Barack Obama

What Obama Didn't Say About ObamaCare in Last Night's Speech

|

The health care overhaul signed into law in 2010 is frequently described as President Obama's biggest legislative achievement. Regardless of whether one thinks the law is a good idea or not, it's hard to disagree that it's one of the most significant pieces of legislation in recent memory: a brand new entitlement intended to reshape the health care sector and ensure that most every American has health insurance coverage.

You might think that such an important piece of legislation would end up playing a reasonably large role in one of the president's most visible speeches of the year. But in last night's State of the Union, it barely rated a mention. President Obama devoted just 44 words to health care in last night's speech, or 0.6 percent of the speech, down from 224 words the year previous and 570 words the year before that. Via the Advisory Board's Dan Diamond:

The few words we did get on the health care overhaul amounted to little more than a perfunctory checklist of the law's most popular insurance regulations. They were notable mostly for what they didn't contain. Obama didn't mention his frequent promise that the law would save people money on their health insurance (possibly because insurance premiums are rising). Nor did he mention the law's much-hyped delivery system reforms (maybe because of new evidence suggesting they might not work), nor the law's alleged deficit savings (which the Obama administration knowingly goosed with obvious budget gimmicks).

Why did Obama barely defend the law and the many promises he and his supporters made about its benefits? Perhaps because those promises are becoming increasingly hard to defend. 

NEXT: 3 Supreme Court Decisions to Watch

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. you guys are really poopin’ em out today

  2. Well, of course he didn’t have to talk about health care; he fixed it already!

    1. that still warrants a mention, something along the lines of:

      “And Healthcare? I fixed it, bitches.” *dusts off hands triumphantly*

      1. I don’t think he could call attention to himself like that without blushing.

        He is a very modest man. In fact, that’s probably why he didn’t mention killing bin Laden last night.

        1. modesty. pfft.

          If elected, I promise to bring Hector Cammacho levels of immodesty to the White House. I’mma be braggin my successes all the way to the bank. Represen-t, yo.

          1. we got some FREEDOM up in this BITCH!

  3. all that needs said is said cept “ur welcome”.

    1. I bet you say that to all of your anal rapists.

  4. Every second spent not talking about getting bin Laden is time that could be spent talking about getting bin Laden.

    1. what? that’s my stich

  5. OT: Rand Paul was probably hiding something.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/xb…..aul-up-to/

    1. The picture of the shitbag author giving a Nazi salute is very appropriate.

      1. And his name is Greg Laden. He’s a terrorist, QED.

        1. God damn it, Paul. One minute.

          1. You win some, you lose some.

            1. Epi needs to learn when to walk away, and know when to run.

              1. Epi needs to be Kenny Rogers?

                1. He also counts his money while sitting at the table, never understanding that they’ll be plenty of time to do it when the dealing’s done.

                  1. But does his ‘friend’ take her love to town?

                    Oh wait, that’s a different song, isn’t it?

                    1. You leave Ruby outta this, punk.

        2. He’s part of the “skeptic” community, yet accepts AGW without exception.

      2. Greg Laden is his name? What’s his connection to Bin Laden?!? TERRORIST

      3. Greg Laden wrote:

        Left, you should try to stick to the facts. There was no refusal on constitutional grounds, the story put out by Paul and Paul is in major conflict with the TSA version;

        Shorter Greg Laden:

        Bob at the TSA blog said…

        1. He’s a skeptic. That’s why he believes everything the TSA tells him.

    2. He’s one of the peevish schoolmaster’s (Myers: Pharyngula) toadies. ’nuff said.

  6. “…a brand new entitlement intended to reshape the health care sector…”

    I agree that it is a new entitlement, but not that it is intended to reshape the health care sector – which is the problem. We need more choices – such as policies with lifetime caps, or more variation in what is and isn’t covered, interstante commerce, etce. And we need more nurse midwifes, more physician assistants, and nurses that can prescribe medications.
    And we need an acknowledgement that insurance is causing much of our problem. Dentistry and Eyeglasses are often not covered by insurance, and thus patients paying our of pocket has done more for the efficiency and efficacy of these practices than all the regulation combined.

  7. He didn’t talk about the healthcare law, or healthcare much in general because that shit is so five minutes ago.

    Healthcare Reformed. The jobs have done been created or saved, the costs have been saved and now like Cuber, at least we get healthcare.

  8. He didn’t defend it because it’s unpopular, sure. But, more importantly, he knows the system is rigged and it isn’t going away. Why remind Americans he successfully bound us to an unpopular entitlement, and there’s nothing we can do about it?

  9. Let me be clear: there are some who say that I’m a lying sack of crap.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.