Soon We Will All Be AIDS Patients

by Liam Scheff
Special for OMSJ.org

Nationalized Health Care – mandatory and without option of refusal – sits on our doorstep. It knocks, and for our sake, the President and lady speaker have saved us from answering the door. It will enter, with or without our consent. How will you benefit from socialized medicine?

The world has already experimented with socialized medicine in Canada, North Korea, Europe and Massachusetts, and the results are always the same: The quality of care is diminished and costs go up. But onward we go.

Soon every national medical emergency will be a personal emergency. Every government-produced mass vaccination plan will be pushed on you by your family’s government-approved physician. You’ll be getting the most up-to-date paranoia, right there in your doctor’s office, and you will be legally mandated to comply with her or his advice. Because it’s a matter of law. Because it’s science. And government science is never wrong.

In fact, you may discover that you now have a variety of diseases that you’d never been aware of. For example, Americans who have not yet taken the time to understand the criminal syndicate called the AIDS industry, are about to meet it face to face.

At present, it is only gay men and poor women who give birth in public hospitals who must turn over the intimate details of their sex lives and personal relationships to the state. But no longer. You are now an AIDS patient.

Read the exclusive at OMSJ.

2 thoughts on “Soon We Will All Be AIDS Patients

  1. While Sandi’s story is a tragic testament to the power of medicine, isn’t at all true that socialized medicine equals lower quality of care and higher costs. For all its flaws, wait times, and the absence of “cutting edge” technology (no thanks anyhow), the Canadian system provides care to all when it is needed, and it does so on less than what the US spends. Further, we immunize significantly less than in the US, and have a better infant mortality rate.

    The real problems lie elsewhere, and are true of both Canada and the US. One is of course the kind of care that is available—care that excludes natural medicines, and is highly resistant to integrative medicine. Another major problem is one described in Dr. David Newman’s wonderful book Hippocrates’ Shadow: the lag time between science and clinical practice—we often continue with medical practices for decades after the science has proven them more harmful than beneficial. And finally, underneath it all, is the problem of health care being corporatized and profit-driven at root, the fact of powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries driving both treatments and policy.

    The problems have little to do with whether buying insurance is mandatory and available to all or not.

    1. Hi Connie,

      —“Further, we immunize significantly less than in the US, and have a better infant mortality rate.”—

      The second point is too complex to rate in a short discussion, but size of country, rate of immigration, level of urban or impoverished population all count here.

      The second, that you immunize less, goes to the fact that your system is LESS socialist than ours, already.

      Our CDC is highly ‘socialist,’ at present, to the point of fascism. I agree with you that fascism can come from the Right or the Left. I’m an independent, so see no panacea in party affiliation on either side.

      —“and the absence of “cutting edge” technology (no thanks anyhow), the Canadian system provides care to all when it is needed, and it does so on less than what the US spends.”—

      I’ll take your point that some are served well enough in Canada. But the US, in size of population, economy, and international influence (power, corruption, trouble), can’t be fitted with a small-town socialism.

      It gets painted large down here. It’s insidious. It creeps into everything. It’s got to be kept out in no uncertain terms.

      And we’re not a generally homogeneous population who all tend to feel similarly about each other – there are ethnic, religious and class divides which live from unresolved histories, there are current economic problems

      —-“and the absence of “cutting edge” technology (no thanks anyhow),”—

      If you look in the post, you won’t see a defense of our current medical program here. We probably would personally agree on many medical ideas – it’s good that you’re free to pursue them. That’s not for a presence or lack of socialism; that has to do with other factors. Size and nature of nation, first and foremost.

      To put it another way, if you don’t see the immense and radical danger of letting the US medical system become a government-run socialist entity, then forgive me, but you’re not seeing what I’m seeing, and I think you could take a deeper look at the country I’m living in, its tendencies, its birthplace, its history, before defending a socialist US.

      Big countries (large, potentially unruly populations, spread among large urban and rural zones) plus big socialism work in one way, and one way only. History tells us all about them. Small (population) homogeneous countries seem to have better luck with these programs.

      The mistake liberals make is in not understanding the difference. (Yes, conservatives make plenty of mistakes). Liberty has to be defended from bureaucracy, wherever you are. Once the power is accumulated by an organ as powerful as the US Gov’t. Well, good luck getting it back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *