Whole Foods Boycott: EPIC FAIL

sneetchRod Dreher talks the why.

The beautifully merciless stock market shows the what.

Trendy hipster boycott FAIL.


  1. Tom says:

    We’re still shocked that we actually agreed with one of Rod’s columns. He may just be a moderate after all. I don’t think there’s a patent on “Crunchy Mod.”

  2. Bethany says:

    I’m still flummoxed as to why we need to boycott something someone said, on his own, not even presenting it as the opinion of his company. And really, they’re boycotting a company that pays its employees insurance premiums 100 percent if they work more than 30 hours per week, and also gives them about $1500 in incentive money to use for health and wellness activities? They want us to boycott a company who by policy doesn’t allow its executives to make more than what, 14 percent, of its lowest paid employee?
    If every company did this, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all. And why are the libtards doing this, when companies should be the ones getting all riled up?
    So what if he’s against the current health care reforms being bandied about. He’s entitled to his opinion. And really, he’s right. This “concern” over employees not being able to unionize is bunk, too. Have they even bothered to ask a Whole Foods employee if they feel oppressed?
    Fact of the matter is, many people work at places like Whole Foods and Home Depot (which also offers insurance to even part time employees) because of that security. Students who have aged out of their parents policy, those who have lost their jobs and can’t afford the hefty COBRA payments…all of those people flock to jobs like that because of that opportunity.

  3. amanda says:

    I have to agree about the straw-man “union” issue. I’ve known several people, all hippies, who work at Whole Foods. All blissfully happy, all well paid, all have benefits. The only thing a union would do is upset what is widely considered to be a great place to work.

    Excercising free speech is now “hate speech.” Grow a pair, get over it…

    @ Bethany, “libtards”…classic.

  4. Bethany says:

    Libtard: So far to the left that you nearly swing back around to the right.
    Republitard: So far to the right that you nearly swing back around to the left.

    The rest are various shades of that, and are left in the middle to figure out why everyone’s fighting, because there’s obvious places for compromise and consensus building, but the other two are way too vocal to make that even remotely possible.

  5. Jack E. Jett says:

    The President of Whole Foods is free to speak his mind. People are free to boycott a business for any reason they want. It doesn’t matter because Obama’s death panels will be killing the elderly and tards of every flavor.

  6. Dave says:

    @ Jack

    Obama has said that it wasn’t a good idea to give his grandmother a hip replacement because she was elderly and not in good health. Barbara Boxer was on MSNBC a couple of weeks saying that the reason health care was so bad was because so much money is spent on the elderly. You can call it whatever you want , death panels, or as Obama and Democrats call it “end of life counseling” , and joke about it, but when the Democrats talk about cutting costs they’re talking about denying treatment to the elderly and terminally ill.

  7. Dave says:

    Just to clarify, Obama thought it was a bad idea to give his grandmother a hip replacement because he felt it was a waste of money given her condition.

  8. Jack E. Jett says:

    Is that a fact Dave? Leave it to Libtards to allow their own mother to die just to save a few bucks. We certainly don’t want Obama or the government telling us what we should do with our bodies. The last thing we need is any sort of pre-life or pre death counseling.

  9. amanda says:

    Jack…I don’t want to inflame (pun?) You, but they Obama plan will limit and eliminate HIV meds. End of life counseling will apply to those patients going from HIV to AIDS. HIV is a chronic disease, and everyone with chronic conditions will face significant limits on treatment and medications.

  10. Jack E. Jett says:


    I am not inflamed by you. The inflamed people can be seen at town hall meetings. I think we all know the root of the birthers, the deathers, the teabaggers. I feel they all have a right to say and believe what they wish.
    Sometimes our elderly friends are easily confused and I see no reason to
    worry them with pull the plug on grandma which anyone can find out with a bit of research is not a fact. Nor is the issue of eliminating HIV meds. Just as the Tom Ridge colorful terror chart, fearmongering is a way of life for some.
    We are a great country and we will always care for those less fortunate than ourselves.
    Knowledge equals Power.

  11. Dallasite says:

    “We are a great country and we will always care for those less fortunate than ourselves.”

    It should be by choice, not force. Why should I have to pay more taxes just so you can have free healthcare?

