John Mackey as a Hero of Intellectual Integrity

The most annoying aspect of the partisan lynch mob of John Mackey is the claim that he is a "heartless CEO" or, in the words of the Facebook "Boycott Whole Foods" page:

John Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on 8/12/09 quoting Margaret Thatcher and suggesting that healthcare is a commodity that only the rich, like him, deserve . . .. Whole Foods has the right to cheat and lie and be as hateful and selfish as the wanna be.

Other than the fact that John wrote an op-ed on 8/12/09 in which he quotes Thatcher, the rest of this is pure nonsense, pure lynch mob rhetoric.

Of course people are free to shop for groceries wherever they want. Why can't some people understand that some of us believe that we should be just as free to shop for education, health care, and insurance as we are for food? Why does this make us "hateful and selfish"? Why not just say, "I disagree and therefore I will no longer shop at Whole Foods?"

Our instincts to support those in our tribal coalition, and punish those outside of it, are just as primitive as are our predilection to eat too much fat and sugar, or the male appetite for female visual stimuli. But today we do not believe it is honorable to over-indulge in fat and sugar, nor for men to ogle women, nor for whites to lynch blacks. How can those who stand for The Audacity of Hope believe that they are being honorable when describe Mackey as "hateful and selfish"?

It is worth pointing out at this point that John and I co-founded a non-profit five years ago, Freedom Lights Our World (FLOW) Inc., which promotes entrepreneurial solutions to world problems. We recently published a book, along with several co-authors, titled Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World's Problems. John and I have worked closely to re-interpret libertarian ideas so that they are based on love and generosity rather than hate and selfishness. Brink Lindsey, the VP of the Cato Institute, rightly describes us as "bleeding-heart libertarians." Often conservatives and libertarians do not feel comfortable with our views precisely because we promote love and generosity. As one such reviewer wrote, "Some conservatives won't like the touchy-feely aspects of the book, just as most lefties won't like the idea of social entrepreneurship replacing bureaucratic elitism as the means of solving human problems."

John and I started FLOW because we remain idealistic do-gooders who are committed to making the world a better place. We are convinced, intellectually and experientially, that entrepreneurs and markets are the most effective means of making the world a better place. You may disagree, but it is false to claim that we are "hateful and selfish." (Among the ideas mentioned in the book, by the way, is that of a "Citizen's Dividend," where each citizen would receive a check from the government which could, of course, go to pay for health care if they so chose).

And, yes, the influence of John's money has corrupted me -- on my own I am more libertarian than is John, and I more quickly become angry at the damage the anti-capitalists have caused humanity. As someone who knows him well, I can say that, while he is not perfect, John is certainly loving and generous. The anonymous postings on Yahoo were foolish for someone in his position, but they were entirely harmless, boyish arguing, which John loves to do. If anyone out there believes that anonymous postings on Yahoo can affect stock prices, then I'd be happy to sell you an affordable service that will make all of your stock prices go up . . .

When I was a socialist believer, I too found it hard to imagine that decent human beings could support free markets. I went to graduate school at the University of Chicago in order to discover how the Chicago economists, who claimed to be scientists, could believe in something so self-evidently evil. And, upon learning economics at Chicago, I gradually discovered that common academic perspectives on capitalism were empirically false.

It was, for instance, distressing to find that, contrary to the history of the 19th century taught in every history, literature, and sociology class, it was not true that under laissez-faire capitalism "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer." Economic historians had shown that the standard of living of the British working class improved from the 1830s, before workplace legislation. The entire socialist worldview had been based on the notion that under laissez-faire capitalism "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer." It was false, and none of them admitted it.

Once my trust in the mainstream intellectual establishment was broken, I became depressed for two years as I re-evaluated the entire mainstream left-liberal worldview. This was in 1987, when many still believed that communism was morally superior to capitalism. Even Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate economist whose textbooks educated generations, stated in his 1989 edition "the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive." So it is with some satisfaction that I can say that by 1989 I was a libertarian.

John became libertarian in the early 1980s. His constituency then, as now, was primarily left. It would have been safer and wiser for him to remain on the left. But unlike many business people, John reads a great deal and takes ideas seriously (he had been a philosophy major before he dropped out to start Whole Foods). For those who take ideas seriously, if we find an argument compelling then we must also stand up for it, even when it is unpopular.

