Mackey is the CEO of Whole Foods. For all the complaints from the left that the right is just trying to defeat Obama's plan and not offer an alternative, that is exactly what he does in this Op-Ed. Comments? Thoughts?
Link
Perfect ideas expressed clearly and concisely. There's not a word in that article that I disagree with. If the Republicans just make this article their response to what is currently being proposed I think that they will get a lot of new voters.
I'll believe in a Republican healthcare program when I see it. They've had years to put one forward and have not tried.
The closest thing in recent memory is the prescription drug plan that went in under GWB, and that was a huge handout to big Pharma, had the "doughnut hole" that's killing seniors on fixed incomes, and bargained away the right to use the amount of prescription drugs paid for to bargain for a better price.
Mackey's plan is a helluva lot better than the way things stand.
I don't understand why we can't look at how other countries handle nation wide health care for their citizens and cherry pick the best ideas and put them into an American system. The French and Japanese have excellent health care, what parts of their systems work best and how can we use those ideas here? Even the much maligned English and Canadian health care systems have ideas to offer. The National Health in England may have limitations we find unpalatable, but every English citizen has had access to healthcare since 1946. We have millions with no care at all who'd be damned happy to have what the English have.
(08-15-2009 06:10 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]I'll believe in a Republican healthcare program when I see it. They've had years to put one forward and have not tried.
The closest thing in recent memory is the prescription drug plan that went in under GWB, and that was a huge handout to big Pharma, had the "doughnut hole" that's killing seniors on fixed incomes, and bargained away the right to use the amount of prescription drugs paid for to bargain for a better price.
Mackey's plan is a helluva lot better than the way things stand.
I don't understand why we can't look at how other countries handle nation wide health care for their citizens and cherry pick the best ideas and put them into an American system. The French and Japanese have excellent health care, what parts of their systems work best and how can we use those ideas here? Even the much maligned English and Canadian health care systems have ideas to offer. The National Health in England may have limitations we find unpalatable, but every English citizen has had access to healthcare since 1946. We have millions with no care at all who'd be damned happy to have what the English have.
The problem with comparing our system to other countries is the difference in the sheer size of the operation. A healthcare system for a place the size of New York is a bit easier to run than one the size of the US.
A question: what in those other systems do you like, other than everyone being covered? You'll never convince me that the government should be in the business of providing healthcare for anyone. Yes, I know we already have it here.
If you think the government needs to be in the business of health care then go to a VA Hospital and tell me how well that works.
(08-15-2009 11:12 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]A question: what in those other systems do you like, other than everyone being covered? You'll never convince me that the government should be in the business of providing healthcare for anyone. Yes, I know we already have it here.
The arguement that health care is not a function of government usually is framed as it not being mentioned specifically in the U.S.Constitution. It isn't, but one must remember the context of the times. Health care in 1787 was for nearly all Americans a matter of folk herbal remedies from doctors who had trained under other doctors as apprentices. There were almost no medical schools anywhere, especially in terms of what we have now. The authors could not have forseen the scientific revolution that we know as modern medicine since the 1930s. I don't believe for a minute that if they could have viewed the future of medical care in the 20th century, they would not have incorporated health care as a right for Americans- at least adult white males who were the only ones they considered for anything.
(08-16-2009 01:05 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2009 11:12 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]A question: what in those other systems do you like, other than everyone being covered? You'll never convince me that the government should be in the business of providing healthcare for anyone. Yes, I know we already have it here.
The arguement that health care is not a function of government usually is framed as it not being mentioned specifically in the U.S.Constitution. It isn't, but one must remember the context of the times. Health care in 1787 was for nearly all Americans a matter of folk herbal remedies from doctors who had trained under other doctors as apprentices. There were almost no medical schools anywhere, especially in terms of what we have now. The authors could not have forseen the scientific revolution that we know as modern medicine since the 1930s. I don't believe for a minute that if they could have viewed the future of medical care in the 20th century, they would not have incorporated health care as a right for Americans- at least adult white males who were the only ones they considered for anything.
I disagree. I think the founding fathers wouldn't support a "right" to healthcare because it costs something. The freedoms and rights that they advocated for didn't cost anything. They didn't impose anything on anyone else. They were very libertarian in their thinking.
(08-16-2009 01:05 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2009 11:12 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]A question: what in those other systems do you like, other than everyone being covered? You'll never convince me that the government should be in the business of providing healthcare for anyone. Yes, I know we already have it here.
