There are multiple ways to bend the truth. There's the boldfaced lie, there's the lie by omission, and then there's the most common lie in Washington today: the halfway truth.
If one was to come right out and say "President Obama has never favored a single-payer health care system," that would be a boldfaced lie. You can't come out with boldfaced lies in politics, because they're the easiest to refute - simple facts, like video footage, are all that would be needed to destroy credibility. So instead, if someone even dares to ask about such video footage, the creative answer is to use "the dodge," that is, giving a response that fails to adequately answer the question. A good example of this came from the Obama/ABC healthcare informercial: when asked if he would subject his own children to ObamaCare if one of them was sick, his long response started with "well, obviously, I would want my children to get the best care," and then failed to indicate during his long soliloquy whether "the best care" was under the current system or his proposed system.
The lie by omission and the halfway truth are closely related. In these methods, members of Congress have the audacity to stand before their constitutents and claim that ObamaCare won't lead to a single payer system. It's a half truth - there's nothing in the bill specifically providing for a single payer system, but it doesn't take an economist to see that the particulars of the plan would likely, over time, force more and more Americans into the so-called "public option," slouching toward what would eventually just become a single payer system by default as private insurance becomes more expensive and as private insurers find it increasingly difficult to keep up with a competitor that can levy taxes, print money, and operate without turning a profit.
And lo and behold - these consitutuents don't like being lied to. People don't just sit there when they have concerns being dismissed by lies, or worse, having their concerns completely ignored when these Congressmen and women refuse to take questions or only accept pre-screened questions (that is, screening out the hard ones).
What's the Administration's reaction? They label these people as being part of "organized angry mobs." Their concerns simply aren't important, and what's more, the President has indicated that they need to "stop talking." Now, just last night, we see that town halls across the country are either being canceled outright or stacked with union "volunteers," there to produce the image of support. If that support was truly present, they wouldn't need to stack their crowds.
These "angry mobs" do not exist. They are a cross-section of society - senior citizens, veterans, doctors, students, and business owners alike have been part of these so-called mobs. They know what the stakes are, and they aren't willing to just sit there and be lied to. They want their congressperson to get that message, and instead, they are treated as kooks for doing nothing more than exercising their right under the First Amendment for a redress of grievances.
The response of the government to all of this is an unnecessary escalation of the situation. Just last night, a conservative activist was assaulted by t-shirt wearing union members - wearing the t-shirt of a union which was "proud" to have spent $6o million to elect Obama and other Democrats last November - outside of a town hall in St. Louis. What are we supposed to take away from this sort of physical intimidation? Are we to simply back down, and stop showing our displeasure at being lied to? Are we to simply sit down, shut up, and wait for this abomination to become law?
Say what you want about the "mob." They have been wholly non-violent. There's no need - they have their First Amendment rights and they are using them. But if physical intimidation is going to become the norm, there's no guarantee that self-defense won't become the next escalation.