Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBoycott Whole Foods
John Mackey is a right wing libertarian.
He’s a union buster.
He believes that corporations should not be criminally prosecuted for their crimes.
He has just launched a campaign to defeat a single payer national health insurance system.
And he’s the CEO of Whole Foods.
Primo hangout of liberal Democratic yuppies.
“We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health,” Mackey wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. “We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.”
Yes it will, John Mackey.
Yes it will.
I do take that responsibility very seriously.
I try to eat well.
And exercise regularly.
I also take my responsibility as a citizen seriously.
After all, Mr. Mackey, we are all responsible for our own civic lives and our own civic health.
We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom and make wise civic and consumer choices that will protect our nation’s health.
Doing so will enrich our civic lives and help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
That’s why, today, Single Payer Action is calling on all American citizens to boycott Whole Foods.
Why?
Because Mackey has launched a public campaign to defeat single payer national health insurance.
This despite the bottom line reality that single payer is the only way to both control health care costs and cover everyone.
As Dr. Marcia Angell says in today’s New York Times, “if you keep health care in the hands of for-profit companies, you can increase coverage by putting more money into the system, or control costs by decreasing coverage. But you cannot do both unless you change the basic structure of the system.”
Mackey leads his Wall Street Journal diatribe against national health insurance with a quote from one of his heroines – Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
And the problem with Mackey’s campaign is that it results in the deaths of 60 Americans every day due to lack of health insurance.
Mackey is responsible for these deaths as much as anyone.
And we are responsible for putting money into his Whole Food bank account so that he can continue his campaign without resistance.
I know that this boycott of Whole Foods will upset many liberal Democrats.
Where will they buy their organic wines?
And cheeses?
And tofu?
There are options.
Your local health food co-op.
Farmers’ markets.
Community supported agriculture.
Other corporate chains like Trader Joe’s.
So, please, join the Single Payer Action Boycott of Whole Foods.
Don’t cross the picket lines.
Don’t spend another penny at Whole Foods until John Mackey and his right wing friends are defeated.
And single payer is enacted.
Onward to single payer.
392 Comments so far
Show AllHello! Single Payer is NOT part of the Obama plan. Obama has not even suggested anything remotely resembling socialism or a government takeover of healthcare. The government will not run healthcare. There will be no Canadian-style single payer system. None of the proposals in Congress mention that at all. It is NOT Medicare for all.
What has been proposed by the President is a 'public plan' available ONLY to those without employer insurance as a VOLUNTARY alternative to private insurance. This plan will compete with private insurance and meet the same requirements. In other words, you go to the same doctors you would with your private insurance, but if you are on the public plan, it will cover your medical bills. The process will be the same as private insurance, but simply paid for by the public plan.
Private insurance will still exist. There will always be freedom of choice.
How's the boycott going? Was it sucessful in silencing legitimate opposition to Obamacare?
There are 1100 + Healthcare insurance companies in the U.S. but a business in any given state can only shop a handfull (say 6 or 9) of companies in their state. Hmmmm.
Here's a crazy thought: Why don't we let all the companies sell in every state and increase COMPETITION. Isn't competition a key point? This way we get competition and avoid the inept fed gov't from getting involved.
Private companies are better at controlling fraud than the govt. Example: Medicare
Here's another crazy thought: Tort Reform. Make it impossible for frivilous law suits. Isn't malpractice insurance a key factor in the cost of healthcare?
Why do supporters of Obamacare overlook these OBVIOUS fixes?
When you answer that question you will see the heart of the matter. The goal is to socialize by any means necessary. Say anything, do anything as long as it gets to the end state.
Universal healthcare is not a 'moral imperative'. The senselessness of that arguement was brought to light and shot down.
What's the next argurment? I can hardly wait....
As a heads up, whatever the next argument is, use some more thought in putting it together because common sense just tore through the previous ones.
The U.S. constitution is not outdated nor is it out of place in 2009. The U.S. is not 'Europe Far West' nor will it ever be.
I could take issue with several of your statements, but for simplicity I will focus on one.
"Here's another crazy thought: Tort Reform. Make it impossible for frivilous law suits. Isn't malpractice insurance a key factor in the cost of healthcare?"
I agree frivolous law suits hurt the health care system. But the truth is that only a fraction of frivolous law suits involve the health care industry. Most involve private companies who have no connection to health care.
When it comes to health care, what is frivolous and what is not? And who will make that determination? Surely, you don't want doctors to be held unaccountable? To be allowed to run a muck, cut out the wrong organ, cut off the wrong appendage, ignore symptoms of serious disease until it is too late, be an entity unto themselves untouched by the requirement to adhere to current medical standards, all with no responsibility whatsoever? Because someone MIGHT spark a frivolous law suit? That would be absurd.
My brother, budg63 (below), almost lost his wife because a doctor ignored her symptoms for 4 years. They are still battling to keep her alive 5 years after diagnosis at another facility. He and his wife were severely hampered by tort reform in Florida in their ability to seek fair compensation and an overview of that doctor's ability to practice medicine within currently accepted standards. A simple x-ray diagnosed her condition, yet in 4 years where she complained of symptoms at each visit the doctor failed to send her for one, or anything else that might have caught it early. How do we deal with these quack doctors if there is no ability to sue?
The problem with across the board tort reform as it relates to health care is that it punishes the victims while allowing incompetent doctors to butcher our family and friends with no repercussions. No repercussions because it seeks to deny US citizens their right to "trial by jury" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. It gives doctors carte blanche to operate outside of accepted medical standards and provides ZERO accountability for their actions. That's not Capitalism and it certainly isn't Socialism, it's anarchy.
There MUST be some form of accountability in our health care. Accountability builds trust in the system, encourages doctors to work in their patient's best interest, and allows for victims of inept doctors to have some way to survive after that doctor, through negligence, has taken away the patient's ability to earn a living.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4shfPSL1nD0
John Mackey is a survivalist. He just wants to protect what he's got. This video pretty much says it all.
If I am not a radical liberal, then I must be a right wing conservative. Is this how it works? I must either be one or the other? I guess no one can be an independent conservative, think for themselves, and decide what is right based on the issues.
I am not supposed to shop at Whole Foods because the psuedo intellectuals want a boycott because someone has a different opinion than their own. I am not supposed to shop at Trader Joe's because they do not like how they collect their seafood. PETA does not want me to eat meat. I am not supposed to eat at fast food places because it will make me fat. I cannot shop at Wal-Mart because they are not union and mistreat the million or so workers employeed by them. I am not supposed to eat produce and vegetables because we exploit migrant workers and poison the land with pesticides.
As one of the great blue collar comedians tells us, "You Cannot Fix Stupid".
well, i guess there's no hope for fixing you then...
well, i guess there's no hope for fixing you then...
well, i guess there's no hope for fixing you then...
Socialism makes no room for freedom of speech, and during this third attempt to take over our nation, socialists feel that they have dismantled the constitution enough to make it so no one will notice. Sorry, I've noticed. There are socialist countries Obama. Hollywood and their socialist friends can move to. I would be glad to help pack their bags.
A govt caring about its citizens has ZERO to do with free speech. Zero. Why do you right wingers always try to drag an issue in a direction it doesn't belong? Oh wait, you must be referring to the hired guns that show up at town hall meetings screaming and yelling in an effort to keep others voices from being heard. I agree, that is stomping on free speech. Right wing CONservatives are the ONLY people that have tried to tear apart the rights of the citizens of this country, usually by instilling fear in them. James Brady, a conservative, tried to make it more difficult for you to buy a gun. Not liberals. A Conservative. But no, you folks always try to put the blame on someone else. Don't you? I'll tell ya what, why don't you tell me which right wing country you'd like to go to (how's Saudi Arabia?), and I'll help YOU pack ;)
You obviously know little about Socialism. The problem with attacking Socialism as a single entity is that Socialism is not a concrete philosophy. It encompasses many different ideas and beliefs. So simply attacking it with a label and saying it's bad only shows you are inept in your knowledge.
This Wikipedia entry explains the basis of most Socialists beliefs. Albeit Socialists are a varied group whose opinions on how best to move forward are quite muti-faceted.
"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public."
The only people I could imagine having a problem with the statement above are the top 1% wealthiest people in the nation (the exploiters), and those who simply don't understand the Socialists intentions - usually because some right winger has tossed an unfitting label on it and it's easier to just agree than dig for the truth.
Warren Buffett did not start out a billionaire. Sam Walton started WalMart on borrowed money. The Tyson family started with borrowed money and built a very large food business. J. B. Hunt started with 2 trucks hauling rice hulls away from the graineries and built a very large trucking company. HP was started by two engineers working in a garage. Bill Gates started Microsoft with almost no funds but had an idea to lease a product to anyone instead of selling it.
There are many examples of people that started with nothing in this country and built their business through hard work and believing in themselves. Most of the businesses in this country are small business and were started with very limited capital by people that had a vision and were not afraid to work hard.
Name me one company that was started by Socialism or the government.
There is not any government anywhere that can give you anything without taking something away first.
"Bill Gates started Microsoft with almost no funds but had an idea to lease a product to anyone instead of selling it."
"Name me one company that was started by Socialism or the government."
Another ignorant right winger who knows nothing of what he is talking about. If you knew anything about computer science, you would be well aware that the technologies, the algorithms, the concepts, on which Gates built his software would not be possible without the government, without government funded research conducted at public universities such as UC Berkeley. In fact, if you bother to go read through the fine print of various MS Windows software, you would find an acknowledgment of this, you will find a reference to the Regents of the University of California: since MS uses stuff from research conducted at UC Berkeley, they are legally required to acknowledge this.
Without government funding, from the US, from various European countries, the computer revolution would not have been possible. AT ALL. Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, IBM, etc, all use algorithms, technologies, concepts that were developed by researchers funded by governments. The very basic foundations of computer science were laid by researchers funded by governments.
I am a conservative and I always shop at Whole Foods. I will continue to do so.
Go Free Speech!
Go Capitalism!
Individual liberty!
Individual responsibility!
Down with leftist Marxist moonbats!
