The Opposition is Heard

[BaalChatzaf]

Just to add to the stats Adam posted earlier, here are some stats from an article at Townhall.com.

Rasmussen now reports that elderly folks over 65 are against Obamacare by 56 to 39. That's a bad number for Democrats who rely on seniors to maintain their governing coalition. Incidentally, polls also show that about 75 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health-care services, while 80 to 90 percent are happy with the whole U.S. health-care system.

It's still tough to know whether this behemoth government takeover of heath care will actually pass. But two key markets are betting against it. First, over at the Intrade pay-to play online-betting parlor, the bid for the U.S. government health-plan contract is only 38 cents. That's down from 50 cents in late July. Second, the share prices of big private health insurers have rallied in recent weeks. UnitedHealthcare is up 13 percent; Humana is up 12.4 percent; and Aetna is up almost 10 percent. These firms will be decimated if the government insurance plan passes. But investors are now predicting it won't.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Lord Obama has touched the other Third Rail. I hope he fries.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

As the prevaricating marxist continues to plummet despite getting 13 year old daughters of a campaign contributor to pimp herself at a planned and staged "town hall",

even a classics professor at the racist anti white Duke University had publish before his grandma perished for real!

This was to the hospice chute granny, you just have to go into the death panel first.

Sorry about the format.

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ''America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," Says

John David Lewis

August 6, 2009

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ''America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) "Health Choices Commissio0ner" (Section 141); (2) a "Health Insurance Exchange," (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill's effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government "option" or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL RE-ADMISSIONS:

'(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN RE-ADMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess re-admissions shall not include re-admissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under "Definitions":

''(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term 'applicable condition' means, subject to sub-paragraph ( B) , a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary

and:

''(E) READMISSION.—The term 'readmission' means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

''(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

''© the measures of re-admissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an "applicable [medical] condition."

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

''(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . ."

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3. what constitutes "acceptable" coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ''essential benefits package'' means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

( B) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

© REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph ( B) .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines "acceptable coverage" and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses "contribution" to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government "option."

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government "option" will have no place else to go.

5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

''SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

''(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

''(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

''(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

''(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

• The government's authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
• The official will decide what constitutes "excessive," "deficient," and "efficient" payments and services.

7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

''(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

''(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

''(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

''(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

''(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

''(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

''(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated "limits" to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

8. 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection ©.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

9. 9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

''© LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

''(i) the identification of a county or other area under sub-paragraph (A); or

''(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under sub-paragraph ( B) .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government's plan "based on per capita spending."

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts

[Selene]

Phil:

"...99% of people believe government medicine overseas is a success..." What do you do pull these numbers out of your horse's ass?

Your effete condescending attitude towards the common man is not something I would ever want to associate with.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

WSJ column by one of the founders of Whole Foods that may be of interest

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

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.

[Selene]

WSJ column by one of the founders of Whole Foods that may be of interest

http://online.wsj.co...0072865070.html

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.

Thanks. I read his column.

I asked where and why you pull that 99% kind of "well we all know" wink wink.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

WSJ column by one of the founders of Whole Foods that may be of interest

http://online.wsj.co...0072865070.html

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.

That article is dead on right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Speaking of food...

Elgin, Illinois was "declared" the fattest city in the State - there is $48,000.00 of your tax dollars to grants of $1,000.00 each. The data was taken from people's driver's licenses.

Whew, I thought we would have to challenge the data, but I know that no one in the state of Illinois would ever lie and even if they did lie, they would never lie on their driver's licenses!

Elgin Mayor Ed Shock said he doesn't believe his community is the fattest city in Illinois. But he does believe Elgin shares in an obesity epidemic that, shall we say, stretches nationwide.

"It's a function of kids not exercising as much," Shock said. "Very few kids walk to school anymore. Most kids don't ride their bicycles."

And data from Elgin's school district shows almost half the kids are obese or at risk of obesity.

Whatever the scope of the problem, the Elgin YMCA offered a solution $48,000 in Kane County-funded grants to promote healthy living. Except one thing: no has signed up for the money yet.

"It just re-enforces the lack of commitment to address this epidemic in our country, which is obesity," Rick Reigner, CEO of the Elgin YMCA, said.

ACTIVATE ELGIN NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS APPLICATION

Activate Elgin is a city-wide initiative to engage all sectors of the community to work in harmony providing all residents with opportunities to improve their health, wellbeing, and overall

quality of life.