The arguement that health care is not a function of government usually is framed as it not being mentioned specifically in the U.S.Constitution. It isn't, but one must remember the context of the times. Health care in 1787 was for nearly all Americans a matter of folk herbal remedies from doctors who had trained under other doctors as apprentices. There were almost no medical schools anywhere, especially in terms of what we have now. The authors could not have forseen the scientific revolution that we know as modern medicine since the 1930s. I don't believe for a minute that if they could have viewed the future of medical care in the 20th century, they would not have incorporated health care as a right for Americans- at least adult white males who were the only ones they considered for anything.
That's just pure speculation based on your own beliefs., you don't know what they would have done.
Food and shelter are more vital to a person's life than healthcare, yet homelessness and starvation are still very prominently in existence. If you think it's the government's job to make sure everyone is provided with healthcare, then surely you believe the government is doing a piss-poor job of housing/feeding/clothing the nation?
Face it. The government can't (and shouldn't) do everything. It's ridiculous to expect it to hold everybody's hands and walk them through life without expecting people to do it something for themselves.
Medicare is government run and works pretty well in a general sense. Medicaid is government run and blows... but for the people who have it, is better than having nothing at all. This is particularly true for parents with uninsured children on Medicaid. There are parts of the VA which work pretty well, and parts which are an absolute shame. Our veterans deserve better than what they often get.
The other side of the coin is that the status quo is not sustainable. I'd be willing to make a sizable wager that 95% of the people posting here attacking the idea of the health care bill have pretty good private insurance themselves. If you had kids and no insurance I can't help but think you would view things differently. Not everyone is well educated, makes a decent living, makes good choices, or was lucky in their parents and family situation.
As things stand, with the system of employer provided medical insurance, there are a lot of problems. First off, there are about 50 million Americans who have no medical coverage. The insurance on those who do increases in cost yearly. In an effort to keep cost increases down copays go up, things that are covered go down. You have the issue of preexisting conditions, of coverage exclusions. A large percentage of those who are covered by employer health insurance live in fear of losing their job because their care would be yanked. COBRA carryover insurance is so expensive that most ordinary people simply cannot sustain paying for it.
I hear "I don't want some government bureaucrat saying what my doctor can do." You do understand that as things are that insurance company bureaucrats do exactly this? I work in primary care medicine, I see it every day. The treatments that my doc offers has to meet the insurance company's requirements. They tell a doctor which medicines he can and cannot prescribe. In some cases, they do so because the insurance company owns a large block of stock in a given pharmaceutical company and want their money channeled through that company, or they have an agreement that the pharmco will rebate a percentage of the prescription dollars to the insurance company.
Every day insurance companies do a lot of things to control costs. The difference is that they restrict access to care in order to raise their profits, not simply to control costs. They delay, drag their feet, require letters justifying treatment. They examine every facet of what a physician does... referrals, the types of labs ordered, imaging, hospital admissions, the percentage of prescriptions that are written for generics, you name it. My doc looks over his shoulder every single day, alters (or more accurately tailors) his care decisions with a view to what his Blue Cross/Blue Shield printout is going to look like. The profit motive gives the insurer an incentive to deny anything they can.
I'm all for transparency. I'm for giving patients an incentive to use health care less, for the patient knowing what things cost. I'm for preventive care, the ounce of prevention that saves thousands of dollars in cure. Did you know that virtually no medical insurer pays for children's immunizations? They know parents will have to get their kids shots, so they exclude them. Nevermind that those shots will prevent many many dollars in treatment costs. It's better for them if the parents pay for the immunizations and they don't have to pay for the treatments.
I'm no healthcare policy wonk. I'm just an ordinary guy who works in health care. There's not a week that goes by that I don't see people who are in a corner because they are not covered. They got laid off and have no coverage and their wife or kid gets sick. They're elderly and on a fixed income and have to choose between paying for their meds and their light bill. They're going bankrupt when they've done everything right but a family member has a catastrophic illness.
Mackey screwed up with this piece. Although I agree with most of it, the granola-f*ckers who patronize his stores won't, and will take their hippie dollars to competing organic establishments.
(08-16-2009 11:23 AM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Mackey screwed up with this piece. Although I agree with most of it, the granola-f*ckers who patronize his stores won't, and will take their hippie dollars to competing organic establishments.
It's already begun. I found his article while reading an article about the hippies being pissed off about it.
I agree that health care needs to be reformed. I just dont want a single payer system.
Start with tort reform and other common sense reforms and then see where we are.
ANY system doing ANYTHING works for some or most people. Public schools work well for wealthy enclave students like Hoover and Mtn. Brook, not so well for Wilcox County and the like in rural Alabama. Healthcare in a city with a dozen major hospitals and hundreds of doctors works better than healthcare in places with no hospitals and few, if any, doctors.
