American politics today seems to thrive on emotionally charged rhetoric and marketing-heavy names that are designed to persuade, rather than inform. This has been a longstanding issue, but its impact has become more severe as the speed of media and political discourse increases. Two prime examples of this problem are the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Vermont’s Affordable Heat Act (AHA)—also known as the Clean Heat Standard (CHS), which is technically Vermont Senate Bill S.5. Both bills were given names that evoke positive associations with affordability, but in reality, they tell a much more complex story, often leaving citizens misled and creating division rather than fostering healthy debate.

The Affordable Care Act: A Lesson in Misleading Marketing

The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, was hailed as a solution to rising healthcare costs. The name alone set an expectation in the minds of millions of Americans—that healthcare would become more affordable. Yet, after the law’s implementation, many people saw their healthcare premiums and deductibles rise, particularly for those who did not qualify for subsidies. In some cases, healthcare became less affordable for those in the middle class, who found themselves paying more for insurance and receiving fewer options in return.

The name “Affordable Care Act” created a false sense of assurance that healthcare costs would go down. But the name didn’t reflect the complexities or trade-offs embedded in the legislation. This use of a feel-good name led to confusion and disappointment as the reality of rising costs set in for many Americans.

The ACA is a textbook example of how persuasion tactics like emotional appeal and framing can obscure the truth. By calling it “Affordable,” the architects of the bill shaped public perception before most people understood its full scope. As a result, meaningful debate about the merits and drawbacks of the law was stifled by a name that many found to be misleading.

Vermont’s Affordable Heat Act (AHA) or Clean Heat Standard (CHS)

Fast forward to Vermont in 2023, where the same strategy has been employed with the Affordable Heat Act, officially known as Senate Bill S.5 or the Clean Heat Standard (CHS). The bill is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heating by encouraging a transition to cleaner energy sources like heat pumps, weatherization, and biofuels. It aims to reduce Vermont’s reliance on fossil fuels for home heating and aligns with the state’s broader environmental goals.

However, like the ACA, the AHA’s name is misleading. The word “Affordable” suggests that heating costs will decrease for Vermont residents, but that’s not necessarily true, at least not in the short term. Many Vermonters, especially those in rural areas or lower-income households, could face higher costs as they are encouraged or forced to transition to more expensive, cleaner heating alternatives. Installing heat pumps or upgrading systems requires a significant financial investment, and while the law offers incentives, the subsidies may not fully cover these expenses for everyone. Moreover, biofuels can be costlier and less available, adding to the immediate financial burden.

What’s more troubling is that Vermont legislators running for re-election have been using the term Affordable Heat Act instead of Clean Heat Standard in their campaigns, likely in an attempt to soften the political blowback from the bill’s potential economic impact. The name “Affordable Heat Act” feels less threatening and more appealing, which misleads voters into thinking this is purely a cost-saving initiative. The truth is, the AHA, much like the ACA, involves substantial upfront costs for many Vermonters, with potential savings only arriving in the long term, if at all.

In fact, the marketing around the Affordable Heat Act is so effective that even informed voters initially believed the AHA and CHS were two different bills. This is exactly the kind of confusion that arises when legislators rely on emotionally charged names rather than being transparent about what a bill does.

The Clean Heat Standard (CHS): What S.5 Proposes to Do

The Clean Heat Standard (S.5) is part of Vermont’s strategy to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals by transitioning homes and businesses away from fossil fuels for heating. The CHS mandates that companies selling heating fuel in Vermont must reduce the carbon intensity of the fuels they sell or purchase credits that support cleaner heating technologies, like heat pumps or biofuel alternatives. The aim is to reduce carbon emissions from heating by promoting energy efficiency and cleaner energy sources.

However, this mandate will likely increase heating costs in the short term as companies pass on the added costs of compliance to consumers. Vermont’s government is offering some subsidies and incentives to encourage the adoption of cleaner heating technologies, but the process of switching will still be expensive for many residents, especially those in older homes that require significant upgrades.

The Harmful Effects of Misleading Names

The use of misleading names like “Affordable Care Act” and “Affordable Heat Act” distorts the public’s ability to engage in healthy, productive debate. Instead of focusing on the real costs, benefits, and challenges of a bill, people are drawn into debates framed by emotional language. When voters are primed to believe that a law will make something more affordable, even in cases where the opposite is true, it not only harms trust in government but also creates unnecessary division among neighbors who might otherwise find common ground.

These marketing-driven names do a disservice to the public. They manipulate perception, gaslight citizens into doubting their own experiences, and obscure the true impact of legislation. When voters are not fully informed or are misled by emotionally charged names, it becomes nearly impossible to engage in a rational, fact-based discussion about the merits and drawbacks of a policy.

The Solution: Present Bills by Their Numbers and Honest Summaries

The solution is simple but effective: present bills by their numbers—such as S.5 for the Clean Heat Standard—accompanied by an honest summary of what the legislation proposes to do. While this approach may not grab headlines or win elections as easily as a feel-good name, it fosters transparency and encourages thoughtful debate. By stripping away the marketing, lawmakers can help restore public trust and allow citizens to engage with the facts, rather than being swayed by emotional rhetoric.

When the public understands the true nature of a bill, they can make informed decisions and engage in healthy discourse with their neighbors. Misleading names, on the other hand, only serve to deepen divides and perpetuate a cycle of mistrust and confusion.

Conclusion: Honesty Over Hype

The emotional manipulation seen with both the Affordable Care Act and the Affordable Heat Act demonstrates how political marketing often overrides transparency. If lawmakers truly want to foster trust and open debate, they must present legislation impartially, using bill numbers and honest descriptions of the contents. This approach, while less glamorous, would reduce confusion, encourage rational discourse, and prevent the kind of division that misleading names so often create.

It’s time for honesty in legislation. Citizens deserve to engage with facts, not emotionally charged rhetoric, and it starts with calling bills by what they truly are—not what sounds good.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #LegislativeTransparency #NoMoreSpin #TruthInPolicy

Click Here To Support FYIVT!