Monday, August 24, 2009

Whole Foods CEO Alienates Customers

The BBC has an article this morning that may interest readers of this blog. Maybe you saw that editorial by the CEO of Whole Foods the other day in the Wall Street Journal. It struck me at the time as kind of inconsistent with the Whole Foods image, and I wondered whether there would be any controversy about the article. Turns out there is. Here's the BBC:
It's the shop where wealthy American liberals buy their groceries.

But the American supermarket chain Whole Foods Market has found itself at the centre of a storm of controversy after its chief executive, John Mackey, wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal presenting a free market alternative to President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.

Mr Mackey began his article with a quote from Margaret Thatcher and went on to add that Americans do not have an intrinsic right to healthcare - an idea strongly at odds with the views of a large proportion of Whole Foods' customer base.

The company, which has 270 stores in North America and the UK, sells organic vegetables, biodegradable washing powder and sustainable seafood to a well-heeled clientele and champions its liberal credentials. Customers call for Whole Foods boycott

Even the name: Whole Foods. It sounds like they sell happy vegetables raised by happy farmers. You shop there because you want a better quality product, not necessarily the cheapest. You want something that's good for you, and you have the expectation that food is not produced under conditions of exploitation or cruelty to animals, true or not that's just the vibe Whole Foods gives off.

It doesn't sound like a company that doesn't care if sick people can't afford a doctor.
Former Whole Foods devotees responded to Mr Mackey's article by picketing outside branches of the store in Washington DC, Maryland, New York and Austin, Texas.

Others stormed Twitter and Facebook to vent their rage and called on shoppers to boycott the store.

Russell Mokhiber led picketers outside Whole Foods' P Street store in Washington DC. He said, "I have been a Whole Foods customer for many years but I, like many former customers, am disgusted by John Mackey's stance on healthcare."

Representatives from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) labour union also picketed outside the Washington store.

"Mackey's views are totally at odds with those of the company - he has to go," said UFCW spokesperson Mark Federici.

Skipping down a little bit...
Seemingly caught off-guard by the unfolding PR crisis, Whole Foods sought to distance itself from its chief executive's comments.

"We've had a lot of emails and phone calls and people coming into our stores to talk about it," said Libba Letton, spokeswoman for Whole Foods. "Our top priority is addressing their concerns."

But public relations experts criticised the store for bungling its response.

"You have two choices: you either take a proactive approach and wade right in and sort it out or you sit back and wait," said Erica Iacono, executive editor of industry magazine PR Week. "The company seems to be taking a wait and see approach and hoping it goes away. It's a mistake."

Massachusetts-based playwright Mark Rosenthal's "Boycott Whole Foods" Facebook page has so far attracted 24,738 fans, including supporters in the UK and Canada.

Rosenthal said, "I read the article and it stunned me, the hubris of this man who has made his millions selling his products to progressives in America based on an image of caring for the community."

This is not a trivial fluff piece, BBC talked to a lot of people. It will be interesting to see if our local stores lose any business over this.

82 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmmm....are we to banish from our society those who don't think health care is an entitlement?

how many of, say, our past Presidents would qualify to carry on commerce with the Woodstock nation?

this is the kind of thing that convinces most Americans that liberals are nuts

August 24, 2009 10:01 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:


“hmmmm....are we to banish from our society those who don't think health care is an entitlement?”


No one said anything about banishing John Mackey from society. Similar boycott tactics have been used by conservative to boycott Ford, Hallmark, and Campbell soup. Americans have a long history of boycotts, going back to the days when they had a great big tea party in Boston.


Anon interjected:


“this is the kind of thing that convinces most Americans that liberals are nuts”


Glad you cleared that up for me Anon; I was thinking that it was protesters bringing guns to health-care rallies that made most Americans think a lot of conservatives were nuts.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

August 24, 2009 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

svelte

conservatives boycott over actions taken by companies

in best totalitarian fashion, this boycott is on the basis of speech

if Whole Foods was refusing to take care of its employees, for example, it might be a reasonable basis for boycott

but because their CEO holds the traditional view of society

I hate to break it to you, but is you want to be consistent, you're going to have to go back to hunting and gathering

most CEOs agree with this guy, as do most Americans

August 24, 2009 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I was thinking that it was protesters bringing guns to health-care rallies that made most Americans think a lot of conservatives were nuts."

How many conservatives do you think are doing that?

Americans don't buy this liberal propaganda.

I do think people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to an appearance by the President.

If the Secret Service has allowed this, it makes me wonder if it's under new management.

oh, that's right....

btw, Squeaky Fromme is out of prison and, last I heard, she's a liberal.

Does that prove all liberals are nuts?

August 24, 2009 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

conservatives boycott over actions taken by companies

Oh really? What "action" did "Dixie Chicks Incorporated" take that lead to the conservative boycott of their records?

