Why is it OK for the government to order evacuations but not to mandate health insurance?

An order from the executive branch (federal, state, local) dictating the behavior of an individual is still an order. You can parse the difference between Mandatory and mandatory (whatever you are trying to say there). But at the end of the day, people are still being told what to do, whether they want to or not. My understanding of the whole "small government" approach is that we are expected to believe that the private sector (not just state or local government) can fill in and do a better job.

And if the state can do a better job of managing disasters on their own, why would Christie be tossing one over to Obama this close to the election? And not even offering a photo op to Romney? While on Fox News, no less... 

2016 that is why

You want consistency in politics and disaster? keep looking. 

We're both in PA. Our former Senator Rick Santorum tried to make a name for himself right out of the gate back in the 90s as a go-to guy for all things right wing. When the midwest suffered massive flooding along the Mississippi, he went to the floor of the senate to argue that this was not a federal issue. In 1996 when an odd winter storm produced iced flooding in Central PA, especially Williamsport and Montoursville, he was first on the floor asking for federal disaster aid. 

Of course to PA voters who elected him, this looked like our guy going and sticking up for our interests. Never mind that he had told other states to shove it, you know, out of principle for what the role state and federal governments are. 

Santorum makes plenty of news on his own, even out of the Senate, but this tidbit was lost to most memories. To me it is the kind of thing that represents the core hypocrisy of the "government is always evil and always the wrong answer" drumbeat. It makes for great woo-hoo campaign moments, but falls apart when actually dealing with public policy. 

Do you mean it is at 90% of the budget or that it is costing only 10% of the budget?

And if the fed is so useless, why are you guys working with FEMA at all?

It seems to me that while it might be true that most things could be handled locally, when it needs outside help, having an agency that is gutted is not a good thing. Sort of like having a spare tire that is bald and flat - you almost never need to use it, but when you do, you want it to be in good shape.

I thought he was mad at the Mayor of Atlantic City for (what he claimed or thought) sending mixed messages about seeking shelter in the city versus evacuating altogether like the Gov ordered....he wasn't mad at the people that stayed, and in fact he said he felt sorry for the people that had stayed.  I don't view FEMA and disaster relief as another aspect of "big government"....I view it as what should be an essential part of a SMALL Federal government.

For the simple reason that there are certain things that are best done at the lowest possible level. Do you want the the government (at any level) telling you how to punish/ reward your children?

Further There are always people that ignore evacuation orders. then when the feces hits the fan public servants have to put their lives at risk to rescue them.

I liked what the one mayor did several years ago. He announced the evacuation order and then added that anyone not evacuating would be required to sign a "hold harmless" statement which would prevent them or their heris from suing. He also stated that any one that required rescue would be charged some astronomical fee.

Well, it's OK for the Federal Govt to mandate evacuations as if it doesn't, then it will cost them money to come and rescue you; whereas with healthcare, if you don't buy your own insurance (and aren't self-insured with a bond), then it will cost the government... Oh, I see your point.

Well, really FEMA shouldn't be a federal program, it should be with the states, because that way the Federal Gov't won't need to pay for emergency services better carried out at the local level.  See- if we have 50 fully outfitted FEMA type operations, one in each state- it will be cheaper than doing it at the federal level...uh... i think.

Hmmm.  Perhaps this Romney guy isn't looking so good after all?  Naw.  I want lower taxes and don't want one more cent of mine going towards people I probably wouldn't like anyway, so I better just vote for him.

But no one has to risk his life going in to save someone who didn't buy healthcare insurance.

If I think that it is OK to punish my kids by holding a hot iron against their skin for talking back, or by sodomizing them with a broomstick for wetting the bed; or to reward my 8 year old with a can of beer, or to give my 12 year old permission to smoke marijuana, then yes, I think the government (at a more local level - county or state) SHOULD be telling me how to reward/punish my kids.

The problem with a statement like yours is that it assumes that everyone is as reasonable as most people are. In the same fashion, saying that having the fed assume a role in emergencies is not as good as having local responders assumes that all emergencies are equally minor. I don't think the fed needs to be involved if I have a tree fall over on my property, or if I am having a heart attack. But if the storm knocks out all the local infrastructure, then yes, I want the fed to bring in resources from outside the local cachement.

ETA - between my job and my buddy who was an investigator at CYS and my other buddy who used to be a detective in the nearby city police, I have seen some pretty horrible things that parents do in the name of "disciplining the kids". And for the record, both of my friends are strongly right leaning republicans, yet both were involved in telling parents "how to punish" their kids.

Bingo... Which is why you are seeing more and more municipalities stating that if you do not evacuate you are on your own and that they will not risk their first responders' lives to save yours.

Reductio ad absurdum much?

Obviously causing permanent physical or mental harm to a child is illegal.  However what I believe verga means is the government should have no say as to if you give a time out or take away video games or a quick smack on the bottom.  These are things best left to the parent.  His analogy is that sometimes you do not need government (at any level) to make decisions.

Nice- selectively quote to give yourself a straw man. But if you recall, I also said:

"I don't think the fed needs to be involved if I have a tree fall over on my property, or if I am having a heart attack. But if the storm knocks out all the local infrastructure, then yes, I want the fed to bring in resources from outside the local cachement."

In other words, I also said that sometimes you do not need government resources. But sometimes you do. And when you do, it doesn't matter that it is a rare occasion, or that most of the time you don't need that help. 

And I find whenever someone says "obviously" as part of their argument, they are overlooking the fact that not everyone seems to see these things as always true (or at least , acts as though they don't know these things). If they did, I would have a lot less work, as would my friend at CYS and our cop buddy. I have plenty of parents in my clinic that complain that they cannot discipline their child because of CYS or "the government" - and have little to no idea of ways of disciplining without corporal punishment or borderline if not outright abuse.

If the government says "as of this point, we will not be sending out first responders due to the dangers to them", then they are very different issues. In the same way that a SAR operation can be suspended on a mountain because of dark or avalanche risk, or other safety concerns. But when the issue is that people should not be told what to do, that is another story.

I think Christie would absolutely have been consistent if he stuck with his original pronouncement that the people in AC were going to be on their own until Tuesday at a minimum. But to tell people what to do is ludicrous.

One other thing that strikes me is how many people talk about how the more localized government is the best able to assess and respond to a situation. So theoretically, shouldn't the mayor of AC be in a better position than the governor of the state to determine what resources were available and how people could be accomodated and whether to advise people to stay or go? Yes, there is clearly some longstanding political beef between the two, but it doesn't change the equation if it were true, that officials closer to the ground are in better positions to respond to situations.

Obviously these people are idiots... oops..

Does the IRS, by order of law, penalize people who do not obey the evacuation orders?

You blow off very quickly the difference between action of the State and the Federal government and according to our form of government the difference is essential.  The U.S. Constitution is a document of limiting power, it specifically outlines the role of the Federal government, thus only the power directly given to the Federal government in the Constitution is the power that the Federal government has.  Power not expressly given to the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution is reserved to the States.  That is the fundemental division of power pursuant to our form of government.

The argument about "big" government isn't about the size of government but rather about the Constitutional scope of the Federal government.  That is, the real "big government" argument is that the Federal government is Constitutionally exceeding the power that it has been granted pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.  That was the argument against Mandated Health Care.

There's another argument about "big government" and that has to do with the violation of the seperation of powers.  In that the Legislature has abducated power that only they have to the executive branch.  That is, the executive branch is exceeding its Constitutional grant of power.  Neither party makes any noice about this because they don't want to rock the boat for the time when the come into power.

(By the way in 2014 if Obama Care is still on the books there will be another round of Consitutional challenges.  The U.S. Supreme Court in the last case ruled that the Federal government could mandate health care under the taxation power of the US Constituion.  But there was a little caveat in the decision that wasn't picked up on by many.  The Court ruled that there was no standing to challenge the validity of the passed tax because standing only arises when the tax is implimented.  Because the tax won't be implimented until 2014 it can't be challenged.  Just my prediction.)

The issue of State or Federal action is a big issue.

The issue still stands that most of the people who advocate "smaller government" are advocating for things that are now governmental functions (at any level) should go to the private sector. Check out what Romney said in the primary debates when asked about FEMA. If the private sector does everything more efficiently and better than at any governmental level (not something I personally believe to be true, but something I hear repeated often when having discussions with people who lean right), then it makes sense to move as many functions as possible(including managing the state roads - something that has been bandied about in PA) to the private sector.

And what most people who object to it say about the ACA is that they object to having to pay for insurance. Even if we somehow had all the states setting up their own system, that basic objection remains.

Either the government has the authority (at whatever level) to tell people what to do (in exchange for protecting certain rights and providing certain services), or it does not. The rest is just splitting hairs (e.g. the state can force people to leave their homes but the fed cannot force them to be insured.)