Socialized medicine

So we hear the democrats advocating social health care insurance with great zeal and Republicans balking at the same with election year fervor. But don't be intimidated by the emotions, and the intentionally deceptive rhetoric, because the entire issue boils down to very simple principles after we consider the basis of human nature itself.
Anything on a massive scale is difficult to understand and national health care is on that scale. Also, risk is difficult to see, because it is a game of probabilities, so insurance is also a concept which is not real to most people either. Put them together as national health care insurance and we have a massively unreal agenda. If you want proof about socialized medicine, I invite you to join the US Army. Anyone who has ever served our country honorably for eight years will readily attest to the deficiencies of socialized medicine .. at least, once they realize that this is the only kind of medicine available to servicemen within the Armed Forces (socialized) network. It may keep you alive, but there is much more to life than just being alive. Short of joining the services, no amount of "data" (all statistics are interpreted, anyhow) will convey the reality of socialized health care, but philosophy can shed some light on the possibilities by bringing it into the framework that we can all understand: individualized value. While discussion of the value, sacrifice, resources, training, technology, and risks in light of human nature and its basis in the free market for civilization thoroughly refutes socialism in all its forms, the philosophy of equality simplifies everything down to the question, "Is it right to force a man at gun point to give to another, simply because he has something to be given to someone who desires it with justification for any cause?" Now health appears to be a noble cause, as do a great many other agendas, but life is not so important to kill equality, freedom, and civilization. Now some may say that a thief is not a thief when the law supports him, but I say that such laws are equally criminal in suppressing one group for the benefit of another, regardless of the means employed (suppression implying the use of any form[s] of coercion). Finally, just as national insurance is a cover for theft (unless government puts down her guns and enters the business world of free competition), so also are "incentives" a cover for bribery and enslavement; make no mistake that when the grip of greedy weakens and falls off, the guns just as quickly rise. Now don't let my gun analogies be taken to literally, because the lack of resistance averts mortal combat, but make no mistake that compliance alone does NOT imply freedom or volition. For the gun is always the principle motivator when the sovereign individual refuses to surrender to the mercy of the government, her agents, and her prisons. Now, don't get me wrong, health care is wonderful, but only when it supports the more beautiful happiness of freedom, earned value, and responsibility. The responsibility of government has nothing to do with the health of her citizens, but notice the only phrase in the preamble is the one which I identified as being the most abused for agendas unrelated to the founder's intent: promote the general welfare .. I hope that no one here would challenge the idea that the founding fathers had not envisioned any form or degree of social medicine, or social anything for that matter, in their construction of the constitution.

"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand