An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Obama: Ignore (other people’s) scare tactics
Those talk show hosts are awful. They say the most awful things. But it’s the President who runs the country, so I’m much more concerned with his disingenuity. From last night:
Instead of honest debate, we’ve seen scare tactics.
Also last night:
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.
That’s not a scare tactic, of course. It’s an analysis of policy options. And the following are thoughtful illustrations, not scary stories:
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
So I guess if I provide a few examples of terrible things that happen in Canada, I would’ve responsibly documented the perils of government-run healthcare?
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
56 Responses to “Obama: Ignore (other people’s) scare tactics”
Crisis generation is the way things were done under Bush, Obama learned that lesson too well and now uses it as well. Its a problem that spans both parties.
I call bullshit! By the way Leonidas, do you actually do anything at all in your life other than prowl on C&L? You are tiresome
Write on, Leonidas! (spelling intentional)
My favortie part:
if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt…..
“So help me spend more money and raise taxes.
LOL
And Imavettoo…..Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
If you do not think the democrats and the republicans use scare tactics in politics, then you are a bit naive.
It doesn't just apply to Obama or Bush. They used the same tactics building up to the Revolutionary War, and rightly so. It's how politics works.
To quote “The American President”:
“making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. “
Of course when people talk about death panels and subsidies for illegal aliens they are using scare tactics and lying. But I suppose that makes no difference?
The President does not run the country. The president run the executive branch of the government. The president has little affect on the economy or the country.
The real quesiton is how can the U.S. fund a massive expansion of entitlements while starting new regulatory programs to raise the costs of labor and to discourage private enterprise. Also, will the U.S. be able to tax poor hispanics and blacks enough to make up for the collapse in the birthrate among whites? The Democrats are making a long term bet that Hispanics and blacks can be as productive and as invested in the U.S. as whites. Yet, the experiment in California is demonstraing that the welfare state cannot be maintained in a region that is majority non-white.
You post matches your avatar well.
“Nuff said.
DAVID ADESNIK
You are being disingenuous in your comparison of Obama's “scare tactics” and the tripe that passes for Republican criticism.
Will deficits and the cost of health insurance keep rising if we do nothing? Cite who disagrees or retract the bogus attack.
Are 14000 people losing their insurance every day? True according to PolitiFact. This is a scare tactic?
Is medical debt the 2nd highest cause of bankruptcy?
These facts may be scarey, but unlike “death panels” and “killing Medicare” they are true.
Your feeble attempt at equivalence is pure BS. Are you trying to form your own intellectual scare tactic be using poor logic and cllear confusion over equivalence.
What a waste of talent.
Does anyone have a complete list of which Congresspeople and Governors are against the public option and which state each is from?
Thought Leonidas could save me some more time and print one.
Obama said he wants HemmD and Sil to get their public option, so long as the premium base is sufficient to keep the plan from running a deficit.
I , a fiscal conservative and libertarian, am perfectly fine with that and I also think that specific construct will attract more than enough R votes to easily pass.
You guys won…….don't be sad, be happy.
Scare tactics aren't necessarily false- they can be completely true but still represent the use of fear in order to deflect from real debate on the policy that's being proposed. Obama and the Dems have repeatedly done so, as though the problems with the status quo mean that everyone should stop pondering what the real effects of their plans will be and just agree to let them pass the thing because we need to be so worried about what will happen if some form of reform doesn't pass.
Fake “crisis” claims by liberals are nothing new (exploiting their fellow children). What's new this year is the separate, additional effort to stupidly rush bad legislation to passage, increasingly bad legislation.
That there is a (true) need for (true) reform (which doesn't require a federal takeover, which is what the Dems are seeking) never was the issue.
So this is the latest GOP/Medmob spin…lol…you guys crack me up..
“because we need to be so worried about what will happen if some form of reform doesn't pass.”
*********
Yes, yes we do CStanley. The difference between GOP and dem “scare tactics” is that Barack Obama and his rich Congressional friends really stand nothing to gain by passing the public option except to insure than our fiscal solvency as a nation remains intact. The current ER-option for those uninsured is bankrupting us. Oh, and they actually care about people less fortunate than they.
