# The President's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 22, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581 "2009-06-22T14:37:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/61 "2009-06-22T20:03:31Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Isn’t that between them and their employer? That’s what Free Markestists like to say anyway. After all if they don’t like their employers offering then they’re free to find a new job, or buy their own insurance.\* _sigh_ Six times, now. > [@](#): > > Would this result in worse healthcare though? I could cite a list of countries where government healthcare programs work great, lower costs, healthier populations, etc. What does this have to do with anything? I’m saying the care will be cheaper because they government isn’t constrained by the same profit factors the private companies are. Let’s assume that results in a better program. Fine. It’s better health care. No surprise. It SHOULD be, since it’s more expensive overall. It’s not more expensive for the beneficiary, but it relies on the whole tax-paying populace to pay for it. > [@](#): > > If private healthcare insurance companies can provide a better product then they’ll do fine. If they can’t then well that’s their problem. Who needs them? They aren’t entitled\* AGAIN: AGAIN!!! AGAIN!!! Listen: the issue is that the government can provide the programs without worry about breaking even or making money. If the private companies could set their prices and services without worry about actually making money, they could compete. But only the government, with its coffers of tax money and deficit spending, can do this. > [@](#): > > \*note free marketists arguments used for irony. Eight. The free market argument doesn’t apply to the case where one of the “competitors” can run at a deficit and not worry about making money. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/62 "2009-06-22T20:05:08Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > I think that if you read those words to a person who has worked for companies that switch health plans annually (and some times more frequently), that person would know what he meant. And if I were to show you that twenty random people were chosen and had the speech played for them, and sixteen of them didn’t know what he meant, then would you concede you were mistaken in this assumption? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/63 "2009-06-22T20:07:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, yes. But AGAIN I point out the fundamental difference between a government plan and the private plans with which it would compete: the necessity of the private plans to set price points so they don’t lose money, and the government plan’s immunity from that need. So what your saying is the government could provide competitive healthcare for cheaper? This is bad because? > [@](#): > > Not one person has addressed this point, depsite the fact that I’ve mentioned it four or five times now. Why is that? maybe 'tis irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/64 "2009-06-22T20:10:54Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So what your saying is the government could provide competitive healthcare for cheaper? > > This is bad because? People wouldn’t be able to be murdered by spreadsheet anymore! Duh. What are you, a Communist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/65 "2009-06-22T20:11:46Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So what your saying is the government could provide competitive healthcare for cheaper? > > This is bad because? Because it’s only “cheaper” in the sense that the ones getting the benefit are paying less. It’s subsidized by the entirety of the American tax-paying base. In other words, I’m paying more taxes to cover your health care. Sure, that makes your health care cheaper for you, but it makes it more expensive for me. > [@](#): > > maybe 'tis irrelevant. How is that possible? It’s the basis of the argument. It can’t be irrelevant to rebutting the argument. It IS the argument. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/66 "2009-06-22T20:12:33Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker;11268232I’m saying the care will be cheaper because they government isn’t constrained by the same profit factors the private companies are.[/quote] Huh? Just the opposite is true. Costs will not be padded by a provider that does not have profit as its primary motive. Note too that cost and quality of care are not all that closely related here. > [@](#): > > The free market argument doesn’t apply to the case where one of the “competitors” can run at a deficit and not worry about making money. As you should certainly well know, by comparison with, say, the Postal Service and UPS, an organization that is required to provide service to 100% of the population will have higher operating _costs even for the same level of service_ than a “free market” company that can cherrypick its service population. Tell us, what effective consumer-benefiting competition do you see between HBO’s _today_? Your interest is clearly in how the people can best serve the insurance companies. Is it any wonder why your RO is not going over well? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/67 "2009-06-22T20:12:46Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > People wouldn’t be able to be murdered by spreadsheet anymore! Duh. > > What are you, a Communist? Non-responsive. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/68 "2009-06-22T20:13:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And if I were to show you that twenty random people were chosen and had the speech played for them, and sixteen of them didn’t know what he meant, then would you concede you were mistaken in this assumption? This is getting pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/69 "2009-06-22T20:15:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Non-responsive. People dying because having testing/imaging/procedures/medication denied payment by a for-profit insurance company because that company can’t squeeze a profit out of the testing/imaging/procedures/medication is entirely responsive to this issue. ---
**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:** [June 22, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/70 "2009-06-22T20:17:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, yes. But AGAIN I point out the fundamental