconstitutional), it would face an as applied challenge (i.e., the language is fine, but how it is intended to and actually applied is unconstitutional). The only real question is if it make its to the Supreme Court or if it gets shot down in the lower Federal Courts. I doubt this law will even be able to be applied once before it is challenged.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a way to shoot down laws without them being applied at least once. I think you have to have a case brought, so the courts have specifics to argue about. Otherwise it's just a lot of mental masturbation.
|
On March 27 2015 04:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2015 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 27 2015 02:18 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections.
Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state.
"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement.
A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state.
On Wednesday, leaders from the Disciples of Christ church said that if the bill was signed into law the church could possibly move its planned 6,000 person General Assembly meeting in Indianapolis to another location.
Just a week before the NCAA's March Madness Final Four games in downtown Indianapolis, the NCAA released a statement saying it was "examining the details" of the bill." The statement did not condemn the legislation but it did say that it was for "an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events." Source I don't know why they don't just frame it as freedom of business to choose whether or not they want to accommodate guests? Without having to put a 'religious' spin on it, targeting specifically same-sex couple... Make it an issue of freedom of business owners to choose who they want to provide services to, rather than one targeted at a subgroup of people like lgbt community... legally, it wouldnt make much of a difference. instead of a facial challenge (i.e., the language of the statute is unconstitutional), it would face an as applied challenge (i.e., the language is fine, but how it is intended to and actually applied is unconstitutional). The only real question is if it make its to the Supreme Court or if it gets shot down in the lower Federal Courts. I doubt this law will even be able to be applied once before it is challenged. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a way to shoot down laws without them being applied at least once. I think you have to have a case brought, so the courts have specifics to argue about. Otherwise it's just a lot of mental masturbation.
I think he means there might be a stay on it's implementation because people are already challenging its constitutionality.
|
On March 27 2015 04:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2015 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 27 2015 02:18 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections.
Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state.
"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement.
A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state.
On Wednesday, leaders from the Disciples of Christ church said that if the bill was signed into law the church could possibly move its planned 6,000 person General Assembly meeting in Indianapolis to another location.
Just a week before the NCAA's March Madness Final Four games in downtown Indianapolis, the NCAA released a statement saying it was "examining the details" of the bill." The statement did not condemn the legislation but it did say that it was for "an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events." Source I don't know why they don't just frame it as freedom of business to choose whether or not they want to accommodate guests? Without having to put a 'religious' spin on it, targeting specifically same-sex couple... Make it an issue of freedom of business owners to choose who they want to provide services to, rather than one targeted at a subgroup of people like lgbt community... legally, it wouldnt make much of a difference. instead of a facial challenge (i.e., the language of the statute is unconstitutional), it would face an as applied challenge (i.e., the language is fine, but how it is intended to and actually applied is unconstitutional). The only real question is if it make its to the Supreme Court or if it gets shot down in the lower Federal Courts. I doubt this law will even be able to be applied once before it is challenged. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a way to shoot down laws without them being applied at least once. I think you have to have a case brought, so the courts have specifics to argue about. Otherwise it's just a lot of mental masturbation.
the doctrine is called ripeness. you are generally correct, but the courts will also do pre-enforcement review of laws. here, since the constitutionality will be challenged on its fact and not as applied, it doesn't seem necessary for it to be applied first.
|
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates.
|
On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates.
If you buy anything related to physical therapy, it's insanely expensive.
For instance, those big, rubber yoga balls are 3-4 times more expensive in physical therapy catalogs than in a more general market. A foam exercise mat might go for $100 in one of those catalogs.
This is clearly insane, and can only be because insurance is artificially propping the prices up.
|
On March 27 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates. If you buy anything related to physical therapy, it's insanely expensive. For instance, those big, rubber yoga balls are 3-4 times more expensive in physical therapy catalogs than in a more general market. A foam exercise mat might go for $100 in one of those catalogs. This is clearly insane, and can only be because insurance is artificially propping the prices up.
just cuz it's insane doesn't mean insurance has to the culprit. it could be lack of information as well; or government regulation (or laws that prevent government from negotiating good prices).
|
On March 27 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates. If you buy anything related to physical therapy, it's insanely expensive. For instance, those big, rubber yoga balls are 3-4 times more expensive in physical therapy catalogs than in a more general market. A foam exercise mat might go for $100 in one of those catalogs. This is clearly insane, and can only be because insurance is artificially propping the prices up.
Well the excuse the given before the ACA, was that they needed to charge that much to cover all the uninsured people they have to treat. So if they were telling the truth and they have to do that less, prices should fall accordingly. Hence another part of the ACA Republicans want to repeal but never said they wanted to replace, which requires insurance companies spend (more of) the money they get on providing the services they promise. You can no longer run an insurance company with huge %age profits and despicable payout practices just because you have slick salesmen and lawyers.
On the ACA there was a pretty funny happening recently....
