3 ms·

Did you even read the article? I was unable to find even one instance where he was sticking it to his customers. All his points had everything to do with change

by jz 17y ago

Did you even read the article? I was unable to find even one instance where he was sticking it to his customers. All his points had everything to do with changes to the health care system, but with a minimal (if any) increase in the deficit.

ezy 17y ago
Did you? Read it again. It's missing the point and excessively patronizing. He is sticking it to his customers, you just aren't reading critically. To his credit, he's been consistent -- I found articles about the WF health plan from way back where he is equally patronizing about how his employees chose the "Suck Less" health care plan by vote. Gee, thanks. :-) Lets take some choice quotes: Covering the naive, self-serving bases we have: "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover", "Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year." Incredibly naive. Just astoundingly so. Also, note the complete lack of concern for the patients in this triangle. Or at least the ones who may not have the privilege of working at WholeFoods. And under the WTF category: "Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation [for people with no insurance]". Does anyone think this proposal is actually legitimate? This is the most intelligence insulting bit of ass-covering I've ever seen. But it doesn't end there. He references an article in Investor's business daily which is basically full of lies (look up the rebuttals -- it's quite humorous) And I love this one. Note the pre-built conclusion: "Why would [Can,UK employees] want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"?" Well, fucking duh, they don't need high deductable insurance from WholeFoods, and they want access to extra benefits in some form. But, he's smart, he knew this already... He just didn't choose to phrase it that way.. for our beenfit, of course. :-) And we have the patronizing implication in: "Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:". If that isn't a huge fuck you, I have no idea what is.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Two points: 1) "voluntary, tax deductible, donation" presumably means one can donate charitably to an individual who needs a medical intervention of some sort, eg pay for your brothers kidney operation tax free - what's your objection to this sort of thing? Your vitriol is obscuring your message. 2) "many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:", they are though aren't they? No where near all of them, but certainly many (I'm in the UK, perhaps people [contrary to all media reports] look after themselves better in the USA?).
  - ezy 17y ago
    Admittedly I was peeved when I read it, but you have to consider the reality, rather than the ideal. You can already deduct medical expenses and charitable donations in the US, and "donating" to family members is ripe for tax fraud. It's just not realistic. But igoring that, the thrust of that part of the op-ep was that this would pay for all those who can't afford insurance is absolutely ridiculous -- basically just, like I said, dumb and really naive. As for the second, while it may be true that "many" problems are self-inflicted in a technical sense, that rather vague statement is not the point. The point is what it implies. It implies that if everyone just ate their greens, we'd see less of a problem. Not only is it basically wrong (look up the stats). It's insulting because you're implicitly blaming a significant ("many") part of the healthcare problem on the people who... seek out healthcare. This is, again, stupid, and not the debate -- WHile people could take better care of themselves, they aren't ruining the system with hangnails and type 2 diabetes caused by Twinkies. That just isn't happening the way he implies. What we are talking about is a significant class of people who do not seek out healthcare because they cannot afford it.

by jz 17y ago

ezy 17y ago

Did you? Read it again. It's missing the point and excessively patronizing. He is sticking it to his customers, you just aren't reading critically. To his credit, he's been consistent -- I found articles about the WF health plan from way back where he is equally patronizing about how his employees chose the "Suck Less" health care plan by vote. Gee, thanks. :-) Lets take some choice quotes: Covering the naive, self-serving bases we have: "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover", "Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year." Incredibly naive. Just astoundingly so. Also, note the complete lack of concern for the patients in this triangle. Or at least the ones who may not have the privilege of working at WholeFoods. And under the WTF category: "Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation [for people with no insurance]". Does anyone think this proposal is actually legitimate? This is the most intelligence insulting bit of ass-covering I've ever seen. But it doesn't end there. He references an article in Investor's business daily which is basically full of lies (look up the rebuttals -- it's quite humorous) And I love this one. Note the pre-built conclusion: "Why would [Can,UK employees] want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"?" Well, fucking duh, they don't need high deductable insurance from WholeFoods, and they want access to extra benefits in some form. But, he's smart, he knew this already... He just didn't choose to phrase it that way.. for our beenfit, of course. :-) And we have the patronizing implication in: "Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:". If that isn't a huge fuck you, I have no idea what is.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Two points: 1) "voluntary, tax deductible, donation" presumably means one can donate charitably to an individual who needs a medical intervention of some sort, eg pay for your brothers kidney operation tax free - what's your objection to this sort of thing? Your vitriol is obscuring your message. 2) "many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:", they are though aren't they? No where near all of them, but certainly many (I'm in the UK, perhaps people [contrary to all media reports] look after themselves better in the USA?).
- ezy 17y ago
  Admittedly I was peeved when I read it, but you have to consider the reality, rather than the ideal. You can already deduct medical expenses and charitable donations in the US, and "donating" to family members is ripe for tax fraud. It's just not realistic. But igoring that, the thrust of that part of the op-ep was that this would pay for all those who can't afford insurance is absolutely ridiculous -- basically just, like I said, dumb and really naive. As for the second, while it may be true that "many" problems are self-inflicted in a technical sense, that rather vague statement is not the point. The point is what it implies. It implies that if everyone just ate their greens, we'd see less of a problem. Not only is it basically wrong (look up the stats). It's insulting because you're implicitly blaming a significant ("many") part of the healthcare problem on the people who... seek out healthcare. This is, again, stupid, and not the debate -- WHile people could take better care of themselves, they aren't ruining the system with hangnails and type 2 diabetes caused by Twinkies. That just isn't happening the way he implies. What we are talking about is a significant class of people who do not seek out healthcare because they cannot afford it.