2009-08-11 The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare/woozle

From Issuepedia
< 2009-08-11 The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Revision as of 13:23, 8 October 2009 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'Mackey says: <i>deficit, deficit, deficit... "we are rapidly running out of other people's money."</i> (paraphrasing Thatcher). Yeah. Let me tell you about other people's money....')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Mackey says: deficit, deficit, deficit... "we are rapidly running out of other people's money." (paraphrasing Thatcher).

Yeah. Let me tell you about other people's money.

Short version: because we can't get a group home for Sandy's autistic son Josh, we can't work (and it's not for lack of options, even in this sucky economy). I'm not sure what "other people" these are whose money we'd be using up with the Awful Dreaded Socialized Medicine (that we'd still have to pay for), but right now we're running out of our money, thanks very much -- while working harder than I've ever worked in my life at a job that pays absolutely nothing and is not part of my skillset.

Mackey's big lie, of course, is in the presumption that ObamaCare costs money. It's effing deficit neutral... and I'd also like to know just who Mr. Mackey thinks it is that's making all that "other people's" money for him and his shareholders. (Hint: it's people whose daily presence at your stores depends on their continued health.)

Mackey's big-lie-by-implication is that "socialism" is responsible for the current financial mess, when the opposite is far more true: unregulated "free market" trading of derivatives and cutbacks to regulations on predatory lending practices, to start with, not to mention the effing War (the centerpiece of Bush's Holy War on Terror) and the hideously wasteful way in which it has been prosecuted.

Mackey's suggestion #1:

"Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)."

Ummm.... high-deductable? What in hell do we need more high-deductable plans for? (And how does this get Josh into a group home?)

High-deductable plans are basically gambling you won't get sick. The whole point of universal healthcare is that nobody should be gambling, and the healthy people should be helping to take care of the less-healthy. (I speak as someone who has been extraordinarily healthy for the past 4 decades, and had never even seen the inside of a hospital on my own behalf until last week.)

Mackey's suggestion #2:

"Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."

How the hell do tax benefits help me when I'm not currently paying taxes? People who propose tax breaks as a replacement for entitlements always seem to overlook this little problem: the people who need the benefits the most get absolutely nothing.

Mackey suggestion #3:

"Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines."

That might have non-horrible results if you made sure to impose regulations to prevent predatory companies from squeezing out the ones who actually try to help people -- but if I'm reading you right, Mr. Mackey, you'd be against that, and wouldn't see any problem in the inevitable national consolidation of all insurance companies into one giant company which would then probably be taken over by NewsCorp or Sony or something.

At this point, I call Three Strikes.

adapted from a comment posted on 2009-10-05 at En Tequila Es Verdad