OK - I’ve read this multiple times and I still don’t understand your point. To reiterate, my point is as follows:
1) Ted Cruz has said, again and again, that he thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional
2) Ted Cruz, through his $179K/year salary and from money saved from his wife’s previous salary (not sure what that was, but I believe it was significantly greater than his), can afford to buy medical insurance on the open market.
3) The Obamacare mandate is merely that you have to have health insurance, or pay a penalty. It doesn’t require you to use the Obamacare marketplace.
4) The only reason for Ted Cruz to use the Obamacare available through the Senate is to save money by utilizing the $$$ provided by the Senate for their employees
So, it appears that, even though Ted hates Obamacare and thinks it should be destroyed, he has no problem using it to save some money. This does not appear to me to be the action of a principled person. I believe that the consistent position would be to either spend some of his own money to buy his own health insurance and not to take advantage of what he believes to be an uncontitutional program.
Where is my logic wrong?
It sounds like he’s doing it to make a political point about 1) how lousy a law it is and/or 2) give him standing to challenge in court and/or 3) make the others in Congress who have opted out look bad.
My argument is if he thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional, he doesn’t have to participate in it to show it’s unconstitutional. That’s like saying you have to get cancer to show it’s a deadly disease. A bit like shooting yourself in the foot IMO.
1. A law found to be “constitutional” by our highest court means that has been decided. Congress can repeal it, but it is clearly “constitutional” and is therefore required to be obeyed. The whole “unconstitutional” argument flew out the door some time ago. I know we can think a law “continues” to be unconstitutional, but that fight was also lost by Westley Snipes on a similarly defended argument. You go to jail for not following laws.
2. Buying insurance through 0bamacare is just as legit as buying expensive insurance with better coverages. You have no logical argument here, because everyone can throw their money at expensive private insurance. This just happens to give him the long term right to complain from personal experience.
3. This was covered by 2, above.
4. That may be a benefit of 0care for him, but why does this matter and why don't you think he should be allowed to purchase what he wants? Your argument doesn't make sense. He is choosing to purchase something to meet the law and the version of insurance he is purchasing will give him “street cred” from valuable, first-hand knowledge. I don't have to eat at Ryan's, but if I choose to do so, I can now personally state I think their food tastes bad. I can't say that with any integrity if I have never tasted Ryan's food. Can you understand that, now?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3272090/posts
Ted is NOT getting financial assistance for his 0care.