My favorite example of this is Anne Wortham, a black woman who went to Africa in the Peace Corp in the early 1960s as a young idealist and who happened to read Ayn Rand there. She found Rand's ideas compelling and became so committed to libertarian principles that she supported those segregationists who relied on property rights justifications. She had become convinced that property rights included the right to discriminate on private property.

Anyone who knows anything about U.S. history in the 1960s knows that this was an unpopular position for a white person to take -- but for a black woman? To compound her troubles, she pursued an academic career in sociology. Sociology is the most leftist of all the academic disciplines; it was (and is) the worst department of all for anyone who is pro-market, less alone a black Randian libertarian woman.

Suffice it to say that in academia Wortham experienced more bigotry for her ideas than she did for her skin color. Eventually she found some open-minded sociologists and influenced them to be more courageous about their pro-market beliefs. She had a significant, unrecognized impact on history when, for instance, she was living with her mentor the sociologist Peter Berger and his wife, arguing with them every day, while he was writing The Capitalist Revolution: Fifty Propositions about Prosperity, Equality and Liberty. This book is rightly regarded by the Times Literary Supplement as one of the "100 Most Influential Books Since the War" and Wortham's own convictions no doubt made Berger more courageous than he otherwise would have been. Wortham is a hero of intellectual integrity.

Finally, consider Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and Rand, who were advocates for capitalism in the 1940s when all the libertarian intellectuals fit in a phone booth. Mises is the Copernicus, Hayek the Bruno, and Friedman the Galileo of the most important intellectual revolution since Galileo. They are heroes of intellectual integrity as great as were Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo (as is Rand, but she is sui generis).

John is also a hero of intellectual integrity. He did not achieve the intellectual discoveries of Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and Rand. Although he may be persecuted, he will not be persecuted as severely as Ann Wortham. But he has followed his convictions when it would have been easier not to. Even those who disagree with John ought to respect his courage and intellectual integrity.

As we observe the lynch mob in action, and some of us try to restrain them, we should realize that progress has always been due to those who resist the mob. Simply because this mob claims to be "progressive" doesn't imply that their actions support progress. Indeed, until they acknowledge that most advances in human happiness and well being are due to creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and that freedom is sine qua non for releasing "The Creative Powers of a Free Civilization," billions of people will suffer unnecessarily.

Comments

[dmonte]

The thunderstorm of negative publicity and core customer blowback that Mackey created by his WSJ op-ed has damaged his brand beyond anything yet realized by the stockholders.

Aside from the healthcare debate that spurred the boycott initially, Mackey has opened a can of non-organic worms that has allowed negative stories about Whole Foods' greenwashing and foul business practices to surface and gain a foothold.

"Whole Foods Took Advantage of Our Family Cattle Ranch"

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=119099537379&topic=11627

Stories like this -and there are many - have staying power and will add to the negative perception of the Whole Foods brand in the public eye. These revelations give customers a reason to abandon Whole Foods above and beyond the current boycott and for current impassioned boycotters to stiffen their resolve in exposing a company that has deceived them with shiny PR.

[racetoinfinity]

There are so many points to refute, but I'll just point out a few:

1) The government rewards corporations with a lot of "welfare" in the form of tax breaks, direct help, and other subsidies and favortism; it's well documented. Check out the many issues of TIME an NEWSWEEK over the years that have had cover stories on the issue.

2) Milton Friedman is a hero? You've got to be kidding. Allen Greenspan, Friedman's (and Rand's) acolyte fiddled while the economy was bubbling ready to burst in a lameball of ponzi-schemed derivate- based disintegration, precipated by the very unwise (unless you're one of the plutocratic class that made a killing in the interim) deregulation of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Then, the big banks received "socialistic" bailing out - raiding the PUBLIC treasury of more money than any heist in history. Not only have they not helped Main Street and middle and lower-middle class homeowners keep their businesses and homes with low-interest loans (or any loans, virtually) - they have used to outlandish amounts to pay themselves 7,8 and 9 figure bonuses and salaries.

Milton Friedman's laissez-faire Chicago school of economic theory has been dealt a resounding last nail in the coffin as we see the results of all this deregulation and faith in the market as a rational benevolent driver, as the world economy teeters on the brink of disaster with more shocks to come.

