I want to make sure I understand something. A major auto company goes bankrupt. The government bails it out, with tax dollars–paid by productive people who had nothing to do with the auto company that went bankrupt. We’re told: “Now that the government has made the auto company solvent again, it will benefit everyone. Not just the company and its workers, but also the taxpayers who will be paid back, with interest.” This presupposes something. This presupposes that the auto company went bankrupt through no fault of its own. Maybe this is true. Maybe, for example, the auto company was forced (by the very same government) to give its labor unions benefits they could not afford, which led to the insolvency of the company. But those benefits are now more in force than ever before. Or, maybe the auto company’s demise was of its own making. Then how or why are we to believe that whatever poor skills led to its demise will now suddenly diminish, with the presence of government money? Maybe the public just didn’t want what the auto company was selling. If the auto company could not generate a profit with private capital, which must come from making a quality product–then how will the “free” and nonjudgmental “capital” of government be any different? The only answer we’re given is that the U.S. President–who not only never ran a business, but never held a private sector job in his life–has chosen a different leader to run the company. Of course, this leader cannot make a move without government approval. We’re back to the same question: Why will people suddenly want a product now that it’s subsidized by the government when they didn’t want the same product produced by private capital? So how, exactly, is everyone better off? This example is not limited to an isolated auto company. It’s how the government proposes to run the entire economy. Medical care is next.