1

The Great Mislead Society

With the explosion of social media, widely available broadband internet and the number
of smart mobile devices, we have an abundance of information available to most everyone here
in the United States and the developed world. With that we have the capability to make our ideas
available to the world nearly instantaneously. Whether or not the ideas are sincere and truthful or
not. Nonetheless they can be out there for all to see. Generalization of complex topics and
polarization of opinion would appear to drive ratings higher, as we see commonly in television
media. This is an old concept, but new mechanisms to propagate the message. It is up to the user
to interpret and evaluate. One such topic recently is the Affordable Care Act. To use an example
of this, we have a sample image (Fig. 1), from http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/edassets/2013/11/Keep-Your-Plan-copy.jpg. This photo represents a division where perhaps in the
caption author's opinion, the American people were somehow the subject of a joke, while those
with opposing political affiliation view this as a shameful attack on the President's character.

Fig. 1 President Obama sharing a laugh with an unknown audience

This picture in figure 1 is one of many variations of the same picture with the same or
similar theme. The Affordable Care Act is once again a hot topic as the mid term elections were
recently completed and open enrollment is commencing. perhaps this is the perfect time for
images of this sort to resurface. The site of origin may not particularly be of any significance, but
it does represent an opinion of a subject which many Americans share. There are many concerns
and fears with regard to the new health-care system from both those who oppose, and those who
support it. Those who oppose the Affordable Care Act view it as nothing more than a political
play for power, expanding the welfare state model, abuse or illegal use of presidential authority, a
war on the middle class as well as several other topics of discussion. The pro side views the
change as an early step towards a system where no one is without a basic need, hospitals can be
assured that they are paid for services, no one can be denied coverage when they need it the most
as well as other aspects that the new law proposes to change.
Looking at the picture we can see representations of the types of fallacies of argument
used similarly to what we have become accustomed to in politics and political satire. While this
picture and caption lack in substance, there is an obvious bandwagon appeal to a specific
audience. If one opposes health-care reform or distrusts President Obama, this contains an
affirming message. The author of the caption perhaps also wishes to play on the fears by using a

2
scare tactic targeting those who oppose. Speaking of the topic or the viewpoint it represents may
invoke strong emotion depending on the audience. Perhaps the caption is also mocking the
president's style and character while in office with an Ad Hominem, approach. This and many
items like this also lack proper authority on the subject they represent.
We see in the picture that the president is sharing a laugh with others, but we obviously
have no idea what the joke is about other than the suggestion in the caption. The people in this
picture may be sharing a joke about the weather or a sporting event. The source of the picture
and caption also raise questions on the credibility of the implied statement. It is likely that there
are only a few besides those present those in the picture would know what the joke was really
about. This type of political statement with out of context captions is not new does however grab
attention. In 50 years, most likely there will be different perception and the relevancy may be
completely forgotten by most.
In recently circulating news, we have seen videos which show economist Jonathan
Gruber lecturing at the University of Rhode Island and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), in 2012. In these videos, he indicates that the American people lack the
sophistication and understanding of economics, to realize taxes imposed on health insurance
companies would pass on to the consumer in the form of higher coverage costs. The opposition is
using this against the supporters of the care act and implying the government has duped the
American voter, as the caption in Fig. 1 implies. These videos, like many other items brought to
the media, only shows a short except of the entire lecture which would support the claims of the
opposition. The supporters again dispute the content as an out of context piece of information,
just as Fig. 1.
From personal experience, this law has negatively affected my family. Before this law
became effective, I paid approximately ten percent less for the most comprehensive PPO
package with the minimum out of pocket which my company had to offer. My new plan not
only costs more, my maximum out of pocket expenses and deductibles for individuals and family
have more than doubled. The insurance plan I elected the first year was not the most
comprehensive policy offered as with the previous year. My company's benefits representative
had stated that the company expects to see the Cadillac tax in 2016 having additional negative
effects on future plans. In my case it was not true that I could keep my plan if I liked it. We did
like our previous plan and we could not keep it. I am certainly not happy with the outcome of the
Affordable Care Act. I am paying more money for less coverage of care expenses. For now, it is
an annoyance, but perhaps the future benefit of having no maximum lifetime coverage limit or
exclusion from eligibility due to preexisting conditions will pay off.
Unfortunately the deeper issue with health care is far more complex than a simple
cartoon. As much as some enjoy satire, the seemingly unwavering polarized opinions do not give
the attention to the issue it deserves. Few first attempts at a change such as this are successful at
first. In this author's opinion if there is any injustice, one could consider the lack of involvement
of the American people in the decision process and how the package was presented as an all or
nothing deal. The percentage of Americans who oppose feel this was a one sided debate in which

3
there was little to no bipartisan agreement. Perhaps this is where the feeling of mistrust is
fostered and the false authority represented in the caption can be appealing. The other side of the
argument tends to believe that the resistance is unfounded and those who oppose are narrow
minded and against progress. Perhaps the truth is somewhere between or outside either opinion
altogether. It appears that in this case we will have to see how time shapes this topic going
forward. For now we will either enjoy or dislike the satirical cartoons and out of context captions
to come. We will see if in fact the American people were taken advantage upon as a gullible and
mislead people or if our distrust for our politicians was indeed unfounded.