What the President is trying to work with Congress to do is increase the healthcare of America to serve as close to all citizens as is practical. We are seeing more studys of other county's healthcare systems as we try to learn what might be applicable to American systems. Ruling out anything just because someone put a negative label on it is not good sense.
An American INVENTED the airplane , but in both world wars America did not have a fighter equal to those of our adversaries at all in WWI and not until the WWII's second or third year. We have learned many things from other country's in many fields. Healthcare should be no exception.
the lefties in this Country believe the only reason socialism has
failed is because it hasn't been implemented the way OUR 'left' can do it.
And now the administration is slowly moving away from the public option and towards the non-profit co-op option. I wouldn't really have a problem with that. It would provide more choices for the consumer. I think the government needs to keep its hands out of it as much as is possible. None of this minimum coverage nonsense. That decision should be left totally up to the consumer.
The kind of insurance that can we can afford to cover those that have a hard time with insurance now needs to be low-premium, high-deductible insurance. It does not need to be the expensive comprehensive type insurance that is already overly pervasive in the current marketplace.
There need to be some regulations, no more banning people for pre-existing conditions, but the consumer needs to be prepared to pay a higher premium that is representative of their risk. People also need to be paying higher premiums if they have lifestyles hazardous to their health: obese, smoking, alcoholic, etc. No more dropping people mid-illness, you signed them to a policy, you don't get to back out just because you actually had to pay on it.
(08-16-2009 12:55 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]What the President is trying to work with Congress to do is increase the healthcare of America to serve as close to all citizens as is practical. We are seeing more studys of other county's healthcare systems as we try to learn what might be applicable to American systems. Ruling out anything just because someone put a negative label on it is not good sense.
bull****. The President is trying to takeover 1/6th of our economy giving the government more control under the guise of providing health insurance (not care) to the 50 M uninsured (mostly illegal immigrants) and supposedly saving money. Just like ramming some 1,000 page bill without being read by the ******* idiots running Congress that could impact the number one healthcare system and cost our already broke *** country another $1.7 Trillion dollars.
Quote:An American INVENTED the airplane , but in both world wars America did not have a fighter equal to those of our adversaries at all in WWI and not until the WWII's second or third year. We have learned many things from other country's in many fields. Healthcare should be no exception.
America has discovered 90% of the best drugs in the world for medicine. We also have the best doctors in the world. Socialized medicine sucks donkey balls....PLEASE GO READ THE WHOLE FOODS CEO REFORM ADVICE. You want to save money, then roll with his ideas is my opinion. BY THE WAY, the reason why health insurance costs are going up is because anyone that doesn't have health insurance can get medical care. The cost of health insurance has risen because they pay a higher percentage than the government programs in order to cover the cost of those without health insurance already.
There is not one damn government program that is run efficiently over the private sector. Government keeps getting bigger and bigger and keeps taking more and more of our hard earned money. Its bad enough the next census is going to count illegal immegrants so the radical progressives are going to pick up another 10 seats in Congress.
By the way, WE AND OUR EMPLOYERS pay for our own social security and medicare. I think it is bull**** that our Congress spends all this money that we send them. I think it is bull**** that they will raise the retirement age to 75 or later because it will be broke. The government is worse than a thief in the night, because they come during the day and take our money. Medicare is going bankrupt also. By law, we can't even have a choice to stay with a private insurer. If I want to be a full time greeter at Wal-Mart and get better healthcare than Medicare - I won't be able to do it if I am 65 or older. The whole system is screwed up and there is no way a bunch of money grubbing, debt spending, $60 M dollar corporate jet, fat cat Senators and Representatives (who only give a damn about their own pocket book) are going to do what is right for this country and its citizens. I like my health insurance and I pay a lot for it because my employer only pays 50%. I can see a doctor with an appointment real easy. By the way, individual plans can be purchased from companies unless you are illegal.
I am sick of this crap and all the misguided sobs that keep believing the - "America needs this. This is good for America. This will protect all Americans. This will save the taxpayers money. This won't kill private industry." would just move their *** to Canada for one year to enjoy the 9 hour time period of sitting in an emergency room to see a nurse with an even longer wait to see a doctor. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Fix Social Security, cut spending, reduce the government size, stay out of healthcare insurance and eliminate our deficit and LET PEOPLE LIVE THERE LIVES AND TRY TO LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM!