If we used Anon's behavior on this blog as an indication of what most GOP supporters are like, we'd be sadly mistaken. Anon is far from the Meghan McCains and Susan Collinses, the moderate wing of the now toothless Grand Obstuctionist Party. The moderates are rethinking their allegiance to the hate and fear that consumes Anon.

If shoppers at Whole Foods are upset with the WSJ piece, it is their unalienable right to voice their disapproval via boycotts and picketing.

Whole Foods shoppers have exactly as much of a right to freely express themselves as the CEO does. We can all rest assured none of them will be packing heat.

August 24, 2009 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the moderate wing of the now toothless Grand Obstuctionist Party"

they may be without teeth but, right now, they have the Democrats' health care plan reeling

and the moderate GOP legislators, as well as the Blue Dog Democrats, are the ones that have Nancy Pelosi in a bind

nice try at mischaracterization though

August 24, 2009 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The moderates are rethinking their allegiance to the hate and fear that consumes Anon."

Anon-B

Your overuse and abuse of vocabulary is one of the things that sinks your cause.

There are few positions on health care that can be called "hate and fear".

Those are just blanket terms that people like you and Squeaky Fromme use for all disagreements.

You may surprised to hear it but the House bill is extreme.

Moderates, both Democrat and Republican, as well as all the Gang of Six believe that.

The public option is an extreme position.

So is pressure on elderly patients to opt out of treatment during the final months.

So is covering abortion.

So is adding a trillion dollars to the deficit.

August 24, 2009 12:46 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

they may be without teeth but, right now, they have the Democrats' health care plan reeling

They have the media reeling with their pitchforks and assault weapons crowds. Democrats will do what they were elected to do -- insuring those without coverage and paying for it by raising taxes a few percentage points on the richest Americans, who had nothing but tax relief under the Bushies. The rich can step back up to closer to paying their fair share taxes now that Bush has finished letting them loot the Treasury and left the mess of their multiyear bender for the Democrats to clean up. It's Obama's economy now and he's going to finish righting it.

and the moderate GOP legislators, as well as the Blue Dog Democrats, are the ones that have Nancy Pelosi in a bind

Well if you only read the WSJ and watch FOX News you might think that, but here's what AP is reporting today:

"...In Denver, Pelosi herself was greeted by a raucous but orderly crowd of about 200, some decrying government interference in health care, others pointing to how private insurance companies have failed patients.

Other members have met with worse — threats and shouting matches. But they've also taken away a deeper understanding of their constituents' concerns, Pelosi said.

"They respect the differences of opinion that have emerged," she said.

The speaker, eager to hear reports from the field and keep the party's message on track, participates in a weekly call with members of her caucus.

"The reports we get back are very positive," she said. "By and large, members are getting a very good reception."

Still, a phone hotline and an e-mail address relay some of the thornier questions that arise from town hall meetings to Pelosi's staff, allowing prompt responses on details such as how the legislation addresses home health care, or when a small business would be mandated to provide health care coverage.

"That it is still moving forward speaks to the fact that the leadership has been successful," said Ken Thorpe, chairman of health policy at Emory University in Atlanta, and a senior official at the Health and Human Services department during President Bill Clinton's unsuccessful push for health care reform.

"She's very hands-on," Thorpe said.

In her own home turf, Pelosi has found support. Health care providers at San Francisco General Hospital welcomed her back. Faith leaders gathered in the church where her children attended preschool and introduced her to supportive organizers as "our Nancy." The only interruption was enthusiastic applause as she repeated her familiar mantra of reform that will reduce the cost of care, improve quality, retain choice and expand coverage.

Myrna Godinez took the day off her job as a bookkeeper at a produce store to hear Pelosi spell out the details of the legislation. Godinez has health insurance through her job, but her 2-year-old son is covered through a state-sponsored low-cost insurance program that suffered deep cuts during California's budget crisis.

"I was worried about my son," said Godinez. "I feel more comfortable now. I believe she will make this pass."

Progressives like Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, said that in the tough give-and-take before she left Washington for the August recess, Pelosi was a pragmatic leader, even when dealing with widely divergent views within her own caucus.

"She's doing a great job of bringing her caucus together," said Lee. "She's been very effective, very accessible. This has shown her ability to listen and to bring people together from a variety of points of view."..."


Go ahead and keep demonizing and underestimating Speaker of the House Pelosi. She will get the job done.

August 24, 2009 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Democrats will do what they were elected to do -- insuring those without coverage and paying for it by raising taxes a few percentage points on the richest Americans"

They were elected to do that?

Turned out to be a myth.

The CBO estimates that slight increases in taxes for the rich won't cover this. RICH PEOPLE

Additionally, the young people who also aren't covered will be required to pay insurance costs they weren't paying for. YOUNG PEOPLE

Then, there are poor people who don't sign up for a plan who will be fined. POOR PEOPLE

Also, insurance premiums are expected to go up to cover the expenses of those with pre-existing conditions. MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE

And, of course, Medicare will be cut by hundreds of billions. ELDERLY PEOPLE

rich people, young people, poor people, middle class people, elderly people...

