# 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:** 5
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/81 "2009-06-22T20:38:52Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You’re right. I lost track of the point of the original post and got stuck on a tangent. My bad, **Bricker**. This is why I hold you in the highest regard. ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/82 "2009-06-22T20:38:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? It seems to be very true by free market arguments. Are they being forced to accept a job at a company with government healthcare, or prevented from seeking healthcare insurance on their own dime? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/83 "2009-06-22T20:40:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But this whole line from Obama is in response to people who say that they like their current plans just fine and don’t want to change them. Obama is trying to lead them to believe that nothing will happen to their current plans because of his new plan. > > I understand that the free market would cause this shift BECAUSE the government is injecting itself in a large way in that free market, and it WILL in fact cause some people to lose their current coverage in favor of the government solution. > > Now, we may agree that this is a very good thing. But it is simply misleading for Obama to attempt to assure everyone that their current coverage will not change as a result of this plan. I’ve said this and other posters have repeated it: **Americans will opt for public option _only_ if its better than private insurance.** It’s a truism that, unfortunately, is either conscientiously forgotten or lost to the annals of time. The Republicans believe that health care in the hands of the government will lead to["inefficiencies, long waiting periods, and often substandard health care."](http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Health_Care.htm) Why in the hell would an employer adopt a government plan that is inferior to the private plans? If UHC is destined to be terrible and inefficient, why do Republicans believe, so earnestly, that it’ll outcompete with private insurers? That’s analogous to believing that a government-sponsored program that hands out inferiorly-made condoms will shut out[trojan](http://www.trojancondoms.com/) and other private condom manufacturers. I suspect that what frustrates many Republicans is that the government has unequivocally decided that health care should be in reach for all American citizens. This means that health insurance is no longer luxury that’s constrained by the whims of the Free Market. (IMO) Except for the illegal aliens, everyone should have affordable, non-emergency care. What saddens me about the debate about health care is that our government spends billions of dollars rebuild Iraq, to send the U.S Corp of Engineers to southern Israel to erect a defense system that won’t work, to build wells and HIV awareness in Africa; we gave [73 million dollars to in Zimbabwe](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/12/obama_pledges_73_million_to_zi.html?wprss=44) despite that it’s less stable than [three oxygen atoms coupled together.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone) Don’t even get me started on how the U.S invested billions of dollars in Netherlands (which is one of the richest countries in Europe). We eagerly give our money to other countries but cry “PORK!” if we dare give a penny for ourselves. Damn you all for _not_ wanting to see those dollars spent domestically, especially on an important issue such as healthcare. I’m glad Uncle Sam is spending money on the U.S.A - it’s about time. - Honesty ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/84 "2009-06-22T20:41:50Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > 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. Here’s an analogy: the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. If the President said, “The government won’t force you to drive 55. Your state can set any speed limit it likes,” that would be technically true. But since the government provides highway funds only to those states with a 55 mph maximum, the honest, actual effect is that the government is imposing the speed limit. That’s the case here. The government won’t force anyone to switch. But by funding decisions, it creates an environment in which swtiching is inevitable. To fail to acknowledge that is dishonest. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/85 "2009-06-22T20:42:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what evidence would convince you that the majority of listeners didn’t take away the interpretation you’re urging? A random sampling of 1,000 people asked this question in the context of Obama’s speech in which he answered his critics concerning the plan: Do you believe you will be forced to take the government plan or will you be allowed to keep your current one? ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/86 "2009-06-22T20:43:40Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > It seems to be very true by free market arguments. > Are they being forced to accept a job at a company with government healthcare, or prevented from seeking healthcare insurance on their own dime? It’s possible you’re not a free-market proponent because you don’t understand the free market theory. As I’ve mentioned at least NINE times now, when the government funds an alternative, it’s no longer a freee market competition. Based on that repetition, I wonder why you’d continue to offer this canard up as argument? ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/87 "2009-06-22T20:44:19Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > 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. Hey I remember you. You still have that silly argument? That’s kinda weird dude. You called it violence last time. Are public schools the use of force? The fire department? Are firemen agents of an absuive society? What about social security is that the use of force? What about medicare and medicare? Is Canada an aggresive culture? ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/88 "2009-06-22T20:45:12Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > The Republicans believe that health care in the hands of the government will lead to["inefficiencies, long waiting periods, and often substandard health care."](http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Health_Care.htm) Many of us Americans who have dealt with HMO’s think that’s what they provide _now_, but far worse. The Republicans’ plans might have a little more credibility if they included some actual numbers, btw. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/89 "2009-06-22T20:46:14Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > A random sampling of 1,000 people asked this question in the context of Obama’s speech in which he answered his critics concerning the plan: > > Do you believe you will be forced to take the government plan or will you be allowed to keep your current one? Which answer would demonstrate that my theory is correct? ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/90 "2009-06-22T20:51:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s possible you’re not a free-market proponent because you don’t understand the free market theory. Ahem. Scroll up. I briefly summarized your disconnect with reality on that point. > [@](#): > > As I’ve mentioned at least NINE times now, when the government funds an alternative, it’s no longer a freee market competition. When you say what’s wrong with that, in a logical way, it will be the FIRST time.:rolleyes: BTW, this “16 of 20” shit is now well beyond pathetic. But not as much as your desperation in trying to prop up yet another silly Gotcha with this: > [@Bricker](#): > > The issue is: was Obama’s speech, in essence, deceptive? The issue for most participants here is whether UHC should be a right and, if so, how to best implement it. If the issue for you is instead, as you say, how to find a way to call Obama a liar in a way that 16 out of 20 people might not consider foolish, then you shouldn’t wonder at the lack of support you’re getting. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/91 "2009-06-22T20:54:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s possible you’re not a free-market proponent because you don’t understand the free market theory. > > As I’ve mentioned at least NINE times now, when the government funds an alternative, it’s no longer a freee market competition. > > Based on that repetition, I wonder why you’d continue to offer this canard up as argument? And of those 9 times you fail to specify, then defend why it’s a bad thing. Say they can’t compete, what then? Will the sky fall down? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/92 "2009-06-22T20:59:22Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > 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. I can’t understand why any educated person would describe our government’s taxation and services as a use of force. Seriously, it’s ignorant, it’s inflammatory and it makes your associated arguments laughable. Just because you hear an angry conservative talk-show host say it, doesn’t mean that it’s actually an intelligent or insightful idea. In fact, it’s probably closer to the opposite. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/93 "2009-06-22T20:59:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I admit that I’m not an enthusiastic welcomer of his plan, and this may well color my perception of his words. But seriously: I believe if you read these words to an average group and then asked about the possibility of losing your current doctor because your company opted to change or delete health care coverage in reaction to the government plan’s appearance, most people would agree he didn’t suggest such a thing was possible. Sure, all you need to do (and you seem quite willing to do so) is to omit certain words. Like force. That the government makes a decision which is may well be more attractive to some people isn’t the government forcing anything any more than running a sale on a car forces people to buy. It’s just one piece of information among many people will have to consider, and then choose. Maybe most of the employers in the U.S truly are republican, the aggressive, slow variety. Perhaps given that they will adamantly refuse to take advantage of the program out of some kind of ethics. Either way, they aren’t _forced_ to do one or the other. They are simply allowed to make the choice. No more so is it the case that an employee has to remain working anywhere. That someone’s employer switches insurance doesn’t seem to be a cited reason people leave their jobs. Perhaps some will, but again, they aren’t forced to. They choose it. Obama’s words are only able to be taken in your view by selectively reading out of it exactly what he put into it. Granted, I’m not most people, but I’m capable of seeing the difference between necessary and sufficient. That the government’s plan might be more cost effective to some employers isn’t a necessary condition to them switching. Force would be a necessary condition. Making something less expensive can be a sufficient condition. Why can’t you make that very obvious discernment? ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/94 "2009-06-22T21:00:43Z")
> [@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? Yes, I would. I may be operating under the Kael mindset, but I do think people are very used to being subject to their employers’ and insurance-carrier-of-the-moments’ whims when it comes to which doctors are covered for them. I don’t think that most people would misinterpret Obama’s words in the manner that you suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/95 "2009-06-22T21:00:56Z")
In every plausible context I can think of, the utterance “No one’s going to X” means either “Someone’s doing X is such a ridiculous prospect we can bet on no one doing it” or else “No one who I/we have power over is going to do X.” I immediately, without even thinking about it, understood Obama to mean the second. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/96 "2009-06-22T21:03:17Z")
Bricker, do you advocate private police departments? Why shouldn’t only for profit companies like Xe provide security for those that can afford it? Why shouldn’t there only be private schools? Why shouldn’t there only be private libraries? Does it sometimes happen that private companies and public companies exist along side and do similar work? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/97 "2009-06-22T21:21:55Z")
> [@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? I can’t speak for anyone else, but _I_ didn’t address it because it wasn’t germane to the OP of the thread, which is whether or not Obama was being dishonest in his speech. If the plan he’s offering is significantly better than private plans, people are more likely to switch to his plan. If you allow someone else to choose your plan for you, they might change your plan on your behalf. That’s the nature of employer health care, and I don’t think its necessary to explicitly state this for Obama’s speech to remain honest. Any unfair advantages Obama’s plan might have over private plans is entirely unrelated to the truth-value of the speech under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/98 "2009-06-22T21:27:16Z")
> [@cckerberos](#): > > The frequency of _tu quoque_ usage on the SDMB seems to have jumped since January… To be fair, every other board is experiencing the same. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/99 "2009-06-22T21:33:49Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > And of those 9 times you fail to specify, then defend why it’s a bad thing. > > Say they can’t compete, what then? Will the sky fall down? Maybe it’s a good thing. The greatest thing in the world, perhaps. I don’t know and don’t care (for the purposes of this thread, anyway). The point is it’s a DIFFERENT thing than merely having an employer choose between two or more private companies. So you cannot meaningfully say there’s no difference between an employer switching plans in the current environment and an employer switching plans based on the availablity of government-funded health care. We may say, if we wish, “Yeah, it’s different, but it’s better, so we’re all for it!” But we cannot say, “It’s no different!” Each of the nine (ten, now) times I’ve mentioned this, it was to rebut a claim that it’s just the same as having employers who switch coverage now. It may well be great, but it’s not the same. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/100 "2009-06-22T21:34:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But his plan may force, or encourage, employers to change or eliminate health care options they offer, because of the changing landscape provided by the new government options. Why would employers be forced to change or eliminate health care options? I’m assuming that it’s because they could see a drop in profits, or fewer customers, etc. However, this type of thing happens all of the time in the private industry, even _without_ government dipping its fingers into the pot. If two companies sell competing widgets, X and Y, both companies are going to employ tactics that will (hopefully) result in their turning a higher profit. For example, one company might start selling widget X at a loss, with a strategy to make up the lost revenue in some other way. At this point, their competitor - who sells a similar widget, Y, now with a much higher price tag - needs to figure out how they can remain competitive. Perhaps they don’t have as much money as their competitor, and thus cannot use the same tactics (selling widgets at a loss). They need to come up with a plan, or start packing their corporate bags. Using my example above, I believe you see the government in the role of the manufacturer of widget X, potentially driving the manufacturer of widgets Y out of business, due to some sort of advantage (whether or not that advantage is fair is a separate debate). How can private industry possibly compete with something like that? Well, I’ve always been told that innovation overwhelmingly originates in the private industry, rather than in government programs. So, perhaps they need to manufacture a widget Y that completely blows away widget X, in spite of its price point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581.md?page=6)