"Under the ObamaCare healthcare nightmare," writes G. Wesley Clarke, M.D., in "No More Privacy Under ObamaCare" at American Thinker, "the private details of your medical history would be made accessible to an unknown number of government bureaucrats, for supposedly legal purposes, but also for illegal snooping by thousands of government employees."

Yesterday on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, I suggested the attack on privacy may be part of a larger pattern:

The privacy of Sarah Palin and family has been eviscerated by a secular media and political machine willing to exploit any opening. Meanwhile, Obama wants no media intrusion into the lives of his girls but total government intrusion into the lives of everyone else's girls. [a point I had made earlier on my own FB page]

Is this part and parcel of being a public figure or perhaps an indication that privacy in principle is dead in an America that has lost its Declarational and Constitutional moorings? 

Jaya Jones commented on this:  "I agree with you. The same standards should apply to all. We have a First Family that seems to think they are royalty. Typical Socialists."

Mary Ann Gordon replied: "Scrutiny of all MINOR children of any public official should be OFF LIMITS."

"Yes," I wrote, "but if one's politics erases such lines, it is difficult to maintain them when it touches those friends and family you happen to care about. A humane and legitimate privacy may not be able to withstand ideological notions that assault the individual, the family as a defined structure, business within its own proper sphere, and so on. The deification of equality requires the obliteration of diversity, hence, the end of privacy."

"Equality" is part of the rationale the White House is using to impose a government-controlled heathcare regime upon the American people.

Obama wishes to "spread the healthcare around," as it were. But this will spread health misery around, just as socialistic attempts to "spread the wealth" have imposed economic misery (but not upon those who are doing the spreading, mind you).

The deification of equality in healthcare requires the obliteration of diversity. No matter how pleasing the sales language employed to market this agenda, it entails principially the end of the individual as a respected being of worth and significance, and therefore the end of privacy.

Healthcare rationing controlled by federal operatives will be, of necessity, exceedingly impersonal. Both philosophically and in practice. And it will be very intimately impersonal.

There is an alternative to this impersonal steamroller, however. You can maintain such a humane respect, but that will require moving forward on the basis of the Declaration (as written), the Constitution (as written), and the high estimation of the individual as a creature endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights." Not as empty "god-talk" but -- as our Founders understood -- as holistic truth that rightfully shapes the direction of our nation, including public policy.

Otherwise, there is the steamroller, the machine, the equalized end of privacy. As G. Welsley Clarke concludes his comments at American Thinker: "So much for the 'Constitutional right to privacy' -- your privacy is only important when it serves progressive objectives, but worthless when they want to seize power." 

Clearly, we can do better. And what human being, endowed by our Creator to rage against the machine, wouldn't want to?