  12. Jack E. Jett says:

    First of all, you are not paying for my insurance. However we are both paying for everyone that goes to an emergency room without insurance. If a hospital refuses service to anyone they can be and will be sued which again, will end up costing us money.

    I don’t believe in the war in Iraq and Afganistan, but I have no choice but to help pay for it. Shouldn’t I have a choice? Even if I wanted to, I would not be allowed to join the milatary and be honest.

    I don’t have any children, but I pay a huge sum in school taxes. Shouldn’t I have a choice?

    Even if you don’t believe in Health Care Reform, for whatever reason, do you really think that in America, someone would pass a law to euthanize the elderly? And if you don’t believe that, don’t you think to create fear in our elderly loved ones is a bit over the top?

  13. Dave says:

    Jack, you had a choice to pay for Afghanistan and Iraq when you voted. Unfortunately for you, you’re now finding out that all the Democrat talk about being anti-war, ant-torture etc. was just a way for them to get into power. Now that Democrats are safely ensconced in Washington, they have no use for the anti-war crowd and they’re ignoring you completely.

    And you’re right, we do pay for emergency room treatment, now feel free to explain why people who pay the taxes for that emergency treatment should also be forced out of their insurance plan that they’re perfectly happy with and into a government run single payer system. That’s what the government option in Obamas plan is designed to do as he himself, and other supporters, have admitted.

    You’re right Jack, knowledge is power. You might want to get yourself some -

    “President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.”

    - – - – - – - – -

    “That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

    Like i said, when Obama and Democrats talk about cutting health care cost, they’re talking about denying care to the elderly and terminally ill.

  14. amanda says:

    @ Dave, don’t confuse you-know-who with facts. He’ll get the vapors all over this blog.

  15. Jack E. Jett says:

    Dave and Amanda

    Dave, I was trying to find some common ground for which we could agree. I have knowledge on the subject and feel capable of discussing it.

    Amanda, not sure what you mean by facts/vapors/pun/inflame etc. It never matters what I say, your response is always the same. I think that is what makes you so attractive.

    So many times people can read the same book and get something different out of it. This must be the case with this bill.

  16. Bethany says:

    *growls* Libtards is MINE.

  17. Amy S says:

    “It should be by choice, not force. Why should I have to pay more taxes just so you can have free healthcare?”

    This is one of those issues where if given the choice, there are those that will go with the cheapest option, be it inspection of a filthy, sickening peanut factory or a company that offers their employees little, or no insurance. They of course will benefit from the competitive advantage over their peers, offering lower cost products and services (i.e. Walmart vs. Whole Foods).

    The poor and the working poor already have free healthcare. Those who are employed already pay for their own insurance, either by reduced wages from their employers or by insurance premium co-pays. Insurance is no guarantee of coverage, for any illness or treatment. I don’t know why people think that the insurance industry plays nicer than government, for gods sake they have a profit to make!

    And that health “benefit” offered by most companies to their lower wage earning employees? Well they’d be lucky if it covered most of the costs of a broken appendage, let alone a major illness because for the premium cost, what you end up with is something that has a ridiculously low lifetime maximum payment.

    Can’t pay for that surgery but make too much for free medical? Well they have loans for that, right online waiting for you to sign, so desperate to find a cure to live that you’ll sign anything. Need your prostate diagnosed/treated/removed? Well sir, that will be about $50,000, COD, sorry no house accounts allowed.

    May you never lose your insurance, may you never encounter a chronic disease.

    What’s so wrong with believing that good, accessible health care CAN be provided to everyone, not just to the poor, the sick, the old as it does now. It should be our right.

  18. Amy S says:

    (Pause for 1/2 glass of wine)

    And before anyone assumes some sort of “liblabel” for me, I’m a small business owner in an industry that is notorious for not providing benefits to its hourly wage earners. For several years we did, a small GE health policy that had a low lifetime maximum, but was affordable and 100% paid by us. Gradually our employees asked to have it discontinued because even the fact that we offered it meant problems for truly sick employees at Parkland. I’m not sure of the specifics, but somehow having any sort of coverage caused some sort of classification or status change in how their charges were handled.

