Whole Foods CEO John Mackey has angered many of his customers - including me - by writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that American citizens have no "intrinsic right to health care". This has ignited a boycott against Whole Foods.
I strongly support health care reform, I disagree utterly with Mackey's logic, but I won't be boycotting Whole Foods.
First, I think health care is not only an intrinsic human right, but the government is required to help provide it when private enterprise fails - under the general welfare provision of our Constitution. And I think private enterprise stands intrinsically and hopelessly in contradiction to provision of health care for all Americans, because pursuit of profits means you need to limit costs, which in turn means denial of treatment to some people. (See my Private, For-Profit Health Insurance Companies are Self-Contradictory for more.)
But boycotts add nothing to this debate. They won't convince anybody.
What we need are continued rational arguments, and continued exposure of Republican lies.
When the truth is on your side, the best course of action is to relentlessly speak it, not refuse to go shopping in a store whose chief exec doesn't get it.
See also Is the Whole Foods Boycott Fair? for an argument in favor of the boycott.
4 comments:
Repost from Christopher Hubbard:
"Too many confuse liberties with rights. You and I both have the liberty to all of the above but not the right to them. What's the difference? The difference is that a liberty is the inherent ability to pursue or perform or excercise something, what you would call a right. A right however is something by which is not inherent in one person because it requires a duty to be performed by at least one other person. If I have a "right" to health, or food, or shelter, then somebody else has a corresponding "duty" to provide it. Unless I contract for such goods or services and therefore receive an expectation interest that my right and their duty will be performed there is can be no expectation or right to receive anything absent such a duty."
"If I have a right to health care -, are you under a duty to provide it for me?? Not unless you and I agree that you will provide it for me. Absent any such agreement you don't have a right and a duty but tyranny that compels one person to provide something to another that goes against their wishes. And that is what destroys the liberty interest you and I both have currently regarding any of these such physical, tangible, manufactured goods."
First, anon, if you're going to repost here from someone else, please use your own name.
But I'll leave your comment, since it does add to the debate.
In response to you/Christopher: a human right (which is what I think health care is) means not that any individual has an obligation to provide it, but that society as a whole has that obligation. In other words, I see health care as much the same as fire fighting and police work.
Police are intentionally NOT a federal force (Posse Comitatus Act), nor are most of the other community service programs you might mention. They are agreed upon a the local level, and the differences allow for continual improvements. Schools get some mandates & Federal money, but up to now, this has been very limited. Postal service might be an example, but they move closer & closer to privatization as Fedex & UPS continue to prove they can provide superior service while covering expenses instead of relying on taxpayer bailouts.
I don't think anyone is against a major reforms, and in this case, more government intervention is likely necessary. However, please study the particulars of the problems with the health services the government already provides. For one, they intentionally restrict payments (often less than 1/2 of the cost of a standard service) to healthcare providers. Unbelievably, this is exactly what the current plans insist will keep cost down. What it does do is it forces the healthcare providers who accept medicare/medicade & tricare to raise their prices for everyone else. They are actually having an effect to the reverse of lowering medical costs for the uninsured. If an uninsured person goes to the ER & actually pays the bill- he is paying for the hospital expenses the gov't wouldn't cover. The other negative effect this has is that only the most financially independent med practices can afford to accept M/M/T; this limits any form of competition amoung these providers and almost completely ensures poor service. In many places, people are limited to only one provider in 40 sqmi. I would like to hear from a provider in a high poverty area who takes M/M/T & sees few other types of patients- how in the world do they stay in business? I'll tell you how- think mass-production. Perhaps some are assisted through charitible, non-profits in order to maintain a living & provide reasonable care.
I believe in individual subsidies which allow for open competition. The individual should get to decide how the money is spent with very little restriction. The would have the effect of lowering overall costs while minimizing gov't administrative costs. The person's subsidy could be based on a relatively simple plan based on need/income. I also believe that individuals should be able to opt out of the subsidy, just as they should be able to opt out of Social Security or the public school system.
At this point, it seems absolutely critical for our childrens' sakes to try something. I wish people would stop politicizing this issue & believe that not everyone is acting purely for evil self-interest or misguided idealism. Enough with the defamation of character - why are people trying to boycott someone like Mr. Mackey, who has merely offered his experienced suggestions for reform?
For me, the main object is to improve the efficiencies of the system, while demanding that we live within our means- right or no. It's like saying to God- "I have a right to live! You can't take me now!" The boundary is crossed when we borrow from the welfare of our decendents.
First of all, you don't have to write in all caps.
Second, the FBI is in effect a Federal police operation.
Third, even if there were no Federal police, that would not affect my point, which is about the need for government support of health care (at all levels of government).
But, fourth, as I said in my blog post, I see no point in boycotting whole foods.
Post a Comment