What’s in a Name? Obamacare v. Affordable Care Act

Over the past several months I have had conversations with family and friends about health care concerns that face our nation. We’ve discussed possible solutions for families who cannot afford health insurance, the anxiety we have when someone is denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and other issues that face the United States. In these conversations I have offered my thoughts about the proposed solutions to these problems as outlined in the new healthcare law, or PPACA.

In these conversations I’m often asked,

“Boo, What is the PPACA?”

I respond, “The PPACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; it was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on March 23rd 2010.”

With confusion in their eyes, I continue, “have you heard of Obamacare?”

Immediately, this is the term that registers. What I find discouraging is often those I speak with begin to voice their concerns about Obamacare, disregarding that much of what we had just discussed about health care is remedied by the PPACA. After listening to their concerns I point out that Obamacare is the PPACA!

Unfortunately, although many people support the substance of the new healthcare law, such as the creation of insurance exchanges and eliminating the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, many reject the law because of who passed it. Research has shown that those who oppose Obamacare in reality favor the laws contained in the PPACA.

In fact, a recent study by Reuters/Ipsos clearly shows that voters will vote as a result of their political affiliation rather than their opinion of the policy.

  • 80% of Republicans favor “creating an insurance pool where small businesses and those who are uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.”
  • 57% of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance.”
  • 78% percent of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions”
  • 86% of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.”

All of these policies are in the PPACA. Nevertheless, it was found that 75% of Republicans oppose Obamacare, which is the PPACA!

I’ll never claim that everyone should agree with federal healthcare legislation. As citizens of the United States, when we disagree with a proposed law from the government, we are entitled to voice our opinion. What I find disturbing, is when our ideals are so strongly attached to a political party that we immediately disregard anything proposed by those of different political affiliations. Yes, the PPACA has more liberal connotations than conservative, and yes, it was a law signed by a president who belongs to the Democratic Party. That does not mean if you are a registered Republican you are mandated to oppose the entire law.

Before writing off the PPACA, please take the time to read about it, study and formulate an opinion free of political bias.

Leave a Comment

6 thoughts on “What’s in a Name? Obamacare v. Affordable Care Act”

  1. Most insurance companies have become so “profit driven” as opposed to providing a needed service for a fair profit.

    Their is a disproportionate and abusive amount of profit/compensation for the service they provide.

    The founding concept of insurance was that a lot of people would pool manageable amounts of money together, to pay for the more “devastating and catastrophic but less-likely-to-happen” events. And those who managed this money and logistics, be compensated for said management.

    And now it’s about “wall street” value and how much can they make for stockholders.

    Bottom line, the profits they are making is way excessive for the service provided.

  2. Mary Ellen Navas

    Alex, How about submitting a shortened version of this to the SL Tibune as a Letter to the Editor or an op-ed?

  3. Most insurance companies have become so “profit driven” as opposed to providing a needed service for a fair profit.

    Their is a disproportionate and abusive amount of profit/compensation for the service they provide.

    The founding concept of insurance was that a lot of people would pool manageable amounts of money together, to pay for the more “devastating and catastrophic but less-likely-to-happen” events. And those who managed this money and logistics, be compensated for said management.

    And now it’s about “wall street” value and how much can they make for stockholders.

    Bottom line, the profits they are making is way excessive for the service provided.

  4. Mary Ellen Navas

    Alex, How about submitting a shortened version of this to the SL Tibune as a Letter to the Editor or an op-ed?

    1. I agree this could make an excellent article in for the SL Tribune. might turn some heads

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top