Near the close of Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s 21 hour symbolic filibuster protesting the funding of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, fellow Senator Dick Durbin (D – Illinois) challenged Cruz in an attempt to paint him as a hypocrite.
SEN. DURBIN: Will the senator from Texas for the record tell us now — and those who watched this debate — whether he is protected and his family’s protected? SEN. CRUZ: I’m happy to tell you now I am eligible for it and I am not currently covered under it.
Senator Cruz gets his health insurance not from the taxpayer funded plan available to him and his fellow Representatives and Senators, but is reportedly covered by his wife’s private insurance plan. Oops. I saw this graphic posted by a friend on Facebook accusing Sen. Cruz of being a hypocrite when it comes to government provided health insurance. 
Of course I felt it necessary to correct the false implications. It took a while, but I eventually my liberal friend was standing prominently in a self-painted corner with no where to go. 
On another topic, Senator Cruz has pledged to donate his salary to charity for every day the government shuts down should it come to that.
Sifting Reality 
Any member of Congress who voted for the ACA is a hypocrite.
Why doesn’t Congress get the same healthcare as other federal employee’s, like the military? We are in the verge of a fiefdom.
Even if Cruz did accept his Government benefit package I don’t think that would be hypocritical. He works for the government. Unless you first accept that people should not receive health benefits from their employer, or that only government employees should be banned from employer sponsored health benefits- the fact that Cruz has access to or uses a government plan is in no way related to government funded health care for non-governmental employees.
I’m as liberal as they come and even I concede that.
R. Nash- Are you claiming that universally equal health care coverage is a moral imperative? I don’t know that I agree with you.
I don’t see an issue with a reasonable covered standard of care for all citizens and an enhanced level of care as an incentive for higher level employees. Why would that be bad?
I do believe that universal healthcare is a moral imperative. The current system is untenable. It also ostracizes an ever increasing number of people creating classes of medically bankrupt or near bankrupt people. We are spending 350% more for the same level of care available in other countries, while our infant mortality rate is 30th. Both unacceptable, yet fixable problems.
The devaluation of the dollar coupled with triple digit increases in healthcare in the last 25 years is not sustainable. In 20 years more than half the population will be uninsured.
The ACA is “not” the answer to this problem.
And the idea that you would accept that “higher level employees”, as a way to differentiate the masses from the rest of us is, well, disturbing. This in effect is separate but equal, just that some are more equal than others. Why should a member of Congress be treated in an ER or at any other point in the health care system than you and I? Especially seeing as they are so inept. They already get the best benefits in the land, 3 lengthy paid vacations, food and lodging stipends, and the best federally subsidized healthcare in the land. Federal employees already have universal healthcare. and some have more equal healthcare than others.
Why do Soldiers and veterans get shitty healthcare and shitty pay, while those who will never see war get awesome healthcare and make 4-5x’s as much?
They shouldn’t get paid, while the government shutdown is in effect and their pay should only go up as the deficit goes down. Make them accountable, not untouchable.
It’s feeling a lot more like an aristocracy around here in the last 25 years.
To be clear- I support Universal Health Care. I just don’t think that health coverage needs to be equal past a certain standard of care for all citizens. Certainly people should get the same treatment in the ER- all other things being equal. But do I think every American (or Canadian, for that matter) is morally entitled to 100% optical coverage (no), or prescription coverage (maybe), or dental (yes, but I’m flexible)? I don’t see why some people can’t have enhanced benefits as long as we assume a minimum standard of care.
I think that and I’m generally regarded as a socialist by most of the people on this blog.