America Dodges A Socialism-Tipped Bullet!

Friends, Germans, countrymen!

I am delighted to report that yesterday, the wise citizens of Massachusetts elected a likable, folksy Republican, Scott Brown, to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Edward Kennedy. With this signal victory for common sense and free enterprise, the danger of a socialist takeover of the American healthcare system may have been averted once and for all. The Democrats, playing to their strengths, are now forming circular firing squads and capitulating in advance to the fearsome Republican almost-majority. The GOP has a whopping 41 out of 100 seats in the Senate, after all, and those numbers don't lie. Plus, some of those Republicans say very rude things that make the Democrats feel sad and scared. Thus, according to most observers, the health-care 'reform' relentlessly pushed by Obama's red brigades is now on life support.

And all I can say is: pull the plug. As many of you know, I live in Germany, a country in which some dewey-eyed sentimentalist with the foreign-sounding name of 'Otto von Bismarck' set the stage for a government takeover of healthcare over a century ago. Now, its citizens live in sort of waking nightmare, in which health-insurance coverage follows them around wherever they go, whatever they do -- like a pervert following an innocent, ponytailed girl walking home from the park. We all know what that leads to. As a result of this coercive, government-mandated system, the 'insured' must wait literally hundreds of minutes before getting an appointment with a doctor. And the system is obviously starved of resources. Some of the magazines on my doctor's waiting-room table are up to 4 months old!

If this Republican victory does signal the death knell for health-care reform, it will be a victory for free enterprise and economic growth. Sure, you could motivate workers with complex, hard-to-understand incentive schemes such as higher pay or job security. But we all know that workplace relations can't be all singing koombayah under a honey-dripping rainbow. There's got to be a stick mixed in with all those sweet, juicy carrots. And nothing motivates workers more than knowing they can be fired at any time, and will lose their health insurance if they go too long without a job. Just look at the productivity gains America's most valuable natural resources -- its workers -- have managed in the past 30 years:

Unfortunately, this was the only graph I was able to find on short notice, and it seems to have some extraneous matter in it that I know my readers will have the good sense to ignore.

But it's not just productivity that benefits from America's system of free-enterprise health insurance choice -- it's the workers' immune systems. Smart workers know that they face financial ruin if they are foolish enough to come down with a really complicated disease -- and this is true even if they have health insurance. So they eat right, get plenty of exercise, and make sure their children do the same. In fact, American parents are such health freaks that they're limiting their 8-to-18-year-old children to an average of only 7 hours 38 minutes of electronic entertainment a day! I say: lighten up on the kiddos!

But seriously, folks. I, as an American, would like to express my gratitude to the voters of Massachusetts, who may well have driven the stake through the heart of health-care reform for generations to come. And to the American worker: enjoy those Chili's Smokehouse Bacon Triple Cheese Big Mouth Burgers with Jalapeno Ranch Dressing in moderation!

Comments

[cohu]

I assume the lesson would be that a free(er) market, i.e. competition between healthcare providers, leads to more efficient allocation of goods&services. From an economical standpoint, it is obvious that a completely deregulated healthcare market would be the perfect solution.(*)

(*)Of course, this is only true if you're really, really OK with letting people suffer and die because they made the rational, well-informed decision not to invest, or not to invest enough, in health insurance. Because if you always bail them out in the end, people will have no real incentive to invest in an insurance. And then we're back to square one.

[CN Heidelberg]

Sorry to be dense, Pablo: what is the lesson?

[PabloNH]

"why didn't they pass a health care law that would ensure universal coverage during the eight years when they had control of both houses of congress and the presidency?"

Uh - what eight years would those be? 1922-1930? And under what provision of the US Constitution is the Federal Government allowed to force every American to buy health insurance?

Most Americans - including Republicans - would be happy with something along the lines of what the Swiss enjoy, adjusted, of course, to American realities.

BTW, I've lived in both Germany and the US. I pay much less for insurance in the US, and I get better health care with far less waiting. But I'm the exception, since I'm now self-employed and choose my own insurance. There's a lesson there.

[damon]

>I don't believe the Republicans are *opposed* to universal health care, but rather, *how* to do it.

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to call bulls**t here. If the republicans really wanted universal health care, then why didn't they pass a health care law that would ensure universal coverage during the eight years when they had control of both houses of congress and the presidency? Everybody knew during this time that there was something serious wrong with health care in the US, but I don't remember the topic of universal health care ever being brought up by republican except to say that it's socialism (oooooooOOOOOOooooo) or that it's unfeasible. Thus, the present argument that they put forward strikes me as a bit hollow.

And, I'm pretty certain that the reason Coakley (and not the democrats) lost in MA is because of a latent sexism in politics there. The media routinely portrays older women in politics poorly (have you ever seen a good picture of Pelosi or H. Clinton?). To act like the vote had something to do with the liberal agenda was purely self-made news on the part of the media.

