Don't you know there is a difference between government officials deciding policy "under the radar" as in back room agreements and actually lying to the public.

that is different Lula. that is not lying. I am talking about presenting a policy in a way that "hides" (under the radar? ) its consequences and not in plain and clear terms that lay people undererstand.

If You want to save money for businesses by not giving employees health benefits and you think that is really better for businesses and employees alike..... Why lie about it?

Businesses should be able to decide whether or not they want to offer employee health benefits...but that's no longer the case in many states.

Some governors, with and without state legislators approval, are imposing instructions to business owners to provide them.

Lula posts:
Actually, I was agreeing with your premise to a degree. What I'm saying, in the case of government mandating that businesses provide health insurance benefits smacks of government arrogantly over-imposing on its citizens, usually done under the radar, btw, but not necessarily of lying per se.

ThinkAloud,

Don't you know there is a difference between government officials deciding policy "under the radar" as in back room agreements and actually lying to the public. For example, it is common practice for town, state and even federal officials to hold "workshop" meetings in which they decide "under the radar" (beforehand) how they will make policy. At public meetings, they announce and vote in what they had already decided "under the radar". This is what I meant by them not lying per se.

that is different Lula. that is not lying. I am talking about presenting a policy in a way that "hides" (under the radar? ) its consequences and not in plain and clear terms that lay people undererstand.

what you described, is bypassing the public in deciding the policy. that is a kind of undemocratic way of governing.