difference between a government plan and the private plans with which it would compete: the necessity of the private plans to set price points so they don’t lose money, and the government plan’s immunity from that need. > > Not one person has addressed this point, depsite the fact that I’ve mentioned it four or five times now. Why is that? Because it’s an argument against the plan itself, not an argument that Obama’s rhetoric is flawed. I’ll build on what **Miller** said. Not only is the point obvious, but if the president was saying what you claim he was saying, he was lying in a completely ridiculous manner. Let’s suppose that your 16/20 random voters agree that Obama was saying, “No private company will change health plans based on the proposed legislation.” Do you think that those 16/20 people would believe this is true? It seems to me that your interpretation of his words is such and obvious, transparent falsehood that it would not have served him well at all as a piece of rhetoric. Why would he make a claim that any fool could, with a moment’s thought, see isn’t true? It seems far likelier that he meant to say something that either is true or requires more than a moment’s thought to see that it’s untrue. He’s a skilled orator: it’d be out of character for him to tell such a blatant lie. Therefore, it seems much likelier to me that your interpretation is incorrect. He didn’t mean that nobody’s employer would switch plans: he meant that the government (the party for whom he speaks) wouldn’t force a change on anyone. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/71 "2009-06-22T20:21:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m saying the care will be cheaper because they government isn’t constrained by the same profit factors the private companies are. Let’s assume that results in a better program. Fine. It’s better health care. No surprise. It SHOULD be, since it’s more expensive overall. It’s not more expensive for the beneficiary, but it relies on the whole tax-paying populace to pay for it. Yea places like the UK, and Canada show how expensive this is. This could be a step toward what they have. Which answers what you asked before: > [@](#): > > What does this have to do with anything? This system is a step toward UHC. > [@](#): > > Listen: the issue is that the government can provide the programs without worry about breaking even or making money. If the private companies could set their prices and services without worry about actually making money, they could compete. But only the government, with its coffers of tax money and deficit spending, can do this. Wait after that fool semian expresident needlessly blew a trillion on either lies or incompetence we’re going to start worrying about money? You the person who voted for him and argued for his expensive policies are crowing about money?:dubious: Interestingly UHC is cheaper then the mess we have now. Shifting to it, and, if you’re right that insurance companies can’t compete, this would be a shift to it could save us some money to fix this mess. > [@](#): > > Eight. pick up sticks! > [@](#): > > The free market argument doesn’t apply to the case where one of the “competitors” can run at a deficit and not worry about making money. Yet the free markets’ proponent’s arguments seem to apply. Which I find amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/72 "2009-06-22T20:24:00Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > People dying because having testing/imaging/procedures/medication denied payment by a for-profit insurance company because that company can’t squeeze a profit out of the testing/imaging/procedures/medication is entirely responsive to this issue. No, it isn’t. The issue is: was Obama’s speech, in essence, deceptive? Your argument seems to be, “So what if it was? Private profit produces poor healthcare decisions, so we need the government funded, not-profit-minded system.” That may be true, or it may not. But it’s NOT the issue of whether or not Obama’s comments were truthful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/73 "2009-06-22T20:25:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Because it’s an argument against the plan itself, not an argument that Obama’s rhetoric is flawed. > > I’ll build on what **Miller** said. Not only is the point obvious, but if the president was saying what you claim he was saying, he was lying in a completely ridiculous manner. > > Let’s suppose that your 16/20 random voters agree that Obama was saying, “No private company will change health plans based on the proposed legislation.” Do you think that those 16/20 people would believe this is true? Yes, I do. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that your interpretation of his words is such and obvious, transparent falsehood that it would not have served him well at all as a piece of rhetoric. Why would he make a claim that any fool could, with a moment’s thought, see isn’t true? > > It seems far likelier that he meant to say something that either is true or requires more than a moment’s thought to see that it’s untrue. He’s a skilled orator: it’d be out of character for him to tell such a blatant lie. > > Therefore, it seems much likelier to me that your interpretation is incorrect. He didn’t mean that nobody’s employer would switch plans: he meant that the government (the party for whom he speaks) wouldn’t force a change on anyone. I disagree with your premise. I think that the majority of people are prepared to believe such a claim is possible; on it’s face, true. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/74 "2009-06-22T20:26:48Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Yea places like the UK, and Canada show how expensive this is. This could be a step toward what they have. Which answers what you asked before: > > This system is a step toward UHC. OK. But Obama’s comments seem to deny that this is a step towards UHC. So are you in the “Yeah, OK, it’s not true excatly, but it’s for a good cause,” camp? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/75 "2009-06-22T20:26:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Far from being a “nit,” this is central to my point. You claim that the President’s words are very clear and obvious to “the rest of us.” I claim that the ordinary listener would be misled. > > If you’re right, then clearly I have nothing to complain about. > > So when I ask what evidence you’d accept to rebut your claim that “the rest of us” clearly understood him, and you say, “None,” then you’re essentially saying that it’s NOT relevant what an ordinary listener would understand. Bricker, Your whole “point” imo, is that President was not specific enough in his statement; that he did not use a qualfier to cover his ass from people who have an agenda and will use any opening, no matter how small as a reason to find fault. You made a point similar to this in the Letterman thread, where you noted that Letterman’s lack of specific details allowed those looking for a reason to become upset at his Palin joke did so, despite knowing in their heart of hearts, what Letterman meant. I submit you are doing exactly that here. There are times when specificity is important, there are others where common usage is appropriate and the majority of people understand what is being said. The President had be dealing with people giving the impression that the public plan will be forced upon them. That is the issued The President addressed. People, ie the rest of us, who have worked for employers who have changed their health benefits understand that their benefits are subject to the whims of their employer, which are based on economics. So when the President says, “You can keep your plan”, we understand that to mean, ‘the government’ will not take your plan from you; NOT that your plan will not changed because of the public plan. That is the logical and correct, again IMO understanding of the President’s statement. Yes, you can find people who if you ask the question just right will come to your interpretation, however you shouldn’t have to do that. You should be confident enough to ask the question in the context that the President responded to it and base your results on that; not on a reworked and parsed question. If have to do that to make your case, that alone should give you reason to re-evaluate your position. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/76 "2009-06-22T20:27:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, yes. But AGAIN I point out the fundamental difference between a government plan and the private plans with which it would compete: the necessity of the private plans to set price points so they don’t lose money, and the government plan’s immunity from that need. > > Not one person has addressed this point, depsite the fact that I’ve mentioned it four or five times now. Why is that? Perhaps because you’re disingenuously couching it in terms of Obama “forcing” people to lose their health care. It’s not; it’s the employer’s who are making a **voluntary choice** to switch plans. It’s the employer who **voluntarily** chose to offer health care as a perquisite of employment. It’s further disingenuous to claim that Obama’s rhetoric is misleading because he doesn’t follow your tortured logic. It’s somewhat pathetic to “_sigh_” and claim “annoyance” at the majority of people in the thread that see through your flaccid arguments. If you wanted to debate whether the government has an unfair advantage over private insurance companies, and what the overall effects of that advantage might be, well have at it. But to claim that this supports the insipid contention that Obama’s health care plan is \*\*\*forcing \*\*\*people out of their health care is preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/77 "2009-06-22T20:31:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, it isn’t. The issue is: was Obama’s speech, in essence, deceptive? > > Your argument seems to be, “So what if it was? Private profit produces poor healthcare decisions, so we need the government funded, not-profit-minded system.” > > That may be true, or it may not. But it’s NOT the issue of whether or not Obama’s comments were truthful. You’re right. I lost track of the point of the original post and got stuck on a tangent. My bad, **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/78 "2009-06-22T20:34:05Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > There are times when specificity is important, there are others where common usage is appropriate and the majority of people understand what is being said. The President had be dealing with people giving the impression that the public plan will be forced upon them. That is the issued The President addressed. Then what better time to be crystal-clear? > [@](#): > > People, ie the rest of us, who have worked for employers who have changed their health benefits understand that their benefits are subject to the whims of their employer, which are based on economics. So when the President says, “You can keep your plan”, we understand that to mean, ‘the government’ will not take your plan from you; NOT that your plan will not changed because of the public plan. That is the logical and correct, again IMO understanding of the President’s statement. So I’ll ask you the queston: what evidence would convince you that the majority of listeners don’t take that impression from the speech? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/79 "2009-06-22T20:36:18Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It’s further disingenuous to claim that Obama’s rhetoric is misleading because he doesn’t follow your tortured logic. So what evidence would convince you that the majority of listeners didn’t take away the interpretation you’re urging? ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/80 "2009-06-22T20:36:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The horror of it. The government will offer a competing plan. Don’t capitalist just love competition? If they offer a better cheaper plan and your employer may opt for it. You are being force fed one plan now. The option of accepting or rejecting it still exists. Your options ,at least your company options, will have doubled. How is that forcing a government plan down your throat? > Most workers are having their insurance rates raised endlessly and benefits are being trimmed. Such a deal. When the government gets involved true competition can no longer take place. Because the government gains all capital by having a monopoly on the use of force. I have trouble understanding why any civilized person would want to increase the use of force to provide healthcare. I do not believe the use of force can be justified for such a thing. I thought we humans as progressed beyond the use of force to solve our problems. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581.md?page=5)