# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/141 "2014-11-16T05:06:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That is fucking hilarious. Insurance prices went up. People got screwed out of their old policies. People lost their doctor. businesses dropped their insurance. Employees had their hours cut back back. High deductibles make the insurance useless. Not everybody, and not much for this reason, with no Obamacare the prices were also going up and people were losing doctors and insurance too. I had a full time job in a tech place and a part time one in education, at the tech place my supervisor told me that Obama was the Antichrist and the sup also disliked Hispanics. Too much right wing radio coming from his cubicle indeed. I did not have a chance. When the contract ended I lost my insurance and my doctor. Because rather than not paying the rent or eating I could not afford the insane Cobra premiums. And in my part time job I never had insurance anyhow. So it was thanks to the ACA that I did get insurance and a doctor and this month I’m getting dental care too. I know then who I will never have to thank for. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/142 "2014-11-16T07:22:16Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Sorry, but it is the role of legislators to explain why the healthcare overhaul is necessary. Simply saying that we should trust them to pass a good bill and that some time in the future we will all see their infinite wisdom is putting the cart before the horse. The fog of controversy is prevalent in any major legislation. Good legislators can explain the proposed policy and get the voters to buy in. The Democrats were in such a head-rush to get anything passed, they never bothered to convince voters this bill is actually a good thing. > > I will never be one to simply trust a politician who says “believe me this is a good thing and you will see in the future I was right.” That’s how we end up with “Mission Accomplished” signs waving in the midst of a quagmire. So why not just argue against the actual point she was making, instead of misquoting her to make her appear to have an obviously ridiculous argument? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/143 "2014-11-16T11:43:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You’re reading entirely too much into the word “dude,” dude. Yes, he’s an extremely influential dude. His remarks were off-the-cuff, and there’s an entire industry that is right now devoted to interpreting them in the worst possible light. It’s not acceptable to lie in order to get laws passed. It’s also not acceptable to distort what one dude (no matter how important) meant in order to get laws repealed. If you’re honest, you’ll acknowledge both as equally true. It’s worth pointing out that HealthCare guru and ACA architect, Jonathan Gruber, has made five or six off the cuff videod remarks now. This is not a singular moment of misspeaking on his part. Sure, people are out to interpret what he says in the worst possible light. Just as there are others out there trying to do the opposite; to call him a dude, to paint him as insignificant, and willing to suggest this was a one off. How many off the cuff comments does someone have to make before these remarks show them as his sincere and settled belief? ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/144 "2014-11-16T13:31:13Z")
I have a utilitarian stance on this: if it benefits the country at large, it is okay for those in charge to undermine democracy in order to benefit us. I tend to believe that the powers that be have a better vantage point then average folks on most issues. Additionally, I do not believe significant numbers of people make better decisions than a select few, for all types of difficult decisions. I concede that determining what is “better” is a difficult part of the problem and probably one of the best arguments against my position. ---
**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 16, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/145 "2014-11-16T16:07:43Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > So, let’s get this straight: You are expecting the US Supreme Court to take a look at Gruber’s statements here, in addition to his gaffes that were outed a few months ago, and use them to blindly cast aside ALL objectivity - which, make no mistake, is the exact thing that SCOTUS would be doing in this situation - in order to automatically gut the [HC.Gov](http://HC.Gov) subsidies in spite of the obvious (and I would personally argue downright _preposterous_) weaknesses of the challengers’ arguments. > > … > > Conservatives are upbeat about the SCOTUS case because they automatically assume that the GOP majority will invalidate the subsidies _just because Obamacare is bad to conservatives._ That’s a blatant dereliction of objectivity, and it would immediately invalidate the legitimacy of this iteration of the Court. So despite the merits of any argument to the contrary, the only way SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiffs is if they cast aside all objectivity. And in doing so, ruling a way you disfavor, they will somehow lose legitimacy. The even handedness of this is remarkable. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/146 "2014-11-16T16:16:41Z")
Yes, & I’ve explained why in other threads. The Supreme Court will no longer be a legitimate institution if it invalidates the [HC.Gov](http://HC.Gov) subsidies; it would henceforth be nothing more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party. Period. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/147 "2014-11-16T16:21:17Z")
