# 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:** 6
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/101 "2009-06-22T21:37:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I do. > > 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. Really? They believe the government is going to forbid a company from switching plans? How exactly would this even work? Moreover, what evidence do you have that most people are prepared to believe that the government is going to prevent companies from switching health plans after the government offers a health plan? ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/102 "2009-06-22T21:38:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. I thought my “55 mph” analogy was a good illustration of my point. Would you say it’s truthful for the government to say that they’re not forcing a speed limit on anyone? ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/103 "2009-06-22T21:41:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Really? They believe the government is going to forbid a company from switching plans? How exactly would this even work? No. I think they’d believe that the net effect would be that there would be no change in the current environment – that the calculus a company would use to pick healthcare wouldn’t really change. > [@](#): > > Moreover, what evidence do you have that most people are prepared to believe that the government is going to prevent companies from switching health plans after the government offers a health plan? You didn’t read or follow what I’m saying? I don’t contend the government will directly force anything, in the same way that the government didn’t force the 55 mph speed limit on states. But, nontheless, when the government imposed its funding plan, states changed to conform to the 55 limit. Was that free choice on the part of the states? ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/104 "2009-06-22T21:46:20Z")
Or another example: Suppose the government said, “Our current tax system places too high a burden on the poor. So we’re going to cut taxes on the poor, and make up the difference by establishing a national lottery.” Now, technically, these statements may be true. But the reality is that a national lottery would almost certainly gain most of its revenue from… the poor! So such a claim would be fundamentally dishonest. ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/105 "2009-06-22T21:46:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I thought my “55 mph” analogy was a good illustration of my point. Would you say it’s truthful for the government to say that they’re not forcing a speed limit on anyone? Your point would be valid provided that when dealing with this healthcare legislation, the government also said that failing to adopt its care would result in stiffer taxes, loss of statewide repair to roads, and all other federal benefits. The government all but forced the states to adopt the 55 mph speed limit by intentionally withholding funds and services to handicap the states. Offering the option not to adopt its healthcare plan isn’t at all in the same rank. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/106 "2009-06-22T21:46:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Seems to me it is more expensive for you as it is now and will get even more expensive for you down the road. There is little downward price pressure and medical costs continue to get out of hand. That makes your insurance more expensive and/or you get less for the same amount of money. The net effect should be you paying less overall and halting this upward price spiral which, if it continues, can be a legitimate threat to the nation’s economic health. ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/107 "2009-06-22T21:50:00Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Your point would be valid provided that when dealing with this healthcare legislation, the government also said that failing to adopt its care would result in stiffer taxes, loss of statewide repair to roads, and all other federal benefits. The government all but forced the states to adopt the 55 mph speed limit by intentionally withholding funds and services to handicap the states. > > Offering the option not to adopt its healthcare plan isn’t at all in the same rank. Why not? If the government creates a health care plan that can operate at a loss, they are doing the same thing: withholding funds from health care that isn’t their’s and providing funds to health care that IS theirs. How is it different than the roads funding? ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/108 "2009-06-22T21:51:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems to me it is more expensive for you as it is now and will get even more expensive for you down the road. There is little downward price pressure and medical costs continue to get out of hand. That makes your insurance more expensive and/or you get less for the same amount of money. > > The net effect should be you paying less overall and halting this upward price spiral which, if it continues, can be a legitimate threat to the nation’s economic health. Hmmmm. How will it cause the price sprial to halt, exactly? ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/109 "2009-06-22T22:01:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. How is it different to me, the employee? ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/110 "2009-06-22T22:01:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why not? If the government creates a health care plan that can operate at a loss, they are doing the same thing: withholding funds from health care that isn’t their’s and providing funds to health care that IS theirs. How is it different than the roads funding? Well, for one, your assumption is large. You presume it will operate at a loss. There’s no convincing reason to believe that it will operate at a loss. That’s rank speculation. So, the remainder of your argument fails since the premise is false. But even assuming it must operate at a loss, there’s nothing which forces anyone to change to it. They will simply operate as they’re operating now. The roads deal was a negative consequence specifically because the federal money was the majority of the upkeep. I suppose if the government were already paying these companies’ insurance premiums and then said they’d stop doing so unless the companies switched to the new system, you’d have a valid argument. But they aren’t, they haven’t, and you don’t. Also, you don’t take into account that the government can work qua government and qua business. When working as a business, it works the same as other business: maximum output for minimum investment of resources. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/111 "2009-06-22T22:18:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Which answer would demonstrate that my theory is correct? Whatever answer gets you 80% of 1,000. Your number was 16 out of 20, right? Too low a sample to be accepted, but 1,000 is good enough for government work. ---