The scare tactics from the GOP for the entire month of August just days ago really…was geared to make people afraid of getting access to affordable health care. Pay attention to the word “affordable” because its interpretation has historically not favored the poor. The REAL statistics that show that health issues of the insured [pay attention] are one of the main causes of personal bankrupcty. Not only does the individual and his/her family suffer the consequences of no public option, but instead what the insurance industry believes is “affordable” with their deductables and premium increases lays a burden on our entire society when we are forced to help these newly destitute people who otherwise would've been productive…
Oh sure, MedMob has agreed to rein itself in during the Obama adminstration and while Congress is mostly dem. But the millisecond any GOP majority tips the scales you can watch as the word “deregulation” once again begins to undermine our fiscal solvency so that a group of elite rich can continue to profiteer off the suffering of others.
The difference between the two types of “scare tactics” is very simple. It's called “morality and patriotism”. I understand how to MedMob and the GOP, that glaringly obvious determiner to everyone else could've escaped their detection..
CS
Definition of scare tactics:
“
Scare tactics are not direct threats, but are coerced conclusions. Instead of threatening a consequence onto a person, scare tactics highlight the possible negative outcomes to the extreme, while merely suggesting causality. The audience is supposed to use its own logic to draw the obvious negative conclusions. This is dangerous, for people often believe their own faulty logic because we feel that we can trust our own decisions (simply because they belong to us). If we base these conclusions on fear, however, then we have committed a logical fallacy.”
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-emoti…
The key here is that scare tactics are based upon “possible negative outcomes while merely suggesting causality.” If Obama's points were possible consequences, you'd be correct, but the facts that rates will rise, that the deficit will go up, etc. are not in dispute by anyone I know of.
The difference is fundamental; “don't try to cross the street, you could be hit by a bus” is a scare tactic. “Don't cross, there's a bus coming,” is not.
Are you arguing that Obama's “bus” isn't coming?
The real bus coming is the exploding deficits, and the writing on the side of the bus is “MEDICARE”. If he were using those stats to simply push for real reform to reduce our entitlement obligations to make them sustainable, and could give plausible arguments for a plan to do so, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's no doubt that sometimes people really do need to be informed about an oncoming bus or trainwreck- but he's using a bait and switch (not that unlike Bush and Iraq, really- because the scare rhetoric then prevented a lot of people from thinking clearly about whether or not the solution matched the crisis.)
As for the 14,000 per day- most of that is unemployment, and that's our economic crisis, not a 'healthcare crisis'.
you guys crack me up..
Thanks then, for returning the favor- I particularly liked this bit….
BTW, Hemm, that's a great definition and it makes my point for me, but you still don't seem to see it. By asking if I'm arguing that Obama's bus isn't coming, what you are ignoring is that even if a bus is coming we shouldn't make the faulty logical leap that the person who is warning us about the bus is actually pushing us in the right direction to avoid getting hit.
That's what the definition is explaining- that the problem with this rhetorical tactic is that the speaker argues his point disingenuously by only pointing out the negative potential of one course of action and leads the listeners to draw fallacious conclusions from it. It's a tactic that is used when you can't really support your own proposition based on more sound logic.
“Scare tactics aren't necessarily false- they can be completely true but still represent the use of fear in order to deflect from real debate on the policy that's being proposed.”
Bogus crisis claims, irresponsible alarmism, and hyperbolic catastrophism are especially in play these past several years with the “global warming” movement. Health care this year has featured the next worst behavior, but it's largely channeled toward the same silly rush-to-pass-laws-this-year objective as with other legislation.
CS
So the increases is health cost, premium rates, and bankruptcies have nothing to do with the current state of health care in this country? Are you trying to argue that the rising costs in Your health care doesn't effect the financing of medicare's health costs?
As to the 14k A DAY, they have no insurance now. Are you trying to say that Obama's proposals would not ameliorate that situation?
