# Is it okay for government to decieve the public to get laws passed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548 "2014-11-13T18:13:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/101 "2014-11-14T20:17:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And if this is what you want the thread to be about, I mean, Godspeed, keep on keepin on. I do think Democratic misrepresentation of the law are worth discussing, but it’s bitter medicine for me; your sweet sweet prevarications about Boehner are far easier to take. Odd thing about this is that despite your attempt to pretend otherwise, in this thread you’re the guy who seized on Boehner’s remarks for a tu quoque, and I’m merely responding to your distortions. But if you can misrepresent Boehner you can misrepresent yourself too - either you use that MO or you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/102 "2014-11-14T20:51:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Odd thing about this is that despite your attempt to pretend otherwise, in this thread you’re the guy who seized on Boehner’s remarks for a tu quoque, and I’m merely responding to your distortions. > > But if you can misrepresent Boehner you can misrepresent yourself too - either you use that MO or you don’t. Back the horse up, dude. Here’s how it went down: 1. Someone said that a straightforward description of ACA would suffice to convince the public it was a terrible idea. 2. I snarkily rebutted this by reminding everyone of the paranoid lies its detractors resorted to, implying that obviously the truth wasn’t enough for detractors. 3. Someone claimed that the lie I mentioned was just Sarah Palin, implying that no significant policymakers engaged in such hysteria. 4. I rebutted that by mentioning Boehner–NOT AS A TU QUOQUE–but acknowledged the peril of my rebuttal because it could act as a tu quoque. THAT WAS NOT ITS POINT. 5. And this is where you came in, deciding for whatever bizarre reason to defend Boehner’s statement as, apparently, a sober and reasonable and straightforward description of the law, as opposed to the obviously deceptive paranoid conspiracy-mongering that it was. Why would you choose this hill to die on? By flogging this dead horse, you’re embarrassing yourself and turning the thread away from a legit discussion of Democratic distortions. Do you really think anyone but you sees Boehner’s words as reasonable? Go back and look at them. Do you want cites to Politifact, to Factcheck? You’re wrong on this. I wasn’t Tu Quoquing, and I wasn’t distorting anyone. The more you continue to insist otherwise, the more you distract from the thread’s focus on Democratic distortions. I laugh at you because, what a bizarre thing for a conservative to do, but at the same time, I recognize that it’s probably not a good thing to let continue. ---
**Author:** ![TheFox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@TheFox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFox)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/103 "2014-11-14T20:54:08Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The vast majority could. Only a small subset of those with individual insurance and substandard policies were affected. A substandard policy for you might be the perfect policy for me. > [@](#): > > It’s not a tax. The mandate was ruled constitutional under the federal government’s power to tax, but it isn’t a tax because a sane rational person who has health insurance doesn’t pay it. If you want to call a penalty for being stupid a “tax”, go ahead, but it doesn’t add anything to the discussion. You’re right, it’s not a tax. The ACA was written in a way that specifically made it not a “tax.” But it is a “fine” collected by the IRS, so it’s pseudo-tax. And to the OP - No, lawmakers shouldn’t deceive the public in order to attempt to pass laws. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/104 "2014-11-14T20:56:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Of course not. If you want for your opinion to carry equal weight you need to go out and get elected Speaker of the House. Until then you’re limited to sitting around knowing in your heart - and/or shouting to the world - how completely wrong Boehner is and how completely right you are. But that doesn’t make Boehner’s statement a lie. It was not a statement of fact. It’s just an opinion - an assessment of what might happen - that you personally feel is completely wrong. You need to distinguish between the two. Swing and a miss. My point was that our two opinions, mine and the Speaker’s, _do not_ carry equal weight. Honestly, I’m rather astounded by the words you insist on putting into my mouth, and the emotions you are imputing upon me for, AFAICT, no reason whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/105 "2014-11-14T21:00:08Z")
In any case: [Factcheck lists Boehner’s claims under “False Euthanasia Claims”](http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/): > [@Factcheck](#): > > As for the argument claiming that this is the first step on a slippery slope leading to government-encouraged euthanasia, that’s a stretch. The right to draw up an advance directive is federally guaranteed, but doctor-assisted suicide is legal in only three states. It would take a lot more than Medicare-funded counseling for voluntary euthanasia to become a standard government recommendation. [Politifact includes Boehner’s claim under its 2009 “Lie of the Year” umbrella](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) [edit: they don’t comment specifically on his claim except to include it in the overall set of claims about government-sponsored or encouraged euthanasia and death panels; the commentary I quote below is about all the claims, not Boehner’s specifically): > [@Politifact](#): > > “This is an issue that’s being exploited by political figures who are opposed to the health care legislation,” he added. “They’re trying to sensationalize the issue as much as possible to drum up opposition.” > > On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin’s statement Pants on Fire. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting. They go on to mention other prominent Republicans who used language similar to Death Panels. But by all means, defend these claims if you think it makes your side look better. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/106 "2014-11-14T21:06:30Z")
The other thing is that “death panels” isn’t the only lie told by the right about ACA: I can pull up plenty of other politifact and [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) articles showing other lies. I mention this **only to rebut** claims that the truth is sufficient to persuade people that ACA is a bad idea: people who have staked their careers on such persuasion seem to rely heavily on lies to carry the load. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/107 "2014-11-14T21:10:54Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Swing and a miss. My point was that our two opinions, mine and the Speaker’s, _do not_ carry equal weight. I understand your point. And my response is that this fact is irrelevant to the issue at hand. My prior post explained this more fully. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Back the horse up, dude. Here’s how it went down: > > 1. Someone said that a straightforward description of ACA would suffice to convince the public it was a terrible idea. > 2. I snarkily rebutted this by reminding everyone of the paranoid lies its detractors resorted to, implying that obviously the truth wasn’t enough for detractors. > 3. Someone claimed that the lie I mentioned was just Sarah Palin, implying that no significant policymakers engaged in such hysteria. > 4. I rebutted that by mentioning Boehner–NOT AS A TU QUOQUE–but acknowledged the peril of my rebuttal because it could act as a tu quoque. THAT WAS NOT ITS POINT. > 5. And this is where you came in, deciding for whatever bizarre reason to defend Boehner’s statement as, apparently, a sober and reasonable and straightforward description of the law, as opposed to the obviously deceptive paranoid conspiracy-mongering that it was. #5 is incorrect and a false dichotomy. All I said was that what Boehner said was not about death panels (and not factually incorrect), and contrary to your false claim that it was. Whether what he said was a reasonable prediction is not beyond the scope of this discussion and not something I took a position on. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [Politifact includes Boehner’s claim under its 2009 “Lie of the Year” umbrella](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) [edit: they don’t comment specifically on his claim except to include it in the overall set of claims about government-sponsored or encouraged euthanasia and death panels; the commentary I quote below is about all the claims, not Boehner’s specifically): IOW, you’ve got nothing. > [@](#): > > Why would you choose this hill to die on? By flogging this dead horse, you’re embarrassing yourself and turning the thread away from a legit discussion of Democratic distortions. Do you really think anyone but you sees Boehner’s words as reasonable? Go back and look at them. Do you want cites to Politifact, to Factcheck? > > You’re wrong on this. I wasn’t Tu Quoquing, and I wasn’t distorting anyone. The more you continue to insist otherwise, the more you distract from the thread’s focus on Democratic distortions. I laugh at you because, what a bizarre thing for a conservative to do, but at the same time, I recognize that it’s probably not a good thing to let continue. This “hill to die on” jive reflects your mindset, in which you’re fighting the good battle for your side. This is probably also what leads to your choice to tactics and lets you feel good about yourself despite your lack of integrity when such is helpful to your side. For me, I’m just amusing myself here, and one discussion can be as good as another. Republican distortions, Democrat distortions, Left Hand of Dorkness distortions, they all have their points of interest. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/108 "2014-11-14T21:19:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > {…} The “death panel” claim was that the bill contained provisions that would allow panels to deny end-of-life care aimed at prolonging the lives of terminally ill patients. Boehner’s statement has nothing to do with that. {…} No, the original “death panel” claim was about [Section 1233 of H.R. 3200](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3200/text). Which, basically, allowed a Medicare patient to sit down with their doctor and discuss Living Wills and Advanced Directives every five years (sooner if their medical condition changed) and the doctor would be able to bill Medicare for that office visit. Without this change in the law doctors had the choice of trying to fit a two hour discussion into a thirty minute office visit of fraudulently bill Medicare for their time\*. Boehner’s statement had everything to do with that. Shortly after Betsy McCaughey embarrassed herself on _The Daily Show_ (despite the numerous sticky bookmarks she had in her copy of “the law” she just couldn’t find the “death panel” section . . . even though Jon Stewart gave her all the time she wanted to find it (look it up, it should still be on _The Daily Show_ site and YouTube)) the “death panels” morphed from a specific part of H.R. 3200 to some nebulous claim (panels to deny end-of-life care aimed at prolonging the lives of terminally ill patients) that no longer required any evidence at all. \*Most people have no clue just what they actually _do_ want in a Living Will/Advanced Directive. “You can ‘jump start’ me at least once” sounds reasonable until you learn how often that results in very bad outcomes. Going over all of this can’t be done in a short time. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/109 "2014-11-14T21:39:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The other thing is that “death panels” isn’t the only lie told by the right about ACA: I can pull up plenty of other politifact and [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) articles showing other lies.\*\* I mention this **only to rebut** claims that the truth is sufficient to persuade people that ACA is a bad idea:\*\* people who have staked their careers on such persuasion seem to rely heavily on lies to carry the load. (my bold) This doesn’t rebut the claim that the truth is sufficient to persuade people that the ACA is a bad idea. It doesn’t support that claim either. In other words, the truth could be sufficient to persuade people that the ACA is a bad idea, but in reality that’s not what happened so we don’t know. The fact that ‘death panels’ were used as a distortion, among other honest criticisms, does not necessarily mean that the truth would not be sufficient to persuade people that the ACA is a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/110 "2014-11-14T21:55:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > #5 is incorrect and a false dichotomy. All I said was that what Boehner said was not about death panels (and not factually incorrect), and contrary to your false claim that it was. This “false claim” is backed up by numerous cites. > [@](#): > > IOW, you’ve got nothing. …right. Yep, that’s in other words. You got me. [edit: I’ll point out that the bit that you think means “I got nothing” is the bit where, in an excess of caution about being honest, I clarified exactly what my cite did and did not do. The other cite I gave was significantly stronger; you chose not to respond to that one, which is interesting, especially from someone so terribly concerned about being forthright.] > [@Bone](#): > > (my bold) > This doesn’t rebut the claim that the truth is sufficient to persuade people that the ACA is a bad idea. It doesn’t support that claim either. In other words, the truth could be sufficient to persuade people that the ACA is a bad idea, but in reality that’s not what happened so we don’t know. The fact that ‘death panels’ were used as a distortion, among other honest criticisms, does not necessarily mean that the truth would not be sufficient to persuade people that the ACA is a bad idea. Technically, you’re right. The claim, of course, is a ridiculous claim, and comes from a pernicious perspective, that one’s ideological opponents are either liars or simply misinformed, and that if everyone knew The Truth, everyone would agree with one’s own view. I first encountered this perspective from a diehard Maoist I knew when I was a teenager, and it sounds no better coming from ITR Champion than it did from him. Technically you’re right–but if the truth was so self-evidently persuasive, one would predict that informed opponents of the law would not have resorted to falsehoods in order to attack it. The fact that many influential and informed opponents of the law did so strongly suggests that, even when folks understand the truth of the law, intelligent, good-hearted people can disagree on its wisdom–that knowing The Truth is not sufficient to turn everyone to ITR’s view. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/111 "2014-11-14T22:19:14Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > {…} \*Most people have no clue just what they actually _do_ want in a Living Will/Advanced Directive. “You can ‘jump start’ me at least once” sounds reasonable until you learn how often that results in very bad outcomes. {…} Just 'cause I’m bored, > [@](#): > > In-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a 30-year review. > Schneider AP 2nd1, Nelson DJ, Brown DD. > Abstract > > BACKGROUND: > We performed a meta-analysis to: (1) assess the disputed issue of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) success rates among elderly patients, (2) investigate the possibility of a declining CPR success rate between 1960 and 1990, (3) provide an overview estimate of CPR effectiveness in specific patient groups, and (4) assess CPR risks. > > METHODS: > Ninety-eight reports providing in-hospital CPR survival-to-discharge rates were included in this overview. These reports were identified from MEDLINE searches, previous reviews, and reference citations. > > RESULTS: > A pooled analysis revealed that 2994 (15 percent) of 19,955 patients were successfully resuscitated (survival to discharge). The rate of successful CPR has not changed in 30 years (r = -0.14, P \> 0.05), but there has been a steady decline in the optimism regarding its value (r = -0.29, P \< 0.01). Patients younger than 70 years of age had a success rate of 16.2 percent (odds ratio = 1.36; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.20 to 1.53) versus 12.4 percent for patients older than 70 years (P \< 0.001). Community hospitals had a higher CPR success rate than teaching hospitals (18.5 percent versus 13.6 percent, P \< 0.001). Although 72.9 percent of the post-CPR deaths were within 72 hours, prolonged in hospital survival in a vegetative state did occur; 1.6 percent of successfully resuscitated patients had a permanent neurological impairment. > > CONCLUSION: > The increasing pessimism about the value of CPR, specifically, its futility in the elderly patient, is not supported by this review. The results of this meta-analysis should assist both the physician and the patient in determining the probable outcome of CPR. > > [In-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a 30-year review - PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452077) Now if you’re writing your Living Will/Advanced Directive who do you think is more likely to know about the value of CPR and whether you _really_ do want it, you or your doctor? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/112 "2014-11-14T23:39:34Z")
In extreme, rare, dire situations where the public does not know what is good, or refuses to accept what’s good, and the government can only resort to deception to get the societal good passed, then I can see some justification for deceiving the public. But I could easily see politicians abusing this philosophy and using deception for every situation. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/113 "2014-11-14T23:50:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > In extreme, rare, dire situations where the public does not know what is good, or refuses to accept what’s good, and the government can only resort to deception to get the societal good passed, then I can see some justification for deceiving the public. The problem with this view is that the “government” is made up of members of the “public.” What’s really happening in your scenario is that the folks who make up the government **disagree** with the folks who don’t make up the government about what is good, but because they’ve got all the power, they force everyone else to accept their version of what’s good. Now, if I were the government, that’d be okay, because frankly I’d be an awesome Supreme Dictator. But I don’t trust any of the rest of you schmuckos (term used in general, not for anyone in this thread specifically) to be a good Supreme Dictator, so I’m not down with you pushing your version of what’s Good over my version, using deception or other tools. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/114 "2014-11-15T00:56:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Technically, you’re right. The claim, of course, is a ridiculous claim, and comes from a pernicious perspective, that one’s ideological opponents are either liars or simply misinformed, and that if everyone knew The Truth, everyone would agree with one’s own view. I first encountered this perspective from a diehard Maoist I knew when I was a teenager, and it sounds no better coming from ITR Champion than it did from him. Not specifically related to the ACA, but this type of attitude I find in all circles. > [@](#): > > Technically you’re right–but if the truth was so self-evidently persuasive, one would predict that informed opponents of the law would not have resorted to falsehoods in order to attack it. The fact that many influential and informed opponents of the law did so strongly suggests that, even when folks understand the truth of the law, intelligent, good-hearted people can disagree on its wisdom–that knowing The Truth is not sufficient to turn everyone to ITR’s view. I think there would be some portion of folks that would feel differently about the ACA had they known then what they know now. And that difference would go both ways. Just becuase many influential and informed opponents chose misleading tactics doesn’t suggest that these were required. It could have just been demagoguery. I think drawing conclusions about what would have been sufficient regarding presentation of information, at this stage, is more linked to ideology than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/115 "2014-11-15T01:15:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Not specifically related to the ACA, but this type of attitude I find in all circles. > > I think there would be some portion of folks that would feel differently about the ACA had they known then what they know now. And that difference