- Libertarians who don't want federal government in any kind of social program. (I give them a pass for deeply held, coherent beliefs that I happen to disagree with.)
- GOP partisans who hate all Democratic programs regardless of their strong points.
- People who think the country is made up of makers and takers, and the takers don't deserve access to health insurance, or probably healthcare either.
- Fools/zipperheads who think that the GOP proposals would have solved the problems well enough at a much lower cost.
"Obamacare is basically just another entitlement. It has no solid foundation to pay for it despite all the rhetoric. I'm not 100% opposed to entitlements per se, but we do a pizz poor job of administering them - so in my view we don't need another one." -- National Review commenterThis is a strong argument. If I take the argument sentence by sentence, it holds up quite well:
- Another entitlement--check. It's a federally-guaranteed and financed large-scale program.
- No solid foundation to pay for it--a strong possibility. The dedicated revenue streams may not be enough.
- Pizz poor job of administering them--check. The track record for federal programs include no cost containment in Medicare and Medicaid, welfare that grew far too large, etc.
They have good reasons for their opinions, perhaps stronger than mine, yet I still don't agree. It's not that I'm giving in to illogical motives. It's because of the mystery of how some values take precedence over others.