It's just my casual observation, but much of the rhetoric associated with the current debate about ObamaCare seems to focus on the use of the term
"The Lion's Share". Here are a few examples from discussions and articles on the web:
- "Young Adults Expected To Pay Lion’s Share For ObamaCare"
- "The younger folks are also wising up that they will be required to pay the lion's share for socialized medicine"
- "The lion’s share of the money will go to subsidizing 50-60 year olds with chronic illnesses, who as a group have much more resources than young people."
- "Everyone knows that Congress cannot cut Medicare....Who really believes that 'fraud and abuse' savings will fund the lion’s share of a $1 trillion plan. It is laughable...."
My point here is that persons discussing the consequences of the different variants of ObamaCare under consideration are seizing on the metaphor of "The Lion's Share" to conceptualize their various arguments.
But "The Lion's Share" is a rather fuzzy concept, with no agreed upon meaning as to how large a share is typically being represented as the lion's portion.