Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More proof, after the F-bomb fiasco, that businessmen should stick to business because they know little else:
Quote:
I believe that, if the goal is universal health care, our country would be far better served by combining free enterprise capitalism with a strong governmental safety net for our poorest citizens and those with preexisting conditions, helping everyone to be able to buy insurance. This is what Switzerland does and I think we would be much better off copying that system than where we are currently headed in the United States.
VAN SUSTEREN: This is a controversy, and I take it you dialed it back. I think you called the ObamaCare, I think the term you used was "fascist." You've now dialed that one back a bit?
JOHN MACKEY, WHOLE FOODS CEO: That was a very poor choice of words on my part. I asked about the question, the differences do I think it's socialistic, and I gave a definition of socialism and a definition of fascism, and I think it's closer to that.
However, what I didn't realize, there's so much emotional baggage with that term dating back to Germany and Spain and Italy in World War II, that's just a loaded word, very politically incorrect, can't use it.
So, now I just want to say I believe in free enterprise capitalism or conscious capitalism the way we've articulated in the book. My problem with where health care is it's very government controlled and it's becoming more government controlled. So it's the opposite of free enterprise capitalism.
VAN SUSTEREN: What's the problem with that? I take it you're not a fan of ObamaCare and I read your op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal." Why don't you like ObamaCare?
MACKEY: Well, I think it's raising the costs for business. We have a great health care plan that our team members vote on every three years.
I wish he hadnt retracted his statement,as it is a correct one.
Frankly I think Obamacare is a mess. It does impose more costs on businesses. That's not usually good for consumers. We should have gone the whole nine yards and pushed for universal health care, something like the German model for instance. The government basically becomes the health care provider, rather than making businesses or individuals pay directly for it (yes you would pay for it through taxes, but that's fine by me. The costs of health care are far lower in all of these other countries). The whole idea of tying health care to employment is bizarre.
Frankly I think Obamacare is a mess. It does impose more costs on businesses. That's not usually good for consumers. We should have gone the whole nine yards and pushed for universal health care, something like the German model for instance. The government basically becomes the health care provider, rather than making businesses or individuals pay directly for it (yes you would pay for it through taxes, but that's fine by me. The costs of health care are far lower in all of these other countries). The whole idea of tying health care to employment is bizarre.
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but in Germany, the government really isn't the provider, is it? They allow private providers to offer insurance and mandate that everyone has it, but the German government controls the prices and how the profits are used. Its more like regulated monopolies, similar to electric companies and so forth. I think it could work here, and parts of the Obamacare plan do that. THe real problem with Obamacare is that it's a political compromise, which is essentially half-@ss health. The deeper problem is that you have one half of the country that has really good proposals and is willing to try things out and you have another half that just keeps saying "No, no, no, and no." We can blame Obama if we want - I guess many already have and maybe many more will curse him for conceiving this by the time it's through. But the deeper problem isn't really big government; it's ineffective and dysfunctional government.
Nixon was the first President with a national healthcare agenda. He got distracted.
Had the U.S. gone for it, back then, it would have had an almost clean slate.
40 years later and health care and pharm are big business with interests to protect.
No national healthcare system started out as or is perfect. Healthcare legislation evolves.
As much as I favor national healthcare, I am not sure I would have made it a top priority, given all else. On the other hand, it has to start somewhere. If not now, then when?
More proof, after the F-bomb fiasco, that businessmen should stick to business because they know little else: "This is what Switzerland does and I think we would be much better off copying that system."
Regulated by federal law (Krankenversicherungs-gesetz1994)
Compulsory mandate requiring individuals to have insurance
Guaranteed issue of gov't-defined basic plan at same cost to all regardless of age or condition
Regulations restrict private insurers' policies and profits
Premiums capped at 8% of individuals' income, with government subsidies for costs above this level
Sound familiar? Mackey is an idiot.
