Whole Foods CEO vs. Obama's health insurance reform

Haha...you've just got to love Steve COMPLAINING about that horrible mandatory 35 hour work week in France. Such a horrible situation to be in. Not being able to be over-worked....woe are they....poor french.

It sure would be horrible if we got more weeks of vacation per year (like the socialist countries) or if we didn't work so many hours a week (like the socialist countries) or if we all had health insurance (like the socialist countries). Wow. What would we do with our free time? I wonder why they look so happy when I visit.....

I'm sorry you feel so victimized buy what you view as unfair. If you can't find insurance for less than $10,000 a year then look for a physician who will work with you. You would be amazed at the deals you can make for health care.

For example I charge much less to folks without insurance because I'd rather be paid a small amount than bill a large amount I'll never collect. We also give a 25% discount if the full bill is paid on the day service is received. In the end, I and those I work with do what we do because we care about people and want to make their lives better. We are not a rare office in that sense and I think many providers want to find a way to work with folks who don't have coverage.

No. I didn't say I had health insurance in my previous post. I don't. Take the time to read if you want to make comments.

Dude. I didn't understand that you just had health care for the baby. It is clear now.

You accused me of being a hypocrite, when I never mentioned tote reform. Maybe you should also read before you post?

I said I couldn't afford it (I've posted that twice in this thread, saying it would cost me ten thousand plus for myself. Ten thousand plus more for my wife. Unaffordable. We did get insurance for my perfectly healthy baby, and it was an ordeal getting him seen the first time. A long drive to the east side. Met with the paper pusher barrage. The policy was too recent, so no number had been issued, so they wanted payment up front. This was after much waiting and phone calls. F them. I wasn't going to shell out full payment for a routine one month checkup when I had insurance. Then, when it came time for the shots, they weren't covered. They go against the thousand dollar deductable. Which means you end up paying a thousand bucks plus your copays plus your premiums. For a perfectly healthy baby. Total BS. Maybe you like this system. I don't.

I'm not denying that the system is screwed up. I just think it's the government that got us here. And I think there are many other better thing we could change than going to single payer. One plan that would help you is opening up interstate medical insurance competition. Another possibility would be to make it easier for small businesses to join an association to qualify for group rates. Or any private groups,not just businesses.

We have a bunch of ways to make the system better, without going to single payer. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

Our system is good at treating conditions, but we forget (and don't cover) preventative care. Don't you think it'd be smarter to prevent the cancer rather than treating it? Or preventing the clogged artery rather than treating it? And a BUNCH cheaper. Hence the low longevity, high infant mortality. Our system sucks....and it sucks for twice the cost. What a rip off. But you can get a nice quadruple bypass..yippee , just what I want.

Do you realize that preventative care is MORE expensive? It's good for an individual to seek preventative care, as it their own health on the line. But it will cost more to do that for everyone. There is no COST savings from preventative care. As harsh as that sounds, thems the facts.

The saving of catching issues early doesn't recover the cost of giving everyone preventative care.

Haha...you've just got to love Steve COMPLAINING about that horrible mandatory 35 hour work week in France. Such a horrible situation to be in. Not being able to be over-worked....woe are they....poor french.

It sure would be horrible if we got more weeks of vacation per year (like the socialist countries) or if we didn't work so many hours a week (like the socialist countries) or if we all had health insurance (like the socialist countries). Wow. What would we do with our free time? I wonder why they look so happy when I visit.....

I'm sorry you feel so victimized buy what you view as unfair. If you can't find insurance for less than $10,000 a year then look for a physician who will work with you. You would be amazed at the deals you can make for health care.

For example I charge much less to folks without insurance because I'd rather be paid a small amount than bill a large amount I'll never collect. We also give a 25% discount if the full bill is paid on the day service is received. In the end, I and those I work with do what we do because we care about people and want to make their lives better. We are not a rare office in that sense and I think many providers want to find a way to work with folks who don't have coverage.

I don't think you get it either. I'm a bit surprised.

I don't want a doc that'll work with me cheap. I'm in good health and need nothing but routine tests periodically (getting older now, so I guess they'll get more frequent).

But I do need catastrophic insurance. Can't get that. How many small biz owners can afford an extra twenty thousand bucks a year for health insurance.

It makes so much more sense to spread out the costs of medical care over all of society. The only way to argue against it, ethically, is if we feel that some people in our society don't deserve it. Or if you want to argue that the "hard-workers (i.e. rich)" deserve better care than the lazy people (poor).

Why not simply cover everyone? Get rid of the insurance companies. The underwriters. The risk management agents. The claims adjustors. The actuaries. The people simply pushing paper around. Get rid of the glossy advertising and marketing companies, the sales agents (hey, I have sold health insurance at a point in my life, and it felt very immoral taking such a larger percentage of people's premium checks every month straight to my pocket for doing basically nothing).

