[philwelch]

"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"!)

[gruseom]

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?

[philwelch]

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.)