Natural and organic: liberals only need apply?
There's been a fair bit of hoo-ha over Whole Foods's CEO John Mackey's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Well, I've read it (you can, too, if you follow that link), and I don't think it's all that contentious, which leads me to believe that most people who are complaining about it haven't actually read it. Isn't that surprising? They heard he quoted Margaret Thatcher on socialism (or, more likely, don't realize he was quoting someone) and that he uses the buzzwords "entitlement" and "government takeover" and figure this means he wants all his employees to be sick because they can't afford insurance.
The biggest problem I have with his suggestions is his third point: "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines." Given the differences in state laws, I wonder how feasible it would really be to have an insurance company based in Seattle provide coverage for someone in Tallahassee. Of course, if real reform takes place (which I think is really doubtful, considering how well entrenched the pharmaceutical companies and big insurance providers are), maybe that would be something that would be resolved. I don't know how realistic his other suggestions are, but I don't think they sound like big bad business trying to put one over on the little employee, like so many people do.
What really bothers me, though, is how many people act surprised that someone who founded a grocery store chain based around "natural and organic foods" is not a card carrying liberal. Because, obviously, you must be liberal to be concerned about excessive use of fertilizers and medicated feed. (Which means, of course, that you must be in favor of Obama's healthcare reform plans, which means that you'll automatically start boycotting Whole Foods [along with all of the other obviously liberal people who make up the entire customer base for the chain] because Mackey doesn't agree with you about it, and the company will go out of business.)
Here in the real world, however, the movement towards more natural and organic foods is politically colorblind. As is the movement away. There are plenty of Democrats out there who think genetically modified foods - or even just foods produced with lots of fertilizer, pesticides, and medicated feed - are just lovely. There are plenty of Republicans and Libertarians with organic farms. When you make the assumption that because you see someone shopping at Whole Foods, they'll be as liberal as you are . . . well, you know what you do when you make an assumption, don't you? "You make an ass out of 'u' and 'umption'" (from The Long Kiss Goodnight).
ETA: I should add that what I think really needs to be done is get the insurance companies out of things entirely, so we can have a return to affordable healthcare and not worry about affordable insurance. I realize that will never, ever happen, at least not before the apolcalypse, but I think it sounds better than government enforced gambling, which is what insurance is. If I'm going to bet on something, I'd rather it be on my pulling the card to fill my inside straight, or that the fifth horse in the race is going to place, not on whether I'll get pregnant, develop cancer, or break a bone.
The biggest problem I have with his suggestions is his third point: "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines." Given the differences in state laws, I wonder how feasible it would really be to have an insurance company based in Seattle provide coverage for someone in Tallahassee. Of course, if real reform takes place (which I think is really doubtful, considering how well entrenched the pharmaceutical companies and big insurance providers are), maybe that would be something that would be resolved. I don't know how realistic his other suggestions are, but I don't think they sound like big bad business trying to put one over on the little employee, like so many people do.
What really bothers me, though, is how many people act surprised that someone who founded a grocery store chain based around "natural and organic foods" is not a card carrying liberal. Because, obviously, you must be liberal to be concerned about excessive use of fertilizers and medicated feed. (Which means, of course, that you must be in favor of Obama's healthcare reform plans, which means that you'll automatically start boycotting Whole Foods [along with all of the other obviously liberal people who make up the entire customer base for the chain] because Mackey doesn't agree with you about it, and the company will go out of business.)
Here in the real world, however, the movement towards more natural and organic foods is politically colorblind. As is the movement away. There are plenty of Democrats out there who think genetically modified foods - or even just foods produced with lots of fertilizer, pesticides, and medicated feed - are just lovely. There are plenty of Republicans and Libertarians with organic farms. When you make the assumption that because you see someone shopping at Whole Foods, they'll be as liberal as you are . . . well, you know what you do when you make an assumption, don't you? "You make an ass out of 'u' and 'umption'" (from The Long Kiss Goodnight).
ETA: I should add that what I think really needs to be done is get the insurance companies out of things entirely, so we can have a return to affordable healthcare and not worry about affordable insurance. I realize that will never, ever happen, at least not before the apolcalypse, but I think it sounds better than government enforced gambling, which is what insurance is. If I'm going to bet on something, I'd rather it be on my pulling the card to fill my inside straight, or that the fifth horse in the race is going to place, not on whether I'll get pregnant, develop cancer, or break a bone.