Stop Calling it Obamacare.

[Stoicish]

You know I just get angry whenever someone calls the new health care bill Obamacare.

Calling it Obamacare runs the assumption that Obama came up with the bill and is attempting to pass it through Congress himself. As if he has full control of legislative power.

Let's just go ahead and run through how government works.

Congress can propose and make bills.

The President can sign for them.

TA-DA! Civics 101.

Okay granted the President can urge congress to act on a certain issue, but that's roughly all he can do in Congress. Not to mention this current incarnation of the health care bill doesn't even represent what Obama originally wanted.

Also, calling it Obamacare is just petty.

Is this a topic supporting the health care bill? No and I'd remind you to actually keep enough focus for a moment to realize what I'm actually saying before opposition goes on some tangent about medicare, taxes and socialism.

No, this is just an angry rant about how one word sounds a little off-putting and petty.

[Korriken]

Don't you know the president always gets the credit/blame for whatever happens while he's in office?

[Stoicish]

Doesn't mean it's not stupid.

[Korriken]

At 1/19/10 01:27 PM, Stoicish wrote: Doesn't mean it's not stupid.

can't argue that.

[TheMason]

At 1/19/10 01:27 PM, Stoicish wrote: Doesn't mean it's not stupid.

Why don't you get your panties out of a bunch and look at it with less emotion.

You are correct that Obama did not (and could not) write any of the healthcare bills.

HOWEVER,

During the election he made this issue on of two centerpieces of his campaign when it concerned his domestic agenda. The other centerpiece, economic recovery, he tied in with healthcare saying you can't have long-term growth without healthcare reform.

Furthermore, his pushing the issue and throwing all of his political cred behind the passage.

All this means is that Obama himself has linked his presidency with this issue as his defining policy objective.

So yes my friend it is Obamacare.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/19/10 02:50 PM, TheMason wrote: So yes my friend it is Obamacare.

Then you are what? Nomason?

It isn't Obamacare, you just want to call it that to brand him with the results of what I'm sure he was aware would be very far from what he wanted. Meh, go back to pundit land.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/19/10 10:54 AM, Korriken wrote: Don't you know the president always gets the credit/blame for whatever happens while he's in office?

Uh huh, because it's a lot easier for the lazy voting public to be able to blame the one most public guy in government then it is to do some basic research and find out who and how many people in Congress voted for the things they don't like and then if one of them is their representative to vote them out. This is one of the reasons why Congressmen and women basically serve for life, people don't pay attention.

[Ioe]

I'm probably wrong, so tell me so, but... isn't the White House..kind of Democratic right now? As in Dems vs Repubs? And last time I checked, Obama is a Democrat, right? So he and around half the people there probably would like the bill to pass...
So, why can't it mean Obama's Administration/People with him, and not just him?
And anyways, 'Obamacare' works. Short, snappy, like the people like it.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/19/10 04:33 PM, Ioe wrote: So, why can't it mean Obama's Administration/People with him, and not just him?

Legislation is a conglomeration of multiple opinions & compromises. The actual product isn't a true reflection of any one individual. Most of the negatives are from the fringe groups that had to be catered to get it passed that lead to watered down language, special privileges (Nebraska), or freedom curtails (Abortion).

The only thing Obama did was hand them vague outline, which they then ignored pieces of, and tell them to keep moving.

It is inaccurate and dishonest to attribute this legislation to him, which is in the hands of congress until he gets to sign it. If you want to attribute things to the president, then you should focus instead on what he does or does not do with his executive powers (War, Law Enforcement, etc).

And anyways, 'Obamacare' works. Short, snappy, like the people like it.

People are stupid. We shouldn't give them more buzzwords as they can't handle/understand them.

[TheMason]

At 1/19/10 03:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/19/10 02:50 PM, TheMason wrote: So yes my friend it is Obamacare.

Then you are what? Nomason?

It isn't Obamacare, you just want to call it that to brand him with the results of what I'm sure he was aware would be very far from what he wanted. Meh, go back to pundit land.

