Have presidents other than Reagan had such a term? Did Reagan coin the term and use it incessantly? (I wasn’t old enough to pay attention.
I remember Nixonomics.
1 Like
I work at a carrier who offers Marketplace plans, and have not once heard it called “Obamacare” in a professional setting.
I have a right wing extended family member who said at the the time “How arrogant is he, naming it after himself?”. And we said “I don’t think he came up with the name”.
Just google Clintonomics, Bushenomics, Obamenomics or Trumpenomics.
Even Hoovernomics
Did any of those guys actually utter the word “my name”-nomics, or was it just something some pundits said for shorthand? Because Biden is trying to sell the term.
But, he’s doing such revolutionary things to the economy, like adjusting interest rates, and spending more government money and cutting taxes and raising taxes and cutting government spending, and…
(Called sarcasm. No need to fact-check. The point is that he not doing anything revolutionary.)
2 Likes
Imo, it’s not about doing anything, it’s about reaping the benefits of things not having gone to hell since he took office. It seems a somewhat risky move to me, with so much time still before the election.
Nixon didn’t need to promote the term “Nixonomics”. It was well known and well used back then.
Biden didn’t coin the term. Republicans started using it as a pejorative and Biden is owning the term trying to make it a positive. Same thing as Obamacare.
3 Likes
Well in the first 2012 debate either the moderator or Romney called PPACA “Obamacare” and then apologized and Obama said “that’s ok, I like the name”.
So… officially ok to call it Obamacare these days.
I’ve heard radio ads mentioning “also known as Obamacare”, but I don’t remember if those were government ads or ads for an insurer.
Whatever you want to call it, it’s apparently because of this law that J2 and I wouldn’t be able to just sign on as an addition to one or the other’s health plan after the wedding. If i understand correctly, the rule now is that if your employer offers a plan, you’re basically stuck having to use that plan, even if it’s bad and your spouse’s is good.
Of all the dumb things about the law, that provision (if my understanding is correct) is particularly dumb. Can someone smarter than I am explain why it might instead be considered a good rule?
This doesn’t sound accurate to me. Maybe it varies by state? Weaselette and I are on my plan because the one her employer offers is not as good.
1 Like
Are you saying in the US, one of you two is on the ACA Marketplace and the other has employer-based healthcare and you can’t both go Marketplace? I’m not aware of this rule, is possible.
But in the case of 2 employer-offered plans, I’m pretty sure this is incorrect, otherwise my partner and I have been illegally on each others’ plans many times.
I get the impression it varies by employer as well as state. My employer will allow your spouse to be on your plan if 1) your spouse isn’t employed 2) your spouse doesn’t have ER sponsored insurance available due to part time hours or no/restricted ER offerings 3) [not 100% clear on this item] your spouse’s ER offers insurance has very little in the way of ER subsidy. Not quite full choice like Triweasel’s case sounds. I am not sure how kids would be divided if both spouses had their own ER coverage.
ETA: spouses that both work for the company can have a family plan, EE + spouse (+ dependents), as opposed to requiring two EE plans.
More like, each of our districts has a health plan, but there seem to be rules in place saying that a spouse can only be on it as secondary and not primary. Maybe I didn’t explain it well at first. Is this a normal thing?
And is paying for secondary coverage worth it?
Can it also vary by individual employer?