1984 2008

As we've noted before in this forum, one of the key issues surrounding the Democratic Presidential primaries this year is the question of which candidate has the most awesomest Orwellian plan for "Universal Health Care." Indeed, the issue has become front-and-center in the Democratic debates with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton duking it out for the right to be the "I-care-for-you-the-mostest" candidate. The only real substantive difference between the two's policies is that Mr. Obama's apparently allows a few blessed souls to avoid the impending 'U.H.C' catastrophe while Mrs. Clinton's takes the more communistic approach and vows to leave no one behind. The only problem, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to specify exactly how she plans on enforcing the Health Care mandates that her system promises.

(Gosh, who'da thunk, a politician with a plan and no explanation as to how it might actually work.....)

Thankfully though, Mrs. Clinton was on ABC yesterday to assure all of us in the proletariat that she most certainly "[has] an enforcement mechanism" in mind for this (surely genius...) health care plan of hers - and she was even willing to expound upon this rhetorical talking point (unusually rare for the current meaningless platitude war that is the '08 Dem Presidential primaries). On tap for Mrs. Clinton's potential enforcement plans were "[garnishing people's wages], some other mechanism through the tax system, or automatic enrollments."

Because clearly the best way for us to try and stave of a possible recession is to jack up taxes on the middle-class workers who refuse to voluntarily accept her health care mandates. Alas, with these pro-"Universal Health Care" folks, raising taxes is always fair game - never mind the fact that some of these people probably can't afford health insurance on their current salary because their taxes are too high as it is.

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton's answer was, to be blunt, not particularly heavy on specifics (a fact which Mr. Obama was quick to point out), but let's be fair; she was indeed justified in claiming that "there are a number of mechanisms" which could be used to bring her plan to fruition. Indeed, this, sadly, is the reality of social democracy - the government is big and powerful enough to coerce a good deal out of you, including money for misguided "universal health care" programs.

But hey, it's for your own, personal Health Care for godssakes - so don't mind the dark beady eyes and toothbrush mustache staring down at you from the telescreen; afterall, he's there for your own personal good!

Here, naturally, we hit upon the reason that Mrs. Clinton refuses to directly articulate her means for enforcing these Health Care mandates - because the only agency that can enforce these mandates is the Government; and this would deny her the facade of claiming, as she has in the past, that the program is "not government run." Indeed, it would, in effect, be an admission that the program is not "universal health care;" but full-blooded Socialized Medicine. Moreover, as she learned in 1994, most Americans aren't willing to accept Socialized Medicine; they're smart enough to know that socialism is a bad idea. This is why, in the aftermath of the massive failure of HillaryCare I, the socialized medicine movement here in the United States cleverly changed its rhetoric. No more would Americans be asked to suffer European-style, Socialized Medicine. No, instead, they would be asked about "universal health care" and told of the "millions of uninsured" (especially children!!!) who desperately needed help - it would be presented to them as a sob story.

No longer would it be, as it was in Europe, a top down movement forced upon the majority of citizens "for their own good;" but rather, it would be portrayed as a great, grassroots effort by the lower class to get what they rightfully deserved - indeed, were owed - in this, the wealthiest Nation in history.

And this was the story that Americans would slowly buy into.

Never mind that, even if under different pretenses, they were actually being sold the same damn bill of goods (by the same saleswoman, no less!); the marketing was different, more likeable, so they bought it. Thus proving, with all due respect to Shakespeare, that, in American politics, what's in a name does matter - at least to the many gullible voters we have.

Ignorance is strength, if you will....