Sorry Gum, but how about actually taking on my argument instead of throwing sloganish statements at it.

Yes, the final bill is not what Obama pushed for. However, that does not change the fact that he has been pushing for healthcare reform and has made that one of his top two items on his domestic agenda. He campaigned on healthcare reform! It is rather dishonest for him (and his supporters like you and Stoisch) to now turn around and try and distance the president from his main policy objective.

As for it not being what he wanted...why does he continue to push for something that is so flawed? Why is he and his administration leaning on Democratic Senators to keep them on-board?

Sorry...but yes this is Obamacare.

It's simple Civics 501. The president backs a domestic agenda and throws the weight of the White House behind it...the agenda becomes entwined with the presidential legacy.

FDR had the New Deal.
JFK had going to the Moon.
LBJ had Civil Rights.

None of these presidents wrote the bills that made these things happen. And yet history remembers these policies as 'theirs'. If healthcare passes it will be seen as an achievement of the White House...not the legislature.

So in the end...it is Obamacare.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/19/10 04:48 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes, the final bill is not what Obama pushed for. However, that does not change the fact that he has been pushing for healthcare reform and has made that one of his top two items on his domestic agenda. He campaigned on healthcare reform! It is rather dishonest for him (and his supporters like you and Stoisch) to now turn around and try and distance the president from his main policy objective.

So he doesn't get what he asks for, you readily admit they aren't his policies, and you still want to brand his name all over it for what reason? There's the real question, right there, which you won't answer.

As for it not being what he wanted...why does he continue to push for something that is so flawed? Why is he and his administration leaning on Democratic Senators to keep them on-board?

Something is better than nothing. Its not excellent. Its not great, it might not even be good enough, but the hope is that it'll be better than what we have right now.

[Ioe]

I agree with the reply to me, that makes plenty of sense.
I worded it badly, but I sort of meant, he's the most important (okay, pretty important?) guy who wants it passed. I know there's thousands of people, and tons of levels and departments and business involved, but he's Obama.

And isn't Obama the president. He's at the top. Being president means being the face of the government, too. Every President is the face of what happens in their office.
Aren't we still fighting "Bush's war"? (And the examples of other things from above posts.)
Is this Obama's office? Then it's Obama's healthcare.
If he doesn't like it, he could also stop advocating for it.

[adrshepard]

At 1/19/10 04:39 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

It is inaccurate and dishonest to attribute this legislation to him, which is in the hands of congress until he gets to sign it. If you want to attribute things to the president, then you should focus instead on what he does or does not do with his executive powers (War, Law Enforcement, etc).

Yes, and we should all crap like animals do and not have to wipe every single time.

People are stupid. We shouldn't give them more buzzwords as they can't handle/understand them.

How else are we supposed to get them to vote for us? Most people don't have the time or patience to form an educated opinion on issues.

[Stoicish]

At 1/19/10 06:30 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Yes, and we should all crap like animals do and not have to wipe every single time.

The hell are you talking about?

How else are we supposed to get them to vote for us? Most people don't have the time or patience to form an educated opinion on issues.

I blame Independent voters and, hell, I am an Independent.

[TheMason]

At 1/19/10 04:54 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So he doesn't get what he asks for, you readily admit they aren't his policies, and you still want to brand his name all over it for what reason? There's the real question, right there, which you won't answer.

Ummm...no I did answer the question. But I'll do it again:

Yes you are right...the bill that may get to his desk is not what he originally pushed. But he is continuing to fight for it. He has yet to say: "fuck it...this isn't what I think is right for the American people".

He has his biggest dog in the fight and he's still pushing for it. Passage of this bill is still the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

That is why it continues to be Obamacare.

As for it not being what he wanted...why does he continue to push for something that is so flawed? Why is he and his administration leaning on Democratic Senators to keep them on-board?

Something is better than nothing. Its not excellent. Its not great, it might not even be good enough, but the hope is that it'll be better than what we have right now.

