« Coke's "linked liquid content" video: communication genius, or the ravings of a British opium fiend? |
| "What is the meaning of this?" »
Let's try to isolate the problem: Is it "Obama" that's got your undies in a bunch? Or is it "care" to which you so strenuously object?
Posted at 05:53 AM | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Obama" doesn't have my undies in a bunch. And I don't object to "care." It's the two words put together -- to create an entirely new word and an entirely new meaning. Sort of like "Romneycare."
I also don't like what had to be done to create it and maintain it -- bribing Senators, carving out unions, handing out exemptions.
And for record, I don't like most of what President Obama's predecssor did, either. And don't get me started on Ron Paul. Or Newt.
April 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM
But of course Obama and his people weren't the ones who initially called it "Obamacare." It was a way to portray health care reform as one fool's mad brainstorm.
And not what it is, whether or not we like the convoluted means or the inelegant end: Our government's collective effort to meaningfully address a bleeding crisis it has been shamefully avoiding for all these years.
We can debate the merits of the policy, but I don't think "Obamacare" (or "Romneycare") is any more useful a term than would have been "Roosevelt's Bargain," or "LincolnWar."
David Murray |
April 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner