And this here is an actual productive argument. Keep in mind that Boehner didn’t say what you said: you said that “in some cases that could result in less care being available than would be sans the ACA.” I absolutely agree that that’s the case–although I think the converse is also true: in some cases, that could result in more care being available than would be sans the ACA.
But Boehner said something different: not that the government might determine that less care is available, but that the government might encourage euthanasia. That’s the outrageous charge that ties into the death panel conversation. That’s the charge that is scurrilous and patently dishonest.
It didn’t upon reading, but after F-P’s post #219 it’s more clear the point he was trying to make. I think he’s right, except to the extent that it was intentional. F-P was making a definitional argument, it just wasn’t made very clearly. #219 clarifies it pretty well, but really it could have been done in one post. Something like, “you’re using the terms interchangeably and incorrectly. A means X, and B means Y. If you agree let’s use the correct terminology and move on.” To which you could reply, “yep, I meant this…” and the hijack could be set aside to further discuss the use of the word “dude”.
Boehner did say something different - something more extreme which could be true if you squint just right. In the case of politics and sound bytes though, I treat them similarly. A reasoned argument is not going to be made in a 5 second clip. I blame the medium, not necessarily the messenger. When I hear his statement, I think, yes, with the government involved, they will be making decisions in cases where they wouldn’t otherwise be involved. Like you say, sometimes that’s going to be better for people. On this board we have people who now have insurance that otherwise wouldn’t have had insurance. That is a quality of life improvement which I think is a good thing for those people.
Sometimes it’s going to be worse. Personally - I’m against the ACA. In principle, I don’t think it should be the business of government to mandate purchase of something just by virtue of being alive. In practicle terms, I don’t think the ACA will be effective in reducing costs. To the extent certain costs are limited, I think that would result in impacted outcomes at the extremes, which in turn negativley impacts innovation. Granted the system before the ACA was fucktarded so I think some change was in order. I wish it was sold better, and maybe single payer will turn out in Vermont to be awesome.
But ultimately the ACA passed. Would more clarity around the language of the bill seen the same success? I’m not sure. I think if there were a vote today it wouldn’t pass. That’s mostly a function of the change in congress, nothing to do with the merits. I would bet maybe even money that if the same congress that was in office at the time the ACA passed knew then what the public knows now, then the ACA would not have passed. There are some on this board who hold similar positions to Gruber who think that if that’s the case, then it is worth it to deceive the public to get good legislation passed.
Gruber believes that the ACA was deceptive to hide the impact so it could be passed. To me there are two main lines of thought contained there. The first is whether or not it was deceptivley packaged. I think it was. From Pelosi’s statement (that you can’t mention without someone mentioning the context, for which I don’t think it really changes the meaning, IMO), to Obama’s protestations about keeping your doctor and insurance, to arguing that it wasn’t a tax, to a bunch of other things stated upthread.
The second is whether that deception ought to be acceptable. I say no. As a matter of principle, this is bad. Others in this thread excuse this by some combination of Republicans were also being deceptive, Democrats were being less deceptive, the ACA was worth being deceptive over, it’s the nature of politics, or some other reason. THe problem with these rationalizations is that they are situational and can really be used to support any sort of bad outcomes, IMO.
Make a deal with yourself - don’t go after low hanging fruit, dude.
You may be right on this one. It’s a pretty uninteresting definitional argument to me and I’m pretty happy to let it go–it’s the whole suggestion that I’m some devious mastermind swapping out words as the main way I try to win arguments that I find delusional and annoying.
I don’t think they’re the same, not at all. What he said could only be true in the sense that he used the word “may”, and in a quantum universe, the use of that word makes anything true. The ACA “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia” only in the sense that it “may start us down a treacherous path toward deep-frying our own hands and eating them with hollandaise sauce.” You never know!
There are legitimate arguments that were made–and are still being made–against ACA. This is not one of them.
It might well have been. I don’t think Pelosi’s statement counts, but Obama’s “keep your doctor” probably does.
My assessment is that the logical fallacy term was deliberately chosen, both because I would guess that LHOD is most likely familiar with the concept of logical fallacy and more importantly because at that point he was discussing slippery slope arguments in general and not any specific slippery slope argument. But regardless, the distinction was significant in the context of whether Boehner was lying or merely incorrect as to his premise, so it was worth noting, and when it was pointed out he (LHOD) had the option of acknowledging it directly.
FWIW, I think there’s a difference between packaging something in a manner that many people will fail to understand (what Gruber is talking about) and directly lying to the public about the effects of the bill (Obama’s statement). I’m ambivalent about the first, and opposed to the second. (I have no problem at all with Pelosi’s statement.)
FTR it was not my intention to imply that you’re a devious mastermind (or any other sort of mastermind). The forum is not conducive to a fuller discussion of this issue, but you can be assured at least that such was not the implication.
Don’t take it from just me & this author. Here’s another cite with a bunch more legal analysts and lawyers pointing out the blatant cynicism behind the Court’s decision to hear King.
Simply put, this Court has already welcomed illegitimacy by hearing the case.