Looks like everyone feels like the Democrats duped them.

"here's what AP is reporting today:"

nothing that follows this statement contrdicts the fact that moderate GOP and Blue Dog Dems oppose the House bill

don't think you can get away with non sequiturs just by posting some unnecessarily long paste

August 24, 2009 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Your overuse and abuse of vocabulary is one of the things that sinks your cause.

Anon's self-denial: "I never overuse words like "deviants" or "Squeaky Fromme" or "Sarah Palin" or "Boo!"

Take off the self-delusion glasses and *perhaps* you *might* see why the GOP is circling the drain while supporters like you cling to polls of at best a few thousand voters to keep your head above water.

Nearly two thirds of Americans want a public option. The Democrats will give it to them while the GOP will continue to JUST SAY NO!

August 24, 2009 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whole Foods gives health insurance and other benefits to gay partners.

August 24, 2009 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:01 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

We heard about the Whole Food's CEO's activities several days ago, and we have switched to Roots in Olney. Rather than doing full shopping there, we now only shop there for things we can't get anywhere else.

Whole Foods seems to have been a well-run, responsible organization, and we are very disappointed in its CEO.

August 24, 2009 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 9:43 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, that's it. If you would like to express conservative opinions here, you are welcome to. This inane blathering though will quit.

At this time I am not banning your IP number permanently. But I will monitor your comments closely, starting now, and it wouldn't bother me at all to ban you -- you won't be the first.

Think of it this way: you have put me in a Bad Mood. Don't make Daddy get the belt.

JimK

August 24, 2009 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Paul said...

Back in 2008, this Whole Foods, CEO John Mackey (how old is this kid?), was caught posting negative comments (trash talk) about a competitor on Yahoo Finance message boards in an effort to push down the stock price. So now I am suppose to take this loser seriously? Please, snore, snore.

It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people (honestly where can they go with a pre-condition). And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a “lynch mob” advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types AKA “screamers” are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

August 24, 2009 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- One of those comments you removed was mine. David Fishback said that he has switched stores from Whole Foods to Roots, and then I said that I had dropped by Whole Foods, spent $100 and the place was packed. That is all I said.

Why was my post removed, but not David's?????

August 24, 2009 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the comment about Medicare and Medicaid...Medicare patients receive good care only because there's a robust private sector that keeps the quality for everyone up. This quality will plummet like a stone if everyone gets on a public plan.

August 24, 2009 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 24, 2009 11:54 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Why was my post removed, but not David's?????

I'm not going to offer you much of an explanation -- I don't owe you one and won't bother to try to come up with something. I looked at this thread and it had gone to hell like a hundred threads before it, and as I said, it put me in a Bad Mood, I just reached a point. You call yourself "Anonymous" and if you're somebody different you still look just like every other Anonymous troll that thinks their noise is equivalent to the thoughtful comments other people are making -- if you did give your comment some thought, then go ahead and try re-stating it, I just had to clean house. If you have something intelligent and relevant to say, go ahead and try again. If you sound like a troll, or shall I say, if you irritate me, I'm going to delete your comment. Sorry it's gotten to this, but ... it has.

And please -- don't whine at me about being unfair or whatever, don't act like there are rules. There is no promise of fairness here, I love to see people discuss but I don't have to let people poop on the blog, and it reached an intolerable point.

JimK

August 24, 2009 11:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So now I am suppose to take this loser seriously?"

Your complaint with the town halls is that, supposedly, no one wants to debate but just shout epithets.

Isn't that what you're doing here?

This guy writes a piece in a newspaper and instead of addressing his issue, all you can do is call him a name.

The comments Jim deleted above each address a comment made by someone here but they are called "blather".

Who doesn't want to debate?

August 25, 2009 12:02 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Who doesn't want to debate?

Stay on the topic, address the issues, use reason, refer to facts, and there is no problem.

Debate is great, that's why we're here. This will not be a home for idiocy.

JimK

August 25, 2009 12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 25, 2009 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

There isn't an Whole Foods in my neighborhood, and the one in North Arlington always seemed a little out of my price range. I shop at Giant.

August 25, 2009 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks you, Jim...thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Finally...a breath of fresh air to clean out the detritus and foul odors emitted by the (or is it several?) "Anonymous" who has been working mightily to take over this blog site.
Diogenes

August 25, 2009 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 25, 2009 10:29 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, in case you can't tell, I'm not in a good mood. If you can't be civil, then zip it.

JimK

August 25, 2009 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, my response was appropriate to the comment

You shouldn't let the falling fortunes of liberals affect your demeanor

Don't put your faith in politics

It will always let you down

August 25, 2009 10:48 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I don't need to justify anything. You might think this is the way people talk to one another, but you are not meeting a minimum standard of civility.

