"We're not going to help the law, but we're going to help the people, so they are not left in the lurch."
This senator (John Barrasso of Wyoming) is thinking ahead, and making some plans in case the Supreme Court rules that subsidies can't go to people in all states.
Barrasso would 'not help the law' by continuing a key provision of the law that many people depend on. Does this mean that the law isn't quite as horrible as advertised? Why keep part of it going if it is horrid?
Oops, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Your invisible need for Obamacare
Image: mikehoolboom.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep comments short and free of personal insults. Insults such as libtard, Obummer, Repug, wingnut, and moonbat are not welcome and will be edited or deleted. Cliches we've all heard before will be deleted, so make sure there is substance to your remarks. Links to data are very welcome so we can all learn and interpret for ourselves.
Anonymous comments are welcome, but it's better if you click on "Name/URL" and enter any screen name. Thank you.