Why wouldn’t this be the case? If we are talking about the US government, its role is clearly defined by the Constitution. There’s an amendment in there that also says when the role of the fed is not clearly defined by said document, it is the role of the states to write laws.

This gets to the heart of “statism.” We have our guidance for what roles the federal government should play, but there are millions of people who don’t care about this guidance, and want to expand the role of the fed regarless of precedent. They are statists. Now, if they were able to gin up enough public support to get their intented goals written into the government charter, there would be no reason to complain.

The hypocritical right does overuse this term – if they had any credibility, they would look at their own abuses of the Constitution over the past 200 years and label themselves as statists. Additionally, it’s hard to argue against statism when the feds are clearly allowed to a) regulate interstate commerce, and b) tax stuff, just to name a few things our government charter allows them to do.

As to Freddie’s statement:

I literally don’t know a single liberal or progressive who doesn’t take pains to say that there are many things that government shouldn’t attempt to do or that government does poorly

Your boy in the White House doesn’t seem to be taking pains to say that government has completely biffed Medicare, while lobbying for more government spending and intervention in medical care. Please explain.

I’ve been blinking mutely at my computer for several minutes, trying to comprehend such an awesomely incorrect sentence.

Uh, tax credits are a significant part of what’s distorting the current market. You do it with vouchers.

Fine, then vouchers; I was treating them as structurally equivalent. And obviously I didn’t have in mind anything like the present system of tax subsidies, but rather the sort of thing that McCain had proposed or that’s in the Wyden-Bennett bill.

But I have encountered many conservatives, and I’m sure you have as well, who are happy to say that government is always the problem.

Yes, they are happy to say that, but then – as you’ll gladly point out! – their actions contradict it, since they support the surveillance state and a militaristic foreign policy and wouldn’t, when push came to shove, actually be in favor of having the federal government eliminated altogether. It’s stupidly tough talk that doesn’t map onto actual political convictions.

Tax credits don’t work if your health care costs exceed the entirety of your federal tax burden, which wouldn’t be remarkable for people in the bottom third of the income ladder.

Refundable ones do.

Tax credits.

Tax credits don’t work if your health care costs exceed the entirety of your federal tax burden, which wouldn’t be remarkable for people in the bottom third of the income ladder.

How do you ensure everyone has access to affordable healthcare regardless of age, income, and health without having a massive government intervention?

Tax credits.