Maybe I'm unfair, I'm not worried about that. At this point you have become more than irritating, and I will delete any of your comments that do not contribute to a positive discussion.

JimK

August 25, 2009 10:55 AM  
Anonymous henry said...

I'm being very civil and positive here.

The last thing I want is a monolithic political process. I want to see a strong Democratic Party so we can have a robust debate on all issues. Right now, liberal Democrats are in danger of becoming irrelevant.

My comments are intended to help you guys figure out what went wrong.

Here's some civil and positive excerpts from a recent Fred Barnes column explaining how the Republicans did it:

"Republicans are discovering just how effective an opposition party can be in Washington. Their strategy is simply to aggressively and relentlessly oppose the liberal agenda of the president and the Democratic Congress. As a result, Barack Obama's agenda is in jeopardy, and the president is disconcerted, less popular and on the defensive.

Republican opposition isn't the only reason for this. Mr. Obama did himself no favors by pushing policies far more liberal than voters wanted. But the decision by Republicans to be combative rather than accommodating has played an indispensable role.

What the GOP has done best has been to make and win arguments. This is the key to successful opposition. Seeking compromise, being conciliatory, pretending bipartisanship exists when it doesn't all play into the hands of the majority. These tactics are a ticket to permanent minority status. By making the case against Mr. Obama's policies, Republicans have given themselves a chance to again win favor with voters.

Better yet, they've stopped bad policies in their tracks. Consider
Sarah Palin's controversial statement that Mr. Obama's health-care plan would establish "death panels" capable of denying care to seniors. She was denounced as a know-nothing. But Mrs. Palin accomplished what no one else had. She put a national spotlight on the dubious end-of-life policies in the ObamaCare legislation. Columnists disputed her claim, then realized she had a point. The death panels are dead, for now.

Today, the strategy of strong opposition to Mr. Obama seems obvious. But it didn't appear that way to many Republicans after their crushing electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008.

Inside Washington, they were urged to reduce the influence of pro-lifers in the party and distance themselves from conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. They were told to warm up to Mr. Obama, the new master of American politics. To survive, in short, they needed to move the party to the center. Conservatism was dead.

In hindsight, it's fortunate that they ignored the Beltway wisdom."

August 25, 2009 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Fred Barnes isn't saying anything new. The GOP has been a strong opposition party for years now. It's what they do best from Willie Horton to color coded threat levels to slippery slopes to death panels, they peddle fear and hate better than anybody.

What the last 8 years have confirmed is that Republicans are incapable of governing. Republicans took complete control of a robust, peaceful economy and turned it into a private no-bid piggy bank for GOP supporting industries like Halliburton and Blackwater, and increased the gap between rich and poor like they always do.

As the GOP members espouse hate and fear for their own moderate members, they will continue to lose members, votes, and influence. But hey, science just announced humans *do* need their appendix, so you never know!

August 25, 2009 12:48 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

"they peddle fear and hate better than anybody"

the latest thing among liberals is to attribute the Republican advances of the summer to "fear and hate"

I understand the "fear" part

but isn't it hypocritical to bring it up

every side uses prospective consequences to make their arguments

we had to pass Obama's stimulus or there would be another Great Depression

we had pass Cap and Trade or else global warming would destroy our planet

how is that different from saying Obama's healthcare proposal will raise premiums, raise taxes, bring rationing of care and/or bankrupt the country?

and where is the "hate" factor in this?

"What the last 8 years have confirmed is that Republicans are incapable of governing"

Republicans have governed for most of the last 30 years

Bush wasn't perfect but some unusual problems, not of his making, surfaced during his term

Even in Clinton's term, he was a disaster until Gingrich took control of the government in 1994

that's no exaggeration, Clinton basically enacted the Republican Contract with America after the first mid-term election

Clinton didn't suddenly imagine a balanced budget

it was part of the Republican Contract with America in the 1994 election

August 25, 2009 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

and where is the "hate" factor in this

Hate at town hall meetings

Hate American style, reported in the UK

Jewish Leader Worries About Hate Speech, Town Halls

Obama-Allied Unions Threatened With Gun Violence For Town Hall Participation

If that's not enough hate for you, let me know. I'd be happy to post some more evidence of it for you.