    My son, who headed off to college last week (Go Tigers, no he is not studying journalism) took me out to lunch a few days before he left. During the meal, he asked me my thoughts on the health bill, and I think my answer surprised him. Apparently he thought I’d rail against the taxes, the cost, the certain closure of businesses if this bill goes through.

    But instead I said, “I’m taking the Walmart position”, because I like to think that the leadership of Walmart realizes that we’ve come to a point in our culture where we either do it or don’t. And we can be the people to make it happen or not. But one thing is for certain, we’re all in the same boat if we all have to do it. Not just some of us, all of us. So they made a statement, that they were in favor of a national health plan, of course depending on the specific details.

    And so I have the same stance. If we all have to do it, let’s all do it, and make it what we need, not what fear drives us to. We don’t have to have a one payer system, but we need to make changes and requirements that provide for all, thereby putting us all on the same competitive footing with each other.

    Yes, it’s going to cost something, but I haven’t heard much talk about the savings side of the equation either. For example, what about the working poor who would then have either employer coverage or a “pay in” by their employers for a government pool? Wouldn’t their cost have been born entirely by Medicaid previously? The change brings about an offset paid by the employers, and less stress on the Medicaid system. What about the insurance premium savings for companies if there is a more competitive element added to the landscape. Large companies are given a “bulk” discount pricing, what if small companies like mine, say in the same industry, were allowed to co-op together to bid out their rates?

    And yes, it means we’re all going to pay a little more, because however we end up paying for the costs, it’s going to trickle down to the consumer. Either prices or taxes (like a Value Added tax) will increase the price of goods and services. It will be up to us to insist that we get a good value for this cost, and up to our politicians to deliver it.

  19. Dallasite says:

    Amy S,

    I copied your text into MS Word and it took two and a half pages. That’s way too long for a blog comment’s rant.

    I’ll try to keep my rebuttal shorter.

    “What’s so wrong with believing that good, accessible health care CAN be provided to everyone, not just to the poor, the sick, the old as it does now. It should be our right.”

    CAN sounds like a hippie’s dream. Let’s look at what doesn’t appear in fairy tales, ok? Something provided by somebody else is never a Right. An inalienable Right is something that has to be taken away. What the Left is calling for is a government entitlement at the expense of others it is not a Right.

    “Yes, it’s going to cost something, but I haven’t heard much talk about the savings side of the equation either. “

    Show me a single example of where a government, any government, did something at a lower cost than private industry. The CBO has called the Democrats out on this repeatedly. There are no savings, only cost increases.

    “And yes, it means we’re all going to pay a little more, because however we end up paying for the costs, it’s going to trickle down to the consumer.”

    Oh yes, we’ll pay a little more, and a little more, and more, more, more… Once it’s in the hands of government bureaucrats and politicians, there will no longer be any limits to how much we will pay.

    So, back to my original question. Why should I pay more taxes so that others can have free healthcare? Why should my business go bankrupt paying for the healthcare of others?

  20. amanda says:

    Amy, I was a healthcare administrator and consultant.

    Believe me, you don’t want for yourself or your family what is in this bill.

  21. Paul says:

    Back in 2008, this Whole Foods, CEO John Mackey (how old is this kid?), was caught posting negative comments (trash talk) about a competitor on Yahoo Finance message boards in an effort to push down the stock price. So now I am suppose to take this loser seriously? Please, snore, snore.

    It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people (honestly where can they go with a pre-condition). And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

    How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a “lynch mob” advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types AKA “screamers” are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

  22. Dave says:

    The reason Wal Mart supports the health care bill is because they won’t have to provide coverage for their employees if it passes. The fines for dropping employee coverage under the health care bill are insignificant and much cheaper than providing coverage for employees. So Wal Mart, and lots of other businesses, will gladly eliminate coverage for their employees, pay the small fine, and laugh all the way to the bank while their employees are forced into the government run single payer system.

    And there’s nothing accidental about that, the fines are made small specifically to provide incentive to employers to drop their coverage and force their employees into the government run single payer system.

    And we haven’t even gotten to the part about how the insurance employers provide will have to meet new government guidelines within five years or face fines, another reason to drop employee coverage. The bottom line is, if the government option in the health care bill is passed, there will be no reason for employers to provide coverage and millions of people will be forced into the government run single payer system. And that’s been the plan all along.