Expenditure of selected health care functions by providers of health care, per inhabitant [hlth_sha1h]
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
To clarify, that is the amount of health care money spent by providers of funds, including the governments at all levels, public and private insurers, employers and charitable organizations.
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF General government
Romania....... 241.10
Spain .......1,553.99
Canada .......2,111.80
Sweden .......2,441.88
Germany .......2,537.44
Belgium .......2,565.80
Austria .......2,615.23
France .......2,646.43 United States....... 2,657.86 Switzerland .......3,114.60
Netherlands .......3,271.16
Denmark .......3,775.17
Luxembourg .......4,105.86
Norway .......4,195.13
That’s what each government spends per person. How about yet another perspective?
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95
France .......254.56
Germany....... 403.33
Spain .......438.35
Canada....... 471.79
Austria .......516.18
Sweden .......522.30
Denmark....... 611.68
Luxembourg .......680.76
Belgium....... 681.71 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
No, I didn’t stutter…..those are out-of-pocket expenses.
You can find that information here on the website of the European Commission of the European Union. The files are downloadable, and you can downloand them in Adobe, text, Excel, and a few other formats.
Aren't you all just dying to pay more out-of-pocket? Oh, c'mon, admit it, you know you are. Americans love to spend money.
Those data files list all Euro-States, plus they often include data form South Korea, Japan, Australia and Kiwiland, but I choose those countries for a specific reason.
How about Romania?
Romania's health care system is really cheap. I personally vouch for it -- Hai Romania! Sa joaca.
People really don't understand numbers, and I included Romania here to prove that people don't understand numbers. Cost-of-living does factor into the equation. Technology factors into the equation. And then, for nearly all of those countries, the government also plays a very big role.
This very credible fellow --- the German Minister of Health --- can explain it to you in his very own words...
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
I'll let the German Minister of Health qualify his statement here....
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.-- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
In plain English, what the German Minister of Health is saying is that if they only collect enough money in taxes to spend $3,398.50 per person per year, then that is "what it costs." If they collect enough in taxes to spend $4,195.13 per person per year, then that is "what it costs."
But what if health care really does cost $5,215.64 per person per year?
The Germans don't give a damn how much it actually costs; the Germans only care about the amount they collect in taxes to spend on health care. If the Germans (and others) actually collected $5,215.64 per person per year, then that is what they would spend, but they don't collect that much....
....and because they don't, they ration health care, they delay treatment to people, they deny treatment to people, they cut-off treatment to people and they dilute the treatment to the point of being ineffective.
That is not speculation, that's fact. You just have to want to read the reports published by those governments and by reputable non-governmental organizations and by peer-reviewed research.
And as far as Free Enterprise health care, that is a joke: Free Enterprise health care was mortally wounded by the American Hospital Association in 1939 and dealt the fatal death blow in 1943.
And how bizarro is it that the very group who destroyed the health care system in the US also wrote much of Obamacare?
You got one thing right: Mackey is pretty damn dumb. Didn't Whole Foods sell out to Big-Corporate Agro-Business and Franken-foods?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,414,718 times
Reputation: 2397
I thought he wanted American cheese to have holes in it like the Swiss. Oh well. At least American politicians have holes in their heads, so we are kinda' like the Swiss.
Yes, he veered off to dropping his guard and repeated his extremist political views when repeating the facism charge. He's since been roundly criticized for doing that. And he backtracked, saying he was insensitive to others. Yea, I bet he is. Not! He's also come under attack today for comments he made on NPR regarding what he described as America's additction to sugar, salt and fat in products. Many people are pointing out those are products sold by Whole Foods. Look, he pimping for a new book he's authored and what he's saying shouldn't be listened to ... because it's just hype to get us interested in the book. I'm going to think about his personal viewpoints, though, when I consider shopping, or not, at a Whole Foods Store. Do I want my money to support someone like that. For now, I'll give him a pass. But it's likely I'll stop shopping there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
