What's Wrong With "No"?

There are a few points I feel need to be made regarding the current debate over health care reform. The first is the criticism often made of the Republicans as the party of "no." I do not see this to be the criticism it is intended to be. Sometimes, the answer should be "no." "No" is the proper response to to an unsolicited or burdensome offer. If someone offers to paint your house or sell you a condo, most likely you would not negotiate; you would say "no." To say "no" is not necessarily a response borne of stubbornness or petulance. It can also be a response out of principal or genuine disinterest.

Secondly is the argument made by those who cite the success of social security and point to the contentious debate that preceded its enactment. This argument assumes that social security has been a success and vindicated by history. The the threat it poses to the economy, and the continuous debate over the need for its reform suggests it is not the success it is claimed to be.

Thirdly is the scorn exhibited by health care reformers toward smokers and the threat they pose to health care and society. Smoking is only one threat to public health, and certainly not the largest. Will the ire of the public some day turn to the obese, the indolent, and the reckless? The costs these groups, and others, present to health care vastly exceeds the cost represented by the ever dwindling number of smokers. The necessity of obtaining health care, and the political power over it that would result from any national health care plan, would be an irresistible tool to those who seek to modify and correct the behavior of others.

The president's willingness to take the blame if federal health care doesn't work out as he assures us is of little solace. The program, if enacted, will be here long after he is gone; indeed, long after we're gone. Not every policy advocated by the president, or bill proposed in Congress merits negotiation. Sometimes, the proper response is "no."