Activate Elgin, in partnership with the Kane County Health Department Fit for Kids initiative, is offering grant money to individual neighborhoods and community groups throughout the Elgin area to encourage involvement in creating and/or implementing wellness programs. Enclosed you will find an application for a mini-grant. In addition to the application form, you will also find a list of resources and suggestions to help you in planning your project. It is necessary to fill out all pages of the application. There are 12 awards available, and your organization may apply for up to $1,000 in funding.

If you have questions about filling out the grant or the award process, please contact Melissa Serritella, Activate Elgin Coordinator, at mserritella@elginymca.org. Completed forms may be submitted electronically to mserritella@elginymca.org; by fax, at (847)888-8152, Attn: Activate Elgin; or by mail, addressed to Activate Elgin: 50 N McLean Boulevard, Elgin, IL 60123.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

a) Neighborhood must have mailing addresses located within Elgin, Illinois.

B) Neighborhood group must be able to show proof of program planning within the first month of the grant period. It is recommended that your neighborhood form a wellness committee that consists of at least 3 representatives; and hold at least one planning meeting per month.

c) Applicant must designate a point-person responsible for reporting progress.

d) Neighborhood groups must be willing to share best practices with other organizations.

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission Deadline Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Notification of Grant Recipients Late September, 2009

Funding Period Begins Early October, 2009

Evaluation 1 Due Monday, February 1, 2010

Evaluation 2 Due Monday, May 31, 2010

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Ba'al: "Why should Obama feel inferior? He has a first rate mind and he was one of the brightest law students at Harvard. A man of his innate ability should be able to succeed at rightful productive enterprises."

Ba'al, feelings of inferiority rarely have anything to do with intelligence or its lack.

Barbara

Smart but unaccomplished.

--Brant

[Selene]

Folks:

Thirty nine years ago Reagan spoke on socialized medicine.

Take the 10 minutes and 6 seconds

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Adam

[Selene]

WSJ column by one of the founders of Whole Foods that may be of interest

http://online.wsj.co...0072865070.html

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.

That article is dead on right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And here is a potential price that they pay!

<h2 id="headline">Health Care Stirs Up Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, Customers Boycott Organic Grocery Store</h2> <h3 id="dek">Branding Experts Say CEOs Should Stay Quiet When It Comes to Politics</h3> <h4 id="byline">By EMILY FRIEDMAN</h4> Aug. 14, 2009 —

Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he'll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.

"I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.

Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.'s CEO John Mackey's views on health care reform, which were made public this week in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Wall Street Journal.

Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.

"I'm boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care," said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods "several times a week."

"While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn't seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit," said Lent.

In his op-ed, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," published Tuesday, Mackey criticized President Barack Obama's health care plan.

Mackey provided eight "reforms" he argued the U.S. can do to improve health care without increasing the deficit. He suggested that tax forms be revised to "make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance."

Mackey also called for a move toward "less government control and more individual empowerment" instead of "a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits."

He added that many of the country's health care problems are "self-inflicted" and are preventable through "proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices."

In the op-ed, Mackey outlines Whole Foods' employee health insurance policy. According to Mackey, Whole Foods pays 100 percent of the premiums for all employees who work 30 hours or more per week -- about 89 percent of his workforce.

Additionally, the company gives each employee $1,800 per year in "health-care dollars," says Mackey, that they can use at their own discretion for health and wellness expenses. This money can be put toward the $2,500 annual deductible that must be covered before Mackey says the company's "insurance plan kicks in."

Whole Foods Shoppers Weigh In

The op-ed piece, which begins with a Margaret Thatcher quote, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," has left some Whole Foods loyalists enraged. Many say Mackey was out of line to opine against the liberal base that has made his fortune possible.

Christine Taylor, a 34-year-old New Jersey shopper, vowed never to step foot in another Whole Foods again.

"I will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods," Taylor told ABCNews.com. "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients."

Countless Whole Foods shoppers have taken their gripes with Mackey's op-ed to the Internet, where people on the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook are calling for a boycott of the store.

A commenter on the Whole Foods forum, identified only by his handle, "PracticePreach," wrote, "It is an absolute slap in the face to the millions of progressive-minded consumers that have made [Whole Foods] what it is today."

"You should know who butters your hearth-baked bread, John," wrote the commenter. "Last time I checked it wasn't the insurance industry conservatives who made you a millionaire a hundred times over."

While Mackey reduced his annual salary to one dollar in 2007, after explaining to employees he was "no longer interested in working for money," Mackey is still the head of the 10th largest food and drug store in the U.S.

Whole Foods Market Inc. reported that sales for the last quarter rose by 2 percent to $1.878 billion. It is consistently ranked a Fortune 500 company.

And not all Whole Foods customers were upset by Mackey's op-ed.

Many posted online that they agreed with his message and would try to shop at the chain more often.

Frank Federer wrote ABCNews.com, expressing fatigue with the knee-jerk reaction of other shoppers.

"You can count me as one vote FOR Whole Foods' CEO," wrote Federer. "At a time when most folks are more inclined toward rancor than discussion of facts, I applaud John Mackey."

Despite his financial success, this is not the first time Mackey has become fodder for criticism. In 2007, it was discovered that Mackey had been using a pseudonym to post blogs lambasting Whole Foods' competitor, Wild Oats Market, and questioning the worth of the company's stock.

The postings were made public when Mackey announced his desire to buy Wild Oats Market, and a lawsuit was filed by the Federal Trade Commission over concerns that the purchase would violate antitrust laws.

The FTC eventually let the sale go through, provided that Mackey sold 31 of the Wild Oats stores, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had launched an investigation into the online postings, did not press charges.

Libba Letton, a Whole Foods spokeswoman, told ABCNews.com that Mackey was unavailable for an interview and said that the op-ed "stands on its own." Letton offered no further comment regarding customers' threats to boycott the store.

When a CEO Speaks Out...

According to Robert Passikoff, the founder of Brand Keys, a N.Y.-based consulting firm, what a CEO says or does can often have a direct impact on consumers' pocketbooks.

"You can have a tremendous effect as a CEO, but it's a double-edge sword in that you'll have people who will support your position and feel better about your brand because of what you say," said Passikoff. "But equally so, you'll have people who think you're crazy and because they can't take it out on you, the CEO, they'll take it out on the company."

It is the risk of losing customers, said Passikoff, which more often than not leads CEOs to keep their mouths shut, at least when it comes to polarizing issues such as health care.

Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza who was outspoken in the pro-life movement, ostracized many of his consumers who weren't sure how much of the money he earned making pizza was then going to support the pro-life movement.

Lynn Upshaw, a brand marketing consultant at Upshaw Brand Consulting in Kentfield, Calif., said that more often it is the actions of an entire company, and not just of a CEO, that lead to boycotting by consumers.

For example, Upshaw remembers when, in the late 1970s, Nestle angered consumers with a baby formula product it claimed to be a healthy alternative to breast-feeding.

"It's relatively unusual for a CEO to be as outspoken as Mackey has been," said Upshaw. "Because any time you weigh in to something political, you're bound to have loyal customers who will question [your] point of view, and that can have a very negative effect."

Upshaw added that Mackey's op-ed may have done more harm than might be typical because of the unique makeup of his clientele.

"You have more activist consumers going to Whole Foods than other stores," said Upshaw. "They're not just simply expressing an opinion, they do something about it.

"These are people who have already gone out of the way to find a place that is more expensive to buy certain types of food," he said. "So in theory, they might be more willing to take the action to go somewhere else if they don't agree with Mackey."

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Selene]

Obama's healthcare plan

The brutal truth about America’s healthcare

An extraordinary report from Guy Adams in Los Angeles at the music arena that has been turned into a makeshift medical centre

Saturday, 15 August 2009

GETTY IMAGES; AFP

The LA Forum in Inglewood, California, hosted dental and medical examinations, for thousands of people thanks to the charity Remote Area Medical. Some waited, above, for 36 hours to see the medical staff

• More pictures

They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.

In the week that Britain's National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an "evil and Orwellian" example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

In the first two days, more than 1,500 men, women and children received free treatments worth $503,000 (£304,000). Thirty dentists pulled 471 teeth; 320 people were given standard issue spectacles; 80 had mammograms; dozens more had acupuncture, or saw kidney specialists. By the time the makeshift medical centre leaves town on Tuesday, staff expect to have dispensed $2m worth of treatments to 10,000 patients.

The gritty district of Inglewood lies just a few miles from the palm-lined streets of Beverly Hills and the bright lights of Hollywood, but is a world away. And the residents who had flocked for the free medical care, courtesy of mobile charity Remote Area Medical, bore testament to the human cost of the healthcare mess that President Obama is attempting to fix.

Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.

"I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I've had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I've not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed," she told The Independent. "I've not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I've been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I'm in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I'll do it. This will change my life."

Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can't afford the $200 a month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. "It's a simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?" she asked. "I'm one of the working poor: people who do work but can't afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance. I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor."

Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.

Julie Shay was one of the many, waiting to slide into a dentist's chair where teeth were being drilled in full view of passers-by. For years, she has been crossing over the Mexican border to get her teeth done on the cheap in Tijuana. But recently, the US started requiring citizens returning home from Mexico to produce a passport (previously all you needed was a driver's license), and so that route is now closed. Today she has two abscesses and is in so much pain she can barely sleep. "I don't have a passport, and I can't afford one. So my husband and I slept in the car to make sure we got seen by a dentist. It sounds pathetic, but I really am that desperate."

"You'd think, with the money in this country, that we'd be able to look after people's health properly," she said. "But the truth is that the rich, and the insurance firms, just don't realise what we are going through, or simply don't care. Look around this room and tell me that America's healthcare don't need fixing."

President Obama's healthcare plans had been a central plank of his first-term programme, but his reform package has taken a battering at the hands of Republican opponents in recent weeks. As the Democrats have failed to coalesce around a single, straightforward proposal, their rivals have seized on public hesitancy over "socialised medicine" and now the chance of far-reaching reform is in doubt.

Most damaging of all has been the tide of vociferous right-wing opponents whipping up scepticism at town hall meetings that were supposed to soothe doubts. In Pennsylvania this week, Senator Arlen Specter was greeted by a crowd of 1,000 at a venue designed to accommodate only 250, and of the 30 selected speakers at the event, almost all were hostile.

The packed bleachers in the LA Forum tell a different story. The mobile clinic has been organised by the remarkable Remote Area Medical. The charity usually focuses on the rural poor, although they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Now they are moving into more urban venues, this week's event in Los Angeles is believed to be the largest free healthcare operation in the country.

Doctors, dentists and therapists volunteer their time, and resources to the organisation. To many US medical professionals, it offers a rare opportunity to plug into the public service ethos on which their trade was supposedly founded. "People come here who haven't seen a doctor for years. And we're able to say 'Hey, you have this, you have this, you have this'," said Dr Vincent Anthony, a kidney specialist volunteering five days of his team's time. "It's hard work, but incredibly rewarding. Healthcare needs reform, obviously. There are so many people falling through the cracks, who don't get care. That's why so many are here."

Ironically, given this week's transatlantic spat over the NHS, Remote Area Medical was founded by an Englishman: Stan Brock. The 72-year-old former public schoolboy, Taekwondo black belt, and one-time presenter of Wild Kingdom, one of America's most popular animal TV shows, left the celebrity gravy train in 1985 to, as he puts it, "make people better".

Today, Brock has no money, no income, and no bank account. He spends 365 days a year at the charity events, sleeping on a small rolled-up mat on the floor and living on a diet made up entirely of porridge and fresh fruit. In some quarters, he has been described, without too much exaggeration, as a living saint.

Though anxious not to interfere in the potent healthcare debate, Mr Brock said yesterday that he, and many other professionals, believes the NHS should provide a benchmark for the future of US healthcare.

"Back in 1944, the UK government knew there was a serious problem with lack of healthcare for 49.7 million British citizens, of which I was one, so they said 'Hey Mr Nye Bevan, you're the Minister for Health... go fix it'. And so came the NHS. Well, fast forward now 66 years, and we've got about the same number of people, about 49 million people, here in the US, who don't have access to healthcare."

"I've been very conservative in my outlook for the whole of my life. I've been described as being about 90,000 miles to the right of Attila the Hun. But I think one reaches the reality that something doesn't work... In this country something has to be done. And as a proud member of the US community but a loyal British subject to the core, I would say that if Britain could fix it in 1944, surely we could fix it here in America.

Healthcare compared

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

Source: WHO/OECD Health Data 2009 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I am always suspicious of any data from the World Health Organization after finding out some of their statistical chicanery.

[Philip Coates]

[i thought I had already posted the following reply to Barbara's argument a couple days ago. At any rate I can't find it in this thread. If it is here it seems to have been buried under Adam's posting tons of stuff on every thread almost continuously =>]

............