I don't feel victimized. I just know I'm living in a highly immoral system. The rest of the industrialized world agrees with me. YOU are the minority. My opinion is shared by the rest of the world......!

It makes so much more sense to spread out the costs of medical care over all of society. The only way to argue against it, ethically, is if we feel that some people in our society don't deserve it. Or if you want to argue that the "hard-workers (i.e. rich)" deserve better care than the lazy people (poor).

I think you should share your coffee shop with the beggar on the corner. I think we need a nationalized bureau to run all the coffee shops. It is immoral that some folks can afford custom made organic coffee beverages and others are stuck with Folgers with the health destroying artificial sweeteners. Some can't even buy coffee at all.

Why not simply cover everyone? Get rid of the insurance companies. The underwriters. The risk management agents. The claims adjustors. The actuaries. The people simply pushing paper around. Get rid of the glossy advertising and marketing companies, the sales agents (hey, I have sold health insurance at a point in my life, and it felt very immoral taking such a larger percentage of people's premium checks every month straight to my pocket for doing basically nothing).

These are actual people that you are talking about. You are talking about destroying companies, ruining careers, wiping out investors and bond holders. Wow. It's that easy! Let's just do it!

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.

I don't feel victimized. I just know I'm living in a highly immoral system.

Paying your own way is NOT immoral.

The rest of the industrialized world agrees with me. YOU are the minority. My opinion is shared by the rest of the world......!

E pluirbus unum!

It makes so much more sense to spread out the costs of medical care over all of society. The only way to argue against it, ethically, is if we feel that some people in our society don't deserve it. Or if you want to argue that the "hard-workers (i.e. rich)" deserve better care than the lazy people (poor).

I think you should share your coffee shop with the beggar on the corner. I think we need a nationalized bureau to run all the coffee shops. It is immoral that some folks can afford custom made organic coffee beverages and others are stuck with Folgers with the health destroying artificial sweeteners. Some can't even buy coffee at all.

Why not simply cover everyone? Get rid of the insurance companies. The underwriters. The risk management agents. The claims adjustors. The actuaries. The people simply pushing paper around. Get rid of the glossy advertising and marketing companies, the sales agents (hey, I have sold health insurance at a point in my life, and it felt very immoral taking such a larger percentage of people's premium checks every month straight to my pocket for doing basically nothing).

These are actual people that you are talking about. You are talking about destroying companies, ruining careers, wiping out investors and bond holders. Wow. It's that easy! Let's just do it!

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.

I don't feel victimized. I just know I'm living in a highly immoral system.

Paying your own way is NOT immoral.

The rest of the industrialized world agrees with me. YOU are the minority. My opinion is shared by the rest of the world......!

E pluirbus unum!

We have different moral values obviously.

Yes, it sucks to lose a job. But it sucks more to lose your life. We're losing a lot of lives (and a lot of money) in our current system. I'd support extensive job retraining programs. Let the people who want to pretend they're in the health care system start doing things that make people healthier.

A bean-counter in a distant state doesn't help me get healthy. A local nurse or a technician might. Lets get these "healthcare workers" some skills other than calculating odds and filing paperwork. We could pay for their retraining and then end up with some people actually helping us!

Steve rambled on about me sharing my coffee with beggars:

"I think you should share your coffee shop with the beggar on the corner. I think we need a nationalized bureau to run all the coffee shops. It is immoral that some folks can afford custom made organic coffee beverages and others are stuck with Folgers with the health destroying artificial sweeteners. Some can't even buy coffee at all."

Obviously, you don't see the distinction between a product that pleases one's taste buds, and a product that saves one's life. Health care IS NOT just a luxury item.. That is the fundamental distinction you are missing. It isn't just a choice between drink A or drink B. Health care is LIFE and DEATH.

Your lack of understanding of the fundamental issue makes me want to stop this converation. If you confuse a choice of taste preference to a life and death issue, you may be too far gone.....

I don't want to carry on your town hall meeting..I may check in again, but for now....let us just agree to disagree...

Cheers!

One major theme that has emerged is to eliminate the private insurance companies. I am in the total opposite camp and think private companies are the key to reform.

Take Medicare for an example...Seniors can have government (after 4 minutes of attempting to verify my spelling of government, I once again plead to Robin to add spellcheck.) Medicare or opt out and sign up for a Medicare plan with a private insurer (i.e. - the "evil" Wellcares, Aetnas and Humanas). The Humanas of the world provide Medicare coverage cheaper and better than traditional Medicare. Whatever barometer you use....Major Medical cost, wellness program utilization, Chronic Care, Drug Utilization, etc....the private Medicare insurers outperform traditional Medicare. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Medicare member satisfaction surveys also show they are unquestionably more satisfied with their "Aetena-Humana" Medicare than traditional Medicare coverage. Profit Incentive=more effenciency which government idiots do not grasp.

