Whole Foods’ CEO John Mackey received some unexpected backlash for an op-ed piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal which enumerated “Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit”. Before I address some of the points Mackey makes in his piece, I would like to point out that I am the perfect example of Mackey’s biggest customer: a health-conscious, ecologically-minded, post-Boomer consumer who prefers organic and humane farming practices to traditional supermarket offerings; someone who has been touting a “green” lifestyle long before it was de rigeur; and someone who doesn’t mind spending a little more for locally-grown produce or the nice choice of bakery and prepared foods available at Whole Foods.
Mackey’s list reads like the Corporatists' Playbook of Healthcare. Why would he want to alienate his core constituency — humanitarians, hippies, vegetarians, macrobiotic dieters, Budhhists, and well-heeled liberals? Why would he pander to the people who are least likely to shop at his stores? Is this a new marketing strategy?
Mackey described himself in 2005 as “a businessman and a free market libertarian” and has made campaign contributions to libertarian candidates, according to public records. Yet, despite this admission of libertarianism, Mackey has made no comments on record (that I can find after an exhaustive search) that condemn the invasion of Iraq, the continued quagmire in Afghanistan, war-profiteering of companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, or of the TARP bailout last September; all of which contributed exponentially to the national debt and deficits.
He did spend a lot of time on Yahoo chat rooms using an anonymous handle that promoted the financial health of Whole Foods and undermined his target buyout, Wild Oats. Whole Foods procured Wild Oats and eliminated its main competition.
My problem with Mackey is not with his politics, but rather the ill-informed and bad ideas he promotes in order to undermine the single-payer plan Obama and most of the voters want on the table for health care reform.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Loretta, there are many things wrong with your article, but the concluding paragraph is particularly reprehensible. You essentially say, keep quiet if you don't agree with us, because if you don't we'll destroy your business.
That's hardly an attitude for a free country where we're supposed to solve problems by dialog. You don't want debate on this issue at all, you want to ram it down our throats by fiat and you'll destroy anyone who dares to object. Sickening.
You also seem not to understand what libertarians believe. Not all libertarians are leftists. In fact, the socialist-libertarians who fall on the left are probably considerably in the minority.
Most libertarians are capitalist-libertarians who actually believe in free trade and business and having government serve the people rather than rule over the people. Some of them even believe in a strong national defense.
As for Mackey, he's clearly a capitalist libertarian, but he's a businessman, not a diplomat. Why must he have an opinion on the Iraq war? Not everyone puts foreign policy first. And what do his opinions on foreign policy or lack thereof have to do with his views on healthcare?
Are we now forbidden to oppose massive government intrusion in our health decisions if we aren't pacifists?
Problems don't just have a single solution. What's wrong with letting many ideas see the light of day and considering alternatives?
Dave
2 - Joanne Huspek
I agree, Dave. This whole notion of it's my way or the highway has to end. That's not debate, that's bullying.
I personally have wondered all these years after paying all these premiums and STILL fighting the insurance companies why the heck we need the insurance companies as middle men?
In household or car insurance, you pay monthly. But what if your took your premium money and put it in an interest bearing account to save for that catastrophe? You know if your house burns down or your car is cracked up, the insurance company is going to fight paying you.
For health insurance I know of doctors who can't stand the system as well. Their hands are tied when they want to do something and insurance tells them no. One I know lives in a rural area and circumvents the company by charging a fair price.
Why can't we do this? Do we really need insurance in between telling the hospital to charge $10 for a Tylenol?
I understand the need for the catastrophic component, but for many people all they want is preventative care. (It's all I want.) I think it's unreasonable to have a 15 minute office visit cost $200.
I agree the entire way the health care industry is set up needs overhauling, but not from government.
3 - Loretta
Gentlemen, thank you for your remarks, but you're missing the point. First of all, a public health option would work side-by-side with private health insurance; in fact, private insurance companies could sell supplements to the public plan, just like they do now with Medicare.
Second, anyone complaining about deficits and spending right now had better have been voicing the same complaints when the spending was out of control for a war that was based on lies, and for bailing out the pirates on Wall Street.
Be consistent.
Mackey should be consistent. And my telling him to stay under the radar is good advice for someone like him.
4 - Cindy
Pretty good article. I agree with much of it.
And my telling him to stay under the radar is good advice for someone like him.
