I'm going to have to see this to believe it.
Guess what's supposed to happen today in Austin, New York, and D.C.?
I hope that this gets my socially progressive friends (I love you all :) ) to look at the issues in a new light... that you can have free market political policies (even with health care) and promote and encourage sustainability, social justice, and peace (things that I also like). Government socialism is not tied to these things, nor should it be. We have been trained to believe that, but it just isn't true.
A group of left wing protesters are going to go out and picket... Whole Foods Market.
Huh? Whole Foods Market?
The Whole Foods Market that...
- Buys fair trade goods from poor countries?
- Sources locally produced organic produce
- Provides even it's part time store employees (almost 50,000 in total) with health care?
- Spearheaded the environmentally conscious business movement?
- Gives back to the communities that it does business in?
Yes. That Whole Foods Market.
Why?
Well, in case you didn't know, the CEO of Whole Foods (John Mackey) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week talking about his disagreement with the Health Care Reform legislation being considered in the House and Senate and promoted an 8-point free-market based reform program to fix health care. It was extremely well written, well-thought out, and managed to (upset) a lot of liberals who can't see past "single payer" as the only way to reform Health Care in America.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
And the backlash against John Mackey has been fierce. Even though he said that our Health Care system needed to be reformed. Even though he came up with concrete ideas that would have an big impact on the major issue facing the system which is the rising cost of health care. It doesn't make sense.. or does it?
Let's be honest, in terms of lifestyle, business ethics, and environmental consciousness, Mackey is a progressive. He's externally the face of progressive business, and he has built a great organization that does things the way that liberals in a good way like, and in fact a lot of conservatives should too. He is a good guy and is a model of how to do business responsibly.
However, I believe that the backlash is tied to a fallacy out there that these things (environmentally conscious, organic, fair trade, etc.) are intrinsically linked to left-wing governmental policies and here is a guy that is ALL of those things in the business world that opposes the ObamaCare socialized medicine agenda. A paradigm in the progressive world has been challenged, and some of the more leftist elements of this world are very upset about it... In fact I thought that the guy on On The Record last night was going to get into a cage match with Greta (who is hardly a right-wing icon) because he had the audacity to call Mackey a "Bad Guy" simply because he disagreed with the notion of socialized medicine.
I hope that this gets my socially progressive friends (I love you all :) ) to look at the issues in a new light... that you can have free market political policies (even with health care) and promote and encourage sustainability, social justice, and peace (things that I also like). Government socialism is not tied to these things, nor should it be. We have been trained to believe that, but it just isn't true.
Thank you John Mackey for driving a stake into that fallacy. I think I'll start buying a little more from your stores now... and I'll drive my hybrid vehicle there too.
Comments
It does not address that if you get sick, and can't work, that you have 18 months of COBRA (regardless of your deductible) and then you have to eat through your own assets and file for bankruptcy.
It does not address that you cannot get coverage from another insurance company if you have a preexisting condition -- you are underwritten out.
For profit companies do not voluntarily take on costs. (example -- who is buying all of those "toxic assets"... it's been two years, and no one has bought them... sick people are like toxic assets... there is no "market" for things that are pure costs) In order to serve their purpose, the insurance companies (and healthecare providers!) must fight not to have these costs on their books. That is exactly why Medicare was created, because people over 65 are no longer in a group (employer) where the risk can be spread. The same goes with people who actually get chronically sick. Ask your friends who have had cancer if they can go out and find individual, priviate health insurance. Are you kidding me? Any underwriter who approves that doesn't have his job come Monday.
There are good ideas here, but it still doesn't address the fact that we are the *only* civilized country where you can wake up in the morning and not be certain that two years from now you will have medical care. The only one. And while our advances and experts are world-class, there are areas regarding access and financial burden that are glaringly inadequate and damaging. Why do all of my European friends maintain dual-citizenship for just this reason, if we are "the best healthcare system in the world." Because they know if they lose their insurance, they have nothing (well, very little) here in the States. While they have at least average healthcare in their other country.
Please ask your conservative friends if 1M bankruptcies a year due to healthcare related financial hardship are "acceptable losses." And if they aren't, what's the solution? (high deductible insurance is great, but he also advocates we all become medical experts who know the percentages for what insurance companies should cover and what they shouldn't... he's living in a pipe dream... do you want to have a Katrina insurance fight over flooding because blocked arteries were a rider?) And if they get cancer, are they willing to go bankrupt and sell everything but their home? Happens to thousands of people everyday in this country... and it doesn't happen in any other civilized country in the world.
Great couple of points, but it's bugging me that so many people are holding up Mackey's ideas as comprehensive.
I agree with you on a couple of points.
1.) Mackey is an interesting guy and have some good points. I like the fact that he, unlike some folks out there opposed to socialized medicine, is actually bringing ideas to the table unlike people like Hannity and Limbaugh that strictly fearmonger.
2.) These ideas are not comprehensive, and any conservative that thinks that they are should put their thinking cap on.
I am not at all opposed to a government safety net being put in place in a health care legislation package. I think it goes without saying that some people will unfortunately be uninsurable in a completely free market system. However, I am not one of those that believe that because the current system (which is hardly free market, it is highly regulated which is contributing to the unusual rise in costs) has flaws in its cost structure that you completely replace it with a socialized system. I know that is not what's going to eventually pass if something does pass, but it's the direction that the left wants to go. In reading your arguments, I can see why you would believe in this way and I totally respect it. There are things about the current system that are unacceptable and need to be corrected.
Also, to steal from the Lord of the Flies, the Left has the conch right now on health care. That is partly conservatives' fault because we have had 8 years to pass some of these free market/deregulatory reforms and we were either too busy with the neocon foreign policy agenda or unwilling to spend the political capital to move some of these reforms through. In fact, the ONE reform that Bush passed (Medicare Part D) upset both Republicans (who saw more incrementalism in the socialization of health care) and Democrats (who rightly saw this as a giveaway to Pharma). I will say that the Dems in Congress and President Obama are willing to spend all of their political capital on this agenda, which as much as I disagree with moving toward single payer I do applaud that they have the guts to risk their careers on it.
Something I'm upset about, though, about this issue is the lack of bipartisanship in this debate. I'm reminded of something that Professor Hayford said during one of my negotiation classes that's ringing true... that Health Care is a very complicated issue that requires that all ideas be brought to the table and the people are willing to negotiate and compromise. Currently, there is none of that going on with the House and Senate bill - partly because there is no idealogical middle ground being sought and partly because the Dems are using their political power and the megaphone they possess in the liberal press (same as conservatives are in the conservative press) rather than the power of their ideas to get this passed. I do believe that some of us on the other side of the aisle have solutions that would cost the taxpayers nothing but would get huge results, and currently they are being left out of the negotiating room.
But, like we know, this is a complicated and charged issue. One that does not need to be hastily passed but needs all ideas (both free market and government safety nets) brought to the table. I'm happy to see all of the debate on this issue... it means that people care about what's being talked about and want to see real solutions. I just hope that those real solutions are ones that promote freedom and liberties and not just security. I think that the liberals that saw this tradeoff made in the War on Terror under Bush would understand and agree.