Hospitals provide (or produce) services, and patients consume them. That's entirely apropos. That's a perfect example of "consumer" used in its correct economic context.
I see your point, but by that logic: "Governments provide services, and consumers consume them."
But seriously, are you really saying that it's natural for hospitals to speak of their customers as "consumers"? Do you have kids? You provide services for them? Are they consumers?
"Patients" would be a better word for a hospital to use, but in the economic context Obama was using, "consumer" is the general term.
Parenting and governance aren't purely economic interactions. The producer/consumer roles don't exist per se, which is why we have words like "parent", "child", "state", and "citizen." (I certainly don't want to become Microsoft's "citizen" just because I have an Xbox Live membership--I'm happy to be their "consumer"!)
You're raising some interesting issues. I don't see medical care as a purely economic interaction either, although the non-economic aspects have largely fallen away. Perhaps the rise of "consumer" as the default term is concomitant with the view that everything is economics. In that case we are all Marxists after all.
Isn't it interesting, as well, that you almost never hear the term "producer", given that there is no consumption without production?
In that, there is a problem, but it's a lot more subtle than the issue being discussed here-and-now.
Essentially, by focusing only on how legislation impacts consumers, politicians set aside the effect on producers. New laws and regulations are generally considered good if they help consumers, but no expense to producers is ever mentioned, and neither is the possibility that the laws and regulations may be a net loss to us all.
Of course, if you replace "consumer" with "citizen" you've turned implicit political omissions into explicit political lies, and totally buried the issue.
(Fun aside: I view my interaction with my doctor to be just as economic as a date with a prostitute. Sure, they do a lot of personal things and have to demonstrate some care for you as a person, but in the end they are a professional, they have a job to do, and they are entitled to be paid for it.)
No it isn't. Obama isn't the hospital director doing a press release about some new service, he's the US President directly addressing the citizens who elected him to solve pressing social problems.
That's a complete non-sequitur. "Consumer" denotes an economic role, and if the president is discussing a solution to a socio-economic problem that benefits people in that role, "consumer" is the correct term to use.
If I had time I'd dig up some links on this issue, but I don't. I can only repeat what I posted elsewhere on this thread - read up on the historical development of the use of language and linguistics to shape culture and society, both from the advertising industry and from the feminist movement.
The contemporary labeling of citizens as consumers is no accident, and not just an artifact of the mainstreaming of the economics field.
You haven't demonstrated that the "contemporary labeling of citizens as consumers" even exists, yet. The only example in this entire thread uses the word "consumer" in the correct economic sense.
But while you mention it, I actually am irritated at the feminist movement for trying to redefine and taboo commonplace words. I consider this campaign against "consumer" to be a similarly misguided mistake.
I'm just surprised people are arguing this point, I see it everywhere. Maybe now it's been brought to your attention you'll catch more instances of government officials using 'consumer' when 'citizen' would be more appropriate.
As for the feminist movement, IANAE but if I understand correctly thats where idea of changing the words used for certain things was really made into a science and a practice, at least for social change.
I'm not sure if the ad industry started doing it before or after that for commercial purposes, but there's a really good documentary on Google Video and Youtube called 'The Century of Self' that covers the ad industry side of it. Fascinating, when you have an hour or so.
That stuff combined with a study of the of tools of psychological and social influence originating in Europe in 1800s and 1900s (from Hegel to Dialectical Materialism) makes it difficult to believe that anything about our modern world is a coincidence.
"I'm just surprised people are arguing this point, I see it everywhere. Maybe now it's been brought to your attention you'll catch more instances of government officials using 'consumer' when 'citizen' would be more appropriate."
That's not an argument. You show me the instances. (Having heard this argument several times in the past few months, I still haven't seen any myself.) You're punting.
"That stuff combined with a study of the of tools of psychological and social influence originating in Europe in 1800s and 1900s (from Hegel to Dialectical Materialism) makes it difficult to believe that anything about our modern world is a coincidence."
Oh Christ, don't trot that Hegel bullshit out to me again; I had enough of that during my philosophy degree.
But seriously, are you really saying that it's natural for hospitals to speak of their customers as "consumers"? Do you have kids? You provide services for them? Are they consumers?