  23. Amy S says:

    (Shakes head, flummoxed). So Dave, your conspiracy theory is that the government is trying to get private business to cover fewer employees? I don’t consider 8% of employee wages as an insignificant penalty, but possibly an affordable option compared to the private insurance quotes of 20% of wages.

    Amanda – I don’t want the bill as published, but I think that there are many changes that can be made to the current system to improve it. I do not want a single payer system, nor do I think we have to adhere to other countries previous examples of health care reform.

    Dallasite, Trey isn’t charging by the word, sorry about the length, just don’t read it if it’s not your thing. You go ahead and keep your money. Feel better? Just hope you don’t get sick and lose your job or have your insurance deny you coverage. Hope it works out for you.

  24. Dave says:

    If it’s a conspiracy theory, why did you agree with it? All you did was change “insignificant” to “affordable option”. And that’s the point, the fine is an affordable option to providing coverage, so employers will gladly drop coverage and pay the fines.

  25. Amy S says:

    I’m in no way in favor of a one payer system, I think I’ve made that clear. And I spent over $80 at Whole Foods tonight. So there!

  26. Bethany says:

    I hate to say it, but if you’ve had insurance, some faceless bureaucrat has already made a healthcare decision for you.

  27. Dave says:

    I’ve shopped at Whole Foods for years just because i thought their food tasted better. A few years ago they were offering Neil Youngs Impeach the President cd at the checkout counter, i doubt you’d find that anywhere else. Central Market is just as good as Whole Foods though, and they’ve got bagging down to a science. I’ve never seen anybody be as studious about bagging groceries as the people at Central Market.

  28. Amy S says:

    “And that’s the point, the fine is an affordable option to providing coverage, so employers will gladly drop coverage and pay the fines.”

    Dave, I think what you’re missing is that these are the employers that currently pay NO coverage. They let everyone else (like you) pick it up in their share of the taxes for Medicaid. And when it’s an “industry standard” of coverage, no one can really afford to offer anything less, unless they reliquish any competitive pricing against their competition.

    I’m not sure what your position is in this, but I feel like I’m certainly one of those in my industry arguing against the norm. Most would probably prefer to let the taxpaying public pick up the total share of health care for their low income employees.

  29. amanda says:

    I apologize for writing long…

    It’s ironic, in everyone of these “debates” (on blogs), someone will throw down, “I hope you or someone you love never has a serious illness…” What makes you think I haven’t? I have a family member stricken with an unusual chronic condition, and have watched that play out since 1982. Over the last 27 years, the medical bills have exceeded $7M. The out-of-pocket (co-pays) are in excess of $1M. Under the parameters of care, I have no doubt, my mother would have been denied the care she needs, and left for dead. Convinced. Her life has been expensive to maintain, but priceless to me, my dad, and family. When she turned 65, it took A YEAR for Medicare to approve life-saving infusion therapy she’s been receiving for the previous 6 years. They wanted to debate “if” she really needed it. Meanwhile, her condition deteriorated, and she had 4 hospitalizations (at over $150K each). So, what we can take from that is that the really big stuff people need, aren’t going to fit into the normal care standards, and why a panel of health professionals and bean counters debate on the cost effectiveness, they system will be forced to absorb the ancillary costs to treat secondary illnesses the patient experiences as the debate rages on.

    I oppose any further government control and for good reason. I was in the medical industry. I know the difference between what is pitched to the public vs. the practical implementation in a care setting.

    Also of grave concern to me are patients, who like my mother are immune compromised, but have HIV. Most new HIV diagnosis come from treatment of secondary infections. It can take up to 4 months for those people to go into a program (that is subsidized), meanwhile, they may go into AIDS. Just as the example above with my mother, people will suffer waiting while the numbers are sorted out. It takes a full fiscal year for government budgets to catch up to actual need. This is what it comes down to: Dallas, we budgeted enough for 20,000 HIV patients, you’ve got 20,050. Those 50 have to wait until 50 people die, or we get more money next October. Yeah, that’s how it works. In the meantime, the system absorbs the treatment costs. Eventually, people with ANY chronic disease will be left out in the cold. It’s happened in every other country with socialization of medical care, except one…

    WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS INSURANCE REFORM. We need a true free market in health insurance, and elimination of the MIB (Medical Information Board), which keeps underwriting and code history on every man, woman, and child treated in this country. It is a way to control the market by giving carriers the ability to price fix group and individual premiums. Forget Canada, and the UK. By far, the BEST system is in Germany. Providers and insurance carriers work together, and the patients benefit. It sort of a hybrid market, and it allows for cutting edge treatments, new pharma development.