So, it's down to name calling? Again? Typical.
Let's see if I can do that too. I'll give it my best shot.
Go Freedom To Shop Where I Choose!
Go Concern For Others!
Collective Toleration!
Collective Understanding!
Down with self absorbed, narrow minded, thoughtless label tossing, mean, anti-American, isolationist, propagandist, brain washed, ignorant, blind as a bat, village-idiot, heartless, nosy neighbor, capitalist glutton, whining, fear mongering, war mongering, racist, pocket lining, good 'ol boy, special interest catering, fascist, inconsiderate, money grabbing, neocon, manipulating, worshipers of the former President known as "The Great Divider", secessionist, closed door dealing, misleading, toe tapping, pill popping, low life right wing extreme conservatives.
Wow, I've never done anything like that before. What a rush! No wonder you guys are always tossing around labels, you get some sort of high from it. Or maybe you are just looking for validation of your silly beliefs, so you don't feel quite so silly. Hmmm...
Speaking as a former Whole Foods stockholder and ignoring my firm allegiance to healthcare reform, Mackey's actions as CEO of a publicly held company are actionable. His blogging under an assumed name was fraudulent; his cavalier attitude toward organic food practices is in direct conflict with Whole Foods' mission; and his using a business publication and his title as CEO of a publicly held company to espouse his "personal" opinions complete the three strikes making it necessary to kick him OUT.
A true boycott is a temporary action to encourage necessary change. Dump Mackey, and I'll be happy to return as a customer and perhaps as a stockholder.
As a former member of the Whole Foods Market Team Members Services (training/HR), I have many “insider” comments.
1) High deductible health insurance plans:
The medical deductible is $1,300. At first this seems great, however it is not when we realize that the maximum out of pocket is $4,600 per calendar year. The WFM PPO plan utilizes a percentage co-pay system. Thus if one has the misfortune of requiring expensive procedures (as has been my experience), then you are faced with a high deductible of $1,300, AND there is an immediate medical liability of no less than an additional $3,300. For example, a procedure costing $10,000 would result in an additional patient responsibility of $2,000 (given the 20/80 percent co-pay system).
The prescription plan operates with a separate deductible of $700 (maximum out of pocket $1,400). If one is faced with costly prescriptions (I have necessary prescriptions that cost ≈$2,000 per month), then not only is the individual responsible for up to $700 before the plan coverage begins, but then under the 20/80 percent co-pay structure, the individual is also responsible for another $700.
In total, an individual easily faces $6000, in out of pocket expenses per calendar year. This is utterly unsustainable for most employees who are making a starting pay of 10.00/hour (with an average of approximately 15.00/hour for WFM Team Members). Furthermore, because of the pricing structure, these expenses occur in a compressed manner at the beginning of the year with no reasonable distribution over time.
WFM does award up to $1,800 in flexible spending dollars to offset medical costs, however this full amount is only available to employees who have been working for ≈ 5 years. For those with one year of service the funds are ≈ 1,200 per calendar year, for those with 2-5 years of service the funds awarded total to ≈ 1,500 per calendar year.
There is an important caveat here. The FULL amount of these funds is only awarded at the beginning of a calendar year. If a service hour threshold is crossed at any other point, the amount is prorated, e.g. if this point is in November, the employee only receives a small amount of funding (i.e. a few hundred dollars).
2) “Creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 carefully”?
Patients with life threatening illnesses, chronic illness, or other pressing health concerns do not have such a luxury of spending the “first $2,500 more carefully.” This is an incredibly stupid statement. Speaking from personally experience, I have routine lab work that costs 1,000-3,000. This is a crippling experience if your monthly income is restricted as would be most individuals (considering again that Team Members start at 10.00/hour and the average pay is around 15.00/hour, thus most Team Members have limited 2 week take home pay of ≈800-1,200 BEFORE taxes).
To argue that hitting individuals with massive up front costs in the thousands is in fact praiseworthy is nothing short of economic stupidity and completely narrow minded.
John should be careful when he speaks of high degree of “worker satisfaction.” What statistics he is using to support such a qualitative claim. During roughly a year of working in the HR division in the Southern Pacific region, I know that Team Members routinely complained about the difficulty and high expense of the United Health Care PPO.
Furthermore, the most recent Southern Pacific Regional Team Member Morale survey was not flattering to Whole Foods and many Team Members expressed deep frustrations and anger towards management within the Southern Pacific Region.
3) Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover?
John’s perspective here is nothing short of childish. The Whole Foods Market plan has no mental health coverage, and excludes or places a wide number of barriers to many essential services (for example, costly prescriptions that are medically necessary can only be received by using a complex mail order system that creates access issues).
How would “individual customer preference” determine what is being insured? Who would determine this? What process would be utilized to insure that the individual plan participants would in fact be able to advocate for specific and necessary changes in their plan?
Why would United Health Care offer more to its clients when it’s clearly interested in offering less coverage?
3) “Empowerment” issue?
There is nothing empowering when the individual is caught between insurance companies driven to profit by reducing expenditures relative to premium intakes against a medical system driven to profit by increasing cost of treatments and procedures. The current system is not about the individual.
The problem is a system wide problem. Grandstanding and appealing to American sentiments in the arena of freedom is shoddy polemics. The “right” to make a profit at the expense of the public good are not part of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, however, the right to purse freedom and happiness are explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence, and the promotion of “general welfare” is also stated in the Constitution.
4) Healthcare is not just about “life style” choices. Acute and chronic medical conditions could afflict anyone at anytime for reasons completely unrelated to personal life style choices like diet or exercise habits.
Let’s recognize that America spends more money on military endeavors than any other facet of society, in 2009 military expenditures by the federal government exceed 600 billion while the federal Omnibus budget was barely 400 billion. This has been a persistent trend for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_2006_to_2010.png
Why not be complete in this discussion and point out that the reason the U.S. has limited funds for healthcare is that we are over expending on the military?
Wow, dkkauwe, that was the most useful and informative thing I've read all day!! You need to spread this information.
I never liked Whole Paycheck to begin with, but this just reinforces my opinion. Screw 'em. Don't shop at Trader Joe's either, because of their unsustainable seafood purchase practices. Go to Greenpeace's web page on seafood and read the piece on "Traitor Joe's." Support your local co-op instead!!
Thank you for bringing much needed clarity, dkkauwe. I suspected there was more to the story than what Mr. Mackey alluded to.
I was so happy to find that Whole Foods had opened in Jacksonville, Florida. I talked all my friends and family into trying it, and they loved it. However, you can now count me, as well as my family and friends, among those who will no longer purchase groceries or other products at Whole Foods.
This morning I sat down and read the remarks by Mr. Mackey. I was appalled. My wife has battled a very rare form of cancer for 5 years now, we fight constantly to get her medical care. I need to see a doctor as I have what we believe are some serious health issues. I can't. We have health insurance, pay almost $8000 a year in premiums, deductibles, HSA, prescriptions and other out of pocket expenses. I cannot afford to go to the doctor. I need to be alive to take care of my wife, but my options for affording the treatment that I need are non-existant. Unfortunately, health insurance does not = health care.
We pay Taxes, a great deal of taxes. Some of us pay enormous amounts for insurance, yet we can't see a doctor. I STRONGLY believe a government's FIRST responsibility is the health and well being of its people. If not, then why have a government? The government is, after all, the people. Military might and roadways are not the only needs depended on by the people.
I take issue with the following:
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
- Putting it in the hands of consumers sounds wonderful. Assuming, of course, we are all wealthy enough to be able to choose the plans that best fit our needs. And therein lies the problem. Under this plan only the wealthy will receive those much needed benefits. The rest will be punished for being poor. The poor will only afford the cheapest plans, the ones that cover very little. It's time the wealthy in this nation give back more, stop hiding their money in off-shore accounts and tax shelters, because THEY are the ones who have benefited more from this great nation.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
- I take personal issue with this. My wife complained of symptoms for 4 solid years, her doctor repeatedly ignored her complaints. Her tumor grew to 5 inches in diameter and became inoperable. Caught early, this disease is 99% beatable. Caught late, as my wife's was, survival rates drop to only 30%. We were able to prove this doctor was negligent. But due to tort reform we were extremely limited in our ability to seek fair compensation by this doctor, and now have no way to pay off the huge medical bills we are encountering. This was the second patient whose life this doctor endangered within a six year period. He is still in practice. We are still battling for my wife's health care. Tort reform unjustly protects doctors and punishes the victim. Doctors MUST be held accountable.
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
- I cannot afford the already high deductible and premiums I have, you think making them higher will make me more able to pay??? I don't understand your logic.
• The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money.
- It is NOT other people's money! My wife and I pay around $8000 a year in health care, PLUS Social Security, medicare and the other govt taxes we pay each year. It is OUR money, thank you.
• 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?
- There was a time in this country when people would help other people. A time when we felt it was important to give back. A time when we would not let someone go hungry, if we had food to share. A time when we would not let others go homeless, if we had a shelter to share. And that I feel is the ultimate problem. We have been divided in this country, into those who are generous, and those who are selfish. It is to everyone's benefit to limit the effects of poverty on the nation. It is to everyone's benefit to have nation of strong healthy people. What people do not have a right to, and cannot achieve on their own, they will take freely. This kind of anti-entitlement attitude encourages crime and eventually brings the entire country down.
Declaration Of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
We have no right to life, if we have no right to the health care that allows us to live.
Continued from posts shopwholefoods August 24th, 2009 1:11 am
To Shopwholefoods,
I apologize. I did not realize it was my job to break out books and read them for you. Well here's the history lesson of the "Southern Strategy" employed by Nixon, as stated by his political strategist, Kevin Phillips,
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf
Your opinionated source, Ms. Frances Rice, which you, laughably, claim as "factual evidence", tells about this. Your source also criticizes the minimum wage, which is what MLK was in support of, trying to get garbage workers to be paid a minimum of $9/hr, when he was shot. Jesus Christ on rubber crutches, could you have possibly gotten a worse source. Is there a right wing sesame street?