Communism has failed largely because people had no incentive to succeed, to grow, to produce, to create, to invent, etc...... Who cares about profits? Why should I work hard?

Greed is good. People wanting to make a profit is good. "Insert insurance company here" needs to satisy their member (offer good coverage at a acceptable cost) to make money. If they don't, the member leaves and goes to a different carrier.

On pre-existing and chronic conditions, I have to agree with the insursance companies stance. If they know a perspective member will cost them money, why would they want to have them as a member...I come into your coffee shop or restaurant and spend $5 but 5 times in a row I started smashing cups and breaking tables, eventually the proprieter will tell me not come back because I cost them money.

Insurance comapanies should not accept members that they know will cost them money. Govenment "Medicare" should be expanded in some form to cover a strict definition of Pre-existing Catestrophic/Chronic conditions. I know that my statement has ensured my GOP card will now be revoked.

I also do not believe the 47 million uninsured rhetoric. Not to open up another debate, but we should not count illegal immagrents in the 47 million debate.

"Get rid of the insurance companies. The underwriters. The risk management agents. The claims adjustors. The actuaries. The people simply pushing paper around.".....Nimbus, this would cost a hell of a lot more than it does today. These positions would leave a Humana (I have incentive to make a profit) and be handled by a government employee that could care less about cost savings.

We have different moral values obviously.

Will, this is progress. I've gone from brainwashed, to immoral, to differently moralled.

Yes, it sucks to lose a job. But it sucks more to lose your life. We're losing a lot of lives (and a lot of money) in our current system. I'd support extensive job retraining programs. Let the people who want to pretend they're in the health care system start doing things that make people healthier.

I just don't see how you think the government will be more efficient. What proof do you have of these. Is there a model effiecient government program that we can look at? Medical insurance companies operate on slim margins. Mike McCalister, CEO of Humana, has said something like: "We think our 4% is fair." Are your margins in your coffee shop less than that? Do you think the costs of a government run program will be limited to 4%?[/quote]

A bean-counter in a distant state doesn't help me get healthy. A local nurse or a technician might. Lets get these "healthcare workers" some skills other than calculating odds and filing paperwork. We could pay for their retraining and then end up with some people actually helping us!

A single payer government system would have to duplicate all these bean counters and paper pushers. Why do you think the government wouldn't need administrators (in a distant state) to take care of the paper work and red tape?

Steve rambled on about me sharing my coffee with beggars:

"I think you should share your coffee shop with the beggar on the corner. I think we need a nationalized bureau to run all the coffee shops. It is immoral that some folks can afford custom made organic coffee beverages and others are stuck with Folgers with the health destroying artificial sweeteners. Some can't even buy coffee at all."

Obviously, you don't see the distinction between a product that pleases one's taste buds, and a product that saves one's life. Health care IS NOT just a luxury item.. That is the fundamental distinction you are missing. It isn't just a choice between drink A or drink B. Health care is LIFE and DEATH.

Your lack of understanding of the fundamental issue makes me want to stop this converation. If you confuse a choice of taste preference to a life and death issue, you may be too far gone.....

I don't want to carry on your town hall meeting..I may check in again, but for now....let us just agree to disagree...

Cheers!

The issue is not life and death....it's about money. In 20 years I've never seen a soul turned away or given substandard care on the basis of a wallet biopsy.

Steve rambled on about me sharing my coffee with beggars:

Obviously, you don't see the distinction between a product that pleases one's taste buds, and a product that saves one's life. Health care IS NOT just a luxury item.. That is the fundamental distinction you are missing. It isn't just a choice between drink A or drink B. Health care is LIFE and DEATH.

Yes. There is a lack of understanding. I just question whose it is though.

You seem to equate medical care as a right. It is not. A right is something that a person possesses independently of anyone else. That's why they are sometimes called natural rights.

Free medical care and free coffee beverages are not natural rights. Both of these depend on others for their delivery. I advocate a free excanage between the provider and the consumer. You advocate stealing the labor of one and forcing him to serve another. This is the true effect of single payer.

The only distinction between you position on single payer and free coffee beverages is that you do not own an insurance company or a medical practice. You own a coffee shop. So naturally, in your philosophy, medicare is a right but coffee is a product. It's a freedom for me, but not for thee kinda thing isn't it?

Your lack of understanding of the fundamental issue makes me want to stop this converation. If you confuse a choice of taste preference to a life and death issue, you may be too far gone.....

I understand perfectly well.

You advocate confiscating an entire industry because our distribution of health care is not evenly distributed and inefficient.

