# 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:** 9
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/161 "2014-11-16T23:27:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > FWIW, LHOD and anyone else can feel free to call me “dude” and I won’t get mad. But would you abide? ---
**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 16, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/162 "2014-11-16T23:33:33Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This “false claim” is backed up by numerous cites. The falsity of your claim was in it’s implication that Boehner’s statement was about “death panels”. You have nothing there. > [@](#): > > …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.] I addressed the Politifact cite because it had at least some superficial connection to your claim, in that it mentioned Boehner’s statement in an article with the heading “Death Panels”. Your other cite didn’t even do that. Again, this is about whether Boehner has made claims about death panels. The fact that [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) thinks Boehner’s concerns about a slippery slope to euthenasia are “a stretch” have nothing to do with this. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/163 "2014-11-16T23:40:29Z")
You know very well what Boehner wished his listeners to believe as a result of him saying it. You also know very well how false it was, and that he knew it. It’s time to drop this one, friend. ---
**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 17, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/164 "2014-11-17T00:14:20Z")
What I know very well is that if your MO is that everything your ideological opponents say will be interpreted in the most malevolent way possible, with all manner of sinister intent attributed to and inserted into it, then you can twist anything they say into a malicious lie. What I’m talking about is what Boehner actually said. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/165 "2014-11-17T00:19:27Z")
Suit yourself, but this isn’t really the hill you want to die on. ---
**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 17, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/166 "2014-11-17T00:31:57Z")
Let not your heart be troubled. Your concern is touching but unnecessary. ---
**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 17, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/167 "2014-11-17T00:39:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The falsity of your claim was in it’s implication that Boehner’s statement was about “death panels”. You have nothing there. Really, so your entire point is that alarmist talk about government-encouraged euthanasia is not death-panelish? Okay, dude. Glad you’ve made your view clear on that. ---
**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 17, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/168 "2014-11-17T01:33:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What I know very well is that if your MO is that everything your ideological opponents say will be interpreted in the most malevolent way possible, with all manner of sinister intent attributed to and inserted into it, then you can twist anything they say into a malicious lie. Exactly the point, and you shouldn’t listen to the folks doing this to Gruber. > [@](#): > > What I’m talking about is what Boehner actually said. Oh. Edit: Wait, I see–you mean, Boehner read what the ACA law said, and twisted that in the most malevolent way possible, talking about how innocuous provisions of the law could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia, and you don’t approve of attributing and inserting this sort of sinister intent to what others say, right? Note that I’m doing the opposite here, instead interpreting what you’re saying in the most reasonable possible light, attributing to you all sorts of benevolent intents in an effort to make what you’re saying not a virtual satire of cognitive dissonance. And you’re welcome! ---
**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 17, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/169 "2014-11-17T15:01:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It is a ridiculous line of attack. \*Dude \*is not a perjorative. The suggestion is not that dude is a perjorative. The suggestion is that LHOD is attempting to minimize the role that Gruber played in the ACA - and by extension, the extent to which his sentiments can be attributed to his precious ACA as a whole - by referring to him as “dude”. It’s a continuation of his remarks in an earlier post, in which he referred to his “_having only learned of this Gruber dude fifteen minutes ago_”. From a technical standpoint the fact that he called him a dude doesn’t logically mean that Gruber had a minor role in crafting the ACA, but there’s no question that a reference to “this one dude” suggests a less important person than “one person” might, and the fact that it leaves him wriggle room when challenged on it is all for the better for his purposes. Not a big deal at all (especially as I partially agree with LHOD about it) and par for the course here, but FWIW it’s likely that this was his intent. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Exactly the point, and you shouldn’t listen to the folks doing this to Gruber. > Oh. > > Edit: Wait, I see–you mean, Boehner read what the ACA law said, and twisted that in the most malevolent way possible, talking about how innocuous provisions of the law could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia, and you don’t approve of attributing and inserting this sort of sinister intent to what others say, right? > > Note that I’m doing the opposite here, instead interpreting what you’re saying in the most reasonable possible light, attributing to you all sorts of benevolent intents in an effort to make what you’re saying not a virtual satire of cognitive dissonance. And you’re welcome! Not so. Glad I could clear that up for you. Anything else you need help with, just let me know. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/170 "2014-11-17T15:19:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Not so. Is too. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Glad I could clear that up for you. Anything else you need help with, just let me know. If you think you’re convincing _anyone_ with a serious, thoughtful, fact-based discussion, one that shows your and your party’s views to be more reasonable and responsible, with that approach, then you need to reconsider. ---
**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 17, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/171 "2014-11-17T15:24:19Z")
If you think your assessment of who I’m convicing (or your assessment of anything else, frankly) carries any weight, then _you_ need to reconsider. But more importantly, your premise that my goal here is to convince people of things is itself erroneous. I’ve discussed my purpose here earlier in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/172 "2014-11-17T15:27:21Z")
