I don’t always read FOXNews, but when I do, I’m usually glad I did.
When I spotted the headline Could possible misunderstanding on ObamaCare cloud Supreme Court deliberations?, I had just finished another article on the website that asserted, on the basis of absolutely nothing whatsoever:
The millionaires tax would only raise a bit more than $1 billion a year, but Obama hopes that if he can win re-election campaigning for that, he will have won a mandate for a tax proposal aimed at increasing the burden on the top quartile of earners.
So it wasn’t a stretch to imagine that the article on ObamaCare would attempt to lay the groundwork for claims of a mistrial should the plaintiffs fail to overturn the mandate. Turns out, the article was written to do exactly the opposite. Here’s the nut graf first paragraph:
A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.
In other words, the justices may have misunderstood the health care law in a way that might make them more likely to unjustifiably strike it down. Not exactly an article I expected to read on a site run by the Fairest and Balancest of Them All. [Update: Discovered, thanks to a comment, the article to actually be an AP article in syndication. But at the very least, kudos to FOX for running it.]
The article’s argument turns on the ‘bronze plan’ – what it includes, and how it stacks up against existing catastrophic insurance plans. The article claims the plan makes the health plan’s mandate not quite as onerous as the Supreme Court justices may have been led to believe. Interesting. But I’m not here to address the main point of the article. I’m never here to address the main point of the article.
So let’s skip ahead to see what one lawyer representing the plaintiffs has to say:
“The bronze plan is not catastrophic coverage,” said Carvin, who represents the National Federation of Independent Business.
“It’s got all the minimum essential benefits in it,” he added. “It’s got to have wellness, preventive, contraceptives — all kinds of things a 30-year old would never need. It’s not remotely catastrophic.”
He didn’t speak in bold – I added it, obviously – but I’ll let that phrase speak for itself because I, too, cannot think of a single reason a 30-year-old might ever need contraceptives.
Taking suggestions in the comments.