Does health-care law need title reform?
Monday, December 27, 2010
Puh-pack-uh? Is that some kind of llama?
In fact, it's the ungainly acronym of the new health-care law - PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Many people who support the law, or are neutral toward it, call it "puh-pack-uh" or "pee-pack-uh." Others call it the Affordable Care Act or plain old health-care reform.
But those less-than-inspiring monikers aren't much help to Democrats trying to convince the public that "Obamacare" - the Republicans' pejorative name for the law - is worth keeping, said Robert J. Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Democratic pollsters concede that there is a problem.
"We do need a common narrative that includes a name," said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners. "When Obama's job performance improves, it will be fine to call it Obamacare. Now, it is polarizing."
Mark Mellman, another Democratic pollster, says that the title Patient Protection and Accountable Care Act highlights important aspects of the law, but that "it's wonky, clunky language."
Names of legislation, he said, should "summarize something important for people to organize their thinking."
Indeed, constructing catchy-sounding acronyms for legislation, as well as other things, is a long tradition on Capitol Hill.
In the early 1990s, Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) announced his health-care bill would be called the HEART Act. Asked by a reporter what HEART stood for, Chafee said he would figure it out later; the important thing was getting people to start using the warm-and-fuzzy acronym. In 1999, Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.) gave the Education and Labor Committee a new name - the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, or HELP.
These days, White House officials generally refer to the new health-care law as the Affordable Care Act. Blendon says that doesn't help Democrats much because "people don't believe the law will make health care more affordable."
Mellman agrees that there is a widespread view that costs are on the rise because of the law - even though supporters say that view is inaccurate.
"Members of Congress are hearing it right and left," he said. "People's premiums went up last year and [Democrats] said it had nothing to do with the bill. When they went up this year, people said, 'Hah!' and they linked it [to the law], even though there probably was no connection."