Europeans: Say, The Government's a Bit Big

My copy of The Communist Manifesto (it is wise to know the ways of one's adversary, tovarisch) has an introduction from a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist from the 1980's or so. The old comrade claims that the "flexible-response" of Western Democracies when confronted with Bolshevism (permitting unions, mandating the eight-hour-work day, the minimum wage) caught the Reds completely by surprise. They didn't expect that the kapitalists had such foresight in them.

Anne Applebaum, in Slate, traces the return of this democratic flexibility:

It's saying too much to call it a pattern, and it may well not be a permanent change: I'm sure there are plenty of European politicians who won't survive their next encounter with the voters. But there is something in the air. It almost seems as if at least a few Europeans have actually drawn some lessons from the recent recession and accompanying turbulence in the bond markets. They have realized, or are about to realize, that their state sectors are too big. They are about to discover that their public spending, which seemed justified in good economic times, has to be cut. The middle class knows in its heart of hearts that its subsidies, whether for mortgages, university tuition, or even health care, can't last. Some voters even know that their pay-as-you go pension systems aren't sustainable in the long term, either.

Facts are stubborn things, as a certain Founding Father put it. The state can only do so much, should only do so much. We are in the midst of discovering again where that line should be drawn. And our own President seems to be behind this learning curve:

Our recent foray into health care reform took us in the opposite direction from the rest of the developed world, too, not that we were really doing anything so different to start with. As Besharov and Call also note, Americans are wrong to think they currently enjoy "private" or "free-market" medicine. Even when it is not directly state-funded through Medicare or Medicaid, American health care is paid for by employers. And those employers, in turn, get a tax cut for providing health care to employees—in other words, a subsidy.

While I find the conflation of tax cuts and subsidies specious ("Because only taking ten dollars from people instead of fifteen is exactly the same as giving them five bucks. Dumbass." - Vodkapundit), basically, this is right: we don't have a free-market health care system. When Obama and the Democrats claimed that their "reform," far from being a takeover, was but the logical extension of current obligations, they were not lying. They had simply convinced themselves to extinguish a bonfire with gasoline.

Real health-care reform, on the other hand, will involve freeing health labor and capital, instead of funneling it into the insurance and legal industries. If we're not making it easier to build hospitals, we're not doing a thing to make health care more affordable.