August 26, 2009 7:36 AM  
Anonymous henry viii said...

not really any evidence of hate at all so I guess I do need more

you've said the GOP is "peddling" "hate and fear"

comparing Obama or the Democrat plan to Nazis is, admittedly, diluting the actual evil of Nazis

but it's a tiresome tactic resorted to by people on all sides and it's really not hate speech

it's just a metaphor for excessive government control

on the other two examples of certain individuals who brought guns to the appearance, I agree with the British headline "Only in America"

it shouldn't be tolerated, at least were the president is speaking, but, from what I've heard, these are avid gun rights people who take their guns with them everywhere

not my cup of tea, but hardly an example of hate

so, afraid I must "let you know" that you can be "happy" and post some more

btw, the deficit projection of the CBO from yesterday probably has ended the possibility that Obama's healthcare plan will pass

the reaction of the Post this morning:

"The new deficit numbers make it even more urgent that any health-care reform not only be fully paid for and certifiably budget-neutral in the eyes of independent analysts such as the CBO but also promise meaningful reductions in the cost growth of health care. So far, none of the plans under discussion measure up. The time is fast approaching for the president and Congress to face that reality, too."

as Michael Gerson puts it in his brilliant column this morning:

"Obama's choices on health care during the next few weeks will determine much about the nature and trajectory of his presidency. Eventually it comes down to a question: Will Obama make necessary strategic adjustments before his political humiliation -- or after it?"

While the Democrats have been pushing a propaganda line that their opponents are motivated only by "hate and fear", reality snuck in. Most Americans now believe that health quality, costs and their own insurance coverage will get worse under Obamacare.

August 26, 2009 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

We definitely need debate on health care reform and cap and trade. We desparately need a healthy opposition party, democracy doesn't work without debate and opposition.

I don't think that's what we're getting, but it could be a factor of the news outlets I attend to.

It seems to me that the foremost non-government forces we're hearing, the opposition if you will, are voices such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Huckabee. In my opinion, these voices are voices of fear and hysteria, not genuine debate.

It worries me when there seems to be no honest alternative to what my government is proposing. I want a choice, and I don't feel as though I have one.

Where are the mainstream Republicans? Have they all gone home?

August 26, 2009 10:00 AM  
Anonymous henry viii said...

"We definitely need debate on health care reform and cap and trade. We desparately need a healthy opposition party, democracy doesn't work without debate and opposition."

They had a town hall in Reston last night and one of the local news station interviewed people waiting to get in. Most of them were opposed to Obamacare but not one fit this caricature that the media and liberal blogosphere has created.

Also, in Peoria last night, a town hall with mostly elderly people from a nearby retirement community.

Perfectly civil but they all made clear they opposed cutting Medicare to subsidize universal health insurance.

"It seems to me that the foremost non-government forces we're hearing, the opposition if you will, are voices such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Huckabee. In my opinion, these voices are voices of fear and hysteria, not genuine debate."

To be honest, Robert, I don't why you hear so much from these people. You must read liberally biased material that highlights these types. I rarely hear anything from them unless I go looking for it.

"It worries me when there seems to be no honest alternative to what my government is proposing. I want a choice, and I don't feel as though I have one.

Where are the mainstream Republicans? Have they all gone home?"

If I may make a suggestion, you should read the Post and the Wall Street Journal editorials and op-ed section daily. If you work in a public school, I hope they have these in the library.

Mainstream Republicans have tons of ideas.

What we need to do is first contain costs and then find a way to reduce the number of people who want insurance and don't have it.

If we don't attack the former first, we'll bankrupt our country.

John McCain had a number of sensible proposals. So do the three Republican members of the gang of six, as well as other moderates and conservative Democrats.

First of all, we need tort reform. It's not just the random, huge settlements raising costs but the unnecessary tests ordered by doctors to protect them from lawsuits even though the tests are not medically justified. This is commonly estimated as a third of all tests.

Second, the market is distorted by the fact that individuals have no control over their insurance company because they are chosen by their employers. This is a historical accident from a period of price controls and can be fixed. When every American chooses their own insurance company, the companies will be responsive to individuals.

Third, we need to invest in more medical schools. Doctors make too much because their supply is limited. Many qualified candidates are regularly turned down by competitive schools. Increasing the supply would bring down doctor fees.

Fourth, the Medicare system is an unwieldly mess, second only to the tax code in complexity. We pay too much for administration.

The ideas go on but the point is, alternatives to government takeover abound.

August 26, 2009 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

I am always glad to see Americans voicing their opinions, I may not always agree with them, but I enjoy it, so please keep boycotting Whole Foods Market, Inc., companies keep dropping sponsorship of the “Glenn Beck” BS, Astroturfers keep showing up at town hall meeting and get your shouts in (we all know you can’t articulate your position and are all about hate) they hate and can’t debate, sweet.

August 26, 2009 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Those seem like real suggestions, much better than talk of 'death panels' and socialism. Thanks for posting them.

I'll admit, I listen to Rush or Shawn on the way to the gym to get my blood pumping, and I read some liberal blogs which, as you surmise, highlight the extremists on the other side. I guess what worries me most is the people who go to these Town Hall meetings with these signs and shirts and shouting.

I do know, though, that when the rightists were in charge many on the left took to the streets. I assert that conservatives have the same rights and privileges.

