This story is actually about one of the techniques government uses to shape and direct public opinion, but it is based on a simple rule of logic. Words mean things, and you do not get to change those meanings without announcing the new definition and indicating that is how you are using the word. Conversely – no matter what word we assign to it — form and function are what define things, and you cannot change that form or function simply by assigning a new word to describe it. These rules are being openly violated in connection to Obamacare. Here is just one example:
As always, the first thing we need to do is look at what ‘demand’ actually means in context of its usage in this story:
3a : willingness and ability to purchase a commodity or service
b : the quantity of a commodity or service wanted at a specified price and time <supply and demand>
4a : a seeking or state of being sought after
b : urgent need
Here is the lie in this story. There is no ‘demand’ for Obamacare. If there were, people would not have to be forced to buy it by force of law. This is what we are really seeing here: not demand, but a rush to comply with force so people can avoid the penalty.
To put this story in proper perspective, we should change it a little bit. Suppose we were talking about a new tax. Call it the ‘right to buy legal citizenship’ tax (which is actually what Obamacare amounts to). Now, if the deadline for that tax is tonight at midnight, and people start rushing to the IRS or local tax office to pay the tax so they can retain legal citizenship, is that demand, or is that compliance? If you think it is demand, then maybe Obama should pass the ‘right to keep your life’ tax so he can then tell the propaganda mill we call the media to report:
“Demand for Obama to Grant Extension of Life Spans Soars!”
If you had not seen it until now, I hope that last line is absurd enough to make the point because – no matter what anyone will tell you – it is directly applicable to reporting a demand for Obamacare on the last day to sign up without penalty. There is no demand here, only people being forced to buy something they do not want to remain legal in the eyes of the government.
At the root of the problem here is the issue of deception — where the government is being deliberately dishonest so it can create the false impression of public support for its programs — and the fallacy of equivocation — which is the vehicle being used to achieve this deception.
BTW: this has nothing to do with health care, or even taking care of sick people. This is all about seizing control over every aspect of your life — period!