No, this post is not about Hillary Clinton and her famous indifference to the murder of four Americans in Libya. The "difference" that I am discussing is between two proposed modifications to Obamacare. The first change to the law is one which delays for a year the implementation of the employer mandate, the section that requires businesses that employ over 50 full time workers to provide those employees with insurance. The second change to the law is one which delays for a year the implementation of the individual mandate, the section that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. There really does not seem to be much of a difference between the two proposed changes.
The reason I ask is that ABC describes the first change (to the employer mandate) as an "adjustment" to the law, but ABC also describes the second change (to the individual mandate) as one that would "gut" the law. Why is that? The answer is simple: president Obama made the first change and the House GOP wants to make the second change. For ABC, reality seems to be only a question of who made the change, not what the change actually is.
The reason I ask is that ABC describes the first change (to the employer mandate) as an "adjustment" to the law, but ABC also describes the second change (to the individual mandate) as one that would "gut" the law. Why is that? The answer is simple: president Obama made the first change and the House GOP wants to make the second change. For ABC, reality seems to be only a question of who made the change, not what the change actually is.
No comments:
Post a Comment