1) You just made the same case I've been making.
2) I've had government run healthcare...the public option is in no way an improvement of what we have now.

[Stoicish]

You still haven't explained yourself for being off-putting and petty.

[Imperator]

At 1/19/10 09:04 PM, Stoicish wrote: You still haven't explained yourself for being off-putting and petty.

I'll explain it.....

As long as you explain why your thread is irritating and pedestrian.

If you're the one who finds him off-putting and petty, isn't it in your domain to explain why you feel that way? Otherwise, he's just guessing.

[Stoicish]

At 1/19/10 09:12 PM, Imperator wrote:
If you're the one who finds him off-putting and petty, isn't it in your domain to explain why you feel that way? Otherwise, he's just guessing.

Well, usually when I hear the word's "Obamacare" it is used as a term of attack rather than just a simple gauge in political dialogue i.e. "This healthcare bill sucks".

It also provides me with the assumption that the person thinks that the President is the person behind the scenes the entire time when that is, obviously, not the case.

I find it petty because it just feels like a partisan attack on something summed up in one word rather than actually tackling the issue as to why the person dislikes it.

If it is then it is usually backup by shallow words like "socialism" and "death panel".

To sum up, I think its rather irritating and is an indication that the person would rather use petty attacks then actually gauge in healthy discussion.

[SadisticMonkey]

Stop calling them the "tea bag protests" and then I might consider it.

[freddorfman]

*sigh* This is why we cant have nice things......

[Musician]

At 1/19/10 08:42 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes you are right...the bill that may get to his desk is not what he originally pushed. But he is continuing to fight for it. He has yet to say: "fuck it...this isn't what I think is right for the American people".

He has his biggest dog in the fight and he's still pushing for it. Passage of this bill is still the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

That is why it continues to be Obamacare.

But don't you see that you just made the argument for why it shouldn't be called Obamacare? It's not Obama's bill anymore. Sure he has had his fair say in it, but there have been huge alterations made to the bill by congress from both republicans, democrats, independants. Obama may support it, but then again so do many other people in congress, we could more accurately call it congress-a-care at this point. But hey, that particular buzz word won't rile up the frothing masses like "Obamacare" now will it?

[poxpower]

At 1/19/10 04:48 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/19/10 03:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/19/10 02:50 PM, TheMason wrote:

Sorry Gum, but how about actually taking on my argument instead of throwing sloganish statements at it.

I think it's ironic that you use the term "sloganish statement" as a sloganish statement in defense of Obamacare, another sloganish statement.

It's just a catchy name people. If there was a way to fuse "Iraq" with "Bush", then we'd have done it. But.. Bushraq? Doesn't sound awesome.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/20/10 01:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Stop calling them the "tea bag protests" and then I might consider it.

Aren't they doing that though because the individuals involved have publicly and happily identified their group as the "tea baggers"? Because that's what I thought was up with that.

Also in fairness, if Obama signs in a healthcare bill, even if it's a bill he isn't entirely happy with...well then yeah, he is going to rightly have his presidency tied to it. If that bills comes across his desk and he goes "fuck no, this isn't what I asked for" and he vetoes it, then it truly isn't his. I'd say it all comes down to what gets done with that pen when the final legislation reaches him.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 1/20/10 02:46 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Aren't they doing that though because the individuals involved have publicly and happily identified their group as the "tea baggers"? Because that's what I thought was up with that.

No, they identify themselves as part of the tea party movement/protests.
"Tea baggers" is a term used by Keith Olbermann and company

[TheMason]

At 1/19/10 09:04 PM, Stoicish wrote: You still haven't explained yourself for being off-putting and petty.

Nor do I have to. Me, personally, when I say 'Obamacare' I'm saying it from the standpoint that this is the issue that he has made the conscious decision to link his presidency to. He was the one, not the Republicans or Libertarians, who made the decision to be the face and champion of healthcare reform.

If it passes it will be forever be his bill, his agenda and his achievement. Just like FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with Civil Rights legislation.

