0

In the first paragraph of this article, I am afraid I am unable to properly grasp its meaning.

Republicans didn't get their wish to repeal former President Barack Obama's health care law, but the tax bill barreling toward a final vote in Congress guts its most unpopular provision, the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance.

So the new tax bill, which is a hot topic these days, "guts" the most unpopular provision. And what exactly is it?

What exactly is the requirement of the health insurance?

Am I wrong to think that this line,

its most unpopular provision, the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance.

sounds a bit strange? Because the bill would "gut" some provision, which in the structure of this sentence would be the object, which should be described in the latter part of the sentence, here.

the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance.

But seeing as the writer is adding the words "health insurance" here, I am not quite able to comprehend what exactly the new bill "guts". Had the sentence been:

the requirement that virtually all American health insurance carry

I would probably have been able to understand much more clearly.

Can anyone help me understand the meaning and structure of the phrase in bold above?


Thank you very much for your answer.

I have a question, now, regarding the nouns in question, which are, provision and the requirement, you tell me

There are two noun phrases here, they are placed next to each other, in apposition. The noun phrase starting "the requirement" will tell us what the provision is.

"the requirement" will tell us what the provision is.

So, I think, as you say later on, the relative clause needs to describe what the requirement is more about detail of it.

However, or therefore, that relative clause still sounds strange to me.

that all Americans carry health insurance.

Should there be, for example, a preposition, for example, with, between the verb "carry" and the noun phrase "health insurance", I would probably understand. Because by adding the preposition with, the requirement is given more information, which is the requirement is something that all American ( need ) to carry "with" health insurance.

I hope you understand me. Let me upvote you for you answer.

  • I think it reads OK as is, but I don't quite understand what your concern is. The phrase "the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance" describes the "provision". The "unpopular provision" was in the health care law, and the tax bill is gutting it. – user3169 Dec 16 '17 at 23:02
  • Had that sentence been "the requirement that virtually all American health insurance carry", then I would've understood vividly. – Kentaro Dec 17 '17 at 0:48
  • 1
    Putting carry at the end is not grammatical, as it is a verb. The that introduces a relative clause. The subject is virtually all Americans and the object is health insurance. The verb carry must go in between. – Hoa Long Tam Dec 17 '17 at 4:51
  • No, please go back to the entire paragraph. Congress guts its most "unpopular provision", which is Object, and after the comma, the requirement = unpopular provision, so that after that, a sentence needs to explain what kind of unpopular provision aka the requirement. So, ending by the verb would be natural, I think. – Kentaro Dec 17 '17 at 5:35
  • 1
    Hello :) As I already mentioned, I think I understand your question but your suggestion in bold is not grammatical in English. If you change the 2nd sentence in bold to …that all American health insurance must be carried I think it would be clearer, it would definitely be grammatical. – Mari-Lou A Dec 28 '17 at 23:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.