CS
”
The real bus coming is the exploding deficits, and the writing on the side of the bus is “MEDICARE”.”
At least now I take it, that you see it's not a scare tactic.
Are you criticizing Obama's plan because it doesn't fix Medicare? It doesn't fix illegal immigration either. It's a health plan.
CS
“BTW, Hemm, that's a great definition and it makes my point for me, but you still don't seem to see it. By asking if I'm arguing that Obama's bus isn't coming, what you are ignoring is that even if a bus is coming we shouldn't make the faulty logical leap that the person who is warning us about the bus is actually pushing us in the right direction to avoid getting hit.”
And the possible negative outcome you require me to swallow is itself a scare tactic. You are requiring me to conclude that Obama's purpose is to cause harm, not avoid the problem. Reread the definition, you are demonstrating exactly how the tactic is employed.
Medicare … exploding deficits.
It was and is politically incorrect, but I cruelly, evilly insisted on addressing our entitlements long ago, and the vow Obama made to reform Social Security and Medicare, which were essential to put the US's financial house in order. (I was among those who did not believe him, based on previous experience.) I also committed the sacrilegious act of saying that before making incremental moves toward expanding Medicare (or for now, a surrogate) to more of the population, this reform should be done first, logically.
It didn't happen.
I did notice that some of the warnings the Trustees had long made to the public about the deficits of Medicare and Social Security were removed by the Obama administration this year. Why was that?
Oh, sorry. That was politically incorrect, too.
Of course, it shouldn't be surprising given that these people are the masters of deficits and debt.
At least now I take it, that you see it's not a scare tactic.
You take it incorrectly. I didn't say or imply that I have changed my view that this is scare tactics.
Are you criticizing Obama's plan because it doesn't fix Medicare? It doesn't fix illegal immigration either. It's a health plan.
Go back to Jan and read what Obama was saying. He opened the entire discussion about the need for reform by getting all sides to agree that our Medicare obligations were unsustainable and he based the need for healthcare reform on the need to address those costs. If his plan doesn't do that, then he's failed to meet the criteria that he himself set up.
You are requiring me to conclude that Obama's purpose is to cause harm, not avoid the problem.
No, it is quite possible that Obama and others who support this type of plan are not intending to cause harm (either that or they don't think the negative outcomes will be as great as others like myself think they will be.)
I don't think for a minute, for instance, that the politicians who argued for 'affordable housing' had in mind the disastrous effects of the housing bubble and moral hazard and unsafe lending practices that they set into motion. But they too argued that there was a crisis that needed to be addressed and by and large the public- and policy experts- ignored the potential dangers of the path they were putting us on and the rhetoric all sounded good (sounded like a better alternative to the status quo which was argued against in emotional tones.)
Are you trying to say that Obama's proposals would not ameliorate that situation?
Even if the plan works as advertised, most of its effects won't be felt for four years. So, if all of the unemployed who make up a large portion of that 14,000 per day are not expected to find new employment between now and then, then I suppose it might help them…
DLS
You really do need to work on your analytic skills.
Defining Medicare as a late occurring problem you wish to lay at the feet of Obama demonstrates no sense of history but a strong sense of self-righteous self-importance.
Unless you realized that SS was going to be in trouble when Nixon was President, you're several administration late with your insightful pontification.
I'm truly sorry you weren't consulted by the current administration when they were planning to fix all the problems left them by Bush's baby boy, but I guess they figured you gave that administration all the help we could afford.
“You really do need to work on your analytic skills.”
I continue to be “amused” by the ironic (when not merely feeble) incorrect statements you people make.
Cs
So you are saying the problem with Obama's health care plan is that it doesn't fix Medicare. You're wanting some kind of omnibus fix all that's wrong kind of bill.
No one has touched Medicare as it has inexorably raced toward the cliff since SS funds were melded into general revenue funds.
No one has touched health care reform even though all agree current trends are unsustainable.
No one has done much to fix illegal immigration because it's been “too hard” to do anything but kick the can down the road.