Yes, for him, but misguided for the left, unless it was just weak rhetoric. Although, I don't think it has anything to do with dialogue, as Dave and Joanne say. As right now it is 'my way or the highway'. (Thanks to the govt of, by and for the people and the corporate raiders who share its bed.) It's more because, if your house has termites, not seeing them is hardly in your best interest.
5 - Clavos
First of all, a public health option would work side-by-side with private health insurance...
If you believe that particular bit of administration BS, I have a nice piece of land right here in the 'Glades for sale...
Second, anyone complaining about deficits and spending right now had better have been voicing the same complaints when the spending was out of control...Be consistent.
Actually, I was, but that's a strawman:
1. Obama is spending far more than Bush ever even attempted to spend.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3. Being against government overspending now, when it's piled on top of previous overspending, has validity and relevance, even if one did not proclaim their opposition during the Bush years.
6 - Clavos
And my telling him to stay under the radar is good advice for someone like him.
Good, only if he doesn't mind being hypocritical, dishonest and not very honorable.
7 - Cindy
*Waves to Dave* Oh there you are Dave! You must have overlooked the comments I left for you in another thread: 103 & 104.
Sorry to bother you Dave but, I'm sure this is something you'll want to know about. It regards some evidence related to your theory. Recognizing how you are evidenced-based and not some ideologue who defends a proposition regardless of reality, I just know you'll want to figure this information into your perspective.
8 - Loretta
Clavos, you are wrong about public and private insurance working side-by-side. They've been doing that for decades. It's my profession, I know what I'm talking about.
And as for HSAs, those are fine if you are very healthy, have healthy kids, have a low risk occupation and don't intend to get pregnant. That may apply to millions of younger people right now, and that's fine. It's like having term insurance.
But, if you or your children have ongoing health issues or take any medication that is not generic, or don't want to pay the first $5,000 of your deductible before coverage kicks in, then HSAs are not a good deal for you, and pre-tax savings does not outweigh tax credits.
And, Clavos, spending money we don't have is the same no matter who is doing it, but if we have a public health care option that allows people to get preventive care and take action on things when they are in their early stages rather than wait for emergency care, it will be a savings in the long run.
9 - Clavos
Clavos, you are wrong about public and private insurance working side-by-side. They've been doing that for decades. It's my profession, I know what I'm talking about.
If you're talking about private Medigap plans, that's not working in competition with each other, the private sector is merely taking up the slack not covered by the government. Medicare Advantage plans are very unpopular, accounting for less than 20% of Medicare eligible people, mainly because Americans are not stupid, they can see that there's no "advantage" to them.
In any case, using Medicare as an example, with its cost overruns and escalating deficits, fraud, etc. kind of ruins your whole argument for government-insured health care. Again, Americans are not stupid, which is why they're rejecting Obamacare.
Nothing run by the government -- NOTHING -- saves money.
The Postal Service is a prime example of a government-run program which even Obama used (to his regret) as a bad example.
if we have a public health care option that allows people to get preventive care and take action on things when they are in their early stages rather than wait for emergency care, it will be a savings in the long run.
Except you assume that people with insurance will not wait, yet many do, even now. And just because they have insurance doesn't mean people will stop smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods, overeating and not exercising.
10 - Loretta
Maybe people won't change their bad habits, but the bigger issue is that a public option is not a threat to you at all. If you don't want to buy in, you don't have to. If you want to keep your group health (which is still a good deal if you have it), keep it.
The idea that your tax dollars are going to be wasted is a bad reason, because your tax dollars, or what you pay in taxes (which I would bet are not more than 35% unless you are in the top 10% of wage earners) is not any less wasted on unecessary defense spending, bridges to nowhere, the space program, and the war on drugs - all things I consider monumental waste.
11 - Clavos
If you don't want to buy in, you don't have to.
At first.
The idea that your tax dollars are going to be wasted is a bad reason, because your tax dollars, or what you pay in taxes (which I would bet are not more than 35% unless you are in the top 10% of wage earners) is not any less wasted on unecessary defense spending, bridges to nowhere, the space program, and the war on drugs - all things I consider monumental waste.
True. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored, but it appears that we agree that the government wastes money on everything it touches. I see no point in handing them yet another segment (the largest) of the economy on which to waste yet more money.