There are several factors determining costs of health insurance. among them are premium costs, deductible costs, and not the least important, the "cap" on insurance responsibility. The PEEHIP "cap" on medical and dental for educators has not been increased in over 20 years. Our dental "cap" is $1000 dollars per year (Oct 1st to the next Sept. 30) and can be reached very quickly at today's rates. My wife exceeded her limit in two visits before Jan.1st 2009. When healthcare costs rise and "caps" don't, the result is an effective cut in benefit coverage by that percentage per year. Southland doesn't quit collecting from your pension just because they aren't paying out anything since Jan. 1st.
(08-17-2009 12:59 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]There are several factors determining costs of health insurance. among them are premium costs, deductible costs, and not the least important, the "cap" on insurance responsibility. The PEEHIP "cap" on medical and dental for educators has not been increased in over 20 years. Our dental "cap" is $1000 dollars per year (Oct 1st to the next Sept. 30) and can be reached very quickly at today's rates. My wife exceeded her limit in two visits before Jan.1st 2009. When healthcare costs rise and "caps" don't, the result is an effective cut in benefit coverage by that percentage per year. Southland doesn't quit collecting from your pension just because they aren't paying out anything since Jan. 1st.
Your wife spent more than $1000 on dental in one year? Did she get a new grille installed?
(08-16-2009 06:30 PM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]And now the administration is slowly moving away from the public option and towards the non-profit co-op option. I wouldn't really have a problem with that. It would provide more choices for the consumer. I think the government needs to keep its hands out of it as much as is possible. None of this minimum coverage nonsense. That decision should be left totally up to the consumer.
The kind of insurance that can we can afford to cover those that have a hard time with insurance now needs to be low-premium, high-deductible insurance. It does not need to be the expensive comprehensive type insurance that is already overly pervasive in the current marketplace.
There need to be some regulations, no more banning people for pre-existing conditions, but the consumer needs to be prepared to pay a higher premium that is representative of their risk. People also need to be paying higher premiums if they have lifestyles hazardous to their health: obese, smoking, alcoholic, etc. No more dropping people mid-illness, you signed them to a policy, you don't get to back out just because you actually had to pay on it.
Federally funded regional co-ops (the idea being floated now) is merely putting lipstick on a turd.
Simply opening the purchase of health insurance across State lines is a back door attempt
at socializing healthcare/health insurance.
Unless each individual company is required to be 'licensed to sell' (and incorporated) in
each State
[like auto insurance], then the Federal gov't will be able to control/regulate plans via the Interstate
Commerce clause in the US Constitution.
(08-17-2009 05:35 AM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2009 12:59 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]There are several factors determining costs of health insurance. among them are premium costs, deductible costs, and not the least important, the "cap" on insurance responsibility. The PEEHIP "cap" on medical and dental for educators has not been increased in over 20 years. Our dental "cap" is $1000 dollars per year (Oct 1st to the next Sept. 30) and can be reached very quickly at today's rates. My wife exceeded her limit in two visits before Jan.1st 2009. When healthcare costs rise and "caps" don't, the result is an effective cut in benefit coverage by that percentage per year. Southland doesn't quit collecting from your pension just because they aren't paying out anything since Jan. 1st.
Your wife spent more than $1000 on dental in one year? Did she get a new grille installed?
That was my point. At today's dental costs, it doesn't take a lot of work to run through $1,000 at 60% of charges and 100% of a cleaning. A couple of crowns and you are there.
(08-17-2009 09:47 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2009 05:35 AM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2009 12:59 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]There are several factors determining costs of health insurance. among them are premium costs, deductible costs, and not the least important, the "cap" on insurance responsibility. The PEEHIP "cap" on medical and dental for educators has not been increased in over 20 years. Our dental "cap" is $1000 dollars per year (Oct 1st to the next Sept. 30) and can be reached very quickly at today's rates. My wife exceeded her limit in two visits before Jan.1st 2009. When healthcare costs rise and "caps" don't, the result is an effective cut in benefit coverage by that percentage per year. Southland doesn't quit collecting from your pension just because they aren't paying out anything since Jan. 1st.
Your wife spent more than $1000 on dental in one year? Did she get a new grille installed?
That was my point. At today's dental costs, it doesn't take a lot of work to run through $1,000 at 60% of charges and 100% of a cleaning. A couple of crowns and you are there.
I had to have two new front teeth installed eight years ago. Total cost: $2,500.
Implants certainly aren't cheap.
(08-17-2009 02:12 PM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Implants certainly aren't cheap.
No, they aren't. Thank you, grandfather's bass boat, for rocking when I stood up and knocking out my front teeth when I was eight.