I have come to realize one very surprising truth. The more I consider the government's efforts to force us into some version of socialized medicine, be it openly nationalized, or a step-by-step progression starting with mandates or "the public option", there is one thing which stands in the way of such a plan, and that is our president, Barack Obama.

In "Our Entitled President", I wrote that I believed people were wrong in attributing to Obama any clear cut plans to create a socialist USA. I think he is more of a self-important fellow who feels he "deserves" to be president, and so ran for the office with no clear plans in mind. Once in office, he dealt with each problem as it arose, the apparent consistently socialist pattern existing only because he is largely informed by socialist thinking. Having absorbed left-liberal Ivy League socialism during his education, his immediate response is to reach for a big government solution. Granted, some of his advisors may have more of an agenda, and may use his inclinations to push their ideas on him, but deep down, Obama is just a conceited blow hard who made it big and is now bluffing his way through a job about which he has no clear ideas.

And that may help save us from socialized medicine.

You see, the US adopted what socialism it has from two motives. First, populist appeals to envy or appeals to "fairness". From this approach we got the many banking regulations, antitrust laws, and so on, all sold as ways to protect the "little guy" from "big business". The second approach is an appeal to greed, the proverbial "free lunch". It was by promising something for nothing that we got social security, medicare, and, in many ways, the Great Society*. All were sold as providing a huge return for little investment.

Now both approaches have been sued to sell "health care reform", the current name for nationalized medicine. There have been many attacks on rich doctors, predatory pharmaceutical companies, unfeeling hospitals, insurers, and so on, but those did not last long, as those pushing nationalization realized they needed the support of all those groups, and so they quietly let those charges lapse and turned instead to promising the moon for the price of a trip to the beach.

But Obama's sincere socialism got in the way.

You see, real, dyed in the wool socialist don't act like populists. A populist politicians would know immediately that promising high taxes or reduced services is a deal killer, but socialists just don't.**. They have grown up in an environment where rhetoric abounds about making the middle class carry the burden, making do with less, and so on. And so they see no problem saying Americans should get used to having less care, that maybe killing grandma early is for the best, or that insurance might cost more for those who have it now. They don't think that it is such a bad thing to say, as everyone should be willing to sacrifice for those in need, should be willing to give up their bourgeois lifestyle to help the underprivileged and so on.

And that is precisely what Obama has done. Despite the efforts of his handlers to paper over his statements, to spin them to mean something else, it has been pretty clear that Obama has declared that "health care reform" will mean nothing hut higher prices, less coverage, rationing and shorter life spans. He may back away from one or the other when his advisors push him hard enough, but he appears to forget as soon as they back off, and he is back to speaking the truth about his plans***.

And that may just be the death knell for socialized medicine. Americans are not particularly inclined to socialism, but may sometimes be lured into it when they think there is a villain to be punished or that they can get something for nothing. But now, being told it will not only give them less, but cost them more, there is little chance they will go along. And so, in one of the most ironic aspects of recent politics, the greatest impediment to nationalizing health care may be its number one cheerleader, President Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------

* The Great Society was unique in not paying off the middle class in cash, but rather in moral superiority. They could contribute a pittance, count on the rich for most of the contribution and thus do "their part" in ending poverty. Of course the costs were higher, and the benefits lower, and poverty never ended, but the original pitch was basically that for a tiny tax burden every middle class American could rest easy knowing poverty would end before 1970, mainly thanks to soak the rich schemes. So, in its own way, the Great Society was a smug, self-satisfied version of the free lunch fallacy.

** If you doubt this is a trait of those reared in a socialist bubble, recall Mondale's promise to raise taxes, given during an election campaign. If there is any trait which separates populist socialists and real academic, socialist true believers, it is this inability to hide the uncomfortable details of socialism.

*** Well, the congressional plan of the moment, as he has not proposed any specific plan, or even any specific details, himself.

--------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

My writing on socialized/nationalized medicine can be found by following the links in "Bad Economics Part 2", "Bad Economics Part 5", "Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "The Insurance Sham", "Why Health Insurance Isn't Insurance and Related Topics" and "Why We Lose".