And yes, lets take what you say at face value, as if you are well informed.
1. MLK was Republican.--well you know he was a social and economic liberal, so you must be stating this because it is the name of the party that matters, and not the social and economic values they espouse.
2. The KKK had undeniably strong ties to the democratic party! Then you go on to tell about their enrollment figures past and present--well since you are aware of the change over of racists to the Republican party and that it has been the Democrats now that fight for civil rights, again you must be stating this because it is the name of the party that matters.
(For the above 2 points of yours, I apologize, I thought I was talking to someone capable of thought. You fooled me. If you CAN clarify your reasons for stating these two points, it would be amazing.)
3. Average Protesters--Operation Rescue is pretty well liked by the Republicans. So to just give you a little indication of who they are, "Steve Powell, an employee at an office park where the clinic is located, told reporters that Griffin singled out the physician as his target, chased him and shot him at point-blank range. Powell said the protesters acted strangely after the shooting. "It looked like they were just happy," he said."--on the shooting of abortion doctor, David Gunn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm
Yes these people, so happy to see a man shot, are right wing protesters. Certainly not average, as none of the examples you point out are average, but you have God to tell you what is the average protester, sadly I only have Satan and he lies:( Do you have any idea how many protests liberals have done? The overwhelming majority are peaceful and to claim that when people behave otherwise on the extremely rare occasion is "average" makes you look like a chucklef*c*in moron and you defining "violence" is just icing.
4. The Double Standard--I have to agree with a chucklef*c*in moron on this one. To say people screaming in one place is free speech and in another is a mob of extremists is a double standard. However, no one at liberal protests is carrying a gun and holding up signs about "watering the tree of liberty", but this is on par with the burning of Bush in effigy, and I would label both as extreme. So as I stated before the parties are equal.
My apologies for thinking you had an idiotic use of the word "today". I drew the conclusion from reading the rest of your posts.
You "laid out your argument" like a drunk guy trying to thread a needle.
Hi! Just thought I would drop in here and say thanks for the boycott. I shop at Whole Foods and boy howdy it was so quiet in there today I thought that Sarah Palin must have endorsed organic onions. I could even hear the carrots singing "we are the world." Nary a wan looking vegan in sight and only a lone checker whom I startled while he was engaged in a Tibetan Levitation.
Keep up the good work
And when, in you fictitious scenario, some of the employess get laid off will you go and explain to them how losing their jobs (and healthcare coverage) was for the 'greater good"? Somehow, I don't think so. Any employess who lose their job will just have to cope because others "knew better" right?
Sleep well....
So by your rationale, when I used to shop at Whole Foods was I dooming the employees of Trader Joe's and Fresh Market to the unemployment line? WF employees are not slaves and they can find jobs at other stores when those other stores have to take on more help because of increased business from former Whole Food shoppers. We're looking to the board of directors of Whole Foods to fix things NOW by firing only one employee: Mackey.
I could care less how many whole food workers lose their jobs due to their boss. Bad management decisions cost employees their jobs all over the planet, why should whole foods be any different? I just want access to health insurance. I have the money to pay for insurance, but the metal pins in my legs make me uninsurable (meaning I have NO insurance options). Is a whole food worker's job more important to me than my health? No. You seem to believe that I have to die so an unskilled worker can keep a menial job. If could punish their CEO more directly, I would. But, since I cannot, pardon my self-preservation instincts as I boycott whole foods. If you have health insurance, sit down and shut up while I try to get some for myself. It's like hearing someone eating in a restaurant complain about all the starving people outside.
Do you think the company will let the financial problems, if there are any, get bad enough to lay off workers, instead of taking one of the other actions I stated (firing Mackey, doing the public relations thing of holding a roundtable discussion of healthcare options so as to make their publicity 2-sided, or putting ad out apologizing, etc...)?
Well,
1. Mackey won't be fired
2. There's no need for whole foods to have a 2 sided discussion. Why? The CEO stated his position as the director of a business on how the Public(that's really a mis-nomer because that really leads to Single Payer) Option would negatively affect the options his employess would have. He bears no responsibility to say anything other than what his business interests and concience compel him to say. Special Interest (Public Option / Single Payer) intimidation to override that can be chucked out the window.
If those who disagree with him want him to change his mind....then that's just too bad. He is free to think and say whatever he judges is best for him to do.
I applaud him (and the board of directors) for standing up to the intimidation of the boycott.
3. Mackey gave alternative solutions to the Public Option (and by extension Single Payer). So he is obviously IN FAVOR OF REFORM. It's just not YOUR VERSION OF REFORM. Your way s IS NOT the only way to reform.
Sorry to disagree, I know how much Public Option (Single Payer) supporters hate that.
I prefer to have many opinions as long as they are informed opinions, such as yours. I am not suggesting that Mackey recant. WFMs sponsoring a healthcare debate would, in my opinion, deflect criticism from the "big megaphone" argument and would not require Mackey to even be there are make any apology. I am just saying that I believe the other options I mentioned are more likely to take place than firing lower employees. Though, I did read awhile back that hiring a new CEO for a fortune 500 company costs that company, on average, an additional 5% on top of the CEO's pay due to the CEO needing to be oriented to the company and vice versa. So I'm not sure what kind of impact that would have on their options.
I know he is in favor of reform and I know that my desire for Single Payer is not the only game in town (it's just the one I think will work over the longterm).
Talley, I have to commend you for being a pleasant and challenging conversational partner. You have pointed out some things about the current proposed legislation that I, honestly, was not aware of in a way that did not "turn me off" . I wish there were more posters like you.
I've spent Friday and the weekend adding what I'm sure some would say is a 'sizeable' contribution to this forum but the realities of needing to pay bills is raising it's ugly head and I have to go to work.
Although the current proposed legislation would not 'necessarily' lead to Single Payer ( I agree to your previous posts regarding options), the reality is that it is acknowleged by it's proponents in Congress and Senate to be ONLY THE FIRST STEP to single payer. Knowing that I can see no situation in which, if the public option is passed, that the Single Payer system would not eventually be made law (regardless of what the wording in the current proposed bill indicates).
In the esteemable words of my people "Momma didn't raise no fool".
Best to you.
Well,
1. Mackey won't be fired
2. There's no need for whole foods to have a 2 sided discussion. Why? The CEO stated his position as the director of a business on how the Public(that's really a mis-nomer because that really leads to Single Payer) Option would negatively affect the options his employess would have. He bears no responsibility to say anything other than what his business interests and concience compel him to say. Special Interest (Public Option / Single Payer) intimidation to override that can be chucked out the window.
If those who disagree with him want him to change his mind....then that's just too bad. He is free to think and say whatever he judges is best for him to do.
I applaud him (and the board of directors) for standing up to the intimidation of the boycott.
3. Mackey gave alternative solutions to the Public Option (and by extension Single Payer). So he is obviously IN FAVOR OF REFORM. It's just not YOUR VERSION OF REFORM. Your way s IS NOT the only way to reform.
Sorry to disagree, I know how much Public Option (Single Payer) supporters hate that.
Checkout the latest on HealthCare reform (which includes the Single Payer option as Obama and Pelosi have stated is a necessary component of any reform bill)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html
================================================
"Though voters are torn about reform, there is intensity among the opposition. Just 25% strongly favor the reform effort, while 41% are strongly opposed. And that gets back to the very first point: 68% currently have good or excellent coverage. It’s going to be hard to generate passionate support for change among this group of voters.
Those opposed to Mr. Obama’s reform appear to have momentum on their side. Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. That’s up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago. Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago. It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people."
==================================================
Here is another unbiased report from ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=8373563
==================================
"Fewer than half of Americans, 45 percent, support reform as it's been explained to date, while 50 percent are opposed – with many more "strongly" opposed than strongly in favor, 40 percent vs. 27 percent. Support's at just 36 percent among independents, the crucial political center.
Support for a public option, currently the most contentions element of reform, has fallen from 62 percent in June to 52 percent now; 46 percent are opposed, up 13 points. Like much of the debate, it's an intensely partisan issue, with support ranging from three-quarters of Democrats to half of independents and 24 percent of Republicans. The drop in support, though, has occurred equally among independents and Republicans alike."
==================================
That's a pretty clear indication of the current state of Obamacare. It appears that support is fading.
These are just 2 NON-PARTISAN and UNBIASED reports. After all, you really can't trust reports about the views on healthcare reform from groups that either support or oppose it, right?
P.S.
On the topic of the boycott, it appears the Board of Directors at Whole Foods has come out in support of CEO John Mackey:
http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/
====================================
"the board affirming their complete support for me and the SEC recommending that no enforcement action be made against Whole Foods Market or me."
====================================
So, with that in mind I have to wonder what the goal of the boycott is....
Cheers!
No, the bill H.R 3200 is anything but Single Payer. The notion that it is is wholly ignorant. H.R. 3200 provides credits to buy insurance and pays for no one's actual care at the hospital, as Single Payer does. If you would care to clarify your thinking about how they are the same, it would be greatly appreciated. To say that Single Payer is implied in the polls you cite would be ridiculous.
As far as the Slippery Slope claim and Obama's past statements, yes I believe H.R.3200 is an intermediate step toward Single Payer. H.R.3200 tries to avoid current problems in Single Payer by increasing the number of doctors and their pay, by stifling usage of the system by keeping co-pays and deductibles, and by studying best practices so as to eliminate unnecessary tests and procedures, all before taking that step at some day in the future towards Single Payer. I would agree personally that these intermediate steps are needed.
You have made a mistake by accidently overlooking the fact that the polls you cited are not concerned with Single Payer, which was what Ap was talking about. I respect the majority of what you have said and understand them to be legitimate concerns, but continuing in the line that Single Payer is H.R. 3200 will not help your credibility.
I would like to point out that the polls that you have referenced are measures of peoples opinions when they are still under the illusion of the lies that have been spread by the right wing. The polls you cited also did studies of peoples reactions when they are informed about the content of H.R. 3200.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/summing_up_the_new_health_care.php
When informed of the content of H.R. 3200 a majority are in favor of it, or at least that was the case as of 7/24/09. I cannot find a more recent "Detailed Explanation" poll. If you can, I would appreciate a link to it.
The rasmussen poll you cite says nothing about Single Payer or Universal care, unless you are talking about "68% of American voters have health-insurance coverage they rate good or excellent", but I think we can both agree that this is not the same thing.
All the best and I hope to continue this discussion with honesty and humbleness, if possible.
Honesty! YES! We are in oh so short supply of that.
Case in point:
To say that the Public Option and Single Payer are not the same is incredulous. Why?
The public option is "Single Payer Lite". Since Single Payer is not palatable (please dont argue cause even Barney Frank says the votes are not there for it), the Public Option is the "foot in the door" which leads to Single Payer.
Don't believe me? Get it straight from the horses(ooooh i want to say it sooo bad) mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98
Want more (dis)Honesty? check out the man himself :
http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2009/08/video-of-obama-admitting-that.html
So no matter how detailed the discussion of why 'Public Option is not single payer' gets The reality is that the PUBLIC knows the reality and that is why support for both Public Option AND Single Payer are fading. People are looking at the details and seeing the truth.
Therefore my original statements stand......
Also I would like to know what you think about the "Detailed Explanation" polls by WSJ and ABC, that I cited, showing a majority in favor of H.R.3200. I apologize if you have been searching for the articles I ask for concerning more recent DE polls. I understand that it can be tedious and time consuming finding information on the internet.
No, I agree that Single Payer is not passable in either congressional body presently, as Barney Frank states. And as I stated previously, I believe that H.R. 3200 is an intermediate step towards Single Payer, however, it has in no way been established through any polling measurements that the public thinks H.R. 3200 is the same as Single Payer or even the "Single Payer Lite" that you use, at least so far as this forum is concerned. If you have such evidence of public opinion I would be grateful to see it, as it would bare heavily the subject at hand.
I have already stated my awareness of the President's statements in the past concerning his support for a Single Payer system and that it would likely require intermediate action to achieve. These statements do not equate to making H.R. 3200 the same as Single Payer, much as creating a vaccine is not the same as administering it (forgive me if my metaphor is lacking). It does lay the framework for a government paid healthcare system, however, it is not one in itself, and can be removed or dismantled later on, if the public and congress wishes.
Mathematically speaking:
A = Public Option
B = Single Payer
x = the variable of time
Therefore: A + x = B
Or A = B - x
Common Sense (ically) speaking:
A = phase 1
B = phase 2
This is why they are "the same". To say Public Option is not Single Payer just doesn't "add up".
I would have to disagree since the framework laid down in H.R. 3200 could be used to either crush health insurance companies, swell insurance company profits or strike a balance. It all depends on who is on the health advisory board and who the secretary is, and what they decide to do. Suppose they get everyone to buy health insurance, but set employer provided health plans at 33% of the employees pay. Employers pay less than this for said coverage now, so only those that want to go to government option (set somewhere around a fair market price) will, and health insurance companies are rolling in money. Also if the board sets the rate at 10% of employee pay then every business will be at a disadvantage if they don't put their employees on government plan as compared to businesses that do. So everyone basicly is on government plan.
From what I've read of the plan, H.R. 3200 does not necessarily lead to Single Payer.
Talley, thank you for being a reasonable and sane person to converse with. That is truly appreciated. People can disagree yet still maintain composure. My two points are that support for obamacare is fading and the boycott is more to silence the high profile opposition of Mackey so it does not spread. Nothing more. I do think that the proposing a public option and "downplaying" the fact that is is a 'foot in the door' to eventually lead to a Single Payer option is dishonest when in the same breath some people say something to the effect of "Don't worry about it. all we want is a public option".
That is dishonest. Why? Because... in time the Public Option would be the ONLY option. To me that is not an option.
My personal belief is that any government control of healthcare is a door to more a more socialist government. This I fundamentally oppose. I agree that Healthcare is in SEVERE NEED OF REFORM. I just dont agree with Govt controlled heathcare. I believe there is always more than 1 solution to any problem. I think the options laid out by Mackey and others are viable solutions that dont adversely affect the national financial position yet achieve the same goal.
Beware of the anyone who says "Our way is the ONLY way"...
The government can't run anything correctly and to enact a policy that would make the government the sole decider of my personal health options is, to me, not in my interest.
Thanks.
I agree about support fading, since in large part the public has no idea what is in the bill and has largely been fed misinformation. The boycotters, in my opinion, are trying to make a spectacle so as to show Mackey and others that there are consequences to speaking with such a loud voice on an issue that your consumers oppose and also to show support for Single Payer or the public option (not sure which it is as I have heard both). Yes, they would have preferred his silence, though.
As far as Obama's dishonesty, I would use the word "lying". In my opinion, he is lying like every other president so as to make political gains. He has full intentions of seeing Single Payer come about some day and he knows that H.R. 3200 is a step towards it, at least that is my belief. However, H.R.3200 will play out in large part depending on the decisions of the Commissioner of the Health Care Advisers Board and the board itself, since reading the bill you will find they have a great deal of leeway in many important issues from the appropriate medical procedures to what constitutes an adequate insurance coverage policy. So this board could favor corporate insurers or the government or strike some balance.
I do feel your worries about Single Payer, as I have a father-in-law who is against H.R. 3200 and Single Payer and who never fails to point out the shortcomings and outright malicious acts of our government (never question an older veteran when he tells you the government is a piece of crap). I prefer to breakdown at some point and say it requires a leap of faith in both arguments, one for the governments ability and the other for the individuals and corporations responsibility. After that he continues to say I'm wrong and I quit altogether, at least for that day.
The goal of the boycott is to counter the publicity that WFM's CEO made with his article. It may or may not work, but that is in general the goal. If successful, it would very likely cost Mackey his job and cost no employees under him their jobs, since it is obvious that there are many ways to resolve this issue (firing Mackey, holding a discussion on healthcare reform, etc..).
none of which will ever happen...
Cheers!
It's working already. I've convinced my whole family to shop at Trader Joe's instead. They said the place was packed.
Boycott ButWhole Foods!
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
TJ. Yeah... 1 family switching to another store is a SURE sign the boycott is working. You did it .. ALL BY YOURSELF! Hooray!
LOL
I have noticed that you have not responded to either of my rebuttals of your arguments. I would hope that you intend to have honest debate rather than just copying talking points from others. Also, if we are to have a sensible debate, we should refrain from hyperbole, such as stating predictions of future outcomes as fact.
talley, you spoke too soon. scroll up...
It will be what it will be no matter what you or I say. I just illustrated what will happen, not because I want or will make happen, but what the prevailing events indicate will happen.
Cheers!
yeah hehe, sorry about that, though you still have not responded to my rebuttal of your tclifton August 20th, 2009 11:39 am post.
Social Security:
The the reason I believe Social Security will not have the money to pay out to the workers who have contributed has more to do with the fact that the Fed "borrows" from it than the age of the US population. The Fed is taking out of theat fund and not paying ANYTHING back. In 2008, the FED Govt. took $674 BILLION from Social security and that is continuing. There are no plans to put that money back until 2012, laregly in part to the fact that theres is nowhere to get the money from....
It's like when you or i borrow from our 401(k) but in the case of the Govt, the loan is not repaid.
when 2012 arrives, How likely do you think it is that the govt will actually repay the money? Where will it come from? Taxes? (more of our money to repay that taken from money we gave from our paychecks for our retirement?) That sounds criminal to me. But it's just an example of How the Government runs things.
And you want them to run healthcare for everyone? That is scary.
I purchased a dvd from PBS online earlier this year. It's called "I.O.U.S.A" I STRONGLY recommend this to all (conservative, liberal alike). It opened my eyes to the state of our national finances and how government really works.
Don't rely on the govt to FIX all the potential problems with Single Payer, such as shortage of Doctors or any other potential problem . This issue is too important to say "well yes that would be a problem but theres another piece of legislation to deal with that" Where does it end?
There are other options that don't require BIGGER and more intrusive government.
Oh my god, I just looked up what you said about taking money out of SS. Jesus, that is a lot. I would agree that it is highly doubtful that it will be put back in the next three years for exactly the reason you have stated. I believe the number you cited is a year's worth of SS payments to seniors and others, which is just ludicrous to remove from the program. I would like to point out though that total receipts + interest to the SS trust fund - expentitures from the SS trust fund in 2008 left it with a $2.4 trillion excess of funds.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html
However, I am in no way saying that the robbing of this fund that has been o.k. This excess money is supposed to be gaining interest for when the baby-boomers retire very soon.
As I say, it is a matter of faith as to whether government has the ability to manage healthcare or whether individuals and corporations have the responsibility to do it. I choose to pray and leap towards government on this. I have a book on the pros of Single Payer somewhere, but not sure where. I cannot state thoroughly why I am for it, but to say it can control costs, provide better care and takes the need for profit out of the healthcare practice.
Don't miss the latest poll on Americans and health care:
http://minnesotaindependent.com/42444/surveyusa-given-a-choice-77-percent-of-americans-like-public-opt...
Boy, is John Mackey out of step with the times and out of touch.
Anyone that follows this idiot and boycotts Whole Foods should be ashamed of themselves
Mrharderson, you shame yourself with your ad hominem arguments. If you would like to discuss the issue, try using reasoning and evidence. In general, you will find that people in forums will respond to you spewing ridicule without reason by spewing ridicule at you.
Russell Mokhiber is far left wing lunatic and like most far left wingers is completely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently then himself. John Mackey is a lot more in touch with reality then Russell Mokhiber who is just another big governemnt, high tax loving kook
SURVEYUSA's poll was COMMISSIONED BY THE PROGRESSIVE GROUP MOVEON.ORG!!! ap, you'd make a terrible lawyer- you wouldn't even get the Pope off a jaywalking charge!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
Courtesy of the huffypuffy post no less:
"Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."
"SurveyUSA's poll, which was commissioned by the progressive group MoveOn.org, a proponent of the public plan, gives credence to those critiques. While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist --"choice" is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports -- it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity."
What ap and others don't seem to understand is that while the idea of a government option might sound fine and dandy at first, it's the consequences that will inevitably follow, no matter what people might "want" AT FIRST! Get these OBVIOUS points through your heads: Private insurance cannot compete with an entity that doesn't need to earn a profit (ie. US GOV) This will eventually squeeze private insurers out- leading to NO CHOICE. Once the Government has a monopoly- UNIVERSAL Health Care- the costs will either skyrocket AND/OR there will be enormous cuts in care for those who need it most -(seniors/terminally ill/diseased/disabled etc.) since healthy people aren't a burden to the system. Our finest educated college grads will choose business, technology, and law over medicine. Hate to break it to you but medical school isn't easy or cheap and medical students just like everyone else have dreams of earning a fat paycheck at the end of it all. We will have to recruit doctors from other countries.. Cut back on research... cut corners on technology... and on and on. People will wait months for treatment that once took only hours or days.. Many will die as a result of waiting too long for a diagnosis or treatment. The UK and Canada have a major shortage of Doctors!!! This is currently happening in other countries with socialized medicine. It's a SLIPPERY SLOPE PEOPLE!!
For JulieP and her comment :
=======================================================
FOX News (Greta Van Sustern) interviewed Russell Mokhiber -- the author of this article -- today and encouraged all the rightwing teabaggers to come to CommonDreams and support Whole Foods... thus all the wackos commenting today for Whole Foods anti-healthcare reform message (as if these wingnuts ever shopped there before, or will in the future)'
============================================+++++++++++
Your calling US (yes I'm new to this site, but joined before the Fox Interview) wakos and wingnuts only shows more clearly to all that, more than not (i don't want to generalize a group) liberals cannot tolorate any opinion that does not agree with theirs (yours). The standard liberal response these days seems to be to personally attack anyone who opposes you (ala "rules for radicals"?).
When republicans were the majority in the Fed Govt., it was OK to disagree with the Administration. Now, if you disagree with the Dem administration it is not ok. In fact, if you do disagree you are called un-american, a wacko, or a wingnut. Sounds like a double-standard to me.
In any case, call us what you want. It doesn't affect the outcome. The majority opinion of US Citizens is that they don't want obamacare. That is why it has not passed already and why it's prospects of passing with a 'single payer' option are seriously reversed, as we all can plainly see. Obamacare IS NOT the only option. There is ALWAYS more than one solution to ANY problem. That's just common sense. With every day that passes, this fact is seen more clearly by more and more americans whether liberal, conservative, or whatever else.
Because of this, now talk of the "nuclear" or "brute force vote" option to FORCE it to pass (Yes, it would have to be FORCED by the Dem led senate/congress because citizens don't want it). The irony is that all the Democratic officials know that if they use this option, they will lose their next election. I've hand-written my own representatives to state that fact.
so, I'll gladly take all of your personal attacks. The more you do so, the more clearly everyone will see the double-standard.
Thanks...
P.S. I saw the interview and Russ displayed the same level of inability to even tolerate any opinion different than his own as other supporters of Obamacare. It was all 'talking point' and no discussion, no answers to the questions asked. Overall, in my personal opinion, it did not show or engender a positive opinion of the boycott or, to a larger degree, support for a Single Payer system. I think that the inability of Russ to even acknowledge that a boycott of Whole Foods, if successful, would only hurt the employees and not Mackey did more to negatively portray the boycott effort then positively portray it. Mackey takes One dollar in annual salary and donates all stock option profits to charity.
What would the goal of a boycott be in this case? Is there a clear goal or is it a knee-jerk reaction to silence INDEPENDENT/legitimate opposition to the SinglePayer system?
tclifton,
Just how gullible can we be? A one dollar a year salary plus 100 millon in Awards or Bonuses issued by the board later is..... how much in total annual compensation?
The core audience of Faux-News viewers is primarily non-college graduates. Are we aware of this?
And you aren't talking to those darn "Liberals" here. This is a progressive site, composed of everybody who's sick of the theft of wall street. We have Libertarians (conservatives), we have Native Americans, we have Naderites, We have international people, we even have NeoCons. There are a few Republicrats like you here also.
Know your audience.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
To editor: double print. Please delete.
If the shoe fits, wear it. The town hall meeting disrupters, along with their gun nuts standing outside, are the proof in the pudding that anti-health care reform zealots and thugs are the ones who cannot tolerate dissent. Hollering their ignorant brainwashed notions about "Russia" and "socialism".
They should have been hauled off to jail, when they couldn't wait their turn to speak, and couldn't protest peacefully. Didn't they learn anything in the principal's office when they were back in the public schools?
Plus, you are incorrect, if not completely dishonest, in stating that the majority of Americans support your position.
77% support a public option, and 65% support single payer, such that the bulk of those supporting a public option would take single payer first, hands-down, in a New York second, any day of the week.
John Mackey may not need health care reform but most of his fellow Americans do. Too bad he is not as gracious as someone like John Stewart who desires to give back to the country that has been so good to him.
Go take your CEO Industry lies elsewhere! Boycott Whole Foods!
"protest peacefully"? Liberals invented and perfected the art of the VIOLENT PROTEST! I haven't seen anything that even compares to what the liberals do during their protests! Bunch of classless hypocrites who believe the right to free speech is theirs alone!
Exactly
Oh? And who what where when and how would that be?
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Mahatma Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? The Berrigan Brothers?
But thank you for helping to clarify who speaks on behalf of Whole Foods and about what!
King was widely believed to have been a REPUBLICAN which would make sense since the Republican party was founded as the ANTI-SLAVE Party! This is FACT!!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
And yes there are many who don't want to believe it as mentioned in this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html
However, as Rice states..
"We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."
In 1960, King was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and held in Georgia's Reidsville prison. Fearing for his son's life, Martin Luther King Sr. appealed to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to secure his release.
When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals."
BTW, the KKK had undeniably strong ties to the democratic party!
As for Ghandi, and Mandela, and the Berrigan Brothers??? Please clarify your implication of violent conservative AMERICANS!
You are extremely uneducated and don't know how to compose a rational argument to save your life! I'm going to stop wasting my time with you now. I think I've embarrassed you enough!
Your comparison of modern democrats to Dixiecrats of the 1950s and 1960s and your statements that MLK was "widely believed to be a republican" are either ignorant or dishonest, and therefore you are in no position to say someone is "extremely uneducated and don't know how to compose a rational argument."Â
Dixiecrats voted with republicans, who opposed civil rights and made many, many speeches for the continuation of separate-but-equal, and later it was the Republican party that absorbed these racists. I am not saying republicans are racist, but the republican party is the sole party today for open racists (as opposed to unconscious racists, who pervade every walk of life and belief system), with support from the KKK, the Council of Concerned Citizens (Coo Clux Clan by another name) and others. You saying that the KKK "has undeniably strong ties to the democratic party" is further idiocy. It was... back before the republicans used the "Southern Strategy" to get the votes of racists in the south because they had been losing the black vote from the time of FDR and the New Deal. You are arguing as if we are still in 1950, and naturally seems idiotic.
MLK associated with communists and people espousing communist ideas and the black community was increasingly moving to vote Democrat support before President Kennedy, who was a liar and military hawk the likes Ronald Reagan. Arguing that MLK was a republican continues your acting as if there was no major change in the political parties. We already know this without it needing to be said.
The republicans did abolish slavery and Lincoln was a racist,
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."Â -Good o' Lincoln
Not that this has any bearing on the issue since there was a major upheaval in the political parties. I'm just saying, you can stop patting yourself on the back and maybe ask why the major racist groups TODAY are in YOUR party.
You also seem to forget about right wing anti-abortion violence in your "discussion" of who has the worst people in its protests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
This violence has killed people and involved bombings. I'm pretty sure that is on par with anything the left has done. You might also recall Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was a registered Republican. Since I do not care for half-truths and incinuation, the likes of what you have produced, I would also bring up that he voted Libertarian and committed violence because of the government's tyranny that he said pervaded both parties.
You have embarrassed no one, not even yourself, since that would require a level of honesty and reflection you seem to lack.
Tallyman, I will continue to pat myself on the back for it is YOU who is parading your arrogance and "idiocy" for all to see. Your response to my post was based on very GRAND assumptions. Furthermore, you failed to see the reason for my post in the first place. AP decided that using Martin Luther King as the scorned poster child for violent right wing protestors was somehow a smart response. Not only was it stupid and completely irrelevant, it was plain old WRONG!
My assertion that King was "WIDELY BELIEVED" to have been Republican is an outright admission that there is dispute over this statement. Nevertheless, whether you like it or not, it is truthful in how I stated it. Yes- it is widely BELIEVED but since you probably surround yourself with left wing loons all day long and listen to left wing media, you will probably never hear an honest debate about it. It doesn't matter since it is irrelevant to the current debate anyway. As for your very GRAND assumption that I am comparing the current democratic party to the democratic party of the 1950's and 1960's, you can chalk that one up to your own arrogance. Please show me where I made this so called comparison. Your statement " You are arguing as if we are still in 1950, and naturally seems idiotic." Well to get a bit sophmoric, DUH!!! Since AP wanted to bring a 1960's character (and others) into the mix, naturally I needed to present some historical data to straighten out his own idiocy.
I'm sorry that it is such a great embarrassment for you to face the truth that the Republican party was founded as the ANTI-SLAVERY party. It's a little secret that the Democrats don't want to get out but nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact. It is also an indisputable fact that the Klan was a democratic terrorist group.
This is from PBS-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_kkk.html
"the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy. Between 1869 and 1871 its goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks -- and some whites -- who were either active in Republican politics or educating black children."
END OF STORY.
But let's get back to the core issue which is violence amongst todays PROTESTORS! OK let me say it again- TODAYS P-R-O-T-E-S-T-O-R-S! Not today's fringe hate groups like the KKK, or individual nutjobs like Tim McVeigh which you admitted voted libertarian so what's the point? Hell, let's throw Hitler into the mix and we can really get ridiculous. Afterall, he was a LEFT wing radical who believed in socialized medicine and radical environmental policies. It is you and AP that want to bring up irrelevant people and groups. BTW, the KKK has only an estimated 4-5000 members today as compared to 5 million in the mid 1920's when it was a democratic organization- Just sayin'.
*******POST CONTINUED BELOW********
*********CONTINUED POST********
What we're really talking about is the current climate of average citizens voicing their disagreement with something in a public arena as a group. Let me say it again- AVERAGE CITIZENS. Your hippy counterpart AP wanted to bring up random historical figures implying that they somehow are telling of the current climate of political activism. Your own argument is equally as flawed by bringing up fringe groups that are in no way endorsed by the Republican party. How about your ultra radical left wing loons like the Black Panthers, The Weather underground, and the nutjob ecoterrorists who blow up peoples homes as a way of getting their point across. For every so called ultra right wing fringe group you want to bring up, I can match you with an ultra left wing fringe group. Do we really want to go down that road?
Once again, we are talking about average citizens, mainstream representatives of their respective parties, and how they behave in a public organized protest. There is simply no contest in this regard as to who is the more violent group. Liberals win this one HANDS DOWN. When Bush was in office we were bombarded with CONSTANT images of liberal protests likening Bush to Hitler (once again ignorant since Hitler was more like them- a Socialist), the burning and torture of life size figures of Bush, signs stating hateful and outlandish comments about wanting to KILL BUSH, and on and on. There's even an assassinate Bush video game and movie. I doubt those were produced by conservatives. Now Pelosi claims to have seen a swastika at a townhall and all the liberals are up in arms. GIMME A BREAK!! Does anyone even watch the damn news? It's a sea of white haired old people and average Joe's! And liberals say they are violent because they are raising their voices and getting passionate about something so important as their health? You cannot possibly compare the overwhelming atmosphere of hate from the Left at public protests to that of the Right!
No Tallyman, it is YOU who needs some honesty and reflection in your life. Take a good look at the liberal party and how the ultra liberal climate of universities across the country are rearing the next generation of angry, violent protestors...
When Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia University two years ago, he was welcomed with open arms and treated with a great deal of respect by the student body and faculty. There were even several cheers and laughter coming from the very upbeat crowd. I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS THERE! However, it was quite the different scene when the founder of the Minutemen spoke at Columbia. He was met with the usual liberal tactic of suppress all speech that disagrees with yours and act belligerent and destructive until there is mass chaos. The result of which successfully eliminates any chance at thoughtful discussion!
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/
"Students stormed the stage at Columbia University's Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico."
...."The pandemonium that ensued as the evening's keynote speaker took the stage was merely the climax of protest that brewed all week. A number of campus groups, including the Chicano caucus, the African-American student organization, and the International Socialist organization, began planning their protests early this week when they heard that the Minutemen would be arriving on campus."
Ah yes- our nations so-called brightest prospects acting like total imbeciles! How unsurprising!!
Here is the video link to the above mentioned chaos at Columbia so you can see for yourself just one example of the tactics used by liberals!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc
As far as Lincoln is concerned your own little half truth doesn't do much to further your rebuttal. It is well believed that Lincoln altered his message during debates with Stephen Douglas in order to appeal to his audience. I guess politicians lied even back then but in Lincoln's case, we must believe that he did it for the betterment of our nation. What Lincoln later stood for and accomplished proves this to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery
"Douglas criticized him as being inconsistent, saying he altered his message and position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in order to appeal to the audience before him, as northern Illinois was more hostile to slavery than southern Illinois.
Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:
How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."
Let us not forget that Obama declared Lincoln his hero and chose to put his hand on Lincoln's bible at the inauguration. I guess this is completely insignificant to a loon like yourself.
Remember Tallyman, honesty and reflection would be a good thing to practice before you preach. Next time, read the sequence of posts and take into account what a person is responding TO, before you make wild assumptions.
P.S.- If you're going to quote me and give me an entire history lesson in response, how about quoting me correctly! You wrote that I said the KKK "HAS undeniably strong ties to the democratic party". I didn't say HAS I said HAD! However, this isn't to imply that it's a Republican organization today.
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by saying, "I will continue to act as if party NAMES are what matter, since I have no understanding of the parties changing there values and major shifts in the politcal landscape that took place between 1940 and 1980." Ap was referring to the values of the person not the party name. You made the mistake by stating that LIBERALS invented violent protests. If you care to carry on in this vain of illogic you have started with, do so to someone who accepts your idiotic standards. This is, by the way, where you made the comparison of modern liberals to Dixiecrats, since you stated that the KKK, with all its violence, was tied to democrats, again with your feeble understanding of the history of U.S. politics and the CONSERVATIVE views of the KKK. Perhaps you can throw that crap around with fellow conservatives who have a similar blindspot for their own party's history.
I am well aware that the republican party was founded to abolish slavery. Again, if you think the name of the party is what matters, find a conservative to blather to about it. You will also find that the "Secret Lincoln" theory that you propose is of little value. It is idiotic to think that Lincoln kept his pro-abolitionist and pro-integrationist views from everyone around him. He was also pro-emigration for blacks to return to Africa. Yes, Lincoln changed his views over the course of his life, but by today's standards he was certainly a racist.
Your use of AVERAGE CITIZENS is idiotic since the average citizen has never been to a protest. If you say "average citizen", it excludes any violence done by progressives since the fact they committed violence makes them extremists or it is inclusive enough to allow for my abortion clinic examples. The abortion clinic protests were endorsed by several people recognized as mainstream conservatives. So you cannot have it both ways. As I stated both ideologies are on equal ground with violence. Your use of the word TODAY is also further stupidity, since it is during a conservative president's reign that liberals protest the most and vice versa. If you can clarify what you mean by AVERAGE CITIZENS, it would likely be ineffectual to the argument, but at least it would clear it up for you.
I laid out my argument very clearly with factual evidence to support my statements yet you continue to make grand assumptions- this time by concocting statements that you believe I meant to say or should say. Take my statements at face value and keep your false interpretations to yourself. Don't try and reason beyond that since your abilities in that regard seem terribly flawed and agenda driven. The tactic that you want to continue to use, by speaking in vague generalities and offering no evidence to support your claims, shows a severe lack of integrity on your part. I believe you referred to it as half-truths?
When I say average citizens, I'm obviously clarifying this to mean folks that aren't a part of organized radical, criminal, hate groups. I already made this clear yet you want to play semantics in the hope that it'll somehow destroy my argument. Go back to your junior high debate class if you think that's effective.
Average citizens are going to these Townhall meetings every day yet it is the liberals that are characterizing them as mobs of extremists. They are maliciously equating passionate debate that opposes their liberal sensibilities to radical extremism. This is the ultimate in hypocrisy since disruptive, destructive, mob style behavior is taught, encouraged, and embraced at liberal institutions (ie. majority of university systems) across the nation. This makes it a mainstream element of the liberal left whereas their insinuation that average citizens on the right, voicing their protests loudly, are somewhat equal or worse in scope to what they themselves do regularly. What a joke. It's been well established at liberal protests that they don't support free speech unless it's their own so the only way to suppress it is through destructive outbursts. I offered just one tiny example from Columbia U. which you conveniently ignored but we all know there is no shortage of evidence like that to be found on the internet.
Since liberals as a whole have no allegiance to religion and little respect for their country then I'd gather they have no motivation to act in a respectful way. The sense of entitlement that liberals preach is what motivates and justifies their tactics. Their inability to take responsibility for their own actions further distances them from the consequences of those actions. The hate speech and violence they display is downplayed and often hidden by the liberal media which in essence is a form of mainstream acceptance. It's all so very convenient!
But maybe we should define the term violence since you are so confused by my terminology. Violence need not be defined by it's most extreme definitions of physical harm or in your example- the blowing up of abortion clinics. As Merriam Webster also defines it as:
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/violence
"2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also :an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance"
By this definition, violence need not classify someone as an extremist. Average people can exhibit violence. The Columbia U. debacle would classify as violent along with so many other seemingly peaceful protests on the left's behalf.
And why would the use of the term TODAY be stupid or insignificant? You're being absurdly literal don't you think? By today, I don't mean August 23, 2009, I mean by todays standards. This would include at least the past decade to take into account. Not the 1940-1980 time period that you and AP can't manage to move on from. Obviously whichever party is in office, the opposing party will protest the most. However, we aren't so far removed from the previous administration that we cannot compare the climate amongst both parties during inflammatory times. In doing this, I stand by my original statement that liberals invented and perfected the ART of the violent protest. If it makes you feel any better, it's the perfection of the ART that is most relevant to today. The current widespread system of enablers amongst the Left wing (mainly media and universities) are what make it practically a religion and very mainstream.
my reply is near the top under: tallyman August 24th, 2009 1:36 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
STOP DODGING THE SIMPLE TRUTH: the MAJORITY of americans dont want Single Payer...
Checkout my 2 links to the WSJ and ABC polls.
I checked them out. They have nothing to do with single payer.
AP, it's official - you are intellectualy corrupt. Your comments indicate you REFUSE to acknowledge the plain truth. Good luck trying to fight truth with your skewed comments.
Cheers!
My arguments are posted below, as are yours. I think the posts speak for themselves, for anyone who cares to read them and the source citations, and with their "thinking cap" put on.
AP, Yes the posts do speak for themselves. Your cite is that of a Partisan and non-objective group. My cites are from the OBJECTIVE wallstreet journal and ABC news. All of your posts today only indicate that you can't face the fact head on. Are you saying that the WSJ and ABC news polls are lies?
I realize that, from your posts, you can't fathom the thought of your being wrong. Sorry buddy, but you are. Anyone who takes the time to read all that was said today and has an OPEN mind (unlike you) will see the same thing. So, as much as you like to have the last word..... Your partisan posts DO NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IS ALL OVER THE NEWS TODAY.....Whatever support there was for Single Payer is dissapearing.... No matter what you say. Open your eyes or at least turn on the television....
Also The boycott will fail to silence opposition to single payer as the news has reported. The leadership at wholefoods has come out in support of their CEO...
So what now? Keep citing partisan polls while the rest of the country moves on toward Common Sense. There is nothing you can do against that.
ap's link to the pbs.org frontline story was completely worthless LOL. It just adds more fuel to the argument AGAINST universal healthcare. How about looking at cause and effect. Do you know what a slippery slope is?
From the link you sent me
"As they do in Japan, medical providers must charge standard prices. This keeps costs down, but it also means physicians in Germany earn between half and two-thirds as much as their U.S. counterparts."
The U.S. currently has the best doctors, best research facilities, best technology period! How the hell do you think that gets funded??? If you want the best, you have to pay for it!! Why don't you quit wasting all that money on "organic products" and buy yourself some healthcare with all that money saved! The government is not a CHARITY! Wait and see, if we pay doctors LESS, we will have LESS doctors!!! We will also have lower quality doctors!! LESS research, and LESS cutting edge technology that saves LIVES!! Why do you think every foreigner with the money to do so comes to the United States of America to get medical care??
And this too from your worthless link-
"the Taiwanese are spending too little to sustain their health care system, according to Princeton's Tsung-mei Cheng, who advised the Taiwanese government. "As we speak, the government is borrowing from banks to pay what there isn't enough to pay the providers,"
Does this seem like a road we want to go down with 300 million Americans?? Wake up already! You obviously have no understanding of basic economics like supply and demand.
GUESS what else? No one, absolutely NO ONE, gets turned away from the emergency room. No ONE is discharged who is not in stable condition. We have the best healthcare in the world and the Obamaniacs want to throw a wrecking ball at it?? UNBELIEVABLE!!!
We can trade facts:
Remember the protest violience at the RNC convention?
That was waaaaay more violent then the any of the "yelling" Town Hall meetings. But let's not get caught up in that. Let's talk about US citizen support. I think your numbers are Democratic voters....as in 77% of Democratic Voters..... and so on.
Let's understand that the numbers in a poll depend to a certain degree on who publishes the poll. Statistics can be a very subjective area.
Check out the Wall Street Journal poll article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html
or, GOD FORBID!, the Fox Poll.
Support for Single payer has slipped no matter how you look at it.
At least, that's what ABC news says: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=8373563
So any RECENT 'polls' will disagree with your numbers which, I hope, are at least recent.
Better yet, just google "polls on Health care reform" for yourself then report back to us.
Any thoughts on my other points? like :
==============================================
P.S. I saw the interview and Russ displayed the same level of inability to even tolerate any opinion different than his own as other supporters of Obamacare. It was all 'talking point' and no discussion, no answers to the questions asked. Overall, in my personal opinion, it did not show or engender a positive opinion of the boycott or, to a larger degree, support for a Single Payer system.
I think that the inability of Russ to even acknowledge that a boycott of Whole Foods, if successful, would only hurt the employees and not Mackey did more to negatively portray the boycott effort then positively portray it. Mackey takes One dollar in annual salary and donates all stock option profits to charity.
What would the goal of a boycott be in this case? Is there a clear goal or is it a knee-jerk reaction to silence INDEPENDENT/legitimate opposition to the SinglePayer system?
=======================================
hmm?
You are not trading facts, though I have been sharing quite a few that are well documented.
For starters, you can link this interview with Greta van Sustern that you keep referencing with some other handles here, if you're going to keep making these statements about the behavior of the man she interviewed. I haven't seen it, and as far as I am concerned, what is relevant is that, I agree with what he is substantively saying in his article about John Mackey, and I agree with his position on health care reform.
I notice that not one of you do that -- provide a link to the actual interview you keep referencing. Are you afraid that if people see him in the interview itself, they'll know what stories you make up about others? Note that RM's references to John Mackey are well documented and available for others to see for themselves. You can read his article for yourself, that is. Just like you can read this article here at commondreams.org.
You are also incorrect, if not completely dishonest, about the composition of voters supporting the public option or single payer. These figures, 65%-77%, run across parties.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009031218/who-prefers-public-health-insurance-option
As for the RNC, I don't support violence of any form at protests. However, again, I want to point out the great logical fallacies you engage in, upn argument. That is, you don't specifically reference incidents at the Republican National Convention (i.e. you rather allude or incinuate which is not factually based argument), nor is it relevant to a reasoned argument on health care reform.
For example, I could reference violence by the Klu Klux Klan, while referencing the fact that Klan members don't support health care reform.
That's about the level of logical fallacy you've just stooped too, in terms of anything that happened at the Republican National Convention. If it even happened, not to mention WHY we should even be talking about it in a discussion about national health care reform.
It's not factually based, it's misleading and there is no relevant logical connection, though the behavior of the Town Hall disrupters and gun fruit loops certainly is relevant and on-point in response to the allegations you have raised.
That is, contrary to what you assert, the anti-health care reform crowd is the unruly thuggish group of ignorant, misinformed bigots that cannot tolerate dissent.
And the anti-health care reform crowd, contrary to what you assert, is in a minority of American opinion, and, a minority of American opinion across all parties.
wow...
1. Im not posting under any other name. There is no conspiracy here. If others who have posted views here happen to agree with my views then that doesn't mean anything other than there are more people who disagree with single Payer than you think (or will admit) there are.
2. There's not need to post the link to the interview. Those who want to know can search for it and post it if they wish. My not posting the link (if it exists. I havn't even looked for one) does not constitute an effort to mislead. In fact why don't you post it? You can look for it just as easily as anyone else. Im sure a lot of people would like to see it and judge for themselves. You know, think freely.
3. My reference to the RNC protest was to illustrate that liberal protesters, in the past, have been much more violent than what has happened at SOME townhall meetings. In short, to confirm the double-standard of :it's ok for liberals to protest violently by destroying property but it's not ok for conservatives to yell. Your response only confirms this.
4. As I said, Poll numbers depend to a certain degree on who published them as your link illustrates. You seem unable to acknowledge that the Wall street Journal and ABC news ( which are not PARTISAN organizations like the one you linked) contradict you, however. So you say the opposition to Single Payer is in the Minority? Since you like polls, are you then saying the the Wall StreeT Journal and ABC News are lying like you accuse me of?
Now which one of us is "misleading' or "intellecutally false"?
I think everyone who reads your comments knows the answer......
5. Now, what about my question :
Mackey takes One dollar in annual salary and donates all of his stock option profits to charity.
Is there a clear goal for the boycott? What would the goal of a boycott be in this case? Is there a clear goal or is it a knee-jerk reaction to silence INDEPENDENT/legitimate opposition to the SinglePayer system?
Care to answer that?
I have not been able to find a link to any such interview. Did it, in fact, even take place? If it did, why would you be so reluctant to post it? Afraid that people will see how much you make up stories about others?
Again. You have not linked any support for
(1) Allegations concerning RM through the interview itself;
(2) Allegations about the RNC, though the RNC is completely irrelevant to the discussion. And, especiallly since single payer is supported across parties, as indicated in my cite. (Since unlike yourself, I do cite.)
If you are going to assert facts, as the basis of an argument, it is YOUR responsibility, as a poster, to cite resources as support for them. Not mine. This is such internet argument basics 101.
Lastly, regarding the boycott and the issues you raise there.
Mr. Mackey is suddenly an opponent of boycotts as an honorable means of achieving social gains? Give me a break! I'm sure he would have supported the farmworkers' grape boycott, without a second thought as to "how it would hurt the employees" (as you quip in your earlier post), since such a boycott would have furthered his financial objectives via organic food sales. And what about the boycott of Smithfield and how they raise their pigs and pollute their environment? Any concern for the employees, in both cases, supporting the boycott themselves?
Mr. Mackey is the one who is responsible for the well-being of his employees. Not the American consumer. If he cares so much about his employees, let him support their full health coverage under a single payer plan, or provide them with full coverage, not this measly catastrophic on poor salaries, and while he rakes in his millions.
An employer is the one who must answer for the well-being of his employees. Not the consumer. Just as grape growers were responsible during the grape boycott, just as Smithfield is/was during the boycott of their meat products.
Now, as far as the left and right is concerned (which you keep trying to paint this issue as) -- you know, Mr. Mackey made his fortune on the backs of the left. Deceiving people into thinking that advancement of his interests would furthers theirs, too. His booming business store, for example, in Berkeley, wouldn't even exist if the red diaper babies of the 1960's hadn't been pursued by the John Birch Society and, as a result, organized themselves into what latter became one of the most powerful student movements in world history.
But John Mackey was never what he represented himself as. He is just another corrupt CEO. With a slick sales pitch. Selling out his workers, selling out the American people. Because of some deal he cut with the insurance industry over "catastrophic coverage" for people who can't afford the health care that they're not covered for.
I think it's disgusting. I don't want to shop at his store knowing what I know about him. And I won't.
Too bad if you don't like that other Americans exercise their right to organize and boycott businesses. Which is a great tradition in the United States and tool for change. I can shop or not shop whereever I want, Mister.
And I don't want to shop at Mr. Mackey's Whole Foods.
What do we want? Gee, duh, don't you know yet?
Single payer now!
AP, I don't know you personally so I would never denegrate you personally. I respect your right to speak your mind and to believe whatever you want. I just want to have a logical discussion on the issues. (1) the boycott and (2) Single Payer and how they are linked to each other.
With that said, I won't go off into "tangental issues land" with you with specific regard to the the history of Mackey prior to his Op Ed article. If there are historical issues with him, why are they just coming up now? Why, because he opposes single payer... Not because of so called 'evil' businesses practices.
Let's stay on point...
Did the interview take place? Are you serious?!?! lol. come on dude. Don't go down that road.
My original statement stands:
=====================================================
4. As I said, Poll numbers depend to a certain degree on who published them as your link illustrates. You seem unable to acknowledge that the Wall street Journal and ABC news ( which are not PARTISAN organizations like the one you linked) contradict you, however. So you say the opposition to Single Payer is in the Minority? Since you like polls, are you then saying the the Wall StreeT Journal and ABC News are lying like you accuse me of?
Now which one of us is "misleading' or "intellecutally false"?
I think everyone who reads your comments knows the answer......
=================================================================
Is there a clear goal for the boycott OTHER than it being a knee-jerk reaction to silence INDEPENDENT/legitimate opposition to the SinglePayer system?
Someone.. please.. enlighten me: What is THE goal of the boycott?`
As far as I am aware, you have not posted links to the resources you are referencing at the Wall Street Journal and ABC news. So your allegation has no factual basis as of yet to even respond to.
I am not going to argue with assertions that are not established. Assertions are not evidence.
If you want to have a logical conversation, that you must follow certain rules for logical discussion.
Which you are not doing.
I have already responded to all of your other points.
I'm sorry, i thought you actually read my posts, Here's a clip of my references to the Wall Street Journal and ABC news. You will see it if you scroll up and actually read...
=====================================
Let's understand that the numbers in a poll depend to a certain degree on who publishes the poll. Statistics can be a very subjective area.
Check out the Wall Street Journal poll article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html
or, GOD FORBID!, the Fox Poll.
Support for Single payer has slipped no matter how you look at it.
At least, that's what ABC news says: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=8373563
=========================================================
Is that 'established' now?
Since you question the interview took place check out this link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541283,00.html
It was easy to find. There's a site, it's called 'g-o-o-g-g-l-e'.
I apologize for not conforming to your vision of how a logical conversation should go. That seems to be concern affecting a lot of liberals lately. I thought stating facts and citing sources was enough. I didn't know that people claiming to logical wouldn't read them.
You have said a few things but what you have NOT done is give any OBJECTIVE evidence that the Majority of Americans want a Single Payer system. The one link you posted is a PARTISAN group so it is not objective. My sources, the WALL STREET JOURNAL and ABC News, are not PARTISAN and prove the majority of Americans DON'T WANT SINGLE PAYER. If you are intellectually honest, then stop dodging that 1 simple fact.
Back to my original question:
Mackey takes One dollar in annual salary and donates all stock option profits to charity.
What would the goal of a boycott be in this case? Is there a clear goal OTHER than it being a knee-jerk reaction to silence INDEPENDENT/legitimate opposition to the SinglePayer system?
Anyone???
"I'm sorry, i thought you actually read my posts,"
I read your posts to me, as you well know. You did not provide any citations.
"Here's a clip of my references to the Wall Street Journal and ABC news. You will see it if you scroll up and actually read..."
You mean how well you actually read. You haven't cited anything to contradict my figures. The Wall St Journal polls concern how many Americans think Congress can always make matters worse, and that a significant number have experienced financial hardships because of health issues. Another poll mentioned, concerning people's satisfaction with health care, was conducted by the health insurance industry!
"Let's understand that the numbers in a poll depend to a certain degree on who publishes the poll. Statistics can be a very subjective area."
Yes, why don't you take your own advice and stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes (see above on your own reading). I took statistics at the college level and I aced it.
"or, GOD FORBID!, the Fox Poll."
Actually, well conducted statistical analysis and reason forbids. For without examination of any poll you reference, as conducted by Fox news, their credibility as far as objectivity is concerned hits the negative numbers in high digits.
"Support for Single payer has slipped no matter how you look at it. At least, that's what ABC news says"
No, it doesn't say that. It says that opposition to the bill in Congress has risen. That bill is not single payer. And, the poll doesn't discriminate between opposition that is single payer based and/or includes rabid Obama foes.
"Is that 'established' now?"
No, it is not.
"Since you question the interview took place check out this link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541283,00.html
It was easy to find. There's a site, it's called 'g-o-o-g-g-l-e'."
If it's so easy, then why did it take you so long to provide a link?
Upon reading the transcript, I can only say that Van Sustern is a petty and biased journalist who does her master's bidding at FOX quite well. She spent the entire interview hammering at RM for calling a selfish man selfish, instead of discussing health care reform.
It was a waste of time listening to her dribble hypocritical morality, except for the fact that one could see how unfairly you have been characterizing RM in the interview.
"I apologize for not conforming to your vision of how a logical conversation should go."
It is not my vision. It is the vision of my American teachers in the public school and university system. Sometimes also provided in undergraduate courses known as Logic 101.
"You have said a few things but what you have NOT done is give any OBJECTIVE evidence that the Majority of Americans want a Single Payer system. The one link you posted is a PARTISAN group so it is not objective."
I have not referenced anything from a "partisan" group. I have referenced a well known AP poll -- that has been duplicated in various states in even higher percentages -- and a peer reviewed study of members of the medical profession. Peer reviewed would be likely accountable to the highest standard of statistical inquiry.
The 77% figure supporting the public option comes from a recent SurveyUSA poll, that figure surpassing a prior poll conducted by the NY Times and CBS. With an identically worded June poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal finding 76 percent supporting a choice between a public and private option.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/42444/surveyusa-given-a-choice-77-percent-of-americans-like-public-opt...
Note, too, that single payer as well as Obama's public option still allows citizens their choice of a private plan. While the rest of us are not forced to buy private health insurance.
So support for Obama's public option is actually rising or about the same as it was at the time of the other article I cited (regarding support across parties), and with no indication that support for single payer is slipping. Indeed, most of the public option supporters prefer single payer.
"My sources, the WALL STREET JOURNAL and ABC News, are not PARTISAN"
With the exception of your Fox interview -- which was blatantly partisan and biased -- the issue in your other sources is not whether or not they are partisan, but that you do not read and analyze the data correctly.
" and prove the majority of Americans DON'T WANT SINGLE PAYER. If you are intellectually honest, then stop dodging that 1 simple fact."
You are the one being intellectually dishonest, if not plain d.u.m.b. Your sources do not establish anything about single payer. Indeed, the last one from ABC may provide further evidence as to how much most Americans want Congress to go further with reform. And I have now provided data from additional and even more recent polling supporting my argument even further.
You've been demolished in this debate.
"Back to my original question:"
I have already answered it.
I can see why it's taken so long to provide your citations. Because you don't have anything to back up your position.
I find that any further discussion with you on this subject is discussion with a troll.
AP. Face the truth. ObamaCare and Single Payer are linked as both Obama and Pelosi have stated. There cannot be one without the other. Call me whatever you wish because my skin is thick enough to handle it. I have 2 Bachelor's and 1 Master degree so I'm not hurt in any way by your comments.
I'm glad the arrogance so prevalent in higher education has not affected me as it has so obviously affected you.
The issue is Obamacare, which by Obama's and Pelosi's own words, MUST include a Single Payer option. Therefore ANY polls referencing healthcare reform IMPLY the Single Payer option. That INCLUDES the WSJ and ABC polls.
The last resort of a weak mind such as your's is to resort to name-calling.
The truth remains. The Majority of Americans don't want Obamacare (Single Payer).
The only way you can deny that is to keep citing partisan sources and keep your eyes close to the UNBIASED information that all over the news.
What color is the sky in that little world of yours?
Cheers!
To Moderator: Please delete. Duplicate entry.
I have never shopped at Whole Foods before but I am going to do so today to support John Mackey! Find some one else to protest who deserves it!
I have shopped at Whole Foods and I know others who have too. I will talk to all my friends about not going there for their groceries.
It will be interesting seeing Whole Foods turn into a major shopping center for the health insurance industry and the gun toting crowd.
Make sure ya'all carry your handguns in your holsters in thar.
Seeing as how there has been an influx of right wingers into this forum and one post has already brought it up, I thought that maybe I could take a shot at dispelling some misinformation the right wing has been fed. H.R. 3200 - Section 246 (No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens) of H.R. 3200 specifically says:
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
So then illegal aliens will only have health insurance if they buy it. Considering that these unregistered immigrants tend to be younger, if they buy insurance it will only help to increase the pool of healthy people, lowering costs.
There are no proposals in H.R.3200 to make it free to go to the hospital. There are free credits to buy insurance and that is it.
Well technically, unless the bill has a provision overturning the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay, anyone could get free treatment at a hospital emergency room...and that's a disgusting way to claim "everyone has access to healthcare", like Bush did. What you cited just means they won't get free health insurance coverage.
Because of your request of a boycott of Whole Foods, I and my whole family is going to shop more at Whole Foods than ever before. It is so typical of you left loons to call names and call for harm to come to others who simply don't agree with your beliefs. You truly do not believe in free speech (unless it agrees with your ideals). Mackey has done good things for his employees and their benefits. He doesnot believe, as a Majority of Americans do, that a government run program is the best answer (after all, look how well our government has done running the Medicare Program, and the Post Office. Just two examples of why I don't want a single payer system. And, by the way, show me where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government should pay for healthcare for all?
Nowhere does it say that government "should" pay for it. It does allow it though: Article 1 Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
I do agree that the fraud in Medicare is a tearable burden on our economy. Not so much as a war, but still very great. I would propose, as I believe many in the progressive movement would concur, that the penalties for defrauding the government should be greatly increased, as well as the penalties for government officials violating ethical practices and laws (and remove the ability for the president to pardon said officials). It seems though that you think the financial difficulties of the US Post Office are from mismanagement, when in fact it is the strict hiring practices and employee benefits programs that are the main reason why the US postal service cannot compete with UPS and FedEX (two companies that break unions when possible, provide little in the way of benefits, and hire and fire regularly so as to keep wages down).
You also do not seem to understand that it is the government that must tolerate free speech without reproach. Citizens can act as they choose.
I would like to open for discussion something that has only been briefly mentioned here: Is it merely speech when you are someone of high profile and what you say will reach millions? Or is it publicity (an action)? If it is an action, then is it not the case that those who oppose said opinions should act so as to create a counter publicity (and as you and others claim to act so as to counter the boycotts counter publicity)? I am aware that you may also view it as trying to blunt the financial impact of the boycott, however, I would point out that due to the costly nature of organic foods, it will be unlikely that those unprepared to pay the large increase in cost will be able to do so.
Personally, as I have stated before, I would boycott WFM because there is no real health benefits in eating "organic" foods over normally produced foods.
Nice rebuttal.