Stepped in it? It’s his opinion on how healthcare should be financed. He does precisely that in his business. He sincerely walks the talk. One would think it a good idea to actually ASK Whole Foods employees how THEY feel about their health insurance coverage. He sincerely wants people to have health insurance coverage. All he can do is keep his little corner of the world clean, and he does just that. He walks the talk.

But he has the audacity to do it in a politically incorrect manner. For that, he does not deserve to live. He just wants children to starve on the streets. He kicks puppies. Liberal intolerance in all its ugliness.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=bw-20010714:20090825005791:1&show_article=1

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20090825.DC65782&show_article=1

There are so many human endeavors that are done across state lines, and disputes are subject to the rules of a state other than the state of residence. Yet somehow we survive. I’ll take the Delaware or Nevada protections, thank you. New Jersey policies are particularly expensive because of regulations, and their government is hardly the model of rectitude. I don’t feel more protected.

Maybe doctors aren’t professional economists. Here’s the president of an international business. He offers his employees consumer-directed healthcare. He walks the talk. It works. It works in my own practice for that matter. There are perfectly good policy proposals for free-market reforms of healthcare. If someone claims not to have seen them it’s for lack of effort looking. But then again, over the years it has become crystal clear. The fear is not that consumer-directed healthcare will fail. The fear is that it will succeed.

::sigh::

Why wasn’t I born in Canada?

‘But do you know of any other business that routinely provides free goods or services to 10% of people who show up at the door?’

This is a good argument for single payer. If you agree – and I’m sure you do – that the US could never descend into the moral, social and indeed economic chaos of demanding that anyone pay the market rate or be left to die, then surely it’s better to take some of their taxes over time when they are able to contribute toward a national insurance system. That way there’s no question of anyone getting anything for free, bar those truly disadvantaged for work or other socially useful contributions that may be paid in kind.

As an aside, it would be interesting to cost the stress on society and the lack of wellbeing of the many millions uninsured or underinsured who have health insecurity and the drag therefore on the economy.

As for “compassion”:
I work as a hospitalist, so that’s the setting with which I’m most familiar. In many hospitals, about one in ten patients admitted through the Emergency Dept. will never pay their bill; they don’t (and never will) have the money. The physicians I work with are happy to treat these people, and treat them just as well as the paying customers. As an older physician told me years ago, “You take the good with the bad.” [No that the indigent are "bad." But it's good" to get paid for your work.] To some extent, the paying customers subsidize the non-paying. Some physicians consider it a moral duty to help others in need, regardless of personal cost to the provider. It’s been like this for years. Doctors aren’t complaining about this.

But do you know of any other business that routinely provides free goods or services to 10% of people who show up at the door? Restaurants don’t. Supermarkets don’t. Lawyers don’t. Oil-change businesses don’t. Manicurists don’t. Maid services don’t. Clothing retailers don’t. Cellphone service providers don’t. Etc.

[And just try under-paying your federal taxes by 10% if money gets tight. The government will eventually send people with guns to your house to collect.]

The only thing approaching a counter-proposal I’ve seen to the public option goes along the lines of the McCain “plan” – allow insurance to be sold across state borders, give a tax rebate of some sort, and let the market decide. Because of the differences among state regulations of insurance plans, wouldn’t you also find some “least common denominator” effect in this scenario? If you expect businesses would dump their employees into the public plan due to cost concerns, wouldn’t they be just as inclined to dump their employees into the cheapest possible plan available from Delaware, or Nevada, or whichever state offers the fewest consumer protections least regulation on health insurance policies? Sure, you’ve avoided “government control”, but is that situation really any better? Couldn’t you instead suggest provisions that would prevent a public option from anti-competitive behavior (undercutting costs, significant operating losses)? Or do you really believe the private insurance industry has so little to offer that nobody would resist employers dumping private plans?

Also, great to see the compassion from “physicians” shining through in these comments. Really inspires advocacy for your cause. I assume Dr. KVC is only an AMA member “for now” because he’ll soon be out of the field – I can’t think of any other possible future for a physician who would consider putting an elderly cancer patient through a hip replacement surgery in good conscience.

-g