It’s hardly something new for the targets of a pejorative term to respond by deciding to claim and own the term themselves. ‘Queer’ is the now-classic example, with ‘bitch,’ ‘nerd,’ and ‘geek,’ among others, following in its wake.
It can be a very effective way of turning the tables on one’s detractors. In this case, it carries a certain “I’m not gonna run away from this” sense to it.
At this point, I don’t think that Obama himself could do anything directly about the use of the “Obamacare” label. If he pushes for it to be used by its proper name too much, it will look like he’s trying to distance himself from it (as noted above). I think the only thing he can do at this point is to call it the ACA, but completely ignore when others call it by it’s more popular name.
Because it was used extensively as a pejorative. From a recent NY Times story about the term (note the third paragraph):
The expression Obamacare first was used in early 2007, according to research by Elspeth Reeve at The Atlantic magazine, generally by writers describing the candidate’s proposal for expanding coverage for the uninsured. The first use of it by a political figure she found was actually in September 2007 by none other than former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the Republican then as now running for president.
At the time, Mr. Romney was arguing for more incremental changes in the health care system to avoid what he saw as the more radical approach of the Democrats. “It’ll be what’s known as Hillarycare or Barack Obamacare or whatever you want to call it,” he said.
After the law passed in early 2010, the phrase took off as a conservative label, particularly in that year’s midterm elections as Republicans running against the program captured the House and increased their numbers in the Senate.
[/quote]
It seems like a fair usage to me. Plenty of laws have official names that don’t match up with how the public refers to them. Through media and popular usage, virtually everyone knows what Obamacare is, but quite a few don’t know that it’s proper name is PPACA. Sure, some conservatives use it as a pejorative, but that’s because they see adding Obama’s name itself as a pejorative in the same way that a number of liberals would see attaching Bush’s name as a way of dismissing the legislation. But the thing is, the opponents of the legislation will be dismissive no matter what, so why not simply embrace the popular usage, particularly since it’s not plainly negative, and remove that language as an attack method?
Beyond that, like it or not, the legislation is one of the major points of Obama’s presidency thus far and, presuming his lead carries him to a second term, will likely be one of the major points of his legacy, and it’s a point for which he is proud, so it only makes sense that his name should be attached to it.
Besides, I’ve heard plenty worse pejoratives for the bill, notably the rather uncreative “Obama Don’t Care” or “Unaffordable Care Act” because, supposedly calling it by it’s name is misrepresentative since it’s not actually affordable or something or other.
I always felt it was pejorative. Come to find out, crow’s pretty tasty when it’s prepared right.
I agree the name will probably fade as people get used to the Act and Obama is no longer out of office. So, will it go back to being called the ACA, or will it get named after some name on a form? I kind of like Bricker’s calling it “the Act” upthread, and will begin adopting it immediately. It’s totally ambiguous and a little bit spooky. Maybe we can sneak it into common usage.
Dollars to donuts it will become the Affordable Care Act again a decade from now when it stands and it’s a conservative plank.
It’s kind of like The Big Bang Theory (not the show) - coined as an insult, but then adopted.
I can understand why Obama has accepted it now. All those kids with health insurance again, and people getting rebate checks, might associate their good fortune with Obama, especially as the doom and gloom predicted by the Republicans hasn’t happened.
Didn’t he campaign against having a mandate? I thought that was a clear difference between what was passed versus what he campaigned for. Seems like it would more properly be referred to as Hillarycare.
It Was Clinton vs. Obama on Health Care
[Quote=NY Times 11/16/07]
“The only difference between Senator Clinton’s health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated — forced — them to get health care,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not what I’m seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They desperately want it. But the problem is they can’t afford it.”
Many experts in health care agree that without a mandate, some people would not get coverage. The Clinton campaign puts that figure at 15 million people.
The Obama campaign argues that a mandate might not be enforceable, and that if health insurance is affordable and attractive, most people will enroll.
[/QUOTE]
This.
Yes.
Two problems with that: Hillarycare was the derisive name for the unsuccessful Clinton administration effort in the early '90s, and she’s not president now and had nothing to do with getting the law passed.
You mean when it’s a conservative plank again. 
You have more faith in the reasonableness of conservatives than I do. Ten years from now they’ll be out there with their “Keep the government out my my Obamacare” signs.
The reason why it is derogatory is that it gives Obama the appearance of arrogance. As if he were taking the responsibility to care for Americans: rugged individualists who don’t appreciate government interference with their lives. In reality, the act was the result of tortured sessions and compromise (America’s healthcare system now almost resembles Singapore’s IIRC, rather than any European provider) and originated as a Heritage Foundation plan.
I don’t think it will fade away much at all-by sticking that label on his signature legislation, Repubs have ensured that, if the law does endure, that Obama (and by association, the Dems) will retain a pretty hefty legacy.
Didn’t Romney state during the debate when he was addressing it, “Obamacare…no offense…” and Obama responded “It’s okay, I like it”. Why would Romney say “no offense” if it wasn’t intended as an insult?
He didn’t say “no offense” he said “I use that term with all respect.” I’m sure Romney knew that the Obama administration had come to embrace the term, and everyone apparently agrees it is not a pejorative.
I always thought it was kind of dumb of the GOP to use the term. It links the ACA to a popular already existing gov’t health program (medicare) and a at the time popular political figure who still has a decent job approval and high likeability numbers (Obama).
Obviously it was an attempt to link it to “Hillarycare”, which probably helps a little with the base, but I don’t think the general public has much animosity towards Hillary any more, and even fewer remember anything one way or another about Hillarycare. Everyone is still familiar with Medicare and Obama.
I never liked the term, not because of it being pejorative, but because it strikes me as inaccurate. It makes it sound like Obama came up with the bill and Congress just passed it. When in actuality, the entirety of the bill was hammered out in Congress (mostly in the Senate), and Obama did little other than sign it. It would be more apt to call it Reidcare.
If it is successful and popular Fox will refer to it as Obama®-care.
HA!
I love it.
I’m glad to see our president embracing the term. It is a good thing, he fought hard for it, and he deserves to take the credit. I’ve advocated that he do so for a long time. Much better, anyway, than pee-packer. (PPACA)