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers This week marks the 5th anniversary of #Obamacare being signed into law. Whether it's turned your tax filing into a nightmare, you’re facing skyrocketing premiums, or your employer has reduced your work hours, I want to hear about it. Please share your story with me so that I can better understand the challenges you're facing: http://mcmorris.house.gov/your-story/
Needless to say she didn't get the results she was looking for. Some people pointed out to her how bullshit it was only asking for negative experiences instead of just the experiences. It is this kind of transparent hackery shows they don't care about their constituents problems (like not being insured, or being stuck with a shitty provider/plan due to a pre-existing condition). They are only interested in the 'real' problems that help push their delusional narrative.
+ Show Spoiler +
I mean she posts asking for horror stories and all the top posts for pages and pages are positive stories. One would think after asking for horror stories and receiving practically nothing but praise (or her own party's deceitful talking points mirrored, instead of real stories) one would have to come to the conclusion that perhaps it isn't as bad as one thought. Will she?... I Doubt it....
Source
|
On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..."
While I am not up to date on all the reasons Cruz thinks the ACA is literally worse than slavery, it is not necessarily so that the end user experience is terrible.
If a law were passed that for every health insurance sign up in the US, we would go out and murder a million Africans in the most brutal manner imaginable, then that would actually be literally worse than slavery. However, for the American signing up for heatlh insurance it would probably still be a fairly pleasant experience (assuming his conscience were not overburdened by being the cause of a million innocent Africans dying).
|
On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..."
...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it.
|
Guys I had this weird dream where the Republicans finally unveiled their alternative to Obamacare... and it turned out to be single payer. Then I woke up.
On March 27 2015 04:04 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:59 Jormundr wrote:
Nobody would die, they'd just make health-related expenses into the new student loan market. As if it isn't already. Just because you have insurance through the ACA doesn't mean it's all that much cheaper. It often covers very little, has huge premiums, and huge deductibles. They rarely cover well-visits, meaning preventative care often doesn't get done, especially dental work. Having insurance really isn't that much better than not having it, unless you get lucky and can get a great package. I think that's the case with almost all insurance policies in America, not just the ones purchased through ACA. The entire system is fucked up, can't wait til singlepayer becomes a thing in America.
Mostly replying to Millitron's post, but quoting this as a matter of convenience.
Actually, many plans do cover well visits, etc.-- dental is separate from health insurance because of weird cultural reasons and whatnot. If your plan doesn't, then sorry you've got a shit plan. I'm not even sure if the bronze level plans cover so little. Personal story: my family's insurance went up a little bit because of the ACA, but it's not breaking the budget by any means. Plus I'm covered until 26.
Also, saying that the plans have low coverage and no well care is somewhat... contradictory.The ACA does make consumer driven health plans a more preferable system-- they have lower monthly premiums (generally) with higher deductibles, but in exchange they pay for preventative stuff, which incentives people to be healthier. So, ideally, a person would use their preventative care, live healthier and in the end would spend less on healthcare because they get to pay a lower premium and get sick less. Everyone wins.
This ACA system exerts some nice bottom up pressure to make the healthcare industry better. However as w2c mentions, single payer would be a great top down force for managing costs. It'd be so much better if we could negotiate prices ahead of time. There's some outcome-based (VBP) incentives compared to the old FFS as well, but it's incredibly rudimentary compared to a full single payer system.
|
On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it.
There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason...
|
On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason...
People didn't like how it rolled out for sure, but you can't honestly believe that is why people were opposed to the ACA. That was just one small thing to add on top of their reasons for being against it.
|
On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason...
Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use."
|
On March 27 2015 07:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." While I am not up to date on all the reasons Cruz thinks the ACA is literally worse than slavery, it is not necessarily so that the end user experience is terrible. If a law were passed that for every health insurance sign up in the US, we would go out and murder a million Africans in the most brutal manner imaginable, then that would actually be literally worse than slavery. However, for the American signing up for heatlh insurance it would probably still be a fairly pleasant experience (assuming his conscience were not overburdened by being the cause of a million innocent Africans dying).
Comparing it to slavery was a rhetorical flourish of mine. However, Cruz did shut down the government over ACA. Cruz thinks it is at least bad enough to suspend the activities of the federal government in a manner that ended up costing billions of dollars. Compare how bad he thinks it is (2013 shutdown), to the benign reality that will be his sign up for private insurance through the ACA exchange.
|
On March 27 2015 08:22 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:02 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." While I am not up to date on all the reasons Cruz thinks the ACA is literally worse than slavery, it is not necessarily so that the end user experience is terrible. If a law were passed that for every health insurance sign up in the US, we would go out and murder a million Africans in the most brutal manner imaginable, then that would actually be literally worse than slavery. However, for the American signing up for heatlh insurance it would probably still be a fairly pleasant experience (assuming his conscience were not overburdened by being the cause of a million innocent Africans dying). Comparing it to slavery was a rhetorical flourish of mine. However, Cruz did shut down the government over ACA. Cruz thinks it is at least bad enough to suspend the activities of the federal government in a manner that ended up costing billions of dollars. Compare how bad he thinks it is (2013 shutdown), to the benign reality that will be his sign up for private insurance through the ACA exchange.
Again, just because it works out in the short term for the end user doesn't mean its a good thing. Cocaine is great at first too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0FvitYX.png)
