Skip to main content

View Diary: The Irrational Ramblings of R. Ted Cruz (9 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It wasn't taken personally. I appreciate the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, semiot

    opportunity to continue the conversation.
    Focusing on the perpetrators of the kerfuffle strikes me as preferable to ranting about the inadequacies of the health insurance expansion program.

    Btw, if R. Ted is to be believed, their real objective in undermining the ACA is to prevent the realization of a single payer system of paying for medical care. Why is that? Well, according to their reasoning, the strictures on how much profit the insurance middlemen can take (15%) is too small to make the enterprise worth while over the long run. So, the private insurance industry will declare bankruptcy and leave the field to the federal government to join with Medicare as Medicare for All. And that's what they want to avoid because once the private enterprise collapses, there will be no going back. Both Social Security and traditional Medicare have shown that rights cannot be reversed. If rights are to be denied, that has to be accomplished at the outset -- like the rights of children which still don't exist because they are parental property.

    (I realize that topic raises hackles because some people just don't want to admit that juvenile humans can be passed around and adopted, if not actually sold, like pets. But that's the reason why the U.S., alone with Somalia, has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child)

    Deprivation of rights has to be reserved as punishment for crime. The odd thing is that human rights such as appropriate nutrition and medical care, once they are provided, turn into property rights and then, the historical fact that property rights trump human rights, turns into an advantage, since we have such a robust tradition of protecting property rights.
    I suspect that Cruz and his friends are preparing some sort of property rights challenge based either on preferential treatment or the exemption of large corporations, which their original plans probably insisted on. Also, while they are not opposed to putting individuals on the dole to keep them quiescent, letting individuals be the conduit for a subsidy to insurance companies is an inconvenient variant. Putting more dollars at the disposal of individuals is not the kind of "mandate" they envisioned.

    Cruz pays lip service to the people governing and listening to the people, but that's much like Republicans doing "for the children," our "most precious resource."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site