> Phil, Christopher: I do not believe it possible to live in this world, to have seen what the rule of big government leads to -- to have seen Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and East Germany and Red China and Cambodia, to see North Korea today, and Iran, and the countries ruled by Muslim fundamentalists, to see even England teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and socialized medicine destroying lives wherever it is tried -- to see all this endless nightmare and, short of having a defective brain, to believe that ever-increasing government power is the path to a better world. It's not often that history obliges us with a morality play in the form of events that scream out their meaning, but the blood-soaked 20th Century was just such a morality play. [barbara]

But, Barbara, the most blatant examples are of totalitarianism, of communism. And, yes, people get that those are destructive, vile, unspeakable. But they have not read Von Mises or Hayek -nor do they know of their existence and arguments. They were purposely shielded from the free-market alternatives. And their view of history is badly skewed: They were told that free markets lead to depressions and monopolies.

It is exactly the one-side-of the argument only education and the inability to think in principles that allows people not to understand that, short of outright dictatorship, a government of well-meaning, altruistic-sounding people cannot take just a little bit of your money and make things better. And not "ever-increasing government", but just a little more government. They are not philosophers of history. They didn't study "decline and fall"...or even Lord Acton's dictum.

Also, you said "socialized medicine is destroying lives". How many people, do you think have been told that medical care in Canada or England is a failure. 99% of people believe government medicine overseas is a success. It is printed or taken for granted or relied upon every day in the newspapers and newsmagazines. And they are told it's the elements of freedom in the mixture, those greedy doctors, that are to blame.

They are not economists, and most of what people know of economics ***especially liberals*** could fit in a thimble.

So yes, they are innocent. Ignorant, yes. Blind, but not SELF-blinded. Misled by the media. Carefully not told an alternative narrative by their teachers. Do they have "defective brains"? Yes they do. In the sense that it has been filled with bad information and not filled with proper principles.

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, Phil. You can "fill" up the "principles" all you like. When I was in school I was surrounded by dolts courtesy of public ed. And this was in the 1950s!

People are now getting educated--good and hard, and it's going to get good and harder!

There is little moral difference now between the average American and the average almost anyone any where else. The difference is the relative prosperity and that's now changing for the worst for everybody almost everywhere.

Get ready for the brave new and I think very interesting world to follow.

I have great hope in that my big brain occupies no more space than small brains so I know the small brains can be jazzed up by drugs--even mine BTW--so there is hope for the human race beyond the necessity of biological change. I mean, we'd all be a lot uglier if our heads were 6 inches taller! Let's go with what we've got!

We need more smart drugs! However, we lack character drugs. We even lack I-am-a-character drugs!

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

[i thought I had already posted the following reply to Barbara's argument a couple days ago. At any rate I can't find it in this thread. If it is here it seems to have been buried under Adam's posting tons of stuff on every thread almost continuously =>]

............

> Phil, Christopher: I do not believe it possible to live in this world, to have seen what the rule of big government leads to -- to have seen Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and East Germany and Red China and Cambodia, to see North Korea today, and Iran, and the countries ruled by Muslim fundamentalists, to see even England teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and socialized medicine destroying lives wherever it is tried -- to see all this endless nightmare and, short of having a defective brain, to believe that ever-increasing government power is the path to a better world. It's not often that history obliges us with a morality play in the form of events that scream out their meaning, but the blood-soaked 20th Century was just such a morality play. [barbara]

But, Barbara, the most blatant examples are of totalitarianism, of communism. And, yes, people get that those are destructive, vile, unspeakable. But they have not read Von Mises or Hayek -nor do they know of their existence and arguments. They were purposely shielded from the free-market alternatives. And their view of history is badly skewed: They were told that free markets lead to depressions and monopolies.

It is exactly the one-side-of the argument only education and the inability to think in principles that allows people not to understand that, short of outright dictatorship, a government of well-meaning, altruistic-sounding people cannot take just a little bit of your money and make things better. And not "ever-increasing government", but just a little more government. They are not philosophers of history. They didn't study "decline and fall"...or even Lord Acton's dictum.

Also, you said "socialized medicine is destroying lives". How many people, do you think have been told that medical care in Canada or England is a failure. 99% of people believe government medicine overseas is a success. It is printed or taken for granted or relied upon every day in the newspapers and newsmagazines. And they are told it's the elements of freedom in the mixture, those greedy doctors, that are to blame.

