Obamacare

But Enough About ObamaCare…

|

Health care tomorrow, health care yesterday, but never ever health care today?

A new CNN poll reports that a large majority of the public believes that the new health care law will be fairly important in determining how they vote in November.

Eighty-three percent of respondents said healthcare was "extremely" or "very" important in determining their vote for Congress. Only five other issues — the economy, unemployment, the deficit, terrorism and government ethics — were deemed more important.

But according to The Daily Caller's Jon Ward, the Obama administration doesn't seem all that interested in talking about the law that will likely remain the president's signature initiative. Ward looked over the White House's daily messaging initiatives from 53 days during the summer, and found that health care was rarely the administration's focus:

The most glaring omission from Obama's messaging is the health care bill that passed Congress in March. Although Obama and congressional Democrats promised to vigorously defend the bill as they headed toward midterm elections, he has only made health care the focus on two of his 53 summer messaging days. The last time he did so was on June 22.

NEXT: 3 Signs The Republicans Aren't Serious About Cutting The Size & Scope of Government When They Get Back in Office

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They are trying like pretty hard to hide from their mistake. Would you do anything to give rise to more town hall meetings prior to a midterm election?

    1. It’s kinda like when your dog pees on the carpet and hopes you don’t notice.

      1. To be fair, dogs don’t really have good memory.

        1. Neither does this administration.

  2. Obama ought to talk about that mosque in lower Manhattan. Lotta political points to pick up there.

  3. Hey, McSuderman, did you see this claim that Medicare Part D is the first government health care plan to actually beat its spending estimates, and considerably? (It says “In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.” IIRC, the estimates before the bill were passed were lower than the estimates after it was enacted.)

    Naturally, Obamacare supporters are arguing that this proves that Obama’s plan will come under the numbers, since Obama is obviously way smarter and more competent than Bush.

    1. That goes against the “Medicare Part D is bankrupting us” fairy tail. Also if you will remember liberals hated Medicare Part D because they said it was a sell out to evil drug companies. Its supporters said it was more free market than medicare and would cost less than projected and act as a model for future free market reforms.

      It is looking like its supporters were right.

      1. That goes against the “Medicare Part D is bankrupting us” fairy tail.

        Not really. “Didn’t cost as much as forecast” does not mean “reduced spending.”

        When you save ten bucks on a video game, does that mean you have ten bucks more than you would have if you hadn’t bought the damn thing at all?

        1. But 60 billion a year is peanuts. And if it is coming in under budget, that is a good sign that the costs are not going to explode and eat the budget like medicare. Further, why is it coming under budget? It is doing that because it is more of voucher system that relies on the free market.

          It out to be used as an argument against central control systems. Indeed, that is why the liberals hated it so much. They were afraid that it would come in under budget and stand as a threat to other central control system. But they forgot that Libertarians and many small government advocates would rather cut their tongues out than win an argument with anything less than perfect ideals.

          1. But 60 billion a year is peanuts.

            And here we see how, in only two years, Obama and the Dems have moved the goalposts.

            I can remember when $60 billion a year was fucking shitload of money, even for the feds.

            Now, if its not a trillion, its decimal dust.

            Another battle won by the Total State.

            1. It has been peanuts for about 20 years now RC. Who are you kidding?

    2. Since when is spending $60.8 billion in loot on free shit for a powerful special interest group considered a good thing?

      Paying $50 for a coat marked down from $100 doesn’t make it free and doesn’t make me any less pissed if you stole the $50 from me.

      1. Since TEAM RED passed it kilroy. Don’t you know they are good and TEAM BLUE is bad?

          1. “an Adam Savage cameo”

            Whatever. I blame threaded comments.

  4. As soon as they find out what’s in it, they’ll tell us.

  5. It’s kinda like when your dog pees on the carpet and hopes you don’t notice.

    Or when he locks you in the basement, eats your Christmas goose, fucks your daughter, and drinks all your beer.

    1. In that case, I think you should have your dog neutered.

  6. They lied again? I’m shocked.

  7. If, by have neutered, you mean shoot

    1. We can do that, we don’t even need a reason…

  8. Easy enough to fix this problem. Repeal the law. Say you finally actually read it, and there are some problems.

  9. So, he’s afraid to talk about the greates achievement in the Liberal wish-department since Social Security, but he jumps right in on the unpopular side of the Mosque in NY issue?

    Remind me why we thought this guy was smarter than Bush again? Was it all based on how to pronounce “nuclear”?

    1. He is not that stupid. He realizes how wildly unpopular health care is. I think he honestly thinks the Mosque is popular.

      1. Or he has a few uncorrupted principles. It’s possible. But you’re right: defending the Constitution can be very unpopular at times.

        1. yeah because he makes such an effort to defend it otherwise. And he seems so interested in property rights when it doesn’t involve Mosques in New York.

          1. Your “property rights” are all belong to us.

        2. I’m not arguing the actual merits of the mosque, just the popularity.

          Politically speaking, it was a stupid move. The Constitutional issue is clear, there was no one violating it. Obama stood to gain no votes from taking sides. Further, it’s an unforced error because it’s not a federal issue. Obama could have legitimately said, “let the locals work this issue out,” without alienating even more voters less than 3 months before mid-terms.

          This is the kind of political tone deafness I expect of Joe Biden.

          1. Speaking of Constitutional issues, how is it that the New York law against locating a bar within a certain distance of a church isn’t a violation of the First Amendment?

            1. 1. Bars are commercial speech
              2. Bars serve alcohol which by the terms of the 21st Amendment gives states broader control. It states

              “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”

              Basically the States can prohibit or regulate the use of alcohol however they want.

              1. Bars are commercial speech

                Serving drinks is “speech”? Wow. Just…wow.

                1. No. Drunken speech is speech. And it should be protected.

              2. I would say that the constitutional issue has nothing to do with alcohol. It is with restricting anything because it is in proximity to a church. A church should be considered no differently from any other club or organization according to the first amendment (or my reading of it: making churches a special class of social club is a law regarding the establishment of religion in my book).

            2. That’s a safety issue. Gives the Irish priests a longer walk to sober up before Mass.

            3. Bars are commercial speech.

              No, they’re not. And, my copy of the Constitution says only that Congress may not abridge freedom of speech. Does yours say “unless its commercial speech”?

              I would say that the constitutional issue has nothing to do with alcohol. It is with restricting anything because it is in proximity to a church.

              Bingo.

              The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

              I don’t think that this revokes the Bill of Rights with respect to state regulation of alcohol. It allows the states to exercise their police power over alcohol, subject, presumably, to the usual Constitutional restrictions on the exercise of state police power.

              1. That is great RC. I am proud of you. But no court has ever agreed with you about any of that. Did you not take Constitutional Law at Harvard? I am saying I agree with it. I am just telling what it is.

    2. Well, I am glad he got on the unpopular side of the NYC mosque issue for two reasons. First, it is nice to see that the president is not wrong about everything. And if it hurts his popularity further, that can’t be a bad thing either.

    3. Because Andrea Mitchell said so and she’s pretty smart because she married the original smartest man in the world pre Obama.

  10. But 60 billion a year is peanuts.

    Fuck

    off.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.