# Dancing on the grave of health care "reform" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487 "2010-02-03T04:17:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/521 "2010-02-26T19:05:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The only thing pathetic here is your summary. I will await ANY evidence you have that supports your position of > [@](#): > > Many countries with UHC and other large government programs are right this very minute experiencing many of the long-term difficulties that are the results of big government. I’ve put some facts on the table - you would apparently “have to spend more time than you want” to analyze the facts for yourself. This speaks volumes. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/522 "2010-02-26T19:10:08Z")
EP–I’ll respond to your post over the weekend. I’m sure the post I write will either be completely ignored or hounded to death down to the last detail (with a charge that I am ignoring the facts if I don’t respond to every hounding post). But I’ll do it anyway, just for you, EP. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/523 "2010-02-26T19:23:41Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > you make this bullshit claim to be considering “actual reality” or whatever, as if something like that actually existed. I thought the key tenet of Objectivism is that “Existence exists. A=A” ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/524 "2010-02-26T19:29:50Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > EP–I’ll respond to your post over the weekend. I’m sure the post I write will either be completely ignored or hounded to death down to the last detail (with a charge that I am ignoring the facts if I don’t respond to every hounding post). But I’ll do it anyway, just for you, EP. Fabulous! Here’s what you need to set out to prove: > [@](#): > > Many countries with UHC and other large government programs are right this very minute experiencing many of the long-term difficulties that are the results of big government. Note that I’m not saying that countries with UHC are perfect. You’ll find flaws. But you won’t find that they are doing worse than the US, “right this very minute”. And projections are that countries with UHC will be doing just fine in the future, despite the incredible hardship of paying less per capita for equivalent or superior health care for their population. This is the part you can’t seem to grasp: WE PAY LESS THAN YOU DO. How can this possibly be bad? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/525 "2010-02-26T19:40:57Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I thought the key tenet of Objectivism is that “Existence exists. A=A” Except when it conflicts with a desired conclusion. Even Descartes, for all of his wankery, accepted that existence is an irreducible minimum. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/526 "2010-02-26T19:41:09Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I thought the key tenet of Objectivism is that “Existence exists. A=A” You are correct. I disagree with dear sweet Ayn on this point. Also, I’ve never claimed to be an Ojectivist, and this is why. Right about now is when one or two folks come charging in and bully me about being a “pseudo-Objectivist” or somesuch hogwash. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/527 "2010-02-26T20:06:26Z")
Darn! Just when I was about to belabor your psuedo-Objectivist stance, you hit with a pre-emptive strike! Curses! Foiled again! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/528 "2010-02-26T20:37:00Z")
He’s sure het up about something that doesn’t even exist, gotta give him that. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/529 "2010-02-27T00:05:20Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Reality doesn’t exist for you either, chump. The only thing that exists is each person’s perception. And I bet you’re an übermensch too. Why is your perspective better than anyone else’s? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/530 "2010-02-27T00:09:03Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > And I bet you’re an übermensch too. > > Why is your perspective better than anyone else’s? Apparently because he is wealthy, which has imparted wisdom upon him from on high. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/531 "2010-02-27T00:40:23Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Why is your perspective better than anyone else’s? Why is anyone who disagrees with me’s perspective better than mine? > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Apparently because he is wealthy, which has imparted wisdom upon him from on high. :rolleyes: Please. You are the one who wants to impart your wisdom from on high. My theory of government has the government doing very little, which allows people to do whatever they hell they want to do. You, on the other hand, have superior wisdom than me, so you want the government to force people to do what you think they should do. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/532 "2010-02-27T01:11:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Why is anyone who disagrees with me’s perspective better than mine? Well, we at least, generally consider there to be an objective reality that our perspective comes closer to than yours. We may be wrong, but at least we’re not hypocritical (in that regard, anyway). But if there is no objective reality, then anyone’s perspective is as good as anyone else’s. Why should you hold it against someone for having a perspective and acting on it? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/533 "2010-02-27T01:15:00Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Well, we at least, generally consider there to be an objective reality that our perspective comes closer to than yours. We may be wrong, but at least we’re not hypocritical (in that regard, anyway). How am I hypocritical? > [@](#): > > But if there is no objective reality, then anyone’s perspective is as good as anyone else’s. Why should you hold it against someone for having a perspective and acting on it? I don’t understand what you are trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/534 "2010-02-27T01:40:46Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Note that I’m not saying that countries with UHC are perfect. You’ll find flaws. But you won’t find that they are doing worse than the US, “right this very minute”. And projections are that countries with UHC will be doing just fine in the future, despite the incredible hardship of paying less per capita for equivalent or superior health care for their population. > > This is the part you can’t seem to grasp: WE PAY LESS THAN YOU DO. How can this possibly be bad? I’ve asked this repeatedly of the board’s conservatives and libertarians. The answers I’ve gotten so far (what few there are) boil down to one of the following: you’re less free, which is somehow bad (presumably because the government now OWNS you); stories about waits and rationing (which are never compared to that of the U.S.); claims that quality of care is better here in the U.S. (addressed by both sides in many threads); and claims that even if the system does work better for you, it would be a complete disaster if implemented here. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/535 "2010-02-27T02:03:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > As I’ve explained ad nauseum, you and that dumbass you quoted have got it all wrong. My beliefs are based on what I believe is the best way to run a government based on the best interests of al citizens. I’m sure that’s what your beliefs are based on as well. Are your views amenable to facts? If we have an array of countries which vary in how they treat certain issues in public policy, and we can learn the results, does that matter at all? Or is it a matter of faith that government can never do anything well? If it’s a matter of faith that everything handled by government is worse, how do you feel about the public road system? Do you think we should instead switch (or should’ve switched in our past) to a complex network of private toll roads with arbitrary rules and prices set by the various owners? Do you think that would’ve been a net good for society? If not, then your ideology essentially comes down to “government sux0rs except for a few pet issues I will accept.” You said earlier in the thread that you accept roads as a legitimate form of government because it pretty much benefits everyone equally. I disagree with the assertion. I get to drive around on the roads and that gives me a lot of utility and freedom, but the owner of walmart also gets to drive around those roads the same as me - but in addition he has a huge network of roads to cheaply move his good on so that he can profit off the public’s dime. I have no objection to this, but it would be inaccurate to say that he and I derive the same benefits from the use of the road networks. UHC has a better claim to benefitting everyone equally, I would say. So I think that particular reasoning that it’s not a valid government function is bullshit. The interesting thing about using that as a justification for your point of view is that it’s not amenable to facts. There is no evidence that will sway you. You can say “UHC is not on my official list of approved government functions, therefore it’s bad” and that’s all of the justification you need for your argument. There are more practical arguments to take - that it would cost more, that the quaity of medical services would decrease, that we’d have more waiting lists, that it’s a drag on their economy etc. But those views are arguable and amenable to facts. We can compare the results from various companies and actually see whether or not it is indeed more expensive, whether their economies suffered, etc. But the way you’ve chosen to make your views, they are set in stone. No one could convince you that anything is on your personal “approved government functions” list. The best we can do is point out your inconsistencies as to what’s approved and what isn’t. It turns out you’re (in my view) right most of the time in terms of your views on government, mostly by coincidence. Government is bad at doing most things and there are dangers to increasing its power. But there are a few things that it’s clearly good at - the public road network is the example I already used. So how do we determine whether or not government would be the best solution to an issue on a certain problem? Well, for one, we can look at the evidence. Which is what you refuse to do - the evidence doesn’t matter to you. So your list of approved government functions is arbitrary and not based on utility. So it is essentially slavish devotion to an ideology, a faith. What use is it then? Surely it can’t be a view that leads to producing the best results - if the actual evidence doesn’t matter, you won’t get to the best solution. Libertarians kookier than you insist that we go to a hodgepodge network of private roads - it’s just that their list of arbitrary approved government functions has one less item on it than yours. Why is your view superior to theirs? Why is your view that public roads are okay better than their view which is even more restrictive on the use of government? I don’t mean this rhetorically - what’s your answer to this question? > [@](#): > > We just have different opinions on what is in everyone’s best interests. Doesn’t mean I am selfish or evil or anything else that you like to call me to avoid having to actually consider the issues. This is quite correct. One can hold certain conclusions on this issue without being selfish and evil. However, one can also be motivated to come to certain conclusions on the issue due to selfishness and evil. These are distinct but overlapping groups. I’m only saying that my best guess based on your posting history is that you fall in the overlap. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/536 "2010-02-27T03:18:21Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > …you fall in the overlap. I want to take a moment to commend all the Dopers who have firmly resisted this opportunity for a cheap and vulgar joke. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/537 "2010-02-27T04:04:19Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Are your views amenable to facts? Yes? > [@](#): > > If we have an array of countries which vary in how they treat certain issues in public policy, and we can learn the results, does that matter at all? Yes? > [@](#): > > Or is it a matter of faith that government can never do anything well? No? > [@](#): > > If it’s a matter of faith that everything handled by government is worse, how do you feel about the public road system? Do you think we should instead switch (or should’ve switched in our past) to a complex network of private toll roads with arbitrary rules and prices set by the various owners? Do you think that would’ve been a net good for society? Fine? No? No? > [@](#): > > If not, then your ideology essentially comes down to “government sux0rs except for a few pet issues I will accept.” Why? > [@](#): > > You said earlier in the thread that you accept roads as a legitimate form of government because it pretty much benefits everyone equally. I disagree with the assertion. I get to drive around on the roads and that gives me a lot of utility and freedom, but the owner of walmart also gets to drive around those roads the same as me - but in addition he has a huge network of roads to cheaply move his good on so that he can profit off the public’s dime. I have no objection to this, but it would be inaccurate to say that he and I derive the same benefits from the use of the road networks. Lots of people benefit from Walmart being able to distribute goods using the roads–not just the CEO of Walmart. > [@](#): > > UHC has a better claim to benefitting everyone equally, I would say. So I think that particular reasoning that it’s not a valid government function is bullshit. There is more to my theory of what is a legitimate government function than that it have an equal benefit. I think something is a legitimate government function where there is a more-or-less equal benefit to everyone and it’s something where the lack of government action would create a collective action problem–i.e., where someone would do it anyway so others would be free riders. So, if there were no military, someone with the means to do so would pay for a private security force, which would benefit others, so the others should be forced to pay for it. I don’t think the same claim can be made for UHC. First, it benefits those without the reasources to buy health insurance much more than others. Second, it is not the case that someone would pay for everyone’s health care so we all should be forced to pay for it anyway. > [@](#): > > The interesting thing about using that as a justification for your point of view is that it’s not amenable to facts. There is no evidence that will sway you. You can say “UHC is not on my official list of approved government functions, therefore it’s bad” and that’s all of the justification you need for your argument. Well, that’s pretty much true. But I have laid out my argument. Pro-UHC people (and general pro-“whatever the democrats are doing this week under the banner of health care reform” people) are also for the position they are for based on their personal philosophies, which are equally not amenable to facts, so there’s no difference. > [@](#): > > There are more practical arguments to take - that it would cost more, that the quaity of medical services would decrease, that we’d have more waiting lists, that it’s a drag on their economy etc. But those views are arguable and amenable to facts. We can compare the results from various companies and actually see whether or not it is indeed more expensive, whether their economies suffered, etc. And I have made those arguments. Some of those exact arguments, as a matter of fact. > [@](#): > > But the way you’ve chosen to make your views, they are set in stone. No one could convince you that anything is on your personal “approved government functions” list. Yes they could. You yourself made me think for a while about public education when you asked whether that was on my list or not (answer: not quite sure yet but leaning towards no). > [@](#): > > The best we can do is point out your inconsistencies as to what’s approved and what isn’t. But no one’s even done that yet. They’ve just said I’m selfish and evil. > [@](#): > > It turns out you’re (in my view) right most of the time in terms of your views on government, mostly by coincidence. Government is bad at doing most things and there are dangers to increasing its power. But there are a few things that it’s clearly good at - the public road network is the example I already used. So how do we determine whether or not government would be the best solution to an issue on a certain problem? See above for my answer. > [@](#): > > Well, for one, we can look at the evidence. Which is what you refuse to do - the evidence doesn’t matter to you. So your list of approved government functions is arbitrary and not based on utility. You are wrong, as I’ve demonstrated. > [@](#): > > So it is essentially slavish devotion to an ideology, a faith. What use is it then? Surely it can’t be a view that leads to producing the best results - if the actual evidence doesn’t matter, you won’t get to the best solution. First, I think you are wrong. I do look at the evidence. I’m just looking at it on a more long-term basis than you. I use the evidence to inform my theory of government, then use my theory of government to inform what activities the government should do. Second, people who disagree with me have an ideology that the government should do whatever they think would be a good thing for it to do at a particular time. They don’t examine the facts I lay out about the long-term effects of big government. Why aren’t you attacking them for their ideology? > [@](#): > > Libertarians kookier than you insist that we go to a hodgepodge network of private roads - it’s just that their list of arbitrary approved government functions has one less item on it than yours. Other people are perfectly free to disagree with me. > [@](#): > > Why is your view superior to theirs? Why is your view that public roads are okay better than their view which is even more restrictive on the use of government? I don’t mean this rhetorically - what’s your answer to this question? I think I have a more refiined and practical view of what legitimate government activities are than these people. Some people oppose the government’s use of force so much that they oppose the existence of a government. Others oppose it so much that they think it should only be used to stop the use of force by someone else. I take a different view, as outlined above. > [@](#): > > This is quite correct. One can hold certain conclusions on this issue without being selfish and evil. However, one can also be motivated to come to certain conclusions on the issue due to selfishness and evil. These are distinct but overlapping groups. I’m only saying that my best guess based on your posting history is that you fall in the overlap. Interesting that above you excoriate me for having an ideology that is divorced from the facts, yet here you announce your belief that I am selfish and evil but offer no facts for that conclusion. You don’t even seem to base this belief of yours on any facts. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/538 "2010-02-27T05:02:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > …They don’t examine the facts I lay out about the long-term effects of big government… Facts? What facts? What repeatable experiments can you point to, that say “big government” has a certain and predictable effect. You insist that this paradigm “big government” exists and that it was clear and inevitable effects. Based on what? Sez who? But OK, you believe it, its the Gospel According to St. Rand. Not one of the “good news” gospels, more like the “I got mine, Jack” gospel. But OK, it surpasseth understanding, you are witnessing. The long term effects of “big government” will destroy whatever good a progressive social program may accomplish. See, thing is, you could be wrong. Conservatives have been spectacularly wrong on any number of occasions in my life. Got their way, made the disastrous decisions, when I and mine were screaming “Don’t do it! Don’t go there, don’t go up those stairs, DO NOT open that FUCKING door!” And they did and they did and they did and disaster ensued. So there we’d be, maybe thirty years down the road, and it becomes clear that we could have helped those people, we could have behaved like the civilized people we think we are, but we didn’t because we were sure that the long term effects of “big government” would fuck it all up. And all the other governments who went ahead and progressed have thirty years of healthy citizens advantage on us, smarter, stronger, faster because! healthier! We piss away a golden opportunity because you got some theory about the nature of “big government”, whatever the hell that is. That’s pure theory, **Rand** , it may as well be metaphysics, it may as well be theology. Marx had a similar delusion to yours, he believed that you could study and extract certain immutable principles in History. The industrial proletariat will always do this, the industrial bourgeoisie will always do that, badda boom badda bing, the communist state dissolves into perfect anarchy. I am of the opinion that is mostly nonsense, philosophy, metaphysics, theology for atheists. But why should I believe your theory of the inevitable nature of “big government” has any _more_ basis in fact that his belief in dialectical materialism as the engine of history? And why would I refuse to help my fellow citizens because your theory insists that I must? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/539 "2010-02-27T06:01:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > [QUOTE=Senor Beef] > There are more practical arguments to take - that it would cost more, that the quaity of medical services would decrease, that we’d have more waiting lists, that it’s a drag on their economy etc. But those views are arguable and amenable to facts. We can compare the results from various companies and actually see whether or not it is indeed more expensive, whether their economies suffered, etc. And I have made those arguments. Some of those exact arguments, as a matter of fact. [/QUOTE] No you haven’t. You’ve offered **opinions** on this topic. Opinions are not arguments, especially when they are devoid of factual information. Objective evidence from countries with UHC shows that it does not cost more, and the quality of medical service does not decrease. It shows that there are more waiting lists for non-emergent care (however EVERYONE is eligible for these procedures, not just a privileged few). You have not shown that UHC is a drag on the economy pf countries that have it. This is simply your **opinion**. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/540 "2010-02-27T14:37:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Facts? What facts? What repeatable experiments can you point to, that say “big government” has a certain and predictable effect. You insist that this paradigm “big government” exists and that it was clear and inevitable effects. Based on what? Sez who? > > But OK, you believe it, its the Gospel According to St. Rand. Not one of the “good news” gospels, more like the “I got mine, Jack” gospel. But OK, it surpasseth understanding, you are witnessing. The long term effects of “big government” will destroy whatever good a progressive social program may accomplish. > > See, thing is, you could be wrong. Conservatives have been spectacularly wrong on any number of occasions in my life. Got their way, made the disastrous decisions, when I and mine were screaming “Don’t do it! Don’t go there, don’t go up those stairs, DO NOT open that FUCKING door!” And they did and they did and they did and disaster ensued. > > So there we’d be, maybe thirty years down the road, and it becomes clear that we could have helped those people, we could have behaved like the civilized people we think we are, but we didn’t because we were sure that the long term effects of “big government” would fuck it all up. > > And all the other governments who went ahead and progressed have thirty years of healthy citizens advantage on us, smarter, stronger, faster because! healthier! We piss away a golden opportunity because you got some theory about the nature of “big government”, whatever the hell that is. > > That’s pure theory, **Rand** , it may as well be metaphysics, it may as well be theology. Marx had a similar delusion to yours, he believed that you could study and extract certain immutable principles in History. The industrial proletariat will always do this, the industrial bourgeoisie will always do that, badda boom badda bing, the communist state dissolves into perfect anarchy. > > I am of the opinion that is mostly nonsense, philosophy, metaphysics, theology for atheists. But why should I believe your theory of the inevitable nature of “big government” has any _more_ basis in fact that his belief in dialectical materialism as the engine of history? And why would I refuse to help my fellow citizens because your theory insists that I must? Luci, you think that there won’t be any negative effects to government action that outweigh the positive effects. If my belief is an article of faith, then yours is as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487.md?page=28)