  30. Amy S says:


    Your argument makes sense. Glad you weighed in. As you mentioned, Medicare, while substandard to the previous insurance coverage was there for your mom as the insurer of last resort for treatment, as it is for all of us. I’m assuming the only other choice at that point was for the entire cost to be born by the family.

    I know when my husband was diagnosed with metastatic cancer (2007) that we too had to go through a debate about allowable/approved treatments for him. And this was through our private insurer (Cigna) which has premium costs (for a family) of almost $20,000 per year. They said “no”, a lot. Even treatments that were “mainstream” for prostate cancer (like having your prostate removed) were not considered “allowable” due to his advanced condition. It’s really changed from what your mother experienced while covered during her illness by private insurance – not to mention that more and more employers aren’t even offering such a comprehensive, high maximum limit policies to their employees anymore due to the expense.

    Ultimately it comes to this in the change – we can let others decide what we will get, or we can MAKE THEM DELIVER WHAT WE WANT. As you pointed out, there are places like Germany that make this work, we don’t have to settle for what it’s always been before.

  31. Mork from Ork says:

    It was correct that Whole Foods execs’ salaries are no more than 14% of the lowest paid employee. However, most of their total comp comes from stock incentives.

  32. Dave says:

    Amy, i’m not sure what you mean, but the fines i’m talking about apply to employers who currently supply coverage and those who don’t. As for my position on the health care bill, i’m against it. They’ve gone about this in a dishonest way in an attempt to takeover healthcare, not to mention that Medicare/Medicaid are going broke and the only time anybody has anything good to say about the VA is when they want to promote government run healthcare, and even then it’s usually people who don’t have to go to the VA promoting it. Like Amy said, private insurance isn’t perfect, but that’s not a reason to use the power of government to run them out of business.

  33. Dave says:

    That should be “like you said”. Anyway, i think the last paragraph in Amandas last comment sums it up for me.

  34. Frank R says:

    As a side note, the current proposed legislation excludes the military from having to participant in whatever national healthcare program is passed. So, that means that the military, the politicians and the bureaucrats all get different coverage from what we will be offered. We should be demanding that both the Congress and the bureaucrats be subjected to the same programs and regulations that the rest of the taxpayers are. For too long Congress has excluded itself from the rules it sets for the rest of us.

    Further, House passed plan currently has a clause that will not allow you to enroll in a new private plan if you change or lose your current insurance. This clause goes into effect once the legislation is passed into law. So, the government will set all the rules of participation for the insurance companies and the plan participants better hope they don’t have to change or they will end up with the public program. Kinda reminds you of “Atlas Shrugged.” No one could be fired from a job. So, the names of employees stayed the same; just the faces changed.

  35. Dallasite says:

    Amy S:

    “You go ahead and keep your money. Feel better? Just hope you don’t get sick and lose your job or have your insurance deny you coverage. Hope it works out for you.”

    Except that if this passes it won’t be my choice. I’ll be forced to pay for something that doesn’t benefit me, and that I’m completely against. Even worse, the bill as written, phases out individual insurance policies, so I won’t even get to keep my private insurance. I’ll be forced to join the government plan. Oh, joy.

    I’ve been self-employed for almost 20 years. I’ve been responsible for my own insurance for almost that same amount of time. I like it this way.

    Despite what is being fed to us, Canada, France, and the UK are having horrible problems with their national health programs. The costs in France are so out of control the plan is running deficits of 30-50% per year. Guess who covers those deficits? Canada is excluding a lot of seniors from surgeries if they are deemed to be of little value due to a lack of funding. The UK has the lowest cancer survival rate of any industrialized nation. Any guesses who is first on that list?

    Cancer Survival Rates

    The UK has increased spending on their NHS by 50% over the last eight years. Predictably, productivity has dropped.

