Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) turns one year old today, and despite the size and scope of this young monster and our staunch opposition to its existence, we at Wyoming Liberty Group would like to be good sports and wish this law a hearty happy birthday (though not so many more!).
Though the divide is strong over the costs, effects, and most importantly, principles behind this law, it continues to be the name itself that most confounds the discussion.
Thanks to the persistent efforts of certain pundits and politicians (some even in our own Wyoming Legislature), “ObamaCare”—a nickname that quickly attached to, well, ObamaCare, in its nascent stage— is to be considered pejorative, or “partisan.” (Never mind that it passed on pure partisan lines in both the House and Senate: it’s the nickname that’s partisan.) In other words, one is supposed to call it by either its given name, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” a shortened version of this such as “PPACA,” or, most palatable, the “Federal Act.”
Alas, as much as we respect the New Era of Civility, there’s something far more offensive to us about referring to this law by a name that is, at best, misleading and, far more likely, deceptive. ObamaCare’s exchanges will in all likelihood go the way of RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Its unconscionable and unconstitutional individual mandate will provide the federal government with power to exert intimate control over our lives if it’s upheld. And its “solutions” go so far as to defy logic. Yes, in spite of utterances to the contrary, it remains impossible to insure against pre-existing conditions.
We’ve seen HillaryCare, RomneyCare, BadgerCare… yet only now does a nickname after the lead proponent of a law become offensive (though I make no claims to speak for Wisconsin’s badger population).
Dare we say this high-hat offense taken at ObamaCare’s nickname is an attempt to pigeonhole opposition as “uncivil” so as to avoid discussing the content of the law? Perish the thought.
Let’s pop the champagne and get the birthday party started. After all, our mandated insurance covers substance abuse. If anyone’s feeling like a LexisNexis search, you may be surprised to learn that the earliest recorded reference to “ObamaCare” on that database came from one Wayne Madsen, writing an opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune back in April 2008 (a copy of which is available here):
Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama is advocating a bold and progressive plan that will move 47 million Americans not now covered by health insurance from the vulnerability rolls to the insured rolls.
….
Obama’s national health insurance program, let’s call it “ObamaCare,” provides Americans with affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
What was that line about being for something before being against it?