Why be critical of Obama for trying to tackle these problems and why not be critical of all the previous administrations who haven't even tried to tackle them
And by the way, If you have a problem with my definition of scare tactic state it. If you don't have a definition problem, then use it as its defined. Just saying you disagree is no rational response. what “might” happen is not what “will” happen. That “might” is a definitional requirement. If you wish to argue that those things are not going to happen, then state and argue that, but don't try to ignore that they are facts. If they are facts, they don't fit the definition of scare tactic.
No one has touched Medicare as it has inexorably raced toward the cliff since SS funds were melded into general revenue funds.
Completely agree.
No one has touched health care reform even though all agree current trends are unsustainable.
Pretty much agree, although both sides have made incremental moves toward their preferred philosophical approach to reform (Dems expanding SCHIP, GOP instituting and trying to build on HSAs and measures to provide vouchers to cover the truly needy who fall through existing safety net gaps.)
No one has done much to fix illegal immigration because it's been “too hard” to do anything but kick the can down the road.
Agree, although the Dems could have gotten on board with the Bush/McCain legislation but found it more politically expedient to let the GOP fracture itself over the issue.
Why be critical of Obama for trying to tackle these problems and why not be critical of all the previous administrations who haven't even tried to tackle them
I'm not critical of him for trying to tackle these problems. I'm critical of him for posturing as though he's trying to tackle them, while all of the independent analysis shows that his plans don't address the true cost problems (in fact CBO says the cost curve is bent in the wrong direction.)
And by the way, If you have a problem with my definition of scare tactic state it. If you don't have a definition problem, then use it as its defined.
Good gosh, here we go again. Didn't we go through this before with another definition you posted? I (then and now) agreed that it was a sound definition. I use and apply that definition as written. You apparently, although you found it and claim to use that definition, don't seem to understand it.
The definition you quoted DOES NOT define scare tactics as the use of false statements to create fear. That seems to be the way you are interpreting it though. Reread the definition. I agree with it, do you?
Hemm, let me add, regarding the 'definition', that having now read the entire page you linked to (and not just the excerpt), I think I see some reason for our disconnect on this.
The page is actually a professors discussion on the use of fear tactics. In it, he does put some focus on how the things to be feared tend to be magnified, or stated beyond what their statistical likelihood is to occur.
I agree that that's often or even usually a component- but I disagree that that component is part of the 'definition' of the use of scare tactics. Even in his discussion he mentions that the fears may have a legitimate component, and the bulk of your excerpt involves the coercion of the audience to form conclusions based on faulty logic.
That matches up with more succinct definitions of scare tactics like this one: a strategy using fear to influence the public's reaction
So I suppose that you are reading more into the definition based on the expanded discussion of how scare tactics are often employed, which ALSO often involves exaggeration of the likelihood of the threat actually occurring. Definitionally though, I don't agree that that is a necessary part of it- and in this case, parts of the claims are actually 100% likely to occur, but other fears are being lumped in with the ones that are very real and creating a false sense of crisis over the wrong components.
Obama also said he would sign no bill that raised the deficit by a single dime. When he reneges on this national televised promise, you may have reason for your fears; but if he does sign a bill that's deficit neutral, you conversely have to back him even if it's not along your philosophic preferences.
Fixing these problems can only be accomplished if as he says, true bi-partisanship. That's the whole problem with the current scare tactic method being used. As long as Republicans scream kill granny, we are totally screwed.
Dls
Funny, we've all grown tired of your incorrect statements and pompace attitude a long time ago.
Obama also said he would sign no bill that raised the deficit by a single dime. When he reneges on this national televised promise, you may have reason for your fears; but if he does sign a bill that's deficit neutral, you conversely have to back him even if it's not along your philosophic preferences.
One problem is that accounting smoke and mirrors can be used to obscure the real budget implications. We might end up, for example, with a bill that sunsets the major portions of the program if the costs are unsustainable- but by the time that occurs, it will be politically impossible to actually shut down the program (who is going to vote against renewing the health insurance for millions of people?)
And besides, even if he gets it to budget neutrality on paper, that doesn't mean I have to back the whole thing. There are a large number of other reasons that I will probably not agree with the plan. If you mean strictly that I won't have grounds to disagree based on him not meeting his criteria of fixing the budget problems, well, OK, except that you're still talking about a moving goalpost (budget neutrality instead of his initial goal of bending the cost curve to make it sustainable.)
CS
The crux of our disagreement comes from the segment I re posted to you ealier:
“scare tactics highlight the possible negative outcomes to the extreme, while merely suggesting causality. “
Obama's statements do not require suggested causality.
Medicare will drive the deicit as the price of all health care increases; and conversely, reducing the cost of all health care will reduce the cost of Medicare and thus the deficit.
Health reform that eliminates caps and removes recissions will lower the number of bankruptcies caused by health issues.
14k people lose insurance every day regardless of the reason. Health care reform will ameliorate this loss of insurance by making insurance available more cheaply and available separate from the workplace (if needed) By including McCains proposal for crisis intervention, these people will also be covered.
None of these statements require any suggested causality, they all relie upon what is verifiable today and directly changed by reform. So you see, Obama did not use scare tactics in his speech as was originally asserted in the article.
Your criticisms expressed earlier did rely upon suggested causality, and I commented as such in my responses. The “suggested” part of the definition is as you read a logical fallacy engendered in the audience's own mind. The causality may be real or balderdash, the tactic works both ways.
Thanks for taking the time to hash this out with me, I really do want you to undeerstand my reasoning.
CS
“One problem is that accounting smoke and mirrors can be used to obscure the real budget implications.”
You are talking about a president to added the cost of two wars into the budget so people could see the cost that was off the books for seven years. Does that sound like a crooked bean counter to you?
“budget neutrality instead of his initial goal of bending the cost curve to make it sustainable.”
If he reaches buget neutrality with health care he also helps quell Medicare's upward spiral that is as you say the real budget buster.
He pulls off general health care, he can then approach the Medicare problem. Doing one primes the pump on the second. Just because this stuff is scary does mean we have to be afraid.
You are talking about a president to added the cost of two wars into the budget so people could see the cost that was off the books for seven years. Does that sound like a crooked bean counter to you?
The cost of the two wars should have been in the budget, although they don't have the same effect as long term entitlements. It was to Obama's advantage to put them on the books for two reasons; he gets to score political points for making Bush look bad for accounting malfeasance, plus he uses the 'saved' revenue of winding down the wars for other purposes.
If he reaches buget neutrality with health care he also helps quell Medicare's upward spiral that is as you say the real budget buster.
No, neutrality just means that he doesn't add any additional deficit- it means he hasn't changed the upward spiral at all.
He pulls off general health care, he can then approach the Medicare problem. Backwards, illogical, and galling to ask for us to trust them to deal with the real cost problems down the road. If there's so much waste to be found in Medicare, find it and fix it first.
Keep up the “good” work, Hemm — F. [clapping gesture with pinkies] And keep the Dem Faith.
(Are y'all ever reaching new lows over the health care desperation these days, and push-backs.)
If Obama can come up with a deficit neutral plan that does not rely on financial support from those not opting in, or force people to opt in who do not wish too, I'll sing him praise. I don't think he can do it, at least not on his current track, although it does have some ideas i don't object to.
Leo
“financial support from those not opting in, or force people to opt in who do not wish too, I'll sing him praise. “
Are you also willing to send him any increases to your heal nsurance premiums that don't occur going forward? If health care costs in fact start to flatten out in the next few years due to these efforts, and that 7% increase year over year you've been seeing doesn't occur, don't you think you ought to send it to his reelection campaign?
Seriously, optingin or opting out is a troubling concept. Do you mean you plan to drop your current insurance? Being insured now is also part of the health care “big picture” too. He certailny not asking you to change what works for you now, but even there, your PI won't be able to drop you or cap your medical coverage. I'd say that's a pretty good benefit you're getting. What's that kind of guarantee worth to you?
He did say insurance was going to be mandatory, but you don't seem the type who wants to live upon the welfare of others.
CS
Maybe Obama accounted for two wars because that was the right thing to do all along. Clearly, Bush needed no help in looking bad. Obama was elected in a landslide, he didn't need to political points you assert he was trying to get. CS, you're down right cynical. Were you this jaded when Bush was elected or is this just a summer thing?
DLS
I make gestures with other digits when I read your tripe.
Hope you find work soon.
Were you this jaded when Bush was elected or is this just a summer thing?
I am always cynical about politicians, and I think they give me very good reason. The difference between a conservative using shady tactics to achieve goals I agree with and a liberal/progressive using the same tactics to acheive goals that I think are not in the country's best interest, means that I probably pay more attention to the latter. That doesn't mean I give conservatives a pass though- I don't trust them any more than I do liberals nor think they're less corrupt in general or less likely to rationalize their self interests as being consistent with the public good even when that's not the case.
Hemm, on the causality and definition thing…
You are pretty much confirming (I think) the comment I made about the part of that 'definition' that you are focused on. So in that sense, I think we're at least coming closer to understanding each other, though I am still not in agreement. Again, consider that that part of the discussion you quoted is not a necessary condition for the definition of scare tactics- it's just another component that is often part of the tactic (exaggerating the likelihood of the feared thing occurring.)
Medicare will drive the deicit as the price of all health care increases; and conversely, reducing the cost of all health care will reduce the cost of Medicare and thus the deficit.
And the problem here is that I see no reason to believe that the plans being discussed will 'reduce the cost of all health care', and in fact they will more likely result in the opposite.
Health care reform will ameliorate this loss of insurance by making insurance available more cheaply and available separate from the workplace (if needed) By including McCains proposal for crisis intervention, these people will also be covered.
But we've ALREADY made it possible for the newly unemployed to purchase COBRA coverage at 35% of the total cost. The new options that are supposedly so necessary are not going to be as inexpensive as that, so we are not making any new gains. And since much of that number includes a high level of unemployment brought about by the economic crisis, I'll again point out that he's focusing on this as a healthcare crisis when it's actually an economic crisis. The ARRA funds to subsidize COBRA is a much more sensible approach to this temporary high rate of loss of employer based insurance, and for the long term it would make much more sense to gradually decouple employment from insurance for everyone (which is not in the plan, and in fact the status quo there will be preserved and even mandated.)
CS
“consider that that part of the discussion you quoted is not a necessary condition for the definition of scare tactics- it's just another component that is often part of the tactic (exaggerating the likelihood of the feared thing occurring.)”
Check again the part I re-quoted twice now comes from the two sentences that defines “scare tactics.”
“Scare tactics are not direct threats, but are coerced conclusions. Instead of threatening a consequence onto a person, scare tactics highlight the possible negative outcomes to the extreme, while merely suggesting causality.”
If your trying to say that the 2nd sentence is not pertinent to the essence of that definition, you and will never agree. Sorry, but “coerced conclusions” not produced through direct threat has no meaning with further explanation. That second sentence merely explains the technique used to bring about a conclusion without direct threat.
Clearly, we'll leave this to another day as I'm sure you'll find a counterpoint that asserts that coerced conclusions can only mean something elsew. I've been down this road before.
“
If your trying to say that the 2nd sentence is not pertinent to the essence of that definition, you and will never agree.
Apparently we won't then. When I agreed with the definition, I was focusing on the parts that explained that the tactic relies on creating fallacious reasoning to lead the listener to believe that a conclusion has been logically supported when in fact it has not (the leap is created due to the cloud of fear- it's an emotive leap instead of a logical one.)
I make gestures with other digits when I read your tripe.
ROTFLMAO!
I know I'm doing well when losers feel driven to remind me that yes, indeed, I'm Number One. [chuckle]
[...] Obama: Ignore (other people’s) scare tactics (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] Obama: Ignore (other people’s) scare tactics (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] Obama: Ignore (other people’s) scare tactics (themoderatevoice.com) [...]