Facts:

Congressional majority voted in favor of it, then Obama signed it, turning it into the law of the land. All those individuals were voted into their jobs by the American people, by a majority of voters.

The Supreme Court then upheld it.

The same President who, as you said, pushed for it, and signed it into law, and who was the candidate of the very party which also comprised the overwhelming majority of the Congressional votes which turned it into law, was then chosen by a majority of voters to be re-elected as President for a second term.

Now, that law is starting to finally go fully into effect.

This is how government works. All the key players above were either elected directly (or put into place indirectly by the former) by a majority of American voters. Your side (I assume), lost. It happens. This is a democracy.

Using your logic, you shouldn't call Social Security Social Security you should call it FDR Forced Set Asides. Because you know, nobody likes being forced by the government to set aside their hard earned cash by some politician, and one who's personally and solely responsible for that happening. And which has absolutely no upside to it at all, of course. But wait, that wouldn't be true. So people don't do that. They call it Social Security. Because that is it's name, and is less loaded, and more politically neutral.

So I meant during the polling... one name already had bias baked into it by using the word affordable rather than the word subsidized. Not many people are keen on subsidies when you call them subsidies. But if you just say something is now more affordable and don't tell people it is more affordable because it is subsidized, you have baked in a bias from the start. So naturally that bias is going to be reflected in more favorable polling results.

Read some of the opposition to it. For many people it is not a neutral name.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym