The “explainer” botched it. It is obviously NOT President Obama who should “help people keep their insurance”, but the insurance companies who refuse to meet the consumer protections in the law that “should help people keep their insurance” by either upgrading their policies to meet the law’s requirements or admitting their deviousness, ruthlessness, deceit. The only way to accomplish what the former President suggested would be to institute a universal health care system that everyone could “keep” (oh yeah, that was his idea which didn’t pass). Is his suggestion about insurance coverage sour grapes, I wonder? The original problem was people being dropped when they got sick, denied coverage for “pre-existing” illnesses, or over-pricing care. There are only three elements of the ACA; marketplaces for the uninsured, subsidies to help them get coverage, and consumer protections (insurance regulation). Which of these does the former President have a problem with?
“It takes a village” to teach Chris Christie (for example, that teacher’s union bargaining rights are not ‘the problem’ with the American education system), and perhaps takes a nation to convince him that teachers are much more than public sector test proctors. It is not necessary to settle for the ‘lesser of evils’ (high government operating costs or public sector benefits).
Multiversal personkinds and self-conscious sorts…
The idea that self-conscious “viability” rests upon nerval competence (ganglion development at five, rather than six, months of development) is reductionism on steroids, and has nothing to do with violating the rights of “viable” personkinds (who only exhibit self-consciousness many years after birth) or the practical interests of the state (safety/protections) that are thought, by some mistaken few, to outweigh the rights and interests of a pregnant woman.