FORUMS > All Things Gay Forum Rules

I've been very active in the fight for a public non-profit option as a part of health care reform here in the states and this article has made me so very mad. I did shop at Whole Foods here in Dallas, but no longer.

What about people with pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance or can't change insurance companies? Seriously ill people who have had their coverage dropped? Lifetime coverage caps? Outrageous premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses?

Entire article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
by JOHN MACKEY -
Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
• Enact Medicare reform.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

well it's an outright lie to start with..

Second, umm.. actually there is a basic right to health care, it in mandated in our laws (at least in Australia and the UK) and there is no "eligibility" to what you can and can not receive, if you need it, you get it, simple as that.

And I can also choose my doctor if I wish and go with the one I find best.

I don't get how american companies get away with this blatant lies and the american public just lap it up like good little doggies

As someone who has grown up with the expectation of having free and equal access to health care (I'm Australian) I'm finding the current debate in the US very intriguing, it appears that having some sort of universal health care will somehow equate to radical socialism. I've always found it strange how paranoid some elements in the US are with this, if being a socialist means the most I pay to see a doctor ranges from $0 to $20 then I suppose Australia is one of the most socialist countries on the planet!

I think most Americans, myself included, are not against the idea but more concerned about it's execution.

the execution is what concerns me too. i roll my eyes when the anti-government health care advocates scream for the lawmakers to get back to "the Constitution." here is the preamble of the constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
i guess they believe promoting health care is NOT a part of promoting the general welfare. maybe the anti's should READ the damn document. just my personal opinion, and opinions (as i have been taught) are like assholes...everybody has one.

If I boycotted every person or company that had a different opinion as me on a subject then I wouldn't be able to eat, shop or have any friends....or family for that matter.

tightandtonedjock saidthe execution is what concerns me too. i roll my eyes when the anti-government health care advocates scream for the lawmakers to get back to "the Constitution." here is the preamble of the constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
i guess they believe promoting health care is NOT a part of promoting the general welfare. maybe the anti's should READ the damn document. just my personal opinion, and opinions (as i have been taught) are like assholes...everybody has one.

when i was younger, the constitution and its preamble seemed to be so much a part of america, that is was as if it were the threadwork that bound the fabric of the country together. not without flaws mind you, slavery wasn't addressed early on for example. my point being, that these days, the constitution, especially the preamble, seem somehow foreign, or alien. we have allowed ourselves to come that far away from the spirit of the document, so far, that now its seems to be a mere trapping, an ornament...

thanks for putting it up for people to read.

i can only imagine, that were the founding fathers alive today, and were aware of the advances in medical treatment, and the fact that other nations have stepped up and offer health care for their citizens, that they would incorporate health care into the constitution in that they generally intended for the United States to be a beacon to be seen around the world, as a nation that was established by, and for the welfare of its citizens.

we have become a corporate entity though, by the corporations, for the corporations. because of that, profit is now first, we the people second. the wrangling about health care reform isn't about whether universal health care is a good idea, it obviously is. the real struggle/debate is how to pay for it, and how corporations can profit from it.

until we can remove the parastical nature of corporate america from we the people, we aren't going to be able to accomplish much, be it health care reform, energy independence, putting america back to work or any other national priority.

jtaustin saidI've been very active in the fight for a public non-profit option as a part of health care reform here in the states and this article has made me so very mad. I did shop at Whole Foods here in Dallas, but no longer.

What about people with pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance or can't change insurance companies? Seriously ill people who have had their coverage dropped? Lifetime coverage caps? Outrageous premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses?

Entire article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
by JOHN MACKEY -
Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
• Enact Medicare reform.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mackey is living in a dream world if he thinks any of this is based in sound reasoning.

If we boycotted every company in the world that had an elitist ignoranus for a CEO, we'd be hard-pressed to do business with anyone at all.

I'm stunned that this would come from Whole Foods.

lol badmikeyt, if the companies were boycotted, they'd be firing CEOs left right and center.

tightandtonedjock saidi roll my eyes when the anti-government health care advocates scream for the lawmakers to get back to "the Constitution."

I'm so glad you said that. When I hear the Right claim about the Constitution concerning healthcare, I have to ask where was their concern for the Constitution during legislation for the Patriot Act, illegal wiretaps and torture.

This whole thing is dumb, even if healthcare was universal, to get QUALITY care, you will still need to pay more just like we do now. Who cares about the UK and Australia, a lot of people there come over here, why? For better healthcare cuz they can't get or afford it where they live. Yes healthcare is expensive and what not, but it shouldn't be something that is free because some people can't afford it. We are already paying for the poor people when they get care. I think just handing things to people doesn't solve the problem. America is a land where if you get what you get with what you have. So it's more than just reforming the system, it's changing our way of life.
I don't believe for one second when Obama says that this healthcare system will be "different" than that of other nations

Scrooge: I can't afford to make idol people merry. I have been forced to support the establishments I mentioned through taxation, and God knows they cost more than they're worth. Those who are badly off must go there.

Gentleman: Many would rather die than go there.

Scrooge: If they'd rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night,

brskee76 saidAs someone who has grown up with the expectation of having free and equal access to health care (I'm Australian) I'm finding the current debate in the US very intriguing, it appears that having some sort of universal health care will somehow equate to radical socialism. I've always found it strange how paranoid some elements in the US are with this, if being a socialist means the most I pay to see a doctor ranges from $0 to $20 then I suppose Australia is one of the most socialist countries on the planet!

