Government regulation often does more harm than good. I generally oppose extending or creating government programs for this reason. However, I do believe that the government is capable of doing more good than harm when it approaches an issue correctly. That said, this is uncommon. Thus, my outlook on government is that I am always willing to listen to the specifics on any new proposal or program, but if it is structured poorly, as is usually the case, I then oppose it.

So you oppose it and... it still gets jammed down your throat.

Of course anything is going to do more good than harm if "approached correctly", but who the hell is to say the government is going to do that.

This is the reason that I would not automatically oppose a government health care option. If such an option were created in a manner that was fiscally responsible and still allowed for a high quality of care and the right to opt out of the government program, then I would support it.

What happens when any government run enterprise gets beat down by the private sector? The subsidize it with MY money. Homie don't play that. It is impossible for the government to have a "successful health care option".

As for this:

no private interest should be able to form a monopoly