As mentioned, I've no way of knowing your own circumstances. If you got screwed in that department, I'd guess you came up heads somewhere else, it tends to balance out. Not completely of course, some people exist in a 'when it rains it pours' existence, others the sun always seems to shine and the grass is greener but for most of us, it tends to break even. Maybe your teeth are just naturally sucky, I don't know. You're an intelligent person in an Age that tends to value that highly, most would consider that a fair trade. Me, I'd rather cut off a finger than lose an IQ point, but I'd rather keep my hand then a single IQ point.



Most objectivists aren't particularly anarchic, and I am not one, as you know, and do not particular subscribe to Dickens-esque " and decrease the surplus population." thinking. Rand actually does not knock charity, she just knocks a mindset that makes it moral duty and major virtue, and she definitely does not knock cooperation. Generally speaking objectivist solutions to poverty tend to be of the 'let's ten of us get together and high Bob to do housework, eleven people profit' variety, not 'let Bob starve in the streets', it doesn't even frown on charity, again, it just rejects the notion that charity is a duty and more is better. And it totally embraces non-financial-profit behavior, it isn't money driven. Yes, certainly many use the ideology as a vehicle to excuse their own failings or greed but that's hardly unique to her philosophy.

Regardless, most of us who are against these sorts of programs aren't objectivists, on top of taxes US citizens voluntarily contribute more money to charitable works than any other country, oops, make that all other countries combined. And its definitely not greed inspiring most conservatives, who statistically give 30% more to charity then libs while also statistically having a smaller average income. Not that libs in the US have much to feel ashamed over, they give 2-3 times as much per capita as the European average, needless to say, since Europe and the US contain slightly over half the world's money between them, nobody else is in a position to have much effect, in case anyone's curious, #1 giver on the list I have was Spain, per capita, at less then half the US per cap donations, followed very closely by Belgium and the UK, the UK of course has a much large number of people, the other two big population areas, France and Germany, do just just over half and roughly a third the per cap of those top 3 respectively. Germans were averaging 1/7th the donations per person of Americans, the study is from earlier in the decade, hopefully that's changed, I don't feel like hunting for anything newer.

None of this revolves then around a desire to harm or even ignore poverty. People who are starting to ask "Who is John Galt?" aren't doing it because they resent helping the needy. You don't hear them demanding massive cuts to police, fire, military etc because those groups represent undeniable benefits as collective actions. To you, healthcare represents a different thing, a necessity, and thus should be provided by all for all. Hardly a crazy idea, but to most of us on the right, its no different then getting your car or roof fixed, realistically maintaining either of those in poor condition is more likely to kill you then a lot of health ailments, same as not fencing in your pool is 1000x times more likely to kill your kids then leaving a loaded fire arm lying around the house. My teeth aren't my problem, my car is (its not, just an example) my tires are going bald and I need it to function to get to work and the grocery store. Or the engine needs and expensive tune up, both, thats pretty common for a lot of poorer people and it is, like a neglect of dental checkups, something which costs more money in the long term then the maintenance would have if done properly. All the wasted gas will add up, and the chance of a critical failure, death by lack of sufficient tire tread, is very real. Should we then have collective car maintenance? Done properly, it would certainly save us all money, the Army on most posts provides facilities where you can 'rent' for about $5 an hour usually, a bay in a garage and access to all the tools. Its a pretty effective policy, but you can get away with that better in the tyrannic setup that is the military, because abuse can be dealt with quickly (and arbitrarily), not too compatible with our normal civilian setup, plus virtually everyone in the military has some vehicle mechanic training... however, there is nothing stopping a group of people from collectively getting together and buying a garage and tools and doing the same. Costs overall will often parallel simply taking it to a mechanic though. Regardless, there is not, and never has been anything stopping liberals from getting together and pooling their resources for medical and dental or anything else. Its not like liberals over all are poorer than the national average. There is not and never has been anything preventing our countries socialist leaning sorts from forming groups (heck, lots of religious groups do this) and pooling their resources as they saw fit, a simple contract on entry making release of tax filings and continued dues on penalty of expulsion is quite legal. I have no objection to such a thing, and might even join one - voluntarily - but I'll not have others force me into it. Its perfectly possible to have socialism under capitalism, families tend to run that way, many business and organizations do some of that, but forcing people to contribute against their will? Nope, only when you can show it is beyond reasonable doubt a vastly superior method.