I don't get the Americans who cry 'socialism' either... I mean think about it, most entities that an American interacts with, or services that a person uses during a regular day are a part of the Federal Government, or regulated by the Federal or State Government (I copied this off of a forum yesterday):

====

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration...

...I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration. At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Timberoo saidI think most Americans, myself included, are not against the idea but more concerned about it's execution.

I can understand that, but aren't you equally concerned about what will happen if the US does not make some changes. The country, the people, large and small businesses simply can't afford to keep the current system. My frustration is that the US has been trying to pass some form of 'health care for all' since Harry Truman was president in 1945. For 60 years!

I think a step needs to be taken to remove the outrageous profit companies are making in health care. I don't mind when a company makes billions of dollars off of a computer chip. I do mind when a company/industry makes billions of dollars by overcharging and/or denying health care.

*sorry... didn't mean for that to turn into a rant*

vindog saidIf I boycotted every person or company that had a different opinion as me on a subject then I wouldn't be able to eat, shop or have any friends....or family for that matter.

Quite true. That's why a person must pick their battles. Health care and Equal Rights are the battles I've chosen.

I will not knowingly support a business that is run by a person who has beliefs I find morally wrong.

coolarmydude saidI'm stunned that this would come from Whole Foods.

Me too. It's so at odds with how I viewed what Whole Foods stood for. Lots of other people have been equally taken by surprise.

Check out the forums on Whole Foods website:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/forums/index.php

"Rights", health care or otherwise need to be defined in the constitution...otherwise the US would be a frinkin Iran.

jtaustin said

coolarmydude saidI'm stunned that this would come from Whole Foods.

Me too. It's so at odds with how I viewed what Whole Foods stood for. Lots of other people have been equally taken by surprise.

Check out the forums on Whole Foods website:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/forums/index.php

Whole Foods stands for charging a ton of money for products that are well-packaged but, at the end of the day, really not that different/better than stuff you can get at any other grocery store. People tend to shop there because they like what it says about them (that they're super healthy and have lots of expendable income) more than the products offered.

Jmuscle33 saidThis whole thing is dumb, even if healthcare was universal, to get QUALITY care, you will still need to pay more just like we do now. Who cares about the UK and Australia, a lot of people there come over here, why? For better healthcare cuz they can't get or afford it where they live. Yes healthcare is expensive and what not, but it shouldn't be something that is free because some people can't afford it. We are already paying for the poor people when they get care. I think just handing things to people doesn't solve the problem. America is a land where if you get what you get with what you have. So it's more than just reforming the system, it's changing our way of life.
I don't believe for one second when Obama says that this healthcare system will be "different" than that of other nations

First of all, no one is saying this is going to be free. One of the main goals of this reform is to make changes that will make health care more affordable (not free). There needs to be more true competition in the market to keep the prices down. A second goal is to provide affordable health care to people who have been denied health care because they have a pre-existing condition.

I think some of the things you stated in your post are not fact-based. Here's an article I read that has some great ideas in it and explains some of the problems with the current system:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-paul-toffel/health-care-reform-an-ori_b_258388.html

Edit... I'm not saying this is the right solution... just one idea...

badmikeyt said

jtaustin said

coolarmydude saidI'm stunned that this would come from Whole Foods.

Me too. It's so at odds with how I viewed what Whole Foods stood for. Lots of other people have been equally taken by surprise.

Check out the forums on Whole Foods website:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/forums/index.php

Whole Foods stands for charging a ton of money for products that are well-packaged but, at the end of the day, really not that different/better than stuff you can get at any other grocery store. People tend to shop there because they like what it says about them (that they're super healthy and have lots of expendable income) more than the products offered.

Not anymore...

Jmuscle33 saidThis whole thing is dumb, even if healthcare was universal, to get QUALITY care, you will still need to pay more just like we do now. Who cares about the UK and Australia, a lot of people there come over here, why? For better healthcare cuz they can't get or afford it where they live. Yes healthcare is expensive and what not, but it shouldn't be something that is free because some people can't afford it. We are already paying for the poor people when they get care. I think just handing things to people doesn't solve the problem. America is a land where if you get what you get with what you have. So it's more than just reforming the system, it's changing our way of life.
I don't believe for one second when Obama says that this healthcare system will be "different" than that of other nations

This is a totally outrageous point of view.
It's akin to saying: "Why should we give fire services to people who can't afford it?"
I think if you do some research, you'll find that the quality of health care in other countries that have universal health care is often quite better.

I love how we have the fundamental right to:

* Own firearms
* Smoke
* Eat whatever the hell we want
* Excessively drink alcohol...

But Americans do not have the fundamental right to health care.

Kinda reminds you of the fire brigade back in Colonial times... before socialized government run fire departments.

one needed to buy fire insurance for the fire brigade to extingish house/barn fires. No fire insurance... bye-bye house and belongings

cjcartist1984 saidI love how we have the fundamental right to:

* Own firearms
* Smoke
* Eat whatever the hell we want
* Excessively drink alcohol...

But Americans do not have the fundamental right to health care.

Kinda reminds you of the fire brigade back in Colonial times... before socialized government run fire departments.

one needed to buy fire insurance for the fire brigade to extingish house/barn fires. No fire insurance... bye-bye house and belongings

Yeah and possibly "good-bye" to those who had paid insurance.
Can a sensible argument be made that we should revert to this model? Is it really in the best interests of society as a whole?

Are you really proposing that fire departments should just let neighboring structures burn to the ground, endangering other nearby structures? That's ridiculous as well as irresponsible.
I think not. A distributed "socialized" risk is a better, more modern model. Socialized risk does not equate to the political term "Socialism".