They are not economists, and most of what people know of economics ***especially liberals*** could fit in a thimble.

So yes, they are innocent. Ignorant, yes. Blind, but not SELF-blinded. Misled by the media. Carefully not told an alternative narrative by their teachers. Do they have "defective brains"? Yes they do. In the sense that it has been filled with bad information and not filled with proper principles.

Phil,

I really think this is a case where people either think that people should shoulder the responsibility of their own health care or they shouldn't. Most people cherry-pick whatever facts support their chosen answer to this alternative.

It isn't really a matter of reading Rand, Hayek or Von Mises, either. I believed in free market health care way before reading any of them. I watched my father treated in Argentina and in the United States at 9 years old and I saw the difference.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

Healthcare compared

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

Source: WHO/OECD Health Data 2009 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I am always suspicious of any data from the World Health Organization after finding out some of their statistical chicanery.

You attribute the differences to the health care system. What about cultural factors and life-style choices. Americans overeat and under exercise. This is not because of the health-care system. Also the mortality and morbidity statistics are affected by the the proportion of the population which is Negro. Negroes have a shorter life span, higher birth mortality and worse health statistics for both cultural and genetic reasons. One eight of our population is Negro. Is that the case in Canada or Britain?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> I believed in free market health care way before reading any of them. I watched my father treated in Argentina and in the United States at 9 years old and I saw the difference. [Jim]

But you had a direct almost laboratory observation at an early age that most people don't. And you're a better thinker. Most people instead tend to believe the things they are taught, especially from an early age and/or without exception: about how the market will run amok if not supervised, about there being a God, etc. You're giving them credit for the same clearness of vision that Barbara was. And Ayn Rand. It all started with Ayn Rand who drummed into us that the masses of men are evaders, not innocent.

I mean, how would you explain the belief in God - far more ridiculous on its face than the idea that 'markets fail'? Do you think the average man on the street is really a secret atheist but is really dishonest and afraid of social ostracism? Or is suppressing his inner doubts? Is really an evader?

***Ayn Rand was completely wrong in her psychological and moral assessment of people on this crucial issue.***

Just as people in general are unable to see clearly enough to undo premises they were taught early, so Oists are unable to see clearly enough to undo this false, less than benevolent premise about the mass of men being evaders, dodging what they actually *know* to be true.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

> I believed in free market health care way before reading any of them. I watched my father treated in Argentina and in the United States at 9 years old and I saw the difference. [Jim]

But you had a direct almost laboratory observation at an early age that most people don't. And you're a better thinker. Most people instead tend to believe the things they are taught, especially from an early age and/or without exception: about how the market will run amok if not supervised, about there being a God, etc. You're giving them credit for the same clearness of vision that Barbara was. And Ayn Rand. It all started with Ayn Rand who drummed into us that the masses of men are evaders, not innocent.

I mean, how would you explain the belief in God - far more ridiculous on its face than the idea that 'markets fail'? Do you think the average man on the street is really a secret atheist but is really dishonest and afraid of social ostracism? Or is suppressing his inner doubts? Is really an evader?

***Ayn Rand was completely wrong in her psychological and moral assessment of people on this crucial issue.***

Just as people in general are unable to see clearly enough to undo premises they were taught early, so Oists are unable to see clearly enough to undo this false, less than benevolent premise about the mass of men being evaders, dodging what they actually *know* to be true.

Phil,

The God example is a better one. I believed in God until 17 years of age and a full year after reading Atlas Shrugged. It took reading Darwin's origin of Species and understanding natural selection to undo that one.

I don't believe, like Rand, that most people are evaders. I believe that the brain's natural epistemology involves pattern recognition and selection much more than logic. I think most people simply believe mostly in altruism as a natural extension of growing up in a family and being dependent. But you eventually have to grow up, pull your own weight and pay for things. You also have to test what you know against reality. You have to see when things don't work and not repeat them or insist on them. Otherwise, you bear the consequences.

Whether or not people evade, you have to hold them accountable. I grew up in a classroom watching people not try very hard. Living in an information-based society as an informed citizen requires effort. It requires more than trusting the authorities, the politicians, your professors or business leaders. I expect that of other people and when I don't get it, I'm disappointed. The things people struggle with just aren't that hard. Don't take on debt. Save money. Pay your own way. Try to understand the underlying basis for things. These are things people should learn in their teens and growing up.