would go both ways. Just becuase many influential and informed opponents chose misleading tactics doesn’t suggest that these were required. It could have just been demagoguery. I think drawing conclusions about what would have been sufficient regarding presentation of information, at this stage, is more linked to ideology than anything else. Agreed on all counts. My point was made snarkily. To review, I was responding to this: > [@ITR Champion](#): > > The voters are too intelligent to approve of the ACA. If they’d had an accurate picture of what was in the law, it would not have passed. That’s why the deception was necessary. That’s a ridiculous point, and it fails on many counts: 1. It fails on its face, being, as I suggested above, the same sort of silliness the high school Maoist engaged in. 2. Disproving it can only be done through alternate universe experiments. 3. Plenty of intelligent people with an accurate picture of what was in the law thought it was the best plan that was feasible. 4. Plenty of people with an accurate picture of what was in the law decided not to portray that accurate picture to the public _in their efforts to torpedo the law_. This last point, as you say, could be due to demagoguery. But it could also be due to their suspicion that people secretly would like the plan if they had an accurate picture of it. We don’t really know. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/116 "2014-11-15T01:30:53Z")
Where I think the administration went that extra mile to deceive was by claiming that those who said that you couldn’t actually keep your plan were “spreading disinformation”. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) > [@](#): > > For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry. > There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care Normally, a political debate involves one side saying some stuff, and the other side rebutting that stuff. The Democrats wanted to pass ACA so badly that the normal rules of political debate were thrown out: opponents had to be discredited, not just rebutted. All criticism of the law would be labelled “Scaremongering”, whether it was true or false. > **[Obama: 'If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health...](https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/)** > > PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter. > [@](#): > > “I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I’ve proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. Nobody is talking about you forcing … to change your plans.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/117 "2014-11-15T02:01:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > All criticism of the law would be labelled Scaremongering", whether it was true or false Coming from someone championing the crew that kept talking about “death panels” and similar stuff, my Irony Meter has just been destroyed. Those who promoted ACA had no right to lie about their proposals. But pretending that only one side lied to get their way is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/118 "2014-11-15T02:16:55Z")
**ENOUGH!** > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Boehner’s statement is a lot more accurate and less misleading than your post. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > . . . your sweet sweet prevarications . . . > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > . . . I’m merely responding to your distortions. > > But if you can misrepresent Boehner you can misrepresent yourself too - either you use that MO or you don’t. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > . . . and contrary to your false claim. . . > . . . lets you feel good about yourself despite your lack of integrity when such is helpful to your side. > . . . Left Hand of Dorkness distortions, they all have their points of interest. This continued dancing around your efforts to call each other a liar stops now. = = = > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Sadly, our efforts are as pearls to swine. Personal insults directed against other posters in a thread are also prohibited in Great Debates. Knock it off. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/119 "2014-11-15T06:00:05Z")
Gruber is a liar and a con artist. Gruber met with the other Obamacare advisors, in the Whitehouse and elsewhere, to plan this ACA scam to fool the stupid voters (the voters stupid enough to support the Obamacare bill without knowing what was in it). Gruber was also involved with creating the so-called Cadillac tax to punish large companies who might not otherwise succumb to WH and Democrat pressure. Gruber is scum and he’s been laughing at Democrats and Obama supporters for being too stupid to realize what he was actually doing. Transparency for everyone unless they actually start asking questions. - the Obama administration ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/120 "2014-11-15T15:28:44Z")
So one has to be stupid to support Obamacare, is that it? :dubious: Many millions disagree, and more do so as they become aware from persona experience what it _really_ is, not what Fox \*tells \*you it is. If it sucks so bad, why d’ya s’pose the Dems worked so hard to enact it, huh? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548.md?page=7)