Anti-intellectualism isn't the answer
If Dr. Mazeski doesn't understand how more people with health insurance saves money, he might also struggle understanding a lower manufacturer's unit price on large orders vs. small orders or saving money with preventive maintenance.
However, I think he correctly highlights that people can mess up the execution of a good plan by not listening to one another (also implied in David Broder's same-day editorial). And it has nothing to do with the anti-intellectualism Mazeski seems to espouse.
The "doctor" in Mazeski's title implies that he likely has some critical skill/knowledge in a discipline that the casual observer should heed. And I'm also pretty sure that the doctor would get himself in trouble if he ignored the input and observations of the "man on the scene."
In other words, we need one another. Neither has a monopoly on the answer. We are so polarized in this country that we no longer listen to one another. We need to understand that life is not a series of either/or choices.
Some things are a problem to fix (splint a broken leg); some a dilemma to manage (do I inhale or exhale). Sometimes we need both rugged individualism and community, government and private, book learning and hands-on experience, centralization and decentralization, inhaling and exhaling applied to the right things at the right time.
Rather than adversaries, advocates in a dilemma for one side or the other are really partners in maintaining balance. With each listening to the other, they signal when and what to change or adjust.
Like canaries in a mine, they signal if things have gone too far in one direction, with corrective action needed. Developers, environmentalists, business, government, not-for-profit, individuals, communities, religious, atheist, rural, urban - we ignore each other at our peril.
Barbara Muehlhausen
Schaumburg