Monday, April 18, 2011

So what exactly CAN I call the new health care control law?

Supporters of the law object to the term "ObamaCare." Somehow it is insulting to refer to the law by the name of the President who worked so intensely to have it passed.

Am I really expected to call it the "Affordable Care Act" or the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" when I think it is neither affordable nor protective of patients? I find that insulting to my intelligence!

If supporters want us to refer to a law by its formal title, how about naming it something that's more descriptive and less propaganda.

"Explosive Regulatory Control of Health Care" ERCHC
"Massive Arbitrary Power to the Department of Health and Human Services Law" MAPDHHS
"Health Insurance as Public Utilities Law." (That one at least comes out with a pronounceable acronym: HIPUL.

Or if you prefer something neutral: The 2010 Health Care Reform Law.

Until politicians stop insulting us by titling their laws with such ludicrous names, they best be prepared to be insulted right back.



Keith said...

Good point, but I object to your last suggestion "2010 Health Care Reform Law." It is not a reform. It is not progressive, but retrogressive.

If civilization is the process of setting men free from men, this new law is the reversal of that. It subjects individuals to the alleged "public" interest but in fact the control of regulators. And it is one more step towards making the doctors into slaves.

How about the "Taking Over Doctors and Patients Act" (TODAPA)?

HaynesBE said...

I was trying to be neutral, not accurate. :)

Keith said...

Is there a dichotomy between them? :P