Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz suggested last week that the term “ObamaCare” was disparaging and shouldn’t be allowed on the House floor: House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning’s debate over whether to defund last year’s healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law “ObamaCare.” After two House Republicans called it “ObamaCare,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these “disparaging” remarks should be allowed on the House floor. “That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that,” she said. I’ve found myself referring to the health care reform law in different ways depending on the context or mood of the post I’m writing. Sometimes, it’s appropriate to use the legal name of the bill, but as James Joyner pointed out a couple months ago, that’s as much a product of political propaganda as the term Obamacare is: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a great example of propagandistic bill naming. What heartless bastard could oppose protecting patients? And who doesn’t want care to be affordable? That the act in question will provide very little in the way of protection and even less to ensure affordability, though, makes it a rather silly name. And PPACA doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue as an acronym or initialism. ObamaCare, by contrast, is short, memorable, and nonjudgmental. It has a nice parallelism with Medicare, a very popular program with similar goals, and correctly identifies the president who pushed it through Congress. And, even as one who opposed Obama’s election and the passage of this act, the term “ObamaCare” doesn’t conjure up negative imagery. Indeed. Besides, who could think that “ObamaCare” is disparaging? It’s got “Obama” and “Care” in there…. From The Hill: House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning’s debate over whether to defund last year’s healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law “ObamaCare.” After two House Republicans called it “ObamaCare,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these “disparaging” remarks should be allowed on the House floor. “That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that,” she said. Because Wasserman Schultz only asked if it would be appropriate to curb the use of the term “ObamaCare,” the chairman said he would not rule on a hypothetical. But he did urge members to “refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general.” The indirect warning had no effect on Republicans. Rep. Denny Rehberg (Mont.), who sponsored the amendment to defund the law, said he refers to it as ObamaCare and said, “You would think he wants his name attached to his signature legislation. “So we call it what it is,” he continued. “It is ObamaCare. It’s a travesty. It is big government. It is not controlling healthcare costs, and it needs to be repealed and today we’re going to try to defund it to the best of our ability. And if we’re not successful this time, we’re going to try again and again and again until we either have a Senate that’s willing to pass it or a president that understands that we cannot do this to the American people.” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) followed Rehberg, and within minutes also called the law “ObamaCare.”