August 26, 2009 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

not really any evidence of hate at all so I guess I do need more

Wow. A guy carries a loaded gun to a Presidential event, and also carries a sign about it being the time to water the tree of liberty, which Jefferson said must be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants and you call that no "evidence of hate!?" Typical birther response -- no amount of evidence will suffice.

The same Anon who made this statement:

Perfectly civil but they all made clear they opposed cutting Medicare to subsidize universal health insurance.

Also made this statement:

the Medicare system is an unwieldly [sic] mess, second only to the tax code in complexity. We pay too much for administration.

Anon apparently got her talking points from Michael Steele, head of the RNC, who spoke out of both sides of his mouth about Medicare too. Steele said:

MICHAEL STEELE, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Our seniors have really come under fire in the last few weeks as more and more proposals look to be cutting benefits out of Medicare program.

This single-payer program known as Medicare is a very good example of what we should not have happen with all of our health care.

We want to make sure that we are not cutting the Medicare program.

Government cannot run a health care system. They‘ve already shown that.


So according to Steele, seniors fear cutting Medicare, America should not have a Medicare type system for all, don't cut Medicare (a government run health care program), and the government can't run a health care program. Sounds like he was for Medicare before he was against it, or against it before he was for it.

No one is talking about "cutting benefits" from Medicare, but here's the Chairman of the RNC talking about proposals that "*look* to be cutting benefits." IMHO that's a cleverly spun falsehood manufactured to scare seniors who deserve the truth.

The bill working its way through Congress does not cut Medicare benefits; it cuts payments that subsidize insurance companies that participate in Medicare. With the bonuses these insurance companies pay their CEOs, it's obvious they don't need the subsidies.

Here's what President Obama said Congress's heathcare bill will cut from Medicare:

“right now we’re paying about $177 billion over 10 years to insurance companies to subsidize them for participating in Medicare Advantage [private health plans, such as HMOs, offered as an alternative to the traditional Medicare program]. “Now, insurance companies are already really profitable. So what we said is, let’s at least have some sort of competitive bidding process where these insurance companies who are participating [in Medicare] are not being subsidized on the taxpayer dime,” he added. “That’s the kind of change we want to see.”

Once the truth that subsidies to insurance companies will be cut (*not* seniors' benefits) and used to help fund healthcare for the needy is explained to seniors, then we'll get their reaction to the truth instead of health-insurance-company-funded/GOP-aided smoke and mirrors spin.

August 26, 2009 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A guy carries a loaded gun to a Presidential event, and also carries a sign about it being the time to water the tree of liberty, which Jefferson said must be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants and you call that no "evidence of hate!?" Typical birther response -- no amount of evidence will suffice."

It's no evidence at all.

You said the "GOP" peddles "hate and fear". This was a lone individual.

Squeaky Fromme shot at Gerald Ford to protest the cutting of Redwoods.

Would it be fair for anyone to say environmentalists "peddle in hate and fear"?

Your rhetorical tactics are simply dishonest.

As far as the seniors and their Medicare concerns, I didn't say I endorsed them. I simply noted that they were presented civilly.

August 26, 2009 3:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Regarding the comment about Medicare and Medicaid...Medicare patients receive good care only because there's a robust private sector that keeps the quality for everyone up. This quality will plummet like a stone if everyone gets on a public plan.".

That's one of the dumbest comments you've ever made. Medicare and Medicaid only exist because the private sector has failed. If it weren't for the grotesque failure of the private sector the public option never would have come up.

In Canada there's a lower infant mortality than in the U.S. and there's a higher life expectancy than in the U.S. That's because the system is superior and no one is ever denied health care for any reason unlike in the U.S. where insurance companies fail to cover a huge percentage of the population and those that they do "cover" they frequently deny treatment to for pre-existing conditions and are constantly scheming up new excuses to deny care to those who pay their extortion.

August 26, 2009 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Here's another GOP official, a member of the C Street Family no less, who speaks with a forked tongue like Michael Steele:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: See, Mr. Coburn, we need help. My husband has traumatic brain injury and his health insurance will not cover him to eat and drink. And what I need to know is how you are going to help him where he can eat and drink.

We left a nursing home, and they told us we‘re on our own. He left with a feeding tube. I have been working with him but I‘m not a speech pathologist, a professional that takes six years for a master‘s. And I‘m trying to get him to eat and drink again and speak.

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): Well, I think first of all, yes, we‘ll help.

The first thing we‘ll do is see what we can do individually to help you through our office. But the other thing that‘s missing in this debate is us, as neighbors, helping people that need our help. You know, we tend to

(APPLAUSE)

The idea that the government is the solution to our problems is an inaccurate, a very inaccurate statement.


So how did Senator Coburn say he's going to help her? Through his office? Would that be his Senate office, a part of "the government" that is not the solution to our problems? And what about other seniors who take their spouses home from the nursing home to care for them, but lack the proper training to care for them? Should they all call Senator Coburn's office for the help they need?

