Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Betraying Liberals

I just read an article on MSNBC which made me laugh and shake my head in alternating forms. Apparently, the Liberal customer base of Whole Foods is in an uproar over an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the CEO (one John Mackey) of said company wrote concerning Health Care Reform.

In it he described his company's stance on Health Care. Basically, his company provides the following:
  • A "High-Deductible" Health Insurance Plan (a $2,500 deductible)
  • Company paid premiums
  • $1,800 into a Health Savings Account (HSA) they call "Personal Wellness Accounts."
Frankly, I think that's an awesome set of health care benefits.

But, anyways, in Mr. Mackey's op-ed he wrote how he thinks that the government has no place in offering "public-option" health care plans, and that it would be better off, if Health Care reform involved:
  • Lower legal issues for creation/adoption of High-Deductible/HSA combinations
  • Equalize tax issues between Employer Provided and Individually Purchased Health Insurance (employer provide is 100% tax-deductible, individually purchased is not)
  • Repel state laws preventing across-state-lines insurance competition
  • Repel government mandates on required coverage options
  • Tort reform
  • Make Health-Care costs more transparent, so that a consumer can purchase health care based on valid decision making processes
  • Enact Medicare reform
  • Make tax-deductible donations to (non-government run) funds who assist those unable to afford health insurance & are not covered by current "government options."
Frankly, I found the piece well-thought out, well-considered, logical and in general something that I would support if it was what was considered "Health-Care reform." It provides avenues for lowered health care costs, while at the same time keeping the power of our health care decisions out of the government's hands. Additionally, it allows the MARKET to work the way that it is supposed to.

But, of course that means that the Liberals are utterly, and hopelessly against it.

They hate the fact that it's not a government-run plan.

They can't stand the thought of personal responsibility in any facet of the people's lives, so of course they're against it.

What these liberals don't seem to understand is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to create health care.

It is so far outside of the limits on power which the framers of our government placed on the federal government that it is almost laughable.

But horrifyingly scary that so many are so accepting of this intrusive power-grab.

In my opinion, the Liberals have not been betrayed. If anything, they should be wondering why Walmart is so accepting of a government-run health care plan, while their food provider of choice is against it.

Here's a reason: it's economics. The labor unions have spent years and millions in advertising in getting Walmart to lower its insurance premiums and expand coverage. These are costs that Walmart either has to absorb in its profit margin or raise prices to cover. And as the one of the largest employers in the world--that's a lot of money going out. So, from their POV, a government plan would be great. I have no doubt that their private insurance would disappear the day after a government plan was introduced.

For some reason, I don't see Whole Foods being quite so quick to trade away the rights of its employee base in order to raise its profit margin a half-point.

Of course these are LOGICAL arguments, and falter in the face of the overwhelming "proof" which is the emotionalism by which most Liberals make their political decisions.

After all, who needs logic, when a feel-good that someone else has to pay for works just as well.?

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home