[sanmigmike]

I find it interesting that Libertarians prat on about Rand...a nut job in so many ways. You mention Friedman, I feel looking at the last years....h­istory isn't going to love Milton. Funny how it is good for Whole Foods and WalMart to use their money and postion in the market to do what they want and to be the bull elephant in their markets but struggle against their workers using their power to form unions. Being a Libertarian to me is kind of like being a communist or a Republican or a Conservati­ve...great ideas if people were not people.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Institute

I'd guess the Independent Institute is about as independent as the average WalMart worker (or Whole Foods worker). They dance for who brung them the money.

Our Capitalism has failed, the smart guys will keep delaying it, as long as they are making money...wh­at they worry?

I'll keep on shopping farmer's markets, local businesses, small chains, union shops and businesses that support my ideals. After all why should I give money to a man to use it against me? I am delighted that Mackey talked up, I know not to shop at Whole Foods now, if he had stayed quieter I would have kept shopping there but looking around I see more and more reasons to stick harder to my goals. It doesn't take much thought to see other reasons not to shop WF.

[amber15]

I'm soooooo sick of this anti-mob rhetoric and backlash against people speaking their minds about their disagreement with Mackey. So Mackey speaks his mind and we should revere it but when his customer base speaks their mind we should denounce them?
Instead of trying to justify your guilt you should try to perhaps understand the uprising of anger and if you still don't "get it" then the spiral down will be your own fault.....­.........

and just for fun how do you think Planned Parenthoods base would respond if its CEO wrote an article supporting a ban on abortions?

[yankhadenuf]

amber15 ah, BEWARE the so-called "libertarian" ! They stealthily approach as wolves in sheep's clothing (well, actually, they clumsily troll through and stick out like sore thumbs).

Almost every laughable 'libertarian" I have encountered considers a vote-by-majority to be "mob rule" ;-)

[kcseattle]

Thank you John Mackey and Michael Strong for elevating the discussion. Healthcare is a breathtakingly complex web of issues to which there is no perfect solution. The best reforms will be those that combine a plurality of ideas freely and constructively discussed in a democratic society. "Progressives" with nothing to contribute but name calling, distorted personal attacks, counterproductive boycotts and the like do nothing to advance reforms, and I am embarrassed to admit make the progressive movement look as intellectually stunted and intolerant as the Rush Limbaugh right.

[Please-Play-Fair]

well said. You can tell that most of the lynch mob mentality is purely emotion and jumping on a bandwagon just because. Because of what ... they don't even know.

Mackey did nothing other than offer an alternative opinion. Thank god the counter "buycott" far exceeded the "boycott". WF stock is basically stable or a little up if anything and sales are exceeding expectations.

You can tell when there is a meaningless following when the affects of the boycott have already stalled and dwindled away. The loony left that started this are already on the bandwagon of another useless cause.

[yankhadenuf]

kcseattle Whenever elitists utilize the despicable utterance of "complex", one can be sure that the rest of us riff-raff will be at the sacrificial end of things. Healthcare is not "complex" by any stretch of the imagination, every human being needs it. Single Payer Universal Healthcare is the simplest and most efficient of all healthcare insurance systems because it covers all and includes all medical providers in its one network, that is why every free society on Earth (most of them older thus justifiably wiser than ours) sustains and maintains it.
The only ones trying to make this issue harder than it really is are just out to make a buck.

[Scriobhaim]

A man writes an opinion piece for a newspaper, puts forth his ideas - with which no one is obliged to agree - and the knee-jerk, witchhunting mob screams "Boycott!" There is a spirit running through a certain sector of our society today that reminds me more than anything else of the Hitler Youth, the brownshirts, the ones whose aim was simply to liquidate dissent. It's getting really creepy out there. Nevertheless, I am optimistic that there are enough Americans still possessed of 1) common sense, and 2) a love for the genuine American ideals of freedom, that this madness can never win.

[jt1980]

Equating boycotters with the brown shirts is going quite a bit too far, don't you think? Boycotters called on people to vote with their pocketbooks. Nazi brown shirts (SA) used violence to intimidate others. Quite a big difference!

