When the Politically Correct Turn Bad

Wretchard:

Two stories illustrate what happens when people who are expected to do “liberal” things suddenly turn around and succeed using politically incorrect means. The first concerns Ben Chavis [1],”the highly unorthodox principal of Oakland, California’s American Indian Public Charter School, which was hailed as an ‘education miracle’ by governor Arnold Schwarzenegger after it was transformed from a failing ‘nuisance’ into one of the best public middle schools in the nation.” . . . .

The second involves the hapless CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, who had the temerity to point out that his company’s approach [2] promised to work better than the proposed Obamacare. . . .

A special kind of venom is reserved for “race traitors” or renegades who have the insolence to think for themselves. Whether you are a black man being beaten by union goons for daring to oppose Obamacare or an organic food CEO who objects to a health care plan that will bankrupt the country when it doesn’t have to, the penalties for not getting with the program are severe. What they should have done is succeeded secretly using the politically incorrect means and then announced they had used the correct methods. For to be forthright in these matters is often lethal. . . . .

The "lethal" designation may seem a little extreme. It is followed by a little quote from Solzhenitsyn about where political correctness can lead when taken to its natural conclusion. Read the whole thing.

Then read the link to the Whole Foods alternative to the current congressional health care bills.

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Too much truth. Must be crushed.

Do Democrats think people will believe, "Reality Check: If you like your healthcare insurance you can keep it. Period." when they see liberals boycotting a business which provides health benefits many of its employees seem to like? There is a lot more heat than light out there concerning the proposed health care reforms. A Modest Proposal for members of congress who want to retain their seats: Stop with the unbelievable talking ponts, re-work the bills, start honest discussions:

Right now, the public is faced with an administration and a Congress insulting its intelligence. The president seeks to frame the debate as one between those who “want to do nothing” and those who will back his supposedly deficit-neutral, cost-saving, quality-preserving, long-overdue panacea that will cover everyone lacking insurance while changing nothing for those satisfied with what they have. He urges us to support whatever it is that will emerge from the backroom deals still in the process of being cut but that needs to pass right now, preferably a couple of weeks ago.

The debate is better described as one between those who want a wholesale revision of one-seventh of the economy, to be managed from Washington by those currently in charge of the post office, and those who want to enact reforms that will empower millions more individuals to purchase insurance from private companies through legal and tort reform, tax credits, and similar changes. But if the debate remains in its current caricatured form of a choice between (a) pie-in-the-sky and (b) doing nothing, the public will choose the Hippocratic pledge of first doing no harm.

And those who doubt that real harm is possible should read Tevi Troy’s compelling analysis in “The End of Medical Miracles?” in the June issue of COMMENTARY.

It's true. Voters ARE chosing "do no harm". Fifty four percent think that passing no bill this year would be preferable to the "bill" now under consideration.

UPDATE: "The Moderate Voice" supports the Whole Foods boycott:

On a lighter note, take a few minutes and read the Whole Foods website forums on this topic. The forums have been invaded by freepers and redstaters, with predictably resultant hilarity. If one was to believe the freepers, Whole Foods is going to have an entirely new demographic shopping in their stores. The only problem is: last I checked, Whole Foods doesn’t stock Coke, Cheetos, Armor hotdogs, or 365-brand Instant Grits.

There are a lot of good ideas out there for reforming healthcare which would not require so much control out of Washington D.C. Decide for yourself, no matter what insults are hurled at you.