Universal health care: Evil in camouflage

When I was a child and young adult, the chief archetype of evil in the world was the Soviet Union. The communist regime controlled every aspect of its citizens' lives; their rulers had plenty, while workers – to whom they appealed in order to gain control – lived in poverty, suffering from diseases that developed nations had long since eradicated and disinfecting their tap water with bleach to make it potable.

As students, my schoolmates and I saw the photos of bread lines, heard the testimony of escaped dissidents and retreated to the school basement once a month to rehearse being dry-roasted by Soviet ICBMs.

A few asserted that our fear of the USSR was all the result of propaganda; even during the time I was growing up, one could find clusters of people in universities and coffee shops in places like Berkeley and Greenwich Village who argued that Marxism really was the way to go. All of that Russophobia was just rubbish; Russia, Eastern Europe and Cuba really functioned far more equitably and efficiently than the United States, and what America needed was that model of government.

While a lot of those people were very free with their speech on those campuses and in the coffee shops, in the real world they tended to keep to themselves. The reason for this was a very valid concern that failure to do so would result in some of their teeth being knocked down their throats.

Tired of keeping quiet about increasing government control? Express yourself with the magnetic message: "No Hope in Socialism"

It bears mentioning that these are the sort of folks with whom our current president associated during his formative years, and well into adulthood.

As time went on, these closet communists got bolder. As some of them came of age, they insinuated themselves into positions of influence – the press, education and government, for example. It is by design that a majority of Americans are unaware of the horrors and injustices inherent to nations that adopted Marxism. Due to the growing influence of these operatives, the younger a person is, the more ignorant of the facts they tend to be.

They also don't understand the nature of evil, because our increasingly relativist society refuses to acknowledge the very concept.

Evil people – such as those who captained the USSR for 70 years – crave control over their fellows for the sheer satisfaction of having that control. They derive pleasure from squeezing others in the grasp of their will. There's no reason to it, so attempting to ascribe logic to the desire for such power is foolishness.

On Monday, President Obama went before the American Medical Association in an attempt to gain doctors' support for his plan to turn America's health care apparatus over to the federal government. Ever the purveyor of panic, he referred to our current health care system as "a ticking time bomb" and pre-deflected critics' arguments by cautioning Americans against the "scare tactics and fear-mongering" of those who oppose nationalized medicine. In fact, Obama vehemently claims that his plan won't be nationalized medicine at all; however, as we learned last week, he lies a lot.

In the main, Americans don't perceive the underlying motive of control associated with the concept of universal health care. Many are quite eager to take advantage of it, like the entitlements their neighbors have reflexively snapped up in the past. Some are concerned with the potential for fiscal misfeasance – as well they should be. But that's not even the half of it.

If the people are paying for your health care, they probably ought to have a say in what you do (or don't do) toward the preservation of your health – like your diet, for example.

Perhaps the people will initiate a protocol by which your diet may be monitored for "risky health practices" like the government is already doing in Britain. If one insists upon indulging in dietary indiscretions that might endanger one's health (of course, the State will determine what those are), then the people should have the right to curtail such behavior or deny one coverage. Come to think of it, the people should have the right to monitor all of your activities to determine that you're not engaging in any activities that might be deleterious to your health.

Organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and similar addiction recovery programs will have to be abolished. Out of the medical practitioner's loop altogether, they are effectively practicing medicine without a license. The same would go for anything having to do with alternative medicine, which is primitive and risky. Such paradigms only necessitate more costly measures later.

In the interest of avoiding undue financial encumbrance, it would also be best if those individuals whose children might be at risk for genetic disorders did not reproduce. It would not be equitable if the people were burdened with caring for children who will cost hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of dollars, with no guarantee of their survival, let alone improved health.

Compulsory sterilization of individuals with such risk factors should also be seriously considered. Amniocentesis might be required for all pregnant women, and dilation and curettage (DNC – that would be abortion to non-medical folks) performed if fetal deformity or other pathology is detected.

That's just what's liable to slip through the door when we crack it open for universal health care. Shall I go on?