[AB257]

Gotta love the disingenuous argument that those who support a public CHOICE in health care are anti-capitalist. Also the illogical argument that a CEO is not entitled to his opinion as a private citizen. Of course he is. But if he comes out with an opinion that contradicts his brand's own mission statement's values of interdependence and community, there is going to some cognitive dissonance. The same as the head of Planned Parenthood coming out as a rabid anti-choicer.

Radical free market principles guiding health care? We already have conflicts of interest in our private system from pharmaceutical reps providing samples and physicians investing in medical testing companies. You would trust the physician's motivated by profit motive or by a managed care exec more than one who had no vested interest in one treatment plan or another?

The biased, ill-considered, and adolescent views of this author reveal too little experience of the vagaries of health care. Good luck to him if he becomes indigent from an illness and his libertarian friends can do nothing more for hiim than read to him from Ayn Rand.

[yankhadenuf]

CEO Mackey is just another corporate hack hiding behind the myth of "compassionate conservatism".

It's relevant and important to note here that Thomas Jefferson loathed corporations:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson

[skazer2]

And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves

[Akston]

As did tens of thousands of others back then. Does this invalidate every thought the man had?

[yankhadenuf]

Thomas Jefferson quote on abolition of slavery

"Nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition, not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; and certainly, nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that object." --Thomas Jefferson to Brissot de Warville, 1788. ME 6:428

[Scriobhaim]

What an incredibly anachronistic (I could use other words but I will be kind) misreading of Thomas Jefferson. Do you even know what "corporation" means? I mean, TODAY? Or what Jefferson was talking about THEN?
What a mindless witchhunt the ignorant left is on: Kill the Corporations! Demagoguery to stir up the mob and consolidate power in the hands of Big Brother.
Do you know that even the humble Mom and Pop store is almost always a corporation (and if it isn't, "Mom and Pop" are not very smart)? Do you know anything about limited liability? Do you know... ANYTHING?
If there's anything like the "corporation" Jefferson loathed in his time, the privileged manipulator of the national purse, it's the Federal Reserve. Which JFK wanted to do away with.

[Innocent Smith]

Strong is quite right to suspect a “tribal coalition” mentality behind the “hateful and selfish” label attached to Mackey by his Facebook foes. The idea behind the boycotts, as far as I can make out, is that Mackey couldn’t at once harbor libertarian views and intend to “make the world a better place” as CEO of Whole Foods.

The conflation of Mackey the Whole Foods CEO and Mackey the op-ed columnist is where the tribalism comes in, and where boycotters go wrong. If it is acceptable to boycott Whole Foods because Mackey is a libertarian (and therefore "selfish and hateful"), it is presumably also acceptable for Co-op XYZ to refuse to hire a libertarian as a cashier on the basis that he is a libertarian. The boycotters, at least, give us no reason to refrain from such discrimination, apart from the obvious difference in stature between a CEO and cashier.

Suppose the boycotters claim that the cashier is to be tolerated on the basis that he lacks the ability to do harm on the scale a CEO does. Such a position is, I suppose, an improvement over a through-going tribalism in which a boycotter choses not to do business with anyone whose views differ from his own. Still, even with the added nuance, the boycotters' position amounts to saying that, "I will tolerate someone who harbors views I consider abhorrent, provided that he is not in a position of power."

[condor101]

Your comment was very confusing. Making arguments based on theoretical assumptions?
Make a point using facts. Oh, but that's too much for you, because any logic would prove you wrong.

[yankhadenuf]

This commenter foolishly equates boycotting to discrimination. Libertarians do that, twist concepts into convoluted confusements.

What CEO Mackey says IS in fact discrimination, he wants only the privileged to have healthcare.

[snesich]

Convoluted argument.

It's actually pretty simple: John Mackey is a right-winger who laughs at the notion that health care should be provided to everyone.

I don't give my money to right-wingers and/or the enterprises they own or operate.

I'm not shopping anymore at Whole Foods. Who wants to join me?

[yankhadenuf]

snesich I am thoroughly disgusted with CEO Mackey, and choose to no longer patronize any enterprise that lines his pockets. I have found a farmer's market that is much cheaper and fresher than Whole Foods anyways. Should we really be surprised that Mackey overprices natural foods the same way insurance corporations overprices healthcare? Its all about profits, not health. We have been duped again, but thankfully these CEOs eventually rear their ugly heads.

[samonet az]

To the author:

We always hear libertarians and Randians speak glowingly of laissez-faire capitalism as some sort of ideal. However, it is always left as some sort of nebulous concept: "Keep government out of the free market." But what would a principled application of laissez-faire mean were it actually seriously implemented? For example, would Mackey be willing to give up the government interference that allows for his corporation to be the equivalent of a person under law? Would he be willing to give up "limited liability"?

Fact of the matter is we live in a world that has become byzantine in its complexity. Problem is we can't merely simplify in a way that does away only with government interference that is disadvantageous to the corporate bottom line. If we were to go down that road, we would also have to do away with any advantages the government provides to corporate entities that ultimately result in market imbalances, of which the decreasing availability of health care is a symptom.

If Mackey really wanted to put his money where his mouth is he could begin by recognizing that we live in a complex world. Apparently, he wants the advantages without the responsibilities. The imbalance corporate power has introduced into our world has simultaneously made health care more expensive and less available to growing segments of our society. In this milieu, the responsibility to support health care for all is the only moral stance to take.

[Michael Strong]

Hi Samonet AZ,

Thanks for the thoughtful and civilized comment.

I've not discussed the issue of limited liability with John, but I take the issue seriously and I have similar questions on the issue as you do.

But there are real issues to consider on health care. At present, for instance, we spend $27,000 per year on every person below the poverty line, $108,000 for a family of four,

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2310

If we gave the poor this money directly, instead of putting it into programs, should we require people to purchase health insurance?

Because of my experience with government­-controlle­d education as a disaster, ESPECIALLY for the poor, I am certain that if we allowed the poor to pick their own schools, using money we gave them, they would purchase education that is more appropriate for them than are current options. For those libertarians among us who are happy to transfer money directly to the poor ($108K per year for a family of four is non-trivial), the issue autonomy rather than the alleged immorality.

If John's suggestions were implemented, along with an increased Negative Income Tax, health care costs would go down and the poor would have more money with which to purchase health care. If you prefer paternalism, so be it, but I don't regard paternalism as ipso facto moral by any means.

[lokipuck]

I love a good joke!

[RubberBullets]

Ahh, Libertarian idealism, sweet. You talk a good game, Mr. Strong, and, while I'm disappointed in Mackey's statements, I also thoroughly despise the mob mentality focused upon him. Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree? His opinion is no less valid than mine, even if I do think he's wrong; he's entitled to it. And if one CEO's opinion is enough to destroy healthcare reform, then something is wrong.....

However, I have to take issue with your Libertarian utopia....­.. I also read and enjoyed Rand in my youth, but have since slid closer to something resembling a progressive liberal. One, I must add, that totally values creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. What bothers me about the Libertarian view of the world, is that it completely ignores human greed. Libertarians seem to think that, if people and corporations are released from the shackles of government beaurocracy and taxation, everything will work itself out, for the better. From what I've seen, however, when corporations and individuals are given free reign, greed takes over. Sure, most are honest, but there's a large enough contingent out there that would sell their own grandmother and kill their neighbor for a buck. Not to mention the rape of the earth that goes on when corporations are left to their own devices. And that's enough to ruin it for everyone. Tell me it's not true. Libertarians won't address this, because they're living in a fantasy world of strong, honest individuals who always do the right thing.

[amt77]

Thanks RubberBullets, you hit my main objection with Mackey's missive right on the head. His bullet #8 is as follows:
" • Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Really?? I think you would want more of a guarantee than that - that the rich actually give a crap enough to make donations - that would actually be enough - to be able help the millions without insurance" WIth Medical Care? The average hospital stay is 20,000. Millions of uninsured. The whole thing smacks of widening the gap between the have's and have-not's with the have-not's forced to "depend on the kindness of strangers".

If we did go down this path, I would foresee more people than ever getting their medical care at County Fair Grounds in Animal Stalls and at Convention Centers - from organizations like Remote Area Medical which while it was set up to donate medical care to underdeveloped countries is now in more and more demand in the U.S. Mackey sounds like an elitist and I don't know how close that is to Libertarinism - but I won't go to his store anymore!