You will not consider or discuss any other options that might preserve the natural rights of the producers along with those of the consumers.

You believe I, and others who oppose single payer, are either brainwashed or immoral, or maybe sometimes have different morals or lack understanding, to such a degree that we are not worthy of conversing with. Sure you're not a Congressman?

Somehow, you think the Government can create and manage a system that will cover more people, be administratively more efficient, provide superior care, and be cheaper; even when every government program in history has proved this to be false.

I don't want to carry on your town hall meeting..I may check in again, but for now....let us just agree to disagree...

Cheers!

Sounds good. Have a good night.

Insurance comapanies should not accept members that they know will cost them money. Govenment "Medicare" should be expanded in some form to cover a strict definition of Pre-existing Catestrophic/Chronic conditions. I know that my statement has ensured my GOP card will now be revoked.

As a wayward Democrat, I'm not in a position to revoke anything.

The preexisting condition can be handled by the free market if the right rules are put into place. The cost of insurance would have to go up to cover this, but the fewer people in a government plan the better as it would keep long term entitlement creep to a minimum.

With right kind of welfare reform (like enhanced EIC or negative income tax), we could even roll current welfare recipients into private plans.

Btw, Get Firefox. It does spell checking for you. Doesn't help my grammar typos though!

We have different moral values obviously.

Will, this is progress. I've gone from brainwashed, to immoral, to differently moralled.

Yes, it sucks to lose a job. But it sucks more to lose your life. We're losing a lot of lives (and a lot of money) in our current system. I'd support extensive job retraining programs. Let the people who want to pretend they're in the health care system start doing things that make people healthier.

I just don't see how you think the government will be more efficient. What proof do you have of these. Is there a model effiecient government program that we can look at? Medical insurance companies operate on slim margins. Mike McCalister, CEO of Humana, has said something like: "We think our 4% is fair." Are your margins in your coffee shop less than that? Do you think the costs of a government run program will be limited to 4%?

A bean-counter in a distant state doesn't help me get healthy. A local nurse or a technician might. Lets get these "healthcare workers" some skills other than calculating odds and filing paperwork. We could pay for their retraining and then end up with some people actually helping us!

A single payer government system would have to duplicate all these bean counters and paper pushers. Why do you think the government wouldn't need administrators (in a distant state) to take care of the paper work and red tape?[/quote]

Steve,
You simply aren't thinking about this the right way. You wonder why the gov't wouldn't need administrators for all of the paper work and red tape? Because with single payer, you wouldn't have insurance claims! You wouldn't need to sell people insurance! You wouldn't need to advertise your insurance company A versus insurance company B. When I show up to the doc office, I wouldn't be greeted by insurance forms and then asked for my cards and then shuttled off to another "business" office with extra bureaucrats if something wasn't in order.

In short, when you go to the doc office, there would be perhaps a receptionist, some nurses, and some doctors. But not the bureaucrats.

And you wouldn't have to argue about whether procedure X, Y, or Z is covered. Leave it up to the doctor, not an accountant!

There would be less administration because we'd all be covered. I wouldn't need to email my insurance agent so she can have me fax over application forms. (my most recent agent, for my baby, was negligent by not informing us that vaccines (routine shots) would apply against our deductable). Her job would be gone, yes, because it would be unnecessary. Yeah, we wouldn't need the collection departments either (boohoo)

We wouldn't need the vast number of underwriters, analyzing the profitability of procedures, and then deciding to deny coverage to as many people as possible.

We have massive rationing right now. By the insurance companies.

Further, we presently have THOUSANDS of different insurance companies, all basically doing the same thing. If you had just one, you'd have a LOT more potential efficiency. Why have multiple people doing the same job? I mean, if you look at corporate situations, mergers almost always lower costs due to increased efficiency and less workers needed. Come on, look at the business example there.

Blah blah....etc, etc....

i mean doesn't it make sense that one "company" would have less paperwork than a thousand companies trying to do the exact same job? I'd call it streamlining. Especially when you eliminate billing from the system, which is what most of the paperwork is all about!

Steve H writes:
"Somehow, you think the Government can create and manage a system that will cover more people, be administratively more efficient, provide superior care, and be cheaper; even when every government program in history has proved this to be false."

Well, just check out every other industrialized nation in the planet you live on, known as planet earth...

(after 4 minutes of attempting to verify my spelling of government, I once again plead to Robin to add spellcheck.)

You could try running the Mozilla fire fox on your computer,it automatically runs a spell check on everything you type.

[Robin Garr]

You could try running the Mozilla fire fox on your computer,it automatically runs a spell check on everything you type.

Google Chrome does, too. It unedrlines tyops in red to flag them for your attention. Spell-checking is easy to do on the user end.