[yummy.german]

"Chili's Smokehouse Bacon Triple Cheese Big Mouth Burgers with Jalapeno Ranch Dressing"

Well, everything's bigger in Texas Hessen.

[Jeff]

J: "Quick" is all relative in Washington... :D

[CN Heidelberg]

That should say "would have won." I blame my officemate who won't shut up no matter how hard I appear to be working....

[CN Heidelberg]

I'm with headbang. If we switched the parties of the candidates, Democrats would have one. Going on about how this is the American public saying they don't like Washington's direction is really stretching it. I lived in MA when we elected Romney over some bland, irritating, badly-portrayed woman whose name I can't even remember, and this just feels like a repeat to me.

[J.]

Jeff: I think you need to look up the definitions of "ram-rod" and "quick;" you appear to be confused on the terminology. If Obama had actually attempted to "ram-rod" his idea of health-care reform through Congress, it would have passed months ago.

Instead of capitalizing on his popularity - and the then favourable poll numbers for health-care reform including a public option - a year ago, he took a back-seat and let Congress endlessly debate about the matter. One can see this as a positive - Obama as an originalist, returning to the President's original role as intended by the framers of the Constitution -, but this kind of attitude is not conducive to "getting things done" quickly and decisively. Sure, the Republicans would have written up a storm about how he's abusing his office, and the more conservative Democrats would have complained about the reactions this would get them in their home districts, but guess what: that happened anyway.

He should as well have been done with it quickly: hold a pretty speech where you explain the urgency of this (this one he actually did), present the American public with a simple concept that's easy to explain, with no exceptions and no goodies for difficult Senators (tell them they're free to vote against the bill, but if they do, they can forget about Obama helping them get re-elected), have some bureaucrats hash out the wording of the bill, have Congress and the public debate for a couple of weeks at most, and then force a vote.
That would have resulted in something that can truly be called "ObamaCare." What Congress has now is a collection of Frankenstein-ian monsters that are lowest common denominator compromises of already watered-down compromises, and which is exceedingly unpopular with everyone: the left, the right, and the independents.
Sure, that process wouldn't have been open and bipartisan and transparent, but that ideal simply couldn't be achieved anyway, not with this topic and not with the Republicans in a situation where being opposed to everything is a win-win situation for them in the short term. Obama should have saved the kabuki theatre for a less divisive topic.

[Jeff]

Funny satire, Andrew but not quite accurate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8470187.stm

I don't believe the Republicans are *opposed* to universal health care, but rather, *how* to do it.

President Obama has attempted to ram-rod this through, not giving the congressmen or senators enough time to digest the information (much less the American public). Major changes make people nervous, but doing it so quickly (given the political environment within the United States), the nervousness easily turns to distrust of those same politicians.

It is what it is...

[M. Möhling]

> I'm actively considering the possibility of the sun still...
...rising tomorrow in grief-and-debt-ridden, destitute, doomed, damned, deuced Yankland. I should be led into the shining paths of healthy, glorious editing, dammit.

[M. Möhling]

> And to the American worker: enjoy those Chili's
> Smokehouse Bacon Triple Cheese Big Mouth Burgers
> with Jalapeno Ranch Dressing
They should be led into the shining paths of healthy, glorious lifestyles, those ingrate degenerate proles who are so unlike us even if we mind so deeply that business of theirs, because that's how we are workers.

[cohu]

Of course I had to look up America's Sexiest Man of 1982.
And just let me say that, while he makes a decent impression at first, at closer inspection you'll find that he's actually hiding crucial details from the public's view. A typical conservative!

[M. Möhling]

So even if our losing is sore, at least the mutterings of our discontent are not dyspeptic, as was the, um, amerikakritische Teutonic variety offered by Don Alphonso. While I'm quite fine with health care Euro style, I'm actively considering the possibility of the sun still setting tomorrow in the US of A, too, though, of course, the contrary cannot be dismissed out of hand.

> But seriously, folks. I, as an American, would like to express...
...my, um, sentiment that my countrymen are fat, ugly, and stupid, except for valiant expat specimens. All hail to those!

Earnestly, Andrew, you've got a beautiful, well-read mind and I'd like to hold your equally appealing body against mine--if this wasn't asking for too much, that is. Red hotly yours, MM.

[Marcela]

I've not read social commentary this brilliant since Swift's Modest Proposal!!!! I'm going to make everyone I know read it.

[The Honourable Husband]

Cosmo once declared Scott Brown America's Sexiest Man. Think about Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger...the Republicans have really cornered the market on beefcake. The democrats haven't had a really sexy guy in office since JFK. That's the problem!