Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. Banned
    Student or Learner
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Cambodian
      • Home Country:
      • Cambodia
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2013
    • Posts: 4
    #1

    Into Coverage

    In this sentence from a website:

    ( abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-insured-health-plans-year/story?id=20888098 )
    "Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards."

    Assuming that "coverage" (US) = "cover" (UK). Is "being forced into coverage" grammatically wrong, because the sentence makes it sound like it is okay to write "He is in insurance coverage" to mean "He has insurance coverage". Would "being forced into getting coverage" be better?

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,103
    #2

    Re: Into Coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by evert View Post
    In this sentence from a website:

    ( abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-insured-health-plans-year/story?id=20888098 )
    "Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards."

    Assuming that "coverage" (US) = "cover" (UK). Is "being forced into coverage" grammatically wrong, because the sentence makes it sound like it is okay to write "He is in insurance coverage" to mean "He has insurance coverage". Would "being forced into getting coverage" be better?
    Your understanding is correct. You could add "getting", but it doesn't make it any better. A native speaker would have no trouble with this and it's common. Eg. "He was forced into marriage" = "He was forced to get married." = "He was forced into getting married."
    "He was forced into the army" = "He was forced to join the army."

    Where did you get idea that 'coverage' is AmE and 'cover' is BrE?

  3. probus's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Canada

    • Join Date: Jan 2011
    • Posts: 3,458
    #3

    Re: Into Coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    Your understanding is correct. You could add "getting", but it doesn't make it any better.

    Where did you get idea that 'coverage' is AmE and 'cover' is BrE?
    The distinction smells right to me.

  4. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,103
    #4

    Re: Into Coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by probus View Post
    The distinction smells right to me.
    It might be right too. I'm still interested in knowing how the OP worked that out, given that he's presenting it as an assumption.
    "Cover' is routinely used in AusE too.

  5. Banned
    Student or Learner
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Cambodian
      • Home Country:
      • Cambodia
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2013
    • Posts: 4
    #5

    Re: Into Coverage

    "To be forced into marriage" sounds good to me, because marriage is a state. "to be forced into coverage (cover)" is weird, because coverage (cover) is not a state. I could accept "He is in a marriage", but not "He is in (insurance) coverage/cover". Therefore, there must be something wrong with "to be forced into coverage".

  6. 5jj's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Oct 2010
    • Posts: 28,134
    #6

    Re: Into Coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by evert View Post
    I could accept "He is in a marriage", but not "He is in (insurance) coverage/cover". Therefore, there must be something wrong with "to be forced into coverage".
    'He is in a marriage' is not natural, though 'he is in an unhappy marriage' could be. He is in (insurance) coverage/cover' (= he has insurance coverage/cover) is not natural.

  7. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,103
    #7

    Re: Into Coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by evert View Post
    "To be forced into marriage" sounds good to me, because marriage is a state. "to be forced into coverage (cover)" is weird, because coverage (cover) is not a state. I could accept "He is in a marriage", but not "He is in (insurance) coverage/cover". Therefore, there must be something wrong with "to be forced into coverage".
    That's not logical. You can't prove that "to be forced into coverage" must be wrong just because you can't accept "He is in coverage."
    He is in the coverage scheme. We don't say, "He is in coverage", but that just means that we don't use that phrase, not that it's untrue.

  8. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,983
    #8

    Re: Into Coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by evert View Post
    In this sentence from a website:

    ( abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-insured-health-plans-year/story?id=20888098 )
    "Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards."

    Assuming that "coverage" (US) = "cover" (UK). Is "being forced into coverage" grammatically wrong, because the sentence makes it sound like it is okay to write "He is in insurance coverage" to mean "He has insurance coverage". Would "being forced into getting coverage" be better?
    In this use, forced into coverage" is fine in AmE. In this context the subject of the discussion is people who already have (insurance) coverage being forced into a different type of (insurance) coverage by a new law. Because of this discussion, "coverage" has become synonymous with "insurance coverage". We hear "40 million Americans have no coverage", "people are at risk for losing their coverage", "people with pre-existing illnesses can't get coverage", etc.

  9. 5jj's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Oct 2010
    • Posts: 28,134
    #9

    Re: Into Coverage

    Thread closed. Cloe of banned user.

Similar Threads

  1. Force Into Coverage
    By inciner in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-Nov-2013, 02:17
  2. Coverage
    By Allen165 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-Dec-2010, 18:36
  3. get coverage
    By unpakwon in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-May-2008, 03:44
  4. coverage
    By marieuni in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-Aug-2007, 05:34

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •