John Mackey should know when to keep his big mouth shut. Wasn't he aware that reasoned debate is banned in this country? Apparently he missed the memo. When it comes to health-care in this country, capitalism has failed and we need government needs to swoop in an fix things. To suggest otherwise is akin to treason and those who choose to breach the code must pay the price and unintelligent rambling attacks.
Mackey's article in the
Wall Street Journal set off an IED of sorts in the liberal bloggosphere. Judging from the reactions printed in the
Huffington Post, you'd thing Mackey had gone Imus on Obama. The Huffington Post is really just a sample of what has happened. What was Mackey's crime? He merely suggested an alternative to fixing health care using the government. His article isn't even negative, aside to referring to the government reforms as Obama-care*. He merely presents his view of the situation and how he thinks heath-care can be reformed and uses his personal business experience to back it up. It wasn't a rant from a nutcase just to bash Obama. He is making his case based on his EXPERIENCE and his political beliefs. That is not a crime. It should be commended by the very people who are trashing him and calling for
boycotts of Whole Foods. At least there are some who can state their disagreements and not throw the baby out with the
bathwater.
I can understand that some disagree with the point of view presented by Mackey. I agree with his point of view. I am a believer in the free market. I believe it is the best place to weed out inefficiency over the long run. The free market is not perfect by any means and as many free market supporters have said before, bad things will happen. Bad things happen in nature, but that's part of living.
I don't have confidence in government to take care of me, because it can't it can't take care of me the way I can take care of myself. When there are problems like health-care, the default can't be to have the government to come in and fix things. I am open to a debate and fixing the problem with data and evidence. Unfortunately, many of these issues get turned to the Michael Moores and Rush Limbaughs of the world. I'd much rather the different perspectives present their viewpoint in an intelligent manner with data and sources, so it can be properly evaluated.
I think what irks me most about the reaction to Mackey's article is the level of unnecessary negativity. Mackey present a fair alternative that should be evaluated on its merits, not the knee-jerk reaction that ensued because he didn't support the public option. I find the reaction as bad as those making false claims about the public option (death panels). I start to wonder if anybody lives in reality when I hear what's going on.
I oppose the public option for several reasons and they are valid reasons. I get concerns about too much power going to the government. What happens when people decide that we need to have a real war on obesity because it cost too much money? Does that mean the government gets to invade people's lives to get the cost down? They can decide what you can eat, how much and when to exercise? That's extreme, but there are possibilities there. When Oregon instituted its seatbelt law, drivers would not be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. A fine would only occur when a person had committed another infraction. That last for one year before it was changed so that not wearing a seatbelt became its own offense. I fear that similar things can happen with government health-care. I think Dan Carlin presents a more articulate argument than I. It's mostly the second part of the 1-hour
show, but it's a good listen (I suggest the whole show though).
Ultimately I was greatly disappointed in the reaction to John Mackey's article. I think it was a prime opportunity to debate merits. Public health-care should not be the only alternative that can be discussed. If there is a better way to meet the goals of the left using the market, they must be considered. In the end, isn't this just about helping people get the care they need? What is wrong with allowing the market to perform it function? I don't argue that health-care is a right. It is a right, not a guarantee. I have the right to get job, but I don't have that guarantee. If people care about the poor and want them to get health-care, use a charity or a non-profit.
* The reference to
Obama-care came not from Mackey himself, but the editors of the WSJ who printed the article. Nowhere in the article is this term used and according to Mackey, he was simply responding with an alternative to the public option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One last rant. Barney Frank is not my favorite politician. He got to hold one of the famous townhall meetings and somebody showed up who was passionate about the health-care issue. Rush Limbaugh sure has done his part in inspiring stupidity. My point is, Mr Frank handled this woman the way he should have. More people need to be treated like this when they visit from their fantasy world (just like those anti-vax people). I hated when people called Bush Hilter and I hate when it's used on Obama. It's like I said above, we need reasoned debate with data and evidence. I disagree with Frank's position, but fully endorse his reaction to the question. Here's the clip:
