Nationalized Health Care = Eugenics?

An article in the New York Times on Wednesday suggested congressional Democrats may use the ambiguous "reconciliation" procedure to ram their "health care reform" agenda through the legislature and consequently, down the throats of the American majority which does not wish to have their experiences standing in line at the post office replicated whenever they visit the doctor. This would result in the federal government as a competitor to private health care providers and insurers. Guess who will win that battle. Perhaps the one with no budget constraints? That's right! It's the Fed. Aside from being a politically divisive issue, it's going to cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg. Figuratively, and possibly literally. And it's always nice to hear the always gentlemanly Rahm Emanuel threaten to use this measure as a weapon against balky Republicans.
There is, however, a bigger issue here. There is no question single payer health care is on Obama's agenda, and he's going to push hard for it over the next few months and years. During the campaign, which he apparently thinks hasn't ended yet, he promised to offer everyone the same ultra-inclusive health care federally elected officials enjoy. Nationalized health care is but one piece of his end-game plan.
And once again we have the issue of how to pay for it. The answer is rationing.
The theory is simple. Government bean-counters will decide which treatments are the best use of taxpayer dollars, and which patients will be best served using a cost/benefit ratio that weights the most in need patients whose survival may be more statistically likely, socially beneficial, or simply most cost effective versus those that aren't. See Canada, where patients regularly die while on waiting lists. Naturally, the older you get, the less likely you will be to receive health care.
The "stimulus" bill, in fact, includes a pretty hefty $1.1 billion provision for medical "comparative effectiveness research".
For years hospitals and medical researchers have been collecting DNA samples of newborns and using these samples for genetic research. The idea is to treat and prevent genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, and others. Most states destroy these samples after several months, but some keep these samples for years, and some keep them indefinitely. There is currently a battle in Minnesota to prevent the repeal of a Genetic Privacy Act which would make these screenings mandatory. (http://www.cchconline.org/pr/pr040809.php)
The Illinois Department of Public Health has a "Genetics and Newborn Screening" program which provides genetic counseling and purports to help you "learn what health problems you may be at increased risk for in the future and how to reduce your risks". (http://www.idph.state.il.us/HealthWellness/genetics.htm)
This may sound a little "conspiracy theory", but not only is keeping track of genetic data an excellent way to improve the genome, so to speak, it also saves time and money by preventing those who may be genetically inferior from burdening society and a health care system which is funded by taxpayers.
Furthermore, we do have the issues of taxpayer funded programs such as abortion and birth control, both of which may be considered forms of population control, depending upon your perspective.
There has been much talk in recent years of human cloning and genetic engineering, "designer babies" and so forth. I won't go so far as to suggest that an entirely new eugenics movement such as the ethnic cleansing in Nazi Germany or Bosnia and Kosovo is upon us, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea of collecting DNA samples from millions of American citizens and storing them indefinitely. Studying these samples may help defeat disease or illness, but at the same time such a collection may amount to another undefeatable measure of control over increasingly less free Americans.