The Glade 4.0

I've never heard any spoken news source refer to it as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." I don't think I've seen it here on this board, either, even from liberal posters.

Google reports 757,000 hits for "Obamacare," 48,100 hits for "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," and only 24,900 hits for "PPACA." So "Obamacare" dwarfs the usage of the actual name of the Act by a 10:1 ratio. Unless you think that "people who absolutely hate it" make up 10x as much discussion of it, I think your argument is pretty weak.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

994,000 hits for "Universal Health Care"

7,270,000 hits for "health care bill"

2,930,000 hits for "health care overhaul"

626,000 hits for "democrats health care plan"

1,660,000 hits for "healthcare reform bill".

2,800,000 hits for "health care reform bill"

So no - Obamacare is not the "accepted" term. It's a biased term meant to have negative connotations.

Don't forget, lib is a racial slur for blue people.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Yeah, because that's even close to the same.

/thumbs up

And your other ones are also loaded language. "Universal Health Care" -- it isn't.
"Healthcare Reform" -- reform implies improvement; whether you believe it is improvement or not, surely you can see the bias inherent in that label?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

And anything referring to it as a bill is obsolete.

_________________

Also very true.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Not really - the bill sucks, but it was intended to reform. Regardless:

1) if you think "Healthcare reform" is biased, then surely you think "Obamacare" is biased.
2) Obamacare is not the term most widely accepted (per Google, your chosen method of comparison)

And irrelevant.

Obamacare is only biased if you think that Obama is a slur. If you're an Obama supporter, it would be praise.

The association of Obama and the agenda he pushes is neutral in and of itself.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Holy Christ, you guys will squabble over anything.

Kaffis,

Is the opening post article biased, or not?

Its tone does lead me to believe they are not fans, yes. Calling it Obamacare is not part of that tone, though. Calling out the many failures and shortcomings the article discusses is what contributes to the tone, along with the ridicule heaped upon the failures in an "I told you so" fashion.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

And the points brought up in the OP opinion piece and the numbers supporting the discussion from NPR?

Being in possession of any amount of reason and logic alone has a tendency to bias one against Obama's health care "plan." I'm fully in favor of universal health care.

As Kaffis says, that's not what this is.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is why I provided a list of reasons why I thought it was biased. So my point would remain without me having to get bogged down defending one of many examples that some guy might not have agreed with.

So - we agree.

Welcome to the Glade.

/bonk

Don't know, and here's why. An exceptionally biased article, which I believe this to be, may very well have a solid point and present factual numbers. However, by the time I get to these numbers, so many alarms have been set off in my head that I must now verify these numbers from at least one other source before I buy into it. I have not done this, nor do I intend to. Instead, I just said (in my first post) "IF these numbers are accurate, that's pretty sad."

It actually annoys me, because this guy could totally have a solid point, and he's watering it down with bias. If you have a solid point, let it speak for itself.

^this.

I'm against any government involvement with public health care at all, but I can't stand sloppy sensationalism like the article in the OP.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Dude, you were the one that claimed Obamacare is biased in the first place. I'll grant you that it's a little biased, but really it's not exactly a smoking gun of yellow journalism.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

LMFAO, game.. set.. match.

Good Show Aizle.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

You started it.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

It's a biased information piece targeted at the demographic that will more than likely read it. It uses phrases that grab their attention and keep it through the article. Isn't that the point of writing it? If we wanted an unbiased table of information, wouldn't we just look up the bill itsself?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

No, because even the people that wrote it couldn't be arsed to read the bloody thing.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So are all subsequent terms you're attempting to use. Furthermore, your searching on those matters hold no weight, as you've been unable to restrict them to only the US, whereas Kaffis' search, by its nature, does exactly that.



Are you going to argue that this is not misleading and is perfectly accurate?[/quote]

Yes, because I actually know what is in the bill (well, more than most of the congressmen who passed it anyway). That being said, what I find misleading here is that you're refusing to acknowledge one of the biggest reasons we allegedly "had to" pass this bill: to help those denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. This sentence from the OP article speaks specifically to that reason, and your conflation of the topic or defensiveness about the law are leading you, in my opinion, to view the article in a negative light.

Amusingly (to me at least), if you'd said this author was myopic or narrow-minded about the issue and the article failed to retain perspective, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly. Misleading and biased? Marginally so, perhaps, if at all.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

And was only one of several examples, and not worth squabbling over.