> That is a different argument from your initial assertion.
No, it is the same - the government failed with less people and now is attempting something with almost all. I then added information about how the US government generally goes about social programs (pilot -> nationwide).
> The IHS's failure is not an indication that the us government can't execute on healthcare.
Yes, it is.
As to the rest of your post, I did not and have not argued that the government doesn't do some decent things in other fields. The FDIC unrolls have happened before 2008 and they have a plan for it that worked in the past.
Once again, they are attempting a lot of stuff with no previous experience, uncertain regulations (even now), and failure in their two previous large scale programs (IHS and VA). Add to this resistance from states and even doubt casting by Senators and Representatives that voted for it, it has very little hope of working.
No, it is the same - the government failed with less people and now is attempting something with almost all. I then added information about how the US government generally goes about social programs (pilot -> nationwide).
> The IHS's failure is not an indication that the us government can't execute on healthcare.
Yes, it is.
As to the rest of your post, I did not and have not argued that the government doesn't do some decent things in other fields. The FDIC unrolls have happened before 2008 and they have a plan for it that worked in the past.
Once again, they are attempting a lot of stuff with no previous experience, uncertain regulations (even now), and failure in their two previous large scale programs (IHS and VA). Add to this resistance from states and even doubt casting by Senators and Representatives that voted for it, it has very little hope of working.