« A Special Place in Heaven for Pro-Lifer Eunice Kennedy Shriver | Main | Compassion for One Remorseless Terrorist or Victims' Families? »

August 17, 2009



Providing actual health care is not the point.


Why don't you extend the open-mindedness you demand and recognize that a boycott is one accepted way of expressing political views that dates back to the beginning of the republic? Seems pretty rational to me.

Would you rather Dems hijack Whole Foods shareholder meetings with organized hate-fests, throwing up defaced John Mackey posters, armed with guns and false characterizations of the Canadian and British health care system?

Colette Moran

Hey -- boycott away! I do it all the time -- but for good reasons.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people boycotting didn't even read what Mackey wrote -- they are just hear "Mackey is against Obama's plan" and they jump on the boycott bandwagon.

John Mackey is no conservative mouthpiece -- he has employed admirable business practices for decades that liberals pointed to as a shining example.

But now, because he believes that throwing out a 1017-page stack of unreadable legispeak and instead considering small changes that can be done to make a real dent in health care reform -- changes that he has employed AND HAVE WORKED --suddenly he's an apostate?

And btw -- those "organized hate-fests" you're talking about? I saw the Dems hold those for 8 years (okay without any guns -- but no one doing that is breaking any laws -- not that I'm thrilled about it -- and the WH has said it's ok)

For Bush's *entire presidency* there were innummerable protests with defaced photos and false characterizations (not that I think the Canadian and British systems have been mischaracterized -- there are some good aspects, but the bad aspects are enough to say "no thanks!")

The recent gatherings by conservative dissenters are docile by comparison.


So your point is that the boycott of Whole Foods is not "for good reasons" (or reasons that you agree with, anyway), and since Bush was vilified, so too should be the Democratic president.

You sell your fellow Americans so short by "betting" that most boycotters haven't read Mackey's editorial. You did, right? If you could find it, why wouldn't anyone else have read it?

I seriously doubt that you know too much about the Canadian and British health systems, but OK.

Consider your opinion...considered.

Colette Moran

No, I don't think that Obama should be vilified *because* Bush was -- Obama is bringing it on himself. The ridiculous part is that liberals think it was ok to do to Bush, but now declare BO is unreproachable.

I don't sell liberals short -- I know them. Years ago, if you asked them exactly what they didn't like about the Contract with America, many couldn't answer bec they hadn't read it!

Today is similar. A 1017 page doorstop, or a quick editorial. Ask them specifics and they can rattle off talking points, but not much else. They blindly follow whatever their leaders say.

Conservatives on the other hand are actually reading the bill, (as laborious as it is) and coming up with all kinds of problems. (I myself had a Twitter friend who read it and gave summaries every few pages -- even then, it was so hard to understand.)

I'm no expert on the C & B systems -- I do know they have their merits (better overall outcomes, sense of security is less stressful) but I've heard enough from actual residents to know it's not what we want. There are other ways to solve the problems with our system.

So Mackey comes up with ideas to address these problems -- rather than create a whole new slew of problems -- but bec it's in opposition to Obama, it is not worthy of consideration by the left. Even from a guy who has been an inspiration to liberals.

I have yet to read a quote in any of the articles about this boycott *exactly* what they disagree with, and why -- even though it has worked within Mackey's company -- they think it won't work. (All they do is complain about how they feel "betrayed.") Makes me tend to think they haven't read the op-ed and/or have not given due consideration to the ideas it suggested.


I don't agree much with the protests either, though I come at it from an entirely different angle. I think that the protests are silly because they are obviously totally ineffective...when those in power are intent on setting up a one-party totalitarian government. Like you say, they are comparatively...docile.

Really, just in terms of the likely effect on American attitudes towards medicine, I'm very nearly in favor of Obamacare. I think that it's long past time you developed a healthy suspicion towards the agenda of those who administrate modern medicine. If changing the system to kill the helpless as a matter of policy is what it takes...I'm not entirely uncomfortable with making it crystal clear that the medical profession embraces legalized murder. If you want doctors to "do no harm"...it's been a long time since that meant anything, if it ever did. People need to face facts. Obama is helping them do that, right?

But like I said, this isn't about health care. The debate over whether bureaucrats are to be trusted with the decision about how long you're worth keeping alive is just a distraction from the powers they're really aiming to assume. As "Ticktock Man" as Obamacare may seem, they have absolutely no intention of being satisfied with just that.


