There are two arguments that I have seen leveled almost daily against opponents of government-controlled health care.

The first suggests that since we already have adopted state run programs, how could opponents be against new or additional socialistic programs? These statements usually start with some variant of: "Are not opponents aware of … "

The second argument paints opponents as hypocritical because they may "benefit" from other governmental programs such as Social Security or Medicare.

Both arguments are specious and assume either a lack of sophistication by those utilizing them or an insulting assumption of immorality of those against whom the charges are made.

Let's look at the first argument. If you are walking a path that leads to an unwanted destination, why would you want to continue on that path?

Simply because you are on the path already does not make it illogical or inconsistent to want to stop and maybe even retreat. If you started the path voluntarily, but new information changed your thinking, then it would be logical for you to change course.

The second argument makes even less sense. This is the notion that people who oppose governmental programs are hypocritical if they take Social Security or utilize Medicare. We see repeated comments and political cartoons which suggest that opponents of socialist health care are somehow unaware of the nature of Medicare. Some even suggest that the "mobs" which showed up at "town hall" meetings were stupid, hypocritical or both because they opposed more governmental control of their lives since they already had allowed a certain degree of governmental control.

Suppose someone stole part of your property. The police find the thief and the stolen loot. The police then attempt to give back to you a part of the property that was taken. Would you then refuse to take back your own property because you are opposed to theft?

Would a slave be considered hypocritical if he opposed slavery but was willing to accept food and housing from his own slave master from whom he cannot escape and for whom he works?

I'm not suggesting that we are slaves of the government, but the principle is the same.

I, like many Americans, pay more to the federal government for Social Security and Medicare than I do for state income tax. That does not include what my employer also pays, which could have been utilized to pay workers more or to reduce the cost of services my employer provides.

I have been paying Social Security since I was 16 years old. Does this compliance indicate that I am a supporter of this program? No. Did I agree to allow the government to confiscate my property? No. Would I have opted out of this program, given a choice? Yes.

My parents' generation agreed to Social Security under false pretenses.

They were told that participation in the program would be voluntary, that the fee would only be 1 percent of the first $1,400 of their annual income, that the money put into the program would be deductible from income taxes, that the money would go to an independent "Trust Fund" that could not be used for other governmental spending, and that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

In fact, if the government did not remove my money automatically for Social Security and Medicare, and I refused to pay, I would be threatened by the government. If I resisted that threat, I would be arrested. If I resisted that arrest, even in my own home, I could be shot.

Then we are told by socialist thinkers that we are being hypocritical if we accept some of our own money back.

Give it a rest, folks. Instead of suggesting that we are hypocritical, give us some good reasons for being socialists and wanting to see our nation further transformed into a socialist/fascist state.