When you’re ready to be serious, do please let us know. ---
**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 17, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/173 "2014-11-17T15:29:35Z")
Well put. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/174 "2014-11-17T16:20:44Z")
Gruber has always been a major player in the Democrat’s strategy to convince stupid voters to blindly support a bill that was incomplete, incomprehensible, and deceptive. Gruber was a holdover from the Romneycare team. Gruber was one of the few people who met with the Democrat strategists inside the Whitehouse and discussed the issue with Obama. It was reported that the Governator of California had spoken to Gruber about establishing some form of Romneycare in California. Gruber has been around a long time and dealt with many of the Democrat leadership. Now they don’t know who he is or why he was there. “_Gruber? We ain’t got no Gruber! We don’t need no Gruber! We don’t have to show you any stinking Gruber_!” Pelosi insulted the voters when she said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. She compounded the insult by adding, “away from the fog of controversy”. The honest and transparent way of dealing with the “fog of controversy” is to make the bill public and then defend what is actually in the bill. It would then no longer matter what the speculation was. The voters could then decide for themselves. But that wasn’t the Gruber way. ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/175 "2014-11-17T16:21:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The suggestion is not that dude is a perjorative. The suggestion is that LHOD is attempting to minimize the role that Gruber played in the ACA - and by extension, the extent to which his sentiments can be attributed to his precious ACA as a whole - by referring to him as “dude”. It’s a continuation of his remarks in an earlier post, in which he referred to his “_having only learned of this Gruber dude fifteen minutes ago_”. From a technical standpoint the fact that he called him a dude doesn’t logically mean that Gruber had a minor role in crafting the ACA, but there’s no question that a reference to “this one dude” suggests a less important person than “one person” might, and the fact that it leaves him wriggle room when challenged on it is all for the better for his purposes. What a lovely analysis. Had you heard of Gruber before this faux scandal? Did you follow ACA with interest when it was being debated? My point is, and remains, that this guy, however influential, was never a part of the highly public debates about the law, and whatever his beliefs about people, however interpreted, aren’t necessarily relevant to the larger discussion of public policy, except inasmuch as they present a cheap and less-than-forthright “gotcha.” > [@](#): > > Not so. > > Glad I could clear that up for you. Anything else you need help with, just let me know. Confession time: in my heart of hearts I suspected you didn’t mean it that way. I was interpreting you in the most benevolent possible fashion, because if you didn’t mean it that way, you were ignoring a major irony in your post. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/176 "2014-11-17T16:26:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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? > > But you have, _you have_ been one to trust those saying the contrary, haven’t you? Democrats should have produced the bill before the vote. Defend the actual contents of the bill before the vote. Only then should a vote be held. ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/177 "2014-11-17T16:31:58Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What a lovely analysis. Had you heard of Gruber before this faux scandal? Did you follow ACA with interest when it was being debated? My point is, and remains, that this guy, however influential, was never a part of the highly public debates about the law, and whatever his beliefs about people, however interpreted, aren’t necessarily relevant to the larger discussion of public policy, except inasmuch as they present a cheap and less-than-forthright “gotcha.” I think this goes too far. Whether or not Gruber was the figurehead in public debate for the ACA isn’t really relevant. The point is that Gruber had a signficant role in the crafting of the law. It is misleading to downplay his role. From the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)): > [@](#): > > In 2009–10 Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA or “Obamacare”.[5] The act was signed into law in March 2010, and Gruber has been described as an “architect”, “writer”, and “consultant” of the legislation. He was widely interviewed and quoted during the roll-out of the legislation.[6][7][8][9][10] Gruber is also on point in the design and development of the Vermont single payer plan. In other words, he is and was a very influencial dude. His remarks don’t impact the current legal questions since those should be answered by the text, but they are revealing into the process that crafted the ACA. If the analysis ever gets to the stage where intent matters, then his comments become more relevant. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/178 "2014-11-17T16:33:51Z")
> [@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. I doubt that the SCOTUS, or the Congress, or the U.S. public is buying what you’re selling. When you’re elected the Grand and Exalted Imperial Wizzer of the States of America, you can downgrade the SCOTUS or remove it entirely. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/179 "2014-11-17T16:40:03Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > 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? The point Pelosi, the highest ranking Democrat in the U.S. House and should well have been aware of what’s in the most contentious bill in the U.S. House and how it was being marketed to the voters, was making was that she wasn’t going to tell the voters what was in the bill until after it became law. ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/180 "2014-11-17T16:40:08Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Democrats should have produced the bill before the vote. Defend the actual contents of the bill before the vote. Only then should a vote be held. I believe they did. There was, if I recall correctly, a claim that the very final text was released with insufficient time to evaluate it before the vote–but there were no significant changes in the final text from the version that had been discussed for months up to that point. Do you have some cite to the contrary? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548.md?page=10)