Hell, [here’s an article](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/law-in-the-raw.html?utm_source=digg&_r=0) by someone far more schooled in legalese than I who describes the illegitimacy that the Court has _already invited_ by agreeing to take the King case in the first place. ---
**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 16, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/148 "2014-11-16T17:16:52Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > It’s worth pointing out that HealthCare guru and ACA architect, Jonathan Gruber, has made five or six off the cuff videod remarks now. This is not a singular moment of misspeaking on his part. Sure, people are out to interpret what he says in the worst possible light. Just as there are others out there trying to do the opposite; to call him a dude, to paint him as insignificant, and willing to suggest this was a one off. How many off the cuff comments does someone have to make before these remarks show them as his sincere and settled belief? Oh, I think he was expressing his sincere and settled belief. I think he was doing it off-the-cuff, not worrying about how hostile spin doctors might twist what he was saying to make it look like he hates America. People have already explained a much likelier interpretation of his beliefs earlier in the thread, and nobody including you has explained why they disagree with that interpretation. And no, I’m not painting him as insignificant or suggesting it’s a one-off. That’s not you misinterpreting me, that’s you making things up out of whole cloth to besmirch me, and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/149 "2014-11-16T17:30:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Apparently many more millions disagreed with the results. Based on facts or lies? > [@](#): > > As to why the Dems worked so hard to fuck things up so badly, well that’s a mystery. Come on now. Think a little harder. And if all you can come up with is “Because _they’re_ the stupid ones”, at least have the dignity to say so before disappearing back into Foxland. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/150 "2014-11-16T17:33:30Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Sorry, but it is the role of legislators to explain why the healthcare overhaul is necessary. And they did. It is also the role of legislators who oppose the bill to explain why? And not to fabricate a campaign of lies and fearmongering in lieu of factual persuasion? > [@](#): > > I will never be one to simply trust a politician who says “believe me this is a good thing and you will see in the future I was right.” But you have, _you have_ been one to trust those saying the contrary, haven’t you? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/151 "2014-11-16T17:42:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And your point? Seriously. That your grasp of the facts is not what you believe it to be, based on what you have been told by a faction and media outlet that you seem to trust absolutely and unquestioningly and, frankly, gullibly. The promulgators of a many-years-long campaign of lies and fearmongering, which it has not occurred to you to question, have been waiting for a long time for something they could spin as a tu quoque - and you’ve swallowed that as loyally as you’ve swallowed all the rest. You need to be more curious and skeptical and more broad-based in informing yourself. That’s the point. > [@](#): > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That’s your true level? Seriously? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Insurance prices went up. Wow, that never happened under the old regime, did it? Rates are up less now. _Less_. > [@](#): > > People got screwed out of their old policies. And mostly have better, cheaper ones. You haven’t ever turned the channel once in your life, have you? > [@](#): > > The credit went where it was due. Pelosi and Reid were the architects of one of the worst political defeats ever. As Pelosi explained, despite the negative spin you’ve swallowed, as people come to experience personally what the law actually does, rather than what the liars and fearmongerers claim it does, they’ll come to support it. The polls have generally borne that prediction out. But it will take time for the poison to clear from the system. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/152 "2014-11-16T17:45:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Oh, I think he was expressing his sincere and settled belief. I think he was doing it off-the-cuff, not worrying about how hostile spin doctors might twist what he was saying to make it look like he hates America. People have already explained a much likelier interpretation of his beliefs earlier in the thread, and nobody including you has explained why they disagree with that interpretation. > > And no, I’m not painting him as insignificant or suggesting it’s a one-off. That’s not you misinterpreting me, that’s you making things up out of whole cloth to besmirch me, and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t do that. Off the cuff suggests they were a one off, or, a clumsy way of getting his point across during a presentation. They were made on repeated occasions at different events. They were an intrinsic part of his _act._ It is not misrepresenting you when you call him a dude and claim his comments were off the cuff. There are many ways you could have described him; many words or titles you could have chosen. I don’t think it purely a coincidence you called him a dude. If so, I apologize, but I really don’t think im wrong here. With regards