If you haven't seen that clip yet, watch it here. What you don't get reading the text is the emotion. This woman has been devastated by her health insurance company's refusal to cover the feeding and drinking of her brain damaged husband, which is also known as RATIONING.

August 26, 2009 3:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Right Aunt Bea. Now cue up bad anonymous's lie telling about care being rationed in Canada and seniors being denied treatment. If there was any truth to that the right wing would have a long list of examples of that but of course they don't because its a lie.

Bad anonymous how about in honour of the troops that fought for your free speech you stop making things up. You betcha.

August 26, 2009 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't make the comment you refer to, Priya.

"insurance companies fail to cover a huge percentage of the population and those that they do "cover" they frequently deny treatment to for pre-existing conditions and are constantly scheming up new excuses to deny care to those who pay their extortion"

You apparently don't know much about Medicare. They regularly deny claims too and will do it over any technicality they find in the submitted claim. The finance departments at most care providers have to carry huge estimates of losses because it's virtually impossible to know what Medicare will deny. Furthermore, people who are skilled at successfully jumping through the hoops of the Medicare system command huge salaries because the system is so complex. The complexity of the system itself drives up costs.

Anon-B

Virtually any Senator will offer assistance to any individual that asks something at a public meeting.

Not the same as taking over the system.

There's a line to be drawn between assistance and control.

The Federal government has rarely been capable of staying on the assistance side of the line.

August 26, 2009 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboeuf-schouten1.html

here's a link to someone who disagrees with the disagreeable Priya about wait times

August 26, 2009 4:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And bad anonymous, right on cue with the lies.

August 26, 2009 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Virtually any Senator will offer assistance to any individual that asks something at a public meeting.

That's great, EarpWyatt. So all 50 million Americans without heathcare coverage should call their Senator's office to be offered "assistance."

August 26, 2009 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a few examples of Canadians, including government officials, who had to come to America for medical treatment:

-According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.

-When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.

-In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.

-In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states there were no Canadian hospitals with enough neo-natal intensive beds to accommodate the extremely rare quadruple birth.

-A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care."

August 26, 2009 4:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Rare exceptions bad anonymous. Just because a few wealthy Canadians were under the delusion that they could get better health care in the states doesn't make it true. The statistics prove otherwise - lower infant mortality in Canada than in the U.S.; a higher life expectency in Canada than in the U.S.

August 26, 2009 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a lot of countries have lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy than America

we attract all the world's hard cases who come here because, although there are hindrances, everyone, regardless of their background, has an opportunity here

that tends to skew things

August 26, 2009 4:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

In contrast the virtually non-existent number of Canadians out of 30 million seeking health care in the U.S. huge numbers of Americans come to Canada for their health care:


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/20/world/americans-filching-free-health-care-in-canada.html?pagewanted=all

Lacking a national health care system of their own, thousands of Americans are tapping into Canada's -- illegally.

"It's not an epidemic in any one person's practice," said Keith MacLeod, an obstetrician in Windsor, Ontario, across from Detroit, "but I would estimate that from 12 to 20 of my patients at any one time are ineligible Americans. And I'm just one of 520 doctors in Windsor, 23,000 in Ontario."

Dr. MacLeod, former president of the Essex County Medical Society, delivers about 400 babies a year.

A report prepared for Ontario's Health Minister indicated that from August 1992 to February 1993, 60,000 medical claims had been made on behalf of patients who held American drivers' licenses. The total number of improper claims in Ontario was estimated at 600,000.

Its pretty obvious which is the superior system and who is crossing the border to seek superior health care - its the system in Canada and the Americans flooding in to get it.

August 26, 2009 4:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "we attract all the world's hard cases who come here because, although there are hindrances, everyone, regardless of their background, has an opportunity here".

On a percapita basis Canada takes in more imigrants than the U.S., including people with AIDS who the U.S. won't take in. Clearly, once again, your excuse fails and in fact the truth makes Canada's superior health care results all the more remarkable. Triply so given that the per capita cost of health care in Canada is 1/2 that of the cost in the U.S.

August 26, 2009 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

C Street The Family member Senator Tom Coburn has some good things to say about the Canadian health care system here, starting at 1:37

Reporter: Coburn also talked about government health care systems in other countries. He says Canada's system of socialized medicine does a better job of primary care, but argues when a person becomes sick, the US does a better job of providing acute and long term care, especially in cases of cancer and heart disease.

According to Wendell Potter, former Chief of Public Relations for Cigna, private health insurance companies are best at denying and delaying coverage for lifesaving treatments, not at providing coverage for them. For those who care to learn what Wendell Potter, an industry insider, has to say about the health insurance industry in America, I suggest you read this ABC News story.

August 26, 2009 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, the per capita is skewed because we have a whole lot more capitas here

have you ever visited NY, LA or Miami?

