In praise of ‘no’ 

France is into its fifth republic. The Netherlands just dissolved its government over Afghan War tensions. Let’s keep this in mind whenever we hear how our system is broken, or “frozen” as this week’s Time cover story puts it. The two party system isn’t ideal, but it’s stable, and something should be said for ensuring the trains run on time. Funny, we didn’t hear many laments about a broken beltway class from the press in 2005, when Bush was looking to overhaul Social Security. The filibuster was then viewed as a necessary check on the tyranny of the majority. Today, it’s viewed as holding hostage important social progress in the best interest of the people. Democrats almost relished the party of “no” slight they were given in 2005, when they truly had no alternative plan for fixing Social Security. Their strategy was to convince us it wasn’t broken. We all now agree our health care system, while not broken, still needs a’ fixin' and Republicans have plenty of ideas based solidly in the free market, which is always a more efficient allocator of scarce resources that the federal government.

I’m reminded of all this as I watch the health care summit. Far from the hand-holding, Kumbaya-singing some were hoping for, it’s little more than schmaltzy political theater, one that thankfully closes soon after its debut. Boehner and McConnell want the whole thing scrapped, Pelosi said it’s too late to scrap and they’ll pass health care reform even if (or especially because) the American people don’t know what’s good for them. Frustrating? Yes. But that frustration is the price of our freedom.

