0
GainRain Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Would
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304177104577310050863533554.html
"Among those set to implement the law, insurers would have to ditch changes to their businesses designed to bring in millions of new customers. Provisions that have already gone into effect, including letting children stay on their parents' insurance plans until they turn 26, would no longer be required.
Companies facing the law's requirements would be reprieved, including health firms set to pay new taxes and businesses that would have been required to insure their employees or pay a fee."
Why "would have been required" instead of "would be required"? The mood of the paragraph is one of conjecture.
"Among those set to implement the law, insurers would have to ditch changes to their businesses designed to bring in millions of new customers. Provisions that have already gone into effect, including letting children stay on their parents' insurance plans until they turn 26, would no longer be required.
Companies facing the law's requirements would be reprieved, including health firms set to pay new taxes and businesses that would have been required to insure their employees or pay a fee."
Why "would have been required" instead of "would be required"? The mood of the paragraph is one of conjecture.
Top answer
Would have been required if the provisions had not already gone into effect.
- Would have been required if the provisions had not already gone into effect.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
Would have been required if the provisions had not already gone into effect.
00
I think the "provisions" are already in effect. So maybe "would have been required" should be "are required"?
00
No; it is a past condition contrary to fact, as I read it: Conditional III.
00
Thank you for your replies, Mr Micawber.
Based on my re-readings of the article, I thought the provisions of that law currently requires businesses to buy insurance for employees. The articles speculates on the effects of the Supreme Court nullifying the healthcare law.
"Among those set to implement the law, insurers would have to
Based on my re-readings of the article, I thought the provisions of that law currently requires businesses to buy insurance for employees. The articles speculates on the effects of the Supreme Court nullifying the healthcare law.
"Among those set to implement the law, insurers would have to
00
0
This is how I see it:
...the political world and health-care companies confronted the prospect of President Barack Obama's health law being wiped away.
Among those set to implement the law, insurers would have to ditch (1. NOW/FUTURE [if the law is wiped away]) changes to their businesses designed to bring in millions of new customers. Provisions that have alre
...the political world and health-care companies confronted the prospect of President Barack Obama's health law being wiped away.
Among those set to implement the law, insurers would have to ditch (1. NOW/FUTURE [if the law is wiped away]) changes to their businesses designed to bring in millions of new customers. Provisions that have alre
00
0
Suppose the Supreme Court have just now struck down that health care law. How should the original text be modified?
"Among those set to implement the law, insurers (would have, will have, have) to ditch changes to their businesses designed to bring in millions of new customers. Provisions that have already gone into effect, including letting children stay on their parents' insurance plan
"Among those set to implement the law, insurers (would have, will have, have) to ditch changes to their businesses designed to bring in millions of new customers. Provisions that have already gone into effect, including letting children stay on their parents' insurance plan
0
Related Questions