wf3h wrote:
On Aug 15, 7:17 am, JLH LXV wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:04:56 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

for health care reform; gets hit with boycott from the left. He authored a
well-written piece in the Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57434217007286...)
Apparently because he didn't spout the Dems party line, a number of loony
liberals want to boycott Whole Foods. See:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=8322658&page=1
None of his detractors offered facts to refute the article.
Mantra of the loony left: "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."
You're right. All of the detractors had the same theme, "He's not
doing what the liberal organic food eaters want him to do. Therefore
he's bad." Their arguments have not one thing to do with his
recommendation, which make a hell of a lot of sense.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

only socialized medicine makes sense. the free enterprise approach is
DOA


In many circumstances, "free enterprise" means nothing more than the
consumer bends over while the corporate interests diddle him in the butt.

That's certainly true in the almost totally non-competitive health
insurance business.

In fact, the most competitive market for health insurance is the FEHBA
program operated by the federal government on behalf of its employees.
Under FEHBA, hundreds of local and national health insurance providers
compete to offer health insurance. Their services are posted, their
prices are posted, there are no "outs" for pre-existing conditions, no
dropping of enrollees for arbitrary reasons, there is federal oversight
of all the providers, and it is an extremely profitable business for the
providers, too.