    Now, I’m still waiting for someone to explain why I should pay even higher taxes so that they can have free health insurance. What gives you the right to take from me for your own benefit?

  36. Frank R says:

    Survival rates for certain cancers in the UK are the worst in the world, even worse than for the worst off in the US. This is according to British physician Theodore Dalrymple in a recent article in the WSJ. He also said that anti biotic resistant staph infections are worse in many UK hospitals than in all of Europe. But, the treatment is at least egalitarian.

  37. Amy S says:

    Dallasite – you already are forced to pay for others.

    That nice young lady at McDonald’s making minimum wage? When she or her baby get sick – you pay for it through your employment taxes (which you pay even if self-employed), or through your property taxes (if you live in Dallas County) because she ends up at a free (government paid) clinic. McDonald’s doesn’t offer her any benefits because if they did they would have to raise prices. And if Burger King (Whataburger, Taco Bell, take your pick) isn’t offering their employees a similar benefit, then McDonald’s takes the financial hit, and becomes less competitively advantaged, their stock gets discounted, etc.. It’s not just the food industry – landscape, construction, retail, they all have the bottom rung of the paid poor in their industries as well.

    You keep going back to examples of countries that have nothing to do with the argument I’m making. Reform, not a single payer system. However for many of the currently uninsured, a government affordable option (note I said option), while substandard to some who are currently privately insured would be a huge improvement over what they had.

    Now the only thing I’ve read about added charges applies to those who are not currently covered, and taxing the employers of those employees. If you are self-employed, with no employees and with private insurance coverage, this would not apply to you. In fact, a more competitive element into the insurance market may just lower your private insurance premium rates.

  38. Paul says:

    I am always glad to see Americans voicing their opinions, I may not always agree with them, but I enjoy it, so please keep boycotting Whole Foods Market, Inc., companies keep dropping sponsorship of the “Glenn Beck” BS, Astroturfers keep showing up at town hall meeting and get your shouts in (we all know you can’t articulate your position and are all about hate) they hate and can’t debate, sweet.

  39. Dallasite says:

    Amy S: “Dallasite – you already are forced to pay for others. “

    And that in and of itself justifies me paying more?

    “When she or her baby get sick – you pay for it through your employment taxes (which you pay even if self-employed)”

    Actually, I pay double because I’m self employed, thank you.

    “Reform, not a single payer system.”

    Except that a single payer system is the goal of the people pushing this bill. This includes the President and the author of the bill, John Dingell. This bill is a very big step one.

    “You keep going back to examples of countries that have nothing to do with the argument I’m making. “

    Except we have to learn from their mistakes before we make the same one. A government option will inevitably lead to a single payer system.

    “However for many of the currently uninsured, a government affordable option (note I said option) “

    The current bill removes private single insurance policies, so people like myself will lose any option and be forced to subscribe to the government plan. That is not an option, that is forced inclusion.

    “Now the only thing I’ve read about added charges applies to those who are not currently covered, and taxing the employers of those employees.”

    Again, it means taxing others for your benefit. Taking someone else’s money for your own benefit is not compassion. Compassion is done by choice. No, when you take another person’s money it is theft. When a government does it, it is tyranny.

    “It’s not just the food industry – landscape, construction, retail, they all have the bottom rung of the paid poor in their industries as well.”

    Again, why should I have to pay for their insurance? Why should I have to pay for the insurance of 14 million illegal immigrants? (yes, they are included) Why should I have to pay for insurance for the 17 million people that make over $50K per year (half of them over $75K) and are currently uninsured?

    If a government is to tax, it should be for the benefit of all, not just a few.

    “In fact, a more competitive element into the insurance market may just lower your private insurance premium rates.”

    You know what would add more competition? More insurance companies. The current laws allowing states to exclude out of state companies, and to mandate the inclusion of certain unnecessary coverages drives up the price.

    You still haven’t even tried to answer my question, which tells me you either don’t have an answer, or you are stepping around it knowing that whatever answer you have is illogical.

  40. Daniel says:

    I’m a moditard.

  41. Daniel says:

    “So close to the middle that it causes painful chafing.”

  42. Jack E. Jett says:

    Good one Daniel.