« Coke's "linked liquid content" video: communication genius, or the ravings of a British opium fiend? | Main | "What is the meaning of this?" »

April 24, 2012


Feed 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.

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."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner