7 ms·

Um, I don't consider "Obamacare" emotional, I consider it neutral. I just think it's a catchy nickname for legislation. It is neither negative or positive.

• awj 13y ago
  > Um, I don't consider "Obamacare" emotional, I consider it neutral. Read some of the opposition to it. For many people it is not a neutral name.
• gnaritas 13y ago
  It doesn't matter what you consider it, it matters what others consider it and it most certainly is emotional to most. That the affordable care act polls higher than Obamacare should make that clear to you.
  • aestra 13y ago
    Ok, is it supposed to be negative or positive?
    • gnaritas 13y ago
      Not relevant.
      • aestra 13y ago
        Of course it's relevant. I (and every other person I know personally) have been calling it by it's shorthand Obamacare when discussing it and I would like to know if we have been using this "emotional" word to portray the bill positively or negatively.
  • jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    The real name isn't really neutral either. You have to consider at least a little bit that having the word "affordable" in the name is naturally going to bias people toward it. I doubt the Subsidized Care Act would poll very favorably.
    • gnaritas 13y ago
      The real name doesn't have to be neutral, it has the benefit of being the actual name and thus is correct to use when you are being neutral.
      • jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        You said: That the affordable care act polls higher than Obamacare should make that clear to you. So I meant during the polling... one name already had bias baked into it by using the word affordable rather than the word subsidized. Not many people are keen on subsidies when you call them subsidies. But if you just say something is now more affordable and don't tell people it is more affordable because it is subsidized, you have baked in a bias from the start. So naturally that bias is going to be reflected in more favorable polling results.