Health Care Question aka Fear Mongering Conspiracy Theory

Ok so to quash all the hate mail I am going to say this now: This is a stream of consciousness kind of post. It is meant to be thought provoking... not as statements of fact. [See how I did that media? I prefaced my post with a disclaimer?]

Ok so let's say this health care bill goes through. Doesn't matter what form or the specifics, because between now and "then" the form is going to change quite a bit. The implementation is an entirely different question on its own.

So we get gov't funded health care. Let's say we even keep our private care if we want it; yet, I am sure that the funding will all be interconnected. So the question I want to know is, in what way will our freedoms and choices over our PRIMARY/PREVENTATIVE care be affected?

Seems like a valid question right? Also seems at first glance to not matter that much right? Twice yearly check-up exams, mandatory testing for certain things per some "well researched" schedule. The obvious things come to mind. What if we go a tad deeper? Now again, I know this is CONSPIRACY theory-esque but think about how easily and logical this *COULD* occur:

• Cost on child health care is rising especially in terms of "preventable" condition X.
• Research is done by some gov't funded group regarding condition X.
• The group doing the research is funded by grants by the gov't and health care so they come up with a typical set of findings. [Isn't this the same thing the left complains about with "Big Pharma?"]
• So, the research points to the fact that condition X could possibly be prevented by a vaccine. [Oh, not fair right? Using that "Buzz" word vaccine... but I think it is valid.]
• The vaccine proves to be 99.8% effective at preventing X.
• The gov't at this point has sunk $5.5mil into research/funding this issue.
• They realize that vaccination will cost $10mil + the $5.5 research for a total bill of $15.5mil - over the next 10 years.
• The research points to the fact that without vaccination the "cost" of X will be around $12-18mil.
• They decide that they will use some funding bill or some other means to coax the requirement of the vaccination onto the general populous for "the health" of the country. Or is it the cost savings?
• A parent objects to vaccinations.
• Now what?

My point is not that vaccines are evil. I don't wish to get into that discussion, because frankly I am not a medically or scientifically trained person. [I am completely untrained in almost all regards :) ] My question is how soon before this scenario occurs? It all seems pretty benign doesn't it? Let's take the "hot topic" vaccine out of the equation and change it to some other "procedure" that is totally safe. What if you simply don't want to HAVE it, but to keep your insurance you HAVE to have it? Sure, there may be wiggle room out of my scenarios now, but don't tell me that there aren't imaginable scenarios where there isn't an escape? And what about personal freedom?

I know this is a lot of "what ifs" but it doesn't seem that far fetched does it? This bill happened too fast and with too little debate. I saw a commercial yesterday from some interest group where they portrayed "Congressional Hearings" on the Health Care Issue. It was actually in support of the bill which is what made it so ironic. Anyway, they have the "public" parading in front of a microphone in congress demanding health care. Don't you wish we had at least THAT type of discussion? I mean, they put more thought into the STEROIDS issue than they did this. Hmmm, actually that is a good question... I'd love to find out the hearing/committee time spent on steroids versus this bill.

The point is that any time the gov't runs something, there is a COST factor. There has to be, they are essentially in the business of running this country. I don't care who is in charge, the D's or the R's; anytime some big program is put forward the cost element plays the deciding role. So why would we think and believe that at the end of the day the most important issue is the health and life of Americans as opposed to the cost and economic viability of this program?