Join the Facebook Whole Foods Boycott: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119099537379&ref=ts

[Pendejoe]

I have a lot of difficulty with the "this is just a philosophical disagreement" subtext to this discussion. Mackey is actively attempting to deny healthcare to 46,000,000 Americans, which is both mean and stupid. Mackey has a long history of spouting his own limousine libertarianism. He has no credibility on economic issues. Keep in mind that one of his fellow Ayn Randers is the former chairman of the Fed, who only after leaving office (after driving the economy into a deep crevasse) admitted that he had misjudged the financial industry's ability to govern itself. Mackey doesn't "get" poverty, or the crush of medical costs on the working poor, or the middle class, or those born with those pre-existing conditions that Mackey's insurance industry heroes love so much. His libertarianism is useless to solve any existing problems because it is dogmatic ideology. Mackey thinks of himself as a heroic capitalist, but his support of predatory insurors and denial of the evils visited on the powerless by wolves in capitalist clothing make him a Dickensian villain. Capitalism is not inherently evil, but evil results when it is controlled by the unscrupulous and the willfully ignorant. I hope everyone with a conscience will stop shopping at Whole Foods but I see that other limousine libertarians have found a new Mecca, and it looks just like their neighborhoods.
Posted on 8/19/2009 7:42:33 AMReport AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *

[Michael Strong]

Rubber Bullets,

You should read and enjoy "Be the Solution," which does not portray a libertarianism that even remotely resembels your stereotype. To focus on environmental solutions, to begin with, we endorse environmental trusts as a market-based solution, including much of the work of Peter Barnes' Capitalism 3.0, about which Bill McKibben, hardly a market fundamentalist, says,

Recapturing the commons is going to be one of the century’s biggest battles. Peter Barnes makes the case for the commons in a straightforward and unsentimental way. An indispensable book on a critical topic.

Bill McKibben, author, The End of Nature

I also cite McKibben supportively in my chapter in education.

Many of the perspectives here strike me as bigoted precisely because people have so many associations with the term "libertarian" that are completely false for John and I and the numerous people who are attracted to our distinctive "bleeding-heart" libertarianism. There are an increasingly array of ingenius market-based solutions to problems, more and more of which are being endorsed by people who traditionally have been on the "left." We are firmly transpartisan, and thus the tone of much of this debate strikes me as primitive and ungrounded.

[condor101]

n the beginning of your commentary you state, "Why can't some people understand that some of us believe that we should be just as free to shop for education, health care, and insurance as we are for food? Why does this make us "hateful and selfish"? "

You are entitled to your opinions, but let us examine some facts and conjure some reasoning. For the record, everyone has a choice of either public or private education in this country, so I don't understand your inclusion of education in your statement above. Whether people can afford private education is another matter; But for all intents and purposes, private education for toddlers to adults is quite prevalent in the U.S. So, in case you didn't know, you and Mackey are free to shop for private education for your children or place them in public schools. I guess you don't get outside that often, but that's another story.

(continued below)

[condor101]

To continue my critique of your commentary, I personally believe in living in a capitalist society governed by substantial government regulation. For the record and obvious facts, the U.S. government manages the postal system, The Police Depts, The Fire Depts, The Military, The VA and Medicare Health Programs. These entities managed by the U.S. government have never gone bankrupt; They function very well, and in fact the last time I checked, our Military is touted as the Best in the world. My grandparents always received their social security checks and medicare took care of their medical needs. As far as I know, these programs have been working just fine for decades. Now in regard to our superb Military, managed by our government.

(continued below)

[condor101]

We have successfully invaded and rebuilt other nations for more than over 200 years. We have the most advanced Military weapons in the world and the military employs millions of americans, and it's ALL managed by the U.S. Government, not a private corporation. With these facts in mind it is obvious that the U.S. government is more than capable of managing a healthcare system for All Americans.

Now, as a citizen and a believer of a capitalist society and as a consumer in our country, I am aware that my Tax Dollars (Sales tax, real estate tax, income tax, etc) represent my small purchase/payment for the services I described above. In essence, because all of us are paying some type of tax on any given day, we are consumers of our governments' programs, whether it is the postal, fire dept, police services, the military defense/offense, etc.

(continued below)