If I am being petty and off-putting when I say 'Obamacare' it is because of your own baggage regarding the term. You are making assumptions about my use of the term.

Yes, some people are using it for an attack. But not everyone, and not me.

I for one find your offense to be quite offensive. ;)

At 1/20/10 01:55 AM, Musician wrote: But don't you see that you just made the argument for why it shouldn't be called Obamacare? It's not Obama's bill anymore. Sure he has had his fair say in it, but there have been huge alterations made to the bill by congress from both republicans, democrats, independants. Obama may support it, but then again so do many other people in congress, we could more accurately call it congress-a-care at this point. But hey, that particular buzz word won't rile up the frothing masses like "Obamacare" now will it?

We're talking about 'zeitgeist' here. Accuracy doesn't matter. Obama has essentially spend all of his political capital on this one issue...whether or not it is the bill of his dreams. He went to Mass. to stump for Coakley because he needed her to ensure passage of this bill.

So yes, you and Stoisch are correct that is not what he wants...he continues to stump for it and push for it with all of his political capital. He is fully invested in it, and has yet to relinquish (in terms of public relations) ownership of the policy.

So it remains 'Obamacare'.

At 1/20/10 02:08 AM, poxpower wrote:

I think it's ironic that you use the term "sloganish statement" as a sloganish statement in defense of Obamacare, another sloganish statement.

It is, isn't it? :)

It's just a catchy name people. If there was a way to fuse "Iraq" with "Bush", then we'd have done it. But.. Bushraq? Doesn't sound awesome.

I wonder how Stoisch and Musician would feel about the term if healthcare would have passed smoothly?

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/20/10 07:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No, they identify themselves as part of the tea party movement/protests.

This much I knew.

"Tea baggers" is a term used by Keith Olbermann and company

Could have sworn I heard that they had somewhat "officially" (as official as a non-actual loosely organized political party or movement can do anything anyway) accepted the tag and that's why people other then Keith Olberman were using it to describe them.

[TheMason]

At 1/20/10 02:17 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Could have sworn I heard that they had somewhat "officially" (as official as a non-actual loosely organized political party or movement can do anything anyway) accepted the tag and that's why people other then Keith Olberman were using it to describe them.

No it's pretty much what Poxy said; it is a catchy term.

It was started by left-leaning comedians like Olbermann, Mahr and Garofallo (sp?). Unlike 'Obamacare', it is actually pretty funny and just ripe for late night talk shows and things like SNL.

As for an offical adoption I don't really think so...but I could be wrong.

[Warforger]

I'd love to see Palin a month after she gets elected, it'll probably be the same situation "PALIN SUCKS WHY DID WE ELECT SUCH A HORRIBLE LEADER"

At 1/19/10 02:50 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/19/10 01:27 PM, Stoicish wrote: Doesn't mean it's not stupid.

Why don't you get your panties out of a bunch and look at it with less emotion.

You are correct that Obama did not (and could not) write any of the healthcare bills.

HOWEVER,

During the election he made this issue on of two centerpieces of his campaign when it concerned his domestic agenda. The other centerpiece, economic recovery, he tied in with healthcare saying you can't have long-term growth without healthcare reform.

Furthermore, his pushing the issue and throwing all of his political cred behind the passage.

All this means is that Obama himself has linked his presidency with this issue as his defining policy objective.

So yes my friend it is Obamacare.

So Bushwar is the war against Terror? TERROR TERROR TERROR

[JeremyLokken]

In WoW, I had a death knight named Obamacare. He was OP from the beginning, and he went around killing all the alliance very easily. I had messages like "Health reform to the Horde!" and "Death panels to all!" Conclusion: Obamacare is instant celebrity in mmorpgs, and lots of angry random rants.

[SmilezRoyale]

Politics rests upon ideology, and using catchy names to describe something, either to advance or ridicule it, is an easy and effective tool of control. And identifying a policy with one man is common even when the policy is implemented through congress.