**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, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/112 "2009-06-22T22:41:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Okay so why is it different other then “it’s the government”? You seem to think it inherently can provide a better deal, but so what? That’s what people do. They pick the best deal. That one of the options is a government offering is no different then saying it’s different because people have 5 health insurance providers to pick instead of 4. ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/113 "2009-06-22T22:43:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or another example: > > Suppose the government said, “Our current tax system places too high a burden on the poor. So we’re going to cut taxes on the poor, and make up the difference by establishing a national lottery.” > > Now, technically, these statements may be true. > > But the reality is that a national lottery would almost certainly gain most of its revenue from… the poor! So such a claim would be fundamentally dishonest. Lottery is a tax on people bad at statistics, not the poor. Unlike taxes the poor don’t have to buy lottery tickets, but taxes they have no choice in. I grew up poor, but you know how many lottery tickets I’ve bought? 0, because it’s a bad investment. I have paid taxes though. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/114 "2009-06-22T23:01:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or another example: > > Suppose the government said, “Our current tax system places too high a burden on the poor. So we’re going to cut taxes on the poor, and make up the difference by establishing a national lottery.” > > Now, technically, these statements may be true. > > But the reality is that a national lottery would almost certainly gain most of its revenue from… the poor! So such a claim would be fundamentally dishonest. That is a good analogy. Because, like the speech you started this thread about, you’re stating that something is dishonest, but then arguing that it’s unwise. Dishonest and unwise are not the same thing. Nothing in the quote you just invented is dishonest. It’s bad policy, but it’s not dishonest - it does exactly what they say it does. Similarly, nothing in Obama’s speech is dishonest. It may not be a good policy, but so far he’s not doing anything that counters what he says he’s going to do. ---
**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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/115 "2009-06-22T23:06:35Z")
Oh, and your speed limit analogy doesn’t work, because when they established the speed limit, the government was threatening to take something away from the states. They were saying, “Follow our plan, or starting paying for these roads out of your own pocket.” Obama is saying, “Follow our plan, or continue to pay exactly as much for health insurance as you currently pay.” I don’t really see those as comparable situations. ---
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/116 "2009-06-22T23:08:57Z")
The government provides public defenders. Is the government forcing people to shift from private to public attorneys? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/117 "2009-06-22T23:11:30Z")
Reagan promised to balance the budget. He never did. That doesn’t mean he was lying when he said it. All politicians make campaign promises without even knowing, for sure, whether they’ll be able to keep them once they get in office and learn about the situation from an office-holder’s perspective, and are confronted with a post-election political environment that might be completely different from the pre-election environment; and, of course, an elected official always has the right simply to change his mind, in light of new information or a change of heart. We the voters, I hope, always know that and take it into account when we hear the promises made. It does not make the promises completely worthless; at least they indicate a general direction of intentions, reliably so more often than not. There are many exceptions, of course, some of them unforgiveable, like Nixon running on an antiwar platform in 1968. That **was** a lie. ---
**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 23, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/118 "2009-06-23T00:33:19Z")
I’m not going to address argument by analogy: too often those mofos go off the rails. Instead, I’ll address what I think may be the disconnect: **Bricker** has stated that the proposed situation (government-run health plan) is different from the current situation (competing private plans). I agree. These situations are different from at least two perspectives: 1. The perspective of private insurers who may be driven out of business by a government plan; and 2. The perspective of taxpayers who may end up paying more to fund a government plan. However, there’s a third perspective, and that’s the perspective that Obama was addressing: 3) The private individual who may or may not have an employer who chooses their health plan for them. From this third perspective–the one that Obama was addressing– **there is no difference**. For the private individual whose employer chooses their health plan, there’s no difference between the employer going with private company B because the company is cheaper, and public bureau C because the bureau is cheaper. That’s why I and other folks have been saying this difference is irrelevant. (Of course there are crossovers among the three different perspectives–but Obama’s quote clearly addresses the third one, not the first two). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/119 "2009-06-23T02:31:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Perhaps that’s all he meant. But he had a simialr message concerning income tax during the campaign, and he didn’t say, “No one will have their taxes raised.” He said what he meant: “MOST OF YOU won’t have your taxes raised.” Here, he seems to have lost the willingness to add the qualifier. > [@](#): > > 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. The key difference is between the government creating an option and the government outlawing any alternatives to its chosen option. For taxes, people don’t have a choice. The government sets the tax codes and people have to pay it. The same is true for speed limits; they’re set by the government (albeit state governments). Nobody is giving a choice of options of which paying income tax or driving under 55mph is the best available choice (unless you argue that breaking the law is an alternative). A better analogy would be if the President said “you can drive whatever speed you want but everybody who drives under 55 mph all year doesn’t have to pay any income tax.” Under such a program, the financial advantages of driving under the “suggested” speed of 55 mph would be so great that virtually everyone would follow it. But the government wouldn’t be forcing anyone to drive slowly - if you really wanted to drive faster (or if you really wanted to pay income taxes I suppose) it would be an option even it would cost you thousands of dollars. So to get back to the issue of health care, the government will not forbid anyone to stay with their current health plan. So the government is not _forcing_ anyone to change. Granted, if the government offers a plausible alternative health plan, some businesses are going to stop offering the same choices to people. But while this may mean that government action will affect the choices people have available that doesn’t make it the same as the government directly making the choices for people. My opinion anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581/120 "2009-06-23T02:37:35Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > The government provides public defenders. Is the government forcing people to shift from private to public attorneys? What if they levied a tax on attorneys’ fees to pay for the public attorneys? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-presidents-rhetoric-shouldnt-be-taken-literally/500581.md?page=7)