The Obama "stimulus" package scares the living hell out of me. For many reasons I think this is a tremendous mistake and - along with Bush's initial $700 billion bailout - I oppose this as well as many Americans.

But there is one HUGE problem I have with this that trumps all the others; Obama's desire to nationalize health care. Ooops, I'm sorry. I mean, universal health care (my bad - you know if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a chicken).

The chosen one's plan is based on the ideas of Tom Daschle. You know Tom - the failed Senator who also lied and cheated and embarrassed the President. Yeah, that guy. No, not the other tax cheat and not that other one, either. You know the old question "who do I have to sleep with to get service?" Well, in today's government, it's "who do I have to cheat on my taxes for in order to get a cabinet position."

According to this socialized med....oops, there I go again...universal health care initiative, the ultimate decision regarding treatment is no longer made between you and your doctor. Of course not, silly. No, the decision whether or not you really need that liver transplant is made by someone called the Health Czar.

You remember the Czar don't you? He was such a lovable figure in pre-communist Russia that Americans feel the need to be ruled by them once again.

This health czar is a government bureaucrat who - like Tom Daschle and Barack Obama - knows nothing about medicine, you or your doctor. Instead, all decisions will be based on a formula that is determined by your expected lifespan, the cost of the treatment and - if memory serves - a giant Ouija board (I may be wrong on this last one).

For schmucks like me - you know the type, heart transplant recipient - should the time come that I need, say a new kidney - it may well be determined that I can not receive one because after all, I'm already living on borrowed time. Sure, I've had 46 years. But it's now "patriotic" to stand down for my fellow man, right? Who cares if he's here illegally. That would be racist of me to say he doesn't have the same rights as a law-abiding American citizen.

Aside from the obvious effect on me - and if you don't believe it will happen here, take a look at other countries where the wait to see a doctor is often longer than the illness itself - there is another part of the President's plan that has a horrifying repercussion.

This past weekend, the President rescinded a rule that allows health care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs. This is not to say these people were denying Americans the right to abort their fetus/babies. This rule simply allowed health care workers, pharmacists and the like to not have to sacrifice their moral code of conduct in cases where they believe it to be reprehensible to do so.

On an individual basis, what this means is that if you are a surgeon and you do not want to perform an abortion, the government can not compel to do so. If you are a pharmacist and you believe the morning after pill is murder, the government can not make you sell it.

By rescinding this rule, Obama is basically telling you to do what he says, or else. You didn't do and you will lose your job, your licence...everything.

The Anchoress has written a great post describing why this rule is not only necessary, but rescinding it could have terrible consequences:

Obama: Your Conscience Means Nothing

I’ve been waiting for this story and knew it would come - dropped on a Friday night, of course:

Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

The spin, of course, is that the Bush law was “confusing in scope.” That it needs “clarification.”

Apparently it is a very complex thing for someone to say, “no, I cannot in good conscience do this,” on issues which - despite the euphemistic language in which both abortion and contraception have long-been shrouded - truly involve matters of life and death or (at the minimum) moral consequence.

A person may believe she is free to take a “morning after pill,” and a second person might even agree with the first that she is free to do that. This does not mean that - if the second person is convinced the thing is an abortifacient - he or she should be compelled by law to deny his or her own conscience and dispense the drug. The point is even clearer in the case of abortion. A doctor may even be “pro-choice” but personally unwilling to perform an abortion and he or she should be free to make that choice.

When people believe their own soul is in peril if they participate in an action, the conscientious objection should be sustained. It always has been, before.

Can it be sustainable in Obamaland, or is this very fundamental sort of American freedom to be denied her citizenry in service to expedient (and monetarily lucrative) politics?

If we are going to be a nation that supports the “freedom to choose,” then it seems to me that has to go both ways. Professional health workers should be “free to choose” whether or not they will participate in what they find to be morally objectionable.

Freedom that is only one-sided i.e., “she is free to have a late term, partial-birth abortion and you are not free to refuse her request” or “she is free to demand this contraception and you are not free to refuse to fill that prescription,” is not really freedom.

It is enslavement. Dress it up any way you want. If the government is forcing you to do what your conscience tells you not to, under threats to your freedom, your purse or your livelihood, then you are not free.

But you know, the other night, when Obama addressed the joint houses of Congress, he only used the world “freedom” once. Just once. It’s not really what he’s about. Not really on his radar.

He appears to be more about…well…I won, and I am the president and you will live the way I think you should live, so I will make all of your choices for you, and you will obey.

This is not a president who is all about freedom, like the last American president.

Control, yes. Lots and lots of control. But freedom…not so much.

I wonder…once health professionals are compelled to prescribe or to abort, against their consciences, it won’t be a very big step toward demanding that they kill “compassionately put-to-rest” those whose quality of life is deemed “insufficient” by the government’s measure. Or, you know…those who are simply becoming too expensive to keep alive on “the taxpayers dime.”

Because when it comes down to Socialized Medicine “universal health care” a Ted Kennedy - who is useful, rich and connected - may be deemed worth treating and saving. But you and I, mere peons without “friends, money or connections” - we’d be a drain on the taxpayer’s dear purse.

Another article on Obama’s plans.

UPDATE I: From a blog I don’t think I have ever seen before:

Any state that claims the competence to make all decisions for its subjects must of course brook no opposition. All must go along with the program. In the words of that great humanitarian and promoter of big government, Benito Mussolini, “Everything in the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State.”

Whether you call this state socialist or fascist will not matter, for the essentials are the same in both cases—more controls, more taxation, more government, less liberty.

UPDATE II: An interesting perspective from Mona Charen:

It will be difficult to resist this charismatic figure, but let’s be clear about this: Though he denies what he is about, he is pulling the country dangerously toward a statist dead end.