First of all, lumping all Democrats together under the umbrella of "contemptible liberals" is a tactic I teach my children to avoid. It's truly pathetic and meaningless.

Second of all, Americans already exist under "death panels." They're fat-cat executives who take the money of hardworking Americans and then deny coverage for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, American taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants (which is a big neo-Con bone of contention). Since no one is denied treatment in ERs, that's where they go for health care.

Finally, the insured also pay for the uninsured. When risk is assessed, thus allowing insurance execs to decide how much to charge for premiums, etc., it's not only the effectively insured who are considered in that group. They're also considering how much to collect to cover the costs of treating those without health care. It's a vicious cycle already.

Colette Moran

I do not lump all Democrats together (love the Blue Dogs!) and I did not say "contemptible liberals" (although I assume your punctuation marks were not to actually quote me but to illustrate a questionable term) -- however, I do admit that in my attempts to be concise and not take up too much time typing, I sometimes inadvertantly use shorthand that may sound like "lumping." (A consequence of time restraints that I readily have admitted before, and try to avoid.)

Truly pathetic? Pretty harsh. I try to tell my girls that such generalizations -- about any political party -- are generally incorrect and to eschew such usage. I reserve "truly pathetic" for deliberate actions, not unintended slights.

And yep, let's demonize the insurance companies since Obamacare is on the ropes -- got to have a bad guy to rally support.

Surely we can address the problems of business decisions (often heartless, admittedly) by insurance companies, the illegal immigrant issue, the vicious cycle of paying for the uninsured and the myriad other problems within our health care system in a better way than by ramming thru a behemoth bill.

Small steps, addressing each problem systematically with true debate would be far better than trying to take on the entire morass with a single piece of legislation.


Small steps, so that the GOP can defeat each attempt at reform more thoroughly in order to preserve free market and trickle down economics?

True debate, as being demonstrated by the "town maulers"?

If we know what the shortcomings are (just a few of which I've outlined above), what's wrong with fixing them all while the issue's on the table? I didn't demonize insurance companies -- they brought it on themselves. I just laid out the facts.

Colette Moran

How does taking small steps assure that the GOP will defeat each one? If they are all worthy enough to make it into the bill, then they are worthy of examination.

No one likes it when bad pieces of legislation are added on to good ones -- this bill is so huge, you can't tell me that you approve of *everything* in it. Why is one guy -- the author of the bill -- the single person who will decide what our health policy will be?

And have you been to any of those town meetings? No, I imagine like most, you have just seen the sensational moments broadcast by the media. Yes, there are people who are upset, and when their representatives treat them dismissively, that just raises their ire. There has been plenty of civil debate at those meetings -- and debate involves dissension and discussion, not being preached to by your representative.

What's wrong with fixing all the issues at once? It's never the best policy for approaching a problem of such complexity. Too much gets lost in the mix, and nothing is given proper attention.

What it boils down to, the supporters of Obamacare are using tactics that they howled about for years -- time to stop being hypocritical and start acting as promised.


Well, you couldn't have known this, but yes, I HAVE been to a health care meeting, since I would like to learn more about and see effective reform. Unfortunately, those protesters who have a problem with having a black liberal as president drowned out the voices of those who might have had any worthy counterargument to what's being proposed.

Colette Moran

Was that the meeting were Dem. GA Rep David Scott yelled at a local doctor that he was an "astroturfer"? Oops.

Seriously -- I wasn't there -- you supposedly were -- but some of the coverage has shown folks all het up. When they're hearing the same song and dance and are treated dismissively... But yeah, we do need real debate, not just expressing discontent.

Wow, you were busy at that meeting! --> You asked each and every one of those loud protestors and they *all* said they have a problem with having a black liberal president? What was that you said about "truly pathetic and meaningless" lumping?


Sarcasm duly noted. I guess all your talk about thoughtful interaction only goes so far.


And no, I didn't say all the protestors were mad about having a black liberal prez, I said those who were drowned out the voices of those who had a supposedly relevant beef.

You had that zinger at the ready! Too bad you didn't read my comment correctly.


"I guess all your talk about thoughtful interaction only goes so far."

More generally, talk only does go so far.

Colette Moran

Wow -- back in the schoolyard...

I didn't say you said that *all* the protestors were mad about a black prez.

I said the "loud protestors" meaning those that drowned out the others.

Too bad *you* didn't read *my* comment correctly.

Not thoughtful interaction? You started it! (Did too! Nyah!)


LOL! And with that, I rest my case!


We all wish.

The comments to this entry are closed.