Finally, re: Obamacare. I’d really love to see an updated CBO scoresheet for this program. Remember that it was originally and deliberately designed with revenue-raising provisions so as to make it appear cost-neutral. But, the long-term care revenue (front loaded for scoring) disappeared. Millions of dollars in subsidies have been paid in error. Premiums priced too low are being increased, and as a beneficiary’s payment responsibility is limited by his income, the increases will be paid via taxpayers. The medical device tax* is profoundly disliked and may be on its way out. The risk corridor payments to insurance companies are being paid whether deserved or not. How much money was wasted on state websites that don’t work? The money was still paid out with nothing to show for it.
Show me the accountability for costs in this program and I’ll be willing to discuss its claimed benefits.
* who in his right mind would impose a tax on GROSS revenue in an industry where it can take years to research, develop, test, commercialize, & build a market for a product? Oh, and it’s also imposed on dual use human-veterinary devices. So if your vet uses a product in treating your dog/cat/fish/bird that falls into that category, he’ll be flowing that tax through to you, the customer. Congratulations, and thank you for your dog’s contribution to Obamacare.

The military is the best organized and most effective of all segments of governments; yet, all “programs” are not assigned to the military. Why do we always start with the government as the course for actions?

Even if someone gets “beyond the intention heuristic”, the usual outcome is not to correct the overall methods but to go even more down the same path. I think that might explain political polarization.

In general, it takes a lot of intellectual effort to overcome the innate instincts which support some sort of planning and enforcement of a predetermined pattern on society.

For way too many individuals, markets represent uncertainty. Of course, this is not applicable to natural rights libertarians, for them the consequences do not matter anyway.

If I discuss any kind of problem with a government program with a typical educated progressive, they say:

Sure, that’s a problem or cost, but it could be cured with a few tweaks. We aren’t all stuck in policy concrete and have plenty of room for maneuver for our experts to monitor, observe and then fix, repair, and reform things so long as those evil Republicans don’t stand in their way. Therefore your criticism is really a criticism of Republicans failing to enable our experts to do what is necessary. Or else it’s a ‘money in politics’ problem which could also be tweaked if the conservatives on the Court came to their senses. Nothing wrong with the problem per se

But the Catch-22 is that if, on the other hand, one’s line of criticism emphasizes that some particular cost is both major and fundamentally irremediable due to the inherent features of the problem and unavoidable features of political-bureaucratic dynamics, then these arguments are so abstract and generally-applicable that it throws the whole social-welfare-state progressive enterprise and agenda into question, which is so important that the immediate psychological reaction is simply a form of ‘crimestop’ and immediate rejection of the argument.

Bottom Line: The problem is the belief: “All programs are fixable, and since they are fixable, all criticisms of any program per se have no real or compelling significance and can be dismissed as trivial.” Fighting that attitude seems an almost insurmountable challenge.