12 - Loretta
Clavos, I'd be the first person to make a case for government getting out of our lives if I trusted the private sector to take care of it in an efficient and fair way. But, based on 200-plus years of history, it's clear that if we leave education, labor, safety, pollution control, health care, and financial regulation up to the private sector, they run it into the ground, kill people, poison our environment, hire children to work for pennies, discriminate, cheat, steal and peform in spectacularly incompetent ways.
I just don't trust capitalism as much as you do, I guess!
13 - Paul
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.
14 - roger nowosielski
Welcome to BC Politics, Loretta. I realize it's not your first piece in this section, so you're accustomed to this environment. Try to post most often. We need people with a strong voice and who stick to their guns.
15 - Clavos
Fortunately, for all of us, you included, Loretta, the polls seem to indicate that the people are not ready to accept yet more government interference in their lives, at least not without further discussion.
16 - Cindy
12
For Loretta.
17 - Loretta
You're mistaken, Clavos, because I profit either way - if health insurance becomes mandatory like auto insurance, I stand to gain; if the public option becomes available, I stand to gain. If nothing changes, I stand to gain.
So, it's not my personal profit at stake here - I am much more concerned with what is fair and just - what makes sense for everyone concerned. Maybe that makes me pinko or socialist, but I know what it's like not to have health insurance, I know what it's like to have insufficent health insurance, and I also know what it's like to have great health insurance.
Right now, the majority of people want good health care and they voted for it last year. Your "polls" do not reflect the real needs or desires of the people who voted last year. Maybe now, the right wing propaganda machine has confused the issue, as is their wont, but it doesn't create reality for me.
18 - Clavos
But they do reflect the people.
And the people are speaking.
Loudly and clearly. And with conviction.
19 - Loretta
Well, since when do Congress listen to the people? I mean, based on your logic, the Iraq war should have ended, we should have ended the Patriot Act, we should have gotten out of Afghanistan, we should not have illegal eavesdropping, marijuana should be legalized, we should have not bailed out the banks last September, etc. etc.
I have no faith in Congress, but I still maintain that the majority of voters want affordable, sustainable, fair health care.
20 - Clavos
"...but I still maintain that the majority of voters want affordable, sustainable, fair health care."
And 85% of the voters (clearly a majority) agree with you. They have it. And they're happy with it.
21 - roger nowosielski
"I am much more concerned with what is fair and just - what makes sense for everyone concerned."
And what is fair and just cannot be measured merely in terms of dollars and cents as many our friends on the other side of the issue would like to argue.
Certainly not if we can afford it. And it's up to them to show we can't afford it - whilst our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan raise no eyebrows.
22 - Cindy
Paul,
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.
Oh come on now Paul. The guy was doing what any good Capitalist does. Trying to gain market share by any means. So, he got caught. Does that mean he shouldn't be admired for trying? He does have an obligation to his shareholders after all. And what's a little trash talk when his peers are busy raping and enslaving the planet on behalf of their shareholders.
And, of course we're supposed to listen to him. He has a lot of money, which makes him an expert on anything. Look at how people ask Bill Gates his opinion on education. One day Bill Gate's is sitting in his garage, a lonely, broke, computer geek whose opinions are just so much flotsam. Next day he's a rich guy and suddenly also an education expert.
How much money do you have Paul? I need to figure out whether I should listen to you or ignore you.
23 - roger nowosielski
"They have it. And they're happy with it."
Since when the situation has been so rosy. People are still getting laid off, the economy is far from having recovered, the jobs that have been lost are unlikely to materialize again in the near future. Yet, Clavos presents us with an idyllic picture, claiming that a great majority of the American public thinks happy thoughts.
But perhaps I'm living in an imaginary world and Clavos's view of reality is right on.
24 - Loretta
Wow, Clavos - 85%! That's amazing. Clearly, I am out of touch, I read all the wrong newpapers and blogs, I am completely out to lunch.
I had no idea.
If that's the case, why are we even having this debate? 85%!! Sheesh! I don't think there is an 85% agreement that the sky was blue, but obviously, I'm just a total idiot.
Pardon me while I go shoot myself and rid the world of yet another moron.
25 - Clavos
"And what is fair and just cannot be measured merely in terms of dollars and cents as many our friends on the other side of the issue would like to argue."
It can when the dollars and cents belong to others and are not yours. Those from whom the money is taken have every right in the world to argue it in whatever terms they choose, which is exactly what we're doing, and which also is far better than doing these things by fiat, with no discussion, as in N Korea or Iran.