Canada and the U.S. are apples and oranges

August 26, 2009 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

would you agree with Sen Coburn, Priya?

August 26, 2009 5:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "well, the per capita is skewed because we have a whole lot more capitas here".

God, you're stupid - you must be faking it, no one is really that dumb. Per capita by definition equally compares on an person by person basis - population differences don't matter.

The World Health Organization itself ranks the quality of Canadian health care far above the quality of U.S. health care - go away loser/liar.

August 26, 2009 5:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "would you agree with Sen Coburn, Priya?".

If the U.S. did a better job in health care it wouldn't have a higher infant mortality than Canada and a lower life expectency than Canada. The Canadian system is superior and costs half as much - case closed.

August 26, 2009 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"population differences don't matter"

sure, they do

August 26, 2009 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the U.S. did a better job in health care"

I believe Sen Coburn said we were superior in acute and long-term care. I was asking if you agree because you seem to be so knowledgeable about health care.

Is he right or not?

August 26, 2009 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"case closed"

not exactly

for example, every birth with any sign of life is considered a birth in the U.S. while some sick countries don't count infants born without a good chance to make it

this then tends to skew life expectancy rates

then, there's climate to consider

people in cold climate tend to live longer than in hot humid ones

Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Iceland all have high life expectancy

so do Northern U.S. states like Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, Nebraska

meanwhile, all the lowest ten in the U.S. are hot humid areas in the South that don't exist in Canada

there are tons of other factors

August 26, 2009 6:20 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

... "population differences don't matter"

sure, they do


No, Anon. The whole reason to report per capita descriptive statistics is to remove the effect of sample size. One out of ten is exactly the same as ten out of a hundred.

JimK

August 26, 2009 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

but sheer size can have all kinds of skewing effects on infrastructure, supply of necessities, living conditions, et al

it's just not that simple

August 26, 2009 6:40 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you're building the case against your own position. The skewing effects you mention all work in favor the US having a better health care system than Canada, and we do not, by any measure. Those factors, which btw do not invalidate per capita comparisons between different-sized populations but rather provide potential explanations for differences, should mean that health care is less expensive in the US, and that more people would come here -- per capita -- for their health care, and those things don't happen.

JimK

August 26, 2009 7:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, you need to come to Canada and get a decent education. An introduction to economics course would set you straight in a hurry. In any production system there are fixed and variable costs. Variable costs go up with the volume of production - you produce 10 times more goods your variable costs are 10 times higher. The fixed costs remaine the same regardless of the amount produced. The more you produce the more you enjoy economies of scale, the fixed cost per unit produced drops and the product is cheaper. That's why mom and pop businesses can't compete with Walmart and mega-stores, the higher your volume the cheaper the overall cost of production. This favours the larger population of the U.S., it has far better economies of scale than Canada and has a huge advantage in delivering health care. Despite this advantage the Canadian per capita cost is half that of the U.S. - you're getting raped and you're too stupid to try and change it. Get an education you idiot - I'm out of here.

August 26, 2009 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt it's lost on anyone that Priya's posts are always chockful of epithets and insults and yet, to the TTF crowd, she's one of the civil ones

let me give you two birds of a mental feather an example:

suppose there's fairy dust that cures diseases

Canada has a bowl and the U.S. has a bowl

Canada has to split it between 100 people, the U.S. has to split it bewteen 1000 people

who's going to be healthier?

unless it's an infinite bowl, Canada will

resources don't necessarily pop up like fairy dust because more people want them

btw, I actually didn't mention the economies of scale concept

that might come into play if there were an abundant supply of some high cost factor that could be split between a vast number without dilution of value

bottom line is a simple comparison of per capita costs and quality is too simple

August 26, 2009 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Politics Daily reports:

Michael Steele, Under Criticism, Tries to Explain His Health Care 'Bill of Rights'

GOP Chairman Michael Steele is once again demonstrating how astute he is. Quick to recognize how his op-ed piece "Protecting Our Seniors" landed with such a thud, he has raced out to do what politicians always do when such things happen: further muddle his remarks. To address the embarrassment from his own words, he went on NPR this morning to make sure nobody has the slightest idea what he was talking about. Mission accomplished.

Click on the link above to hear the "quick step" NPR interview and read the partial transcription.

What's the GOP health care plan? Oh that's right, they didn't write one.

< eye roll >

August 27, 2009 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how about "first, do no harm"

it's worked over the centuries

August 27, 2009 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then what?

August 27, 2009 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

next, stop letting ignorant juries with no medical expertise make ridiculously random awards to people whose medical treatment didn't work

August 27, 2009 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jury tampering is a crime.

August 27, 2009 4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

selection of juries based on their qualifications is not

August 27, 2009 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's only one qualification to be a juror. You either have to be a registered voter or have a driver's license.

Juries apply the law to the evidence and determine penalties. There's no medical expertise necessary.

August 28, 2009 12:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home