DOLLAR COST OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS IRRELEVANT

The argument for or against nationalized health care seems to be what is the cost.  We hear cost estimates to be as high as $52 trillion over the next 10 years.  What we know is that cost estimates are always lower than the actual cost.  The actual cost in this instance goes way beyond dollars.  The cost of nationalized health care must be measured in terms of liberty and lives.  Nationalized health care has always been supported by collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats, - all virtually the same).   The reason for their support for nationalized health care is that it is mandatory for a Marxist totalitarian state, they do not care about costs, they do not care about liberty, and they do not care about lives. 
 
Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialized medicine to be the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.
 
From the Socialists Workers Party--
 
 “When the administration of John F. Kennedy discussed a plan for government health care that would cover people of Social Security age, the American Medical Association (AMA) fought back, along with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, with a well-funded campaign–complete with a commercial featuring actor Ronald Reagan, who was determined to talk to America about an “imminent threat”:
 
Now, back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism, the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program…
 
 One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project…Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it.”
 
Why do we have a limited government?
 
“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.”  James Madison
 
Limited government is important because limiting government preserves individual liberties and protects certain rights and freedoms. It also protects private property and enables citizens to have more control over their own lives.
 
Not limiting government enables the government to have absolute power over the citizens. In an unlimited government, the government makes decisions on behalf of the citizens, resulting in the loss of individual liberties. Both the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to limit government. A limited government has legal limits on its power and can only pass laws that do not affect personal liberties.
 
A limited government prevents the government from employing extensive control over people's lives, freedom of speech and actions. It also prevents the government from interfering with the implementation of civil liberties. Moreover, it gives citizens the opportunity to participate in political and social issues and local government. In addition, it provides a free market economic system that enables citizens to have financial freedom.
 
Our argument against nationalized health care must center on liberty.  Nationalized health care places more power in the hands of government and takes liberty from the people.  Again, the collectivist wants all power in the hands of government.  They understand liberty is a threat to their power.  The cost in terms of dollars and lives is of no concern to them.  They are comrades of Lenin, and like Lenin understand that socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.