Skip to main content.

Dear journalists, can we please stop calling the ACA Obamacare?

Dear journalists, can we please stop calling the ACA Obamacare?

Picture of John Baackes
Reporters should stop using this politicized term as shorthand for the Affordable Care Act, argues CEO John Baackes.
Reporters should stop using this politicized term as shorthand for the Affordable Care Act, argues CEO John Baackes. (Photo: Joe Raedle / Staff)

I can recall few times in which the United States has been more polarized, and even fewer times in which the media has been under such attack and scrutiny from those in prominent positions of authority. The following is intended to be neither an attack, nor scrutiny — but merely a strong suggestion: Can we please stop referring to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as Obamacare?

With the lives of so many millions who depend on our health care system at stake, journalists are shouldering a huge responsibility to educate the public and illuminate areas of injustice that would otherwise go unseen. They are doing yeoman’s work. Are the semantics of our current health care system really that important in the grand scheme of things? Yes.

What’s in a name?

Obamacare is now a ubiquitous term used when discussing health care in the U.S. Indeed, even former President Obama himself embraced it. However, most Americans clearly don’t understand that Obamacare and the ACA are one and the same.

In a poll by NBC News, a majority of registered voters in Kentucky who were asked about health care had a negative view of “Obamacare,” but just 22 percent had an unfavorable view of “Kynect,” the state’s exchange created out of the ACA — even though they are fundamentally the same thing. Perception matters.  

More recently, a Morning Consult poll found that one-third of Americans don’t realize that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing.

Furthermore, the most vociferous opponents of the ACA have used “Obamacare” as a pejorative term for so many years now that it has become a demeaning and condescending synonym that helps justify the resistance to any attempts at stabilizing or improving it.

That is why it would be so much more beneficial to our collective understanding as a nation of voters and consumers of health care if we achieve this seemingly minor semantic victory.

And the role of the journalist is vital in this mission.

I’ve had conversations about this with reputable, intelligent journalists who have admitted to grappling with the same dilemma. “Do we use ‘Obamacare,’ adding fuel to the polarizing fire because the term is more widely recognizable? Or do we begin to phase it out since it has now become bigger than any one administration, and the term could potentially stymie progress?” they ask. I trust that there has been heated debate in many newsrooms on this very topic.

Why it matters

As the CEO of the largest publicly operated health plan in the U.S., I’m writing on behalf of the lives of millions of Americans who deserve access to affordable, quality health care. We manage the care of 2.1 million primarily low-income Los Angeles County residents, and many of them have benefitted from various aspects of the ACA. Most also stood to lose so much with each new iteration of proposed repeals.

For those of us whose lives are devoted to providing access to quality health care for people regardless of their economic situation, the ACA, while imperfect, created an opportunity for millions of our friends, neighbors and family members to have access to care and peace of mind that they would not be bankrupted by a major health issue.

I have personally seen the positive impact that has been made in the lives of individuals we are charged to protect, but make no mistake, I have also seen the challenges that remain with the ACA. There is undoubtedly more work that remains to be done to make our system more accessible, while improving the quality of care and becoming more streamlined and cost-effective. It will help those of us who are trying to make legitimate improvements to the ACA if it is not politicized every time it is referenced. Phasing out the use of Obamacare is a step in that direction.

In a world of fake news and polarizing rhetoric, we can do better, and it starts by choosing our words wisely.

Comments

Picture of

As a journalist who frequently covers ACA, I appreciate your comment and the reasons behind it. I use both terms, for the very reason that you mention. If we suddenly ONLY call it ACA, people will have the same issue - they won’t recognize it’s the same “Obamacare” plan that provides their coverage. We’re communicators. Accuracy is important and we want to be objective, not political. But if viewers don’t recognize what we’re talking about, we’ve failed. I agree that we need to transition, but gradually. First we need to educate people that “Obamacare” - which many recognize - and ACA - which many don’t - are one in the same. Using both terms for now to educate achieves that goal.

Picture of

John: I appreciate your article and the request to the media to stop calling the Affordable Care Act "Obama Care." This informal name for the ACA has confused many. It's a tradition for some politicians, PIOs, and journalists to develop a memorable phrase (e.g., Reaganomics) but it's not helpful. In fact, it is demeaning to former Pres. Obama, and also does not provide the appropriate credit to former Sen. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of ensuring that every American has access to health care.

Picture of

John,
I agree with you that "Obamacare" is a politicized and often pejorative name for the ACA. I wish it had never been coined or used. It sounds idiotic to me, just like "Trumpcare" did for some of the plans that CONGRESS, not Donald Trump, floated this year in their attempt to repeal the ACA. Use of this shortened and "popular" term is symptomatic of the "sound-bite" trends in journalism or "fast news" as I refer to it -- and that is not a compliment! (So many times, when news gets capsulized into "headline news" -- the ultimate story heard by people is just plain WRONG. Like the whole Michael Brown story in Ferguson, MO (he was NOT shot in the back while running away. Even some very educated people I knew believed this -- because apparently they only read the headlines)). I do believe that the primary role of journalists is to inform and educate the public -- so they should NOT be using this idiotic-sounding term (Obamacare). The suggestion of the one journalist to gradually phase it out is probably a good one. But they won't heed it. Just like they won't heed the social scientists who are urgently crying out for the media to stop glorifying the mass shootings -- thereby increasing the risk for copycat crimes.

Picture of

What are you talking about with regard to Michael Brown not being shot in the back? We saw the videotape, on television, of him running away and the policeman running after him during which he fell limply to the ground as he was shot. What alternative reality are you trying to spin? He was not shot before he ran and if you are trying to imply that he tripped and was then shot, that is even worse. He was unarmed.

Leave A Comment

Announcements

Want to improve your data journalism skills?  Apply now for the $2,000 California Data Fellowship -- four all-expenses-paid days of training on data acquisition, analysis and visualization, plus a $2,000 reporting grant and six months of expert mentoring.  Dates:  October 17-20. Deadline: August 27.

CONNECT WITH THE COMMUNITY

Member Activities

Luanne Rife has shared a blog post

Read it.

Neena Satija has shared a blog post

Read it.

Laura Ferguson joined the community

Connect with Laura Ferguson

Mc Nelly Torres has shared a blog post

Read it.

Priska Neely has shared a fellowship project

Read it.
More Member Activities

Follow Us

Facebook


Twitter

CHJ Icon
ReportingHealth