Arguing with liberals..

[admin]

But a larger principle is at stake, too. In an article last week about Americans for Prosperity, the group backed by Charles and David Koch, New York Times writers Carl Hulse and Ashley Parker made the essential point. The Koch effort, Hulse and Parker wrote, is "not confined to hammering away" at the ACA. "They are also trying to present the law as a case study in government ineptitude to change the way voters think about the role of government for years to come." 

The underlying fight is thus over social insurance approaches that have been part of the fabric of American life since the progressive era and the New Deal. If opponents of the ACA can discredit it, they can move on to demonize other necessary public programs -- and undercut arguments for further government efforts to ease inequalities and injustices. 

This agenda is rooted in the idea that the United States was better off in pre-progressive days when it relied on private and community charity to deal with social problems and economic upheavals. One of the best summaries of this thinking was a speech last fall by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, at the Heritage Foundation. Highlighting the work of "voluntary civil society," Lee claimed that progressives who favor government programs "do not trust individuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improve each other's lives and meet common challenges."

Health Care's Real Stakes | RealClearPolitics

Apart from effects of policies on wallets, at the root, there is a philosophical difference that is quite fundamental. But that doesn't mean that policies and proposals cannot be enlightened by exploring their effects empirically, nor does it makes the use of stereotypes in lieu of arguements, data and substantiation any more useful.