Understanding how electricity works, the basics behind an internal combustion engine, Federal Reserve open market operations, basic financial instruments and why free markets work is that not that hard. I don't believe that people are evading, I just think they give up at some step along the way and I don't know why.

Jim

[Selene]

Excellent observation:

"I don't believe that people are evading, I just think they give up at some step along the way and I don't know why."

I observed a precipitous drop in intellectual inquisitiveness when the City University changed its institution wide policy of competitive admissions to various

colleges in the NY City public system to an open enrollment policy.

It seems, as I became friendly with the new "batch" of the now mixed entering student population. that high "school" had become vapid in their perception. Television had been

in there information curve all of their lives. The concept of inquiry had been allowed to die.

Moreover, it became, apparently, ok to fail. It was not their fault or concern anymore. The concept of challenging what was being taught had died.

Just my thought on an interesting issue that you are raising.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Jim, your last post is very interesting - and raises crucial issues. The issue of -why- (if not evasion) and -how- people become the way they are intellectually is a fascinating one. And a vitally important one.

On your last point, "I don't believe that people are evading, I just think they give up at some step along the way and I don't know why," I think very often what you've identified is exactly what happens. It's a form of turning away from dealing with "big X" (the area) more than it is a knowing that "little x" (a specific claim or proposition) is true. I sat in many of the same classrooms you did, or corporate meetings.

I believe I DO know why. ( I will try to post on it later...maybe today, if it seems that people are actually interested in this issue.)

[anonrobt]

Inquiry requires feedback to keep going, to keep to the sense of its worthiness - even if is as in the rare case of coming from within oneself... for most, of course, that rarity not exist, and if no feedback from others, it fades as if a chimera and the more range of the moment invites more attention, with more immediate feedback, with the consequence of loss to the long-range, the goal-directiveness - the purposefulness of being...

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim, your last post is very interesting - and raises crucial issues. The issue of -why- (if not evasion) and -how- people become the way they are intellectually is a fascinating one. And a vitally important one.

On your last point, "I don't believe that people are evading, I just think they give up at some step along the way and I don't know why," I think very often what you've identified is exactly what happens. It's a form of turning away from dealing with "big X" (the area) more than it is a knowing that "little x" (a specific claim or proposition) is true. I sat in many of the same classrooms you did, or corporate meetings.

I believe I DO know why. ( I will try to post on it later...maybe today, if it seems that people are actually interested in this issue.)

Phil,

I am interested in this issue and it's an issue for Objectivists as well. When you stand on the shoulders of giants, why be content to be ignorant or standing still?

Jim

[Reidy]

A movement has started to blacklist the guy:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1

[Philip Coates]

> "I don't believe that people are evading, I just think they give up at some step along the way and I don't know why," [Jim]

Part 1: I want to start narrow and then go wide. I want to address Jim's issue first, actually part of that issue, before saying any more on the evasion vs. honest error issue or applying it to the issue of evasion regarding big government.

To start in an educational context, I want to go back to the classrooms we all sat in in nice little rows. In elementary school, in middle school, in high school, in college. A certain kind of "giving up" was visible, at least to me. Young kids I grew up around often tended to have tons or energy and curiosity and a sense they could do anything. By high school, a gap (or at least a bell-curve like continuum) had developed. There was the difference between the "bright kids", the college bound and those who were going to end up owning the town filling station or working at the drug store. At a high pressure, fast track college, the gap was between the eager, enthusiastic, assertive kids freshman year and the sullen or blase ones -- often the same kids whom college had changed -- whom I knew as seniors. For those who know what kind of a gap or gulf I'm talking about -- that between those who were more intellectually and academically more energetic and assertive and those who had turned away (or been turned away) from that sort of use of their mind -- what do you think explains the difference?

Is it native intelligence? A volitional choice? If so, why was it made?

[Brant Gaede]

It's public education Phil. Put impressionable kids in prison and they get stunted. That's all. Even kids like I was who fought back and didn't give in were stunted. Why? They weren't being taught anything except they were things for other things.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Yes, I agree Brant. What I'm trying to do is look beneath that a bit in more detail at what's going on in the kids' minds as that is happening and what stunting means in depth.

The reason I choose students as a starting point for discussion of error vs. evasion in the realm of politics is that it's inductive. We've all been in those classrooms for decade or so and can more directly observe those people. And we've all been those students.