to controversial political debate im assuming bad faith on my opponents part, looking back at the long history of political debate this is a reasonable assumption on my part. ---
**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 16, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/153 "2014-11-16T17:51:16Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Off the cuff suggests they were a one off, or, a clumsy way of getting his point across during a presentation. They were made on repeated occasions at different events. They were an intrinsic part of his _act._ No, “off the cuff” doesn’t suggest “one off.” I don’t know how you get from one to the other. > [@](#): > > It is not misrepresenting you when you call him a dude and claim his comments were off the cuff. Those things are not misrepresenting me. Claiming I suggested he was insignificant or making one-off comments is misrepresenting me. > [@](#): > > With regards to controversial political debate im assuming bad faith on my opponents part, looking back at the long history of political debate this is a reasonable assumption on my part. Should I therefore be assuming bad faith on your part, or are you immune from that equation? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/154 "2014-11-16T18:50:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No, “off the cuff” doesn’t suggest “one off.” I don’t know how you get from one to the other. > > Those things are not misrepresenting me. Claiming I suggested he was insignificant or making one-off comments is misrepresenting me. > > Should I therefore be assuming bad faith on your part, or are you immune from that equation? I don’t know. If you believe I have used inappropriate wording in my posts to promote my argument then you can assume bad faith on my part. In Jonathan Gruber’s career I doubt he has ever been introduced as dude. He will rarely(if ever) be described as dude in any conversation amongst his peers. This is why your use of the inappropriate word jumped out at me. There must have been a good reason you chose one of the most informal words going to describe Gruber. I can think of many words you could have chosen: professor, guru, architect, insider, Healthcare expert, Government advisor and so on. Can you explain to me the good reason you had for using the word “dude”? ---
**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 16, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/155 "2014-11-16T18:56:53Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Can you explain to me the good reason you had for using the word “dude”? No, I can’t, except that it’s a word I use all the time. This is a ridiculous line of attack and frankly embarrassing that you’re continuing along it. Is this really the strongest argument you have, that you keep on pushing it? ---
**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 16, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/156 "2014-11-16T19:45:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No, I can’t, except that it’s a word I use all the time. This is a ridiculous line of attack and frankly embarrassing that you’re continuing along it. Is this really the strongest argument you have, that you keep on pushing it? It is a ridiculous line of attack. \*Dude \*is not a perjorative. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/157 "2014-11-16T19:47:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It is a ridiculous line of attack. \*Dude \*is not a perjorative. The Dude would concur. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/158 "2014-11-16T19:55:57Z")
If Left Hand had said “guy” “man” or “person” would that been considered non-pejorative? FWIW, LHOD and anyone else can feel free to call me “dude” and I won’t get mad. ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/159 "2014-11-16T19:57:03Z")
I employed a man who assured me his previous job for one of the Bell Telephone companies had been to write the monthly customer bills in such a way that most people would not be able to understand them. ---
**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 16, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/160 "2014-11-16T20:04:07Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > Yes, & I’ve explained why in other threads. The Supreme Court will no longer be a legitimate institution if it invalidates the [HC.Gov](http://HC.Gov) subsidies; it would henceforth be nothing more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party. > > Period. > [@2ManyTacos](#): > > Hell, [here’s an article](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/law-in-the-raw.html?utm_source=digg&_r=0) by someone far more schooled in legalese than I who describes the illegitimacy that the Court has _already invited_ by agreeing to take the King case in the first place. The complaint by the author and in part by you seems to rest on grant of cert without a circuit split. Somehow you got into your head that granting cert without such a split would render the court illegitimate. You can think whatever you like of course. It’s fantasy to think that your aspertions would be taken seriously. Look at [Rule 10](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10) for discussion on when cert may be granted: > [@](#): > > Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: > > (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power; > (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; > **(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.** (my bold) Reason C would be consistent with the grant in King. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548.md?page=9)