Liberals have a thing for equal treatment. But if Obama had a life threatening illness...would they want him to receive the same exact treatment that he would receive at any given hospital? Or perhaps the idea is that each and every average Joe should have access to the same quality of medical treatment that Obama currently has access to?
Sorry. It's just not possible for everybody to have equal access to the best doctors. So what's the most fair way of determining who deserves access to the best care? We vote.
No no no...not the literal way...the meaningful way. You reach into your wallet and give your own hard-earned money to the people who use society's limited resource for your benefit. For example, you dollar vote for the kid who mows your lawn as well as for the loan officer who helped you purchase your home.
Why is this way of voting more meaningful than the other way? Because it involves sacrificing alternative uses of your own money (aka opportunity cost).
Markets work because you have the freedom to give people positive and accurate feedback on their activities.
Markets fail because you can benefit from some activities, like me writing the world's most awesome blog entries, without even having to contribute a dime! You free-riders you!
Well...maybe my blog isn't the most awesome? Could that explain why I'm not swimming in donations? Your guess is as good as mine. Or is it?
The solution is simple. We force people to pay taxes but allow them to choose which public services they give their positive and accurate feedback to.
How much positive feedback would the president receive? Why wouldn't we want to find out? How else can we truly determine exactly how much of society's limited resources he should have at his disposal?