• • 2/25/2010 3:35:49 PM
  • Robert A. Raucci
  • The Two Party System
  • The two party system is stable all right, to the point of being moribund, rigor mortis has begun to set in, they can't move except with permission from the healthcare, pharmaceutical, WallStreet and oil industry lobbys. We need a third party to shake these lifers out of their delerium. They are not public servants, they are a public liability!
• • 2/25/2010 3:37:07 PM
  • Neil Bryson
  • Not for attribution
  • I do not agree with your premise that the health care system in this country is not broken. It is seriously flawed. Your statement that the people don't know what is good for them implies that if only the people would "vote" for insurance companies that provide the best coverage, that somehow we would have ideal coverage. Neither argument is valid. I have heard an awful lot about choice during this debate, and how, if folks would simply make good lifestyle choices, they would not need costly health care. If that is the case, then could you kindly explain to me the how the choice that people with dwarfism made could be different? How about a baby born with a congenital heart defect? The simple fact is that our profit-oriented system does not allow for such people to be covered by insurance companies. The only way to permit everyone to get coverage is to allow everyone to get coverage. This is referred to as "universal" coverage, something that the defenders of profit at the expense of human life can't seem to understand. Please, when you comment on this subject in the future, remember that this is a serious issue, and not one that can be fixed by simply eliminating malpractice lawsuits. For once, I would like to read a well reasoned argument for your proposals and I would appreciate it if you could leave out the bumper-sticker language.
• • 2/25/2010 3:43:55 PM
  • Frank Miller
  • Neo-con editor
  • Sullivan sounds more like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh than an editor for a senior magazine. He praises Bush/Republican policies while blind to the excesses and abuses. 9/11 was on Bush's watch as was Richard Ried (shoe bomber), the 2001 Anthrax attacks, the Katrina failures. And with Cheney made America less safe according to Bush's own Intelligence agencies http://tinyurl.com/yvn77l. Bush drove the American economy into an iceberg then left town. Bush sent 4,500 Americans to their death for oil http://tinyurl.com/2726hs. Bush's SEC Cox claimed deregulation caused the financial crisis http://tinyurl.com/nzz25g. Bush eased lending rules while being warned of pending bank failures http://tinyurl.com/5casnp. Bush increased the inequity of the rich beyond any previous president http://tinyurl.com/49jj89. Let's see, the Republicans ran Congress for 13 years (1993-2006) and the White House for 8 years (2000-2008), we're in the worst recession since the Great Depression and it's the Democrats fault? Not to mention 2 wars and over 4,400 dead American soldiers and tens of thousands wounded. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it. Enlighten me how 3 years controlling Congress and 1 year controlling the White House has destroyed the work of 21 combined years of Republican rule? Better yet, keep your politics out of your editorials.
• • 2/25/2010 3:59:17 PM
  • Gary Duell
  • In Praise of "NO"
  • I guess it all depend on whose behalf you're saying, "NO", the corporate pimps who keep you in Congress, or, your wage-peasant constituents who actually voted you in. On the health care debate, the former is obviously more true of the Republican "party" (does it still exist?) than of the Democrats. For the record, Bush didn't want to "fix" Social Security. As the worst president in the history of our country, he was willing to turn Social Security over to Wall Street as a quid pro quo for getting his worthless butt into office. Thank God he failed. Funny you should mention all the "free market" ideas Republicans have for "fixin'" health care. What exactly are they? Why didn't they implement some of them when they controlled all three branches of government? We all know the answer to that.
• • 2/25/2010 4:17:53 PM
  • Philip Eide
  • Article - "In Praise of "No"
  • Hi John, I appreciated your synopsis of the current political atmosphere - or at least a lack of fresh air! Prior to reading your post, I had read an article in National Underwriter (Health & Life) titled "Lawmakers Question Whether Health Insurers Should Earn Profits". In this article they quote the positions of several lawmakers. One among many, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. is quoted, "Is it reasonable to expect that, every year, a company is going to have profits?" In another statement at the same hearing Rep. Stupak continued, "The only way we're going to make health care more affordable is to knock off those profits ...". The Democrats in particular - but also the mentality of most career politicians in general - seem to have forgotten that we are a free enterprise system as well as a Democracy "of and for the people" - not of and for politicians. Ours is the greatest social experiment in the history of the world. As with any experiment, there will be failures, false starts, etc. I believe the fundamental successes of our system are based on the constancy of saying "Yes" rather than "No" and providing the incentive of "Profit" to those willing to venture into the unknown. Given the "Social Debt" already created by the Congress, and proposed &/or supported by Presidents - combined with their inability even to manage themselves - the free enterprise system seems better equipped to take on the problem of the uninsured and under-insured! Have a Great Day! Phil
• • 2/25/2010 4:53:48 PM
  • Duke
  • In praise of "NO"
  • Amen John...You hit the nail on the head.
• • 2/25/2010 9:18:39 PM
  • M J Edgreen
  • Frustration... the price of freedom???
  • The current administration is promoting/forcing government control into areas and decisions that should be private. Simultaneously it is creating incredible debt, and still promoting a plan that rations health care. That in no way is the 'price of freedom'... instead it's promoting the 'loss of freedom'. It is contradictory to the ideals upon which this country was founded. The government is over-stepping it's boundaries. I fear the control of what may be narcisist personalities. As Reagan said, 'One does not make the weak strong by making the strong weak.' Maybe you also believe in Cinderella, her glass slipper and pumpkin carriage??
• • 2/26/2010 6:44:40 AM
  • Charles
  • In praise of "no"
  • If you think that the "private sector" is the answer to everything, then you'd allow the private sector to run the schools, where only those who can pay can attend. You'd go back to the old way with seniors, where they'd fend for themselves, because it wouldn't be profitable to insure sick old people. The system we have now is criminal, and that's putting it mildly. Kids and others get turned away from life saving procedures because it's not profitable for the insurance company, which bring nothing to the table, other than pay themselves and their shareholders and then worry about the person who needs health care. Compare this to Medicare. No one who's on Medicare would like to give it up. Even those idiots who say "I want the gov't to keep their hands off my Medicare". That's your constituency, or the ones who profit from this killer system. When I hear morons like Boehner say "we have the best health care system in the world", it makes me cringe. I've lived in Japan and Europe (Germany) and have experienced their systems and I don't think people die in those country because it wouldn't be profitable for the company, the CEO, or the shareholders.
• • 2/26/2010 9:50:39 AM
  • Spencer Hill
  • "No " is good sometimes
  • Our healthcare system is seriously flawed. I do not like the idea of a universal "no" to everything, but it is better than creating a greater flawed and more expensive healthcare system. We as a country should be able to create universal healthcare in an open and free market with the money we are currently spending on healthcare. The politicians have created a more expensive healthcare system in terms of additional duplicitous compliance, not allowing Doctors to have their own labs and radiology, creating an anti-competitive climate with certificate of need requirements when a low cost provider comes into a market. We are the country that created Wal-Mart, love them or hate them, but we as a country can create a better lower-cost healthcare system if the politicians would just get out of the way.
• • 3/1/2010 9:09:57 AM
  • Shah
  • Socialistic Govt. knows it all.
  • I come from a country that got independence in 1947. Govt followed five year plan(read old U.S.S.R) and since that day Govt. nationalised all vital industry and took control of the country's economy. Starting in 1956 the Insurance industry (for those who may not know)controls the most of the economy in any country, including USA. Next was the major infrastructure industries were nationalised in 1957 (steel and cement)thus only Govt. be in charge of nation building. Next to follow was the Banking industry. In 1950 under the Govt. Directive Principles it was agreed that by 1960 all the children will get free education till high school, but realization hit the GOvt. that educated population can questions to Govt. actions thus FREE EDUCATION program was scraped in 1956, ALL schools were FORCED to take Govt. Grants. Thus were soon required to teach Govt approved curriculums (capitalism is evil and socialism is good). Brain washing from kinder garden was planted. The country and it people remain very poor in the bottom 5% of the poorest nation in the world. In 1988 after the fall of Soviet Emplire the Govt. started to change it policy toward privatization of trade and commerce. Today after 20+ short years late this country is becoming a major player in the world market. Our Democratic party is leading us to the same path of destruction by contolling education system by supporting public school system with (Techer's Union). Same is true with many other industries and unions. This democrating party is hand in gloves with unions and Govt. knows it all. Dont forget the Govt. that gives you all can take it away too. The country I mentioned above is the 2nd most populated country in the world called INDIA. THE PATH TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS. Please support free market or we are leading towards Socialist society (which is a disguise of Communism in mild form). WAKE UP AMERICA.