Whole Foods is everything leftists talk about when they talk about "corporate responsibility."And yet lefties want to boycott the company because CEO John Mackey wrote an op-ed that suggests alternatives to single payer health care? It wasn't even a nasty or mean-spirited op-ed. Mackey didn't spread misinformation about death panels, call anyone names, or use ad hominem attacks. He put forth actual ideas and policy proposals, many of them tested and proven during his own experience running a large company. Is this really the state of debate on the left, now? "Agree with us, or we'll crush you?"
These people don't want a dicussion. They don't want to hear ideas. They want you to shut up and do what they say, or they're going to punish you.
The CEO of Whole Foods is not allowed to have a different opinion from you on a national domestic policy issue? Rilly?
Not that I'm exactly sweating for the fortunes of Whole Foods. Quick: name the last time a consumer boycott achieved a result of any significance. (Getting American Airlines to stop using animals in its ads doesn't count.) I have to go all the way back to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Here's why boycotts don't work: the vast majority of customers don't care. And yes, that includes the vast majority of Whole Foods customers, a surprising number of whom drive SUVs and even--I swear!--occasionally vote Republican. Now consider the demographic that cares enough about health care to actually boycott a company over it. Most of them are a) wonks or b) political activists. The latter group is disproportionately young and does not spend a great deal of money on groceries. The former group is tiny.
You may get a large number of people who say they'll boycott Whole Foods. But then when they're out of extra-virgin olive oil and the Safeway doesn't have organic, and the nearest Trader Joes is a twenty-five minute drive away through traffic--they'll shop at Whole Foods. Three weeks later, they'll have managed to forget that they ever intended to stop shopping at Whole Foods. The stores are successful because they dominate their market niche, putting together a collection of things in one store that you would ordinarily have to go to several stores for. Shopping in mulitple places is a big pain in the butt.
Remember the boycott of the French? Lasted about four
weeks, until everyone figured out that this meant foregoing Dannon
yogurt and Mephisto sandals, and spending hours looking for a decent
American brie. Effect on French foreign policy: dubious. Perhaps
negative.
The CEO of Whole Foods is allowed to have a different opinion. Rilly. Mackey has a right to give us his vision for health care reform and that's what he's done. And he ADMITS that his solution for health care will keep millions of Americans uninsured. Hey Mackey! Hey Macardle! Already 18 f'n thousand Americans DIE needlessly each year because they are uninsured!! RILLY!!!! Come to think of it, I rilly don't need that bottle of chili-infused olive oil. And Whole Foods' produce isn't rilly as good as that found at the Farmer's Market. I think this boycott's gonna work out fine...rilly,
The “18,000 deaths per year because of a lack of insurance” claim is from a 2002 study. The estimate has recently been updated to 22,000.
First: Can you tell me how many of those uninsured could not get insurance because government mandates for covered items made the cheapest policy unaffordable, while the states forbid buying insurance from states with less oppressively expensive mandates? And how many deaths occurred because government regulation, demanded by unions and liberals, kept them from getting a health savings account with a high deductible policy? (Mackey, by the way, suggests removing these restrictions.) The first government reform should be to get out of the way.
Second: Let’s put the 22,000 estimate in context. The crude US death rate is 8.38 per 1000 population. That means we would expect 377,100 deaths per year among the putative 45 million uninsured. So upwards of 94% of the uninsured who died did so for reasons utterly unrelated to insurance. There are about 2,574,400 deaths per year in the US. 22,000 is 0.85% of 2,574,400. So you and Obama want the government to take over (i.e., stifle) a productive, creative, vibrant, fast-growing sixth of the economy because you think it will fix less than 1% of the US annual mortality? And you and Obama think you know how much the US should spend in toto for medicine, and the prices of all medical services, treatments, and medications! That’s not just insane; it’s megalomaniacal.
Which brings us to
Third: The 22,000 annual deaths caused by lack of insurance was not calculated by seeing whether the uninsured population had 22,000 more than the expected 377, 000 deaths per year. It was done statistically. This month PolitiFact (http://snipurl.com/qnjkm [www_politifact_com]) published a correction to its affirmation of the 22,000 statistical estimate. When you adjust “for a number of demographic and health factors,
Poof! Goes your 22,000 death because of lack of insurance. This is just one more indication that the “completely-broken-health-care-system” hysteria is lying propaganda to cover a fascistic takeover of the US economy.
"...and their prepared food isn't very good."
oh, megan, i so disagree!
otherwise, i sort of agree with you. except that i think mr mackey is so typical of many privileged persons who have so much money they don't have to think about the bottom line when they make decisions. unfortunately, so many of these characters feel they are so blessed with their talent and ability that they forget it is the vast system of our democracy that enables them to be so fortunate.
(i'm talking about our infrastructure, education system, security systems and our justice system that provides the foundation for making lots of money and being super successful in our society. all these are supported through a tax structure that enables the wealthy a return of many multiples on their tax dollars, which they continually refuse to acknowledge.)
so if the aforementioned mr mackey would just chill a bit and help increase the health care franchise to include more americans, he would increase his own bottom line even more. imagine, whole foods ceo encourages health care coverage for all americans! what a magnet line for whole foods!
Hey Spike - way to really drive home the point of how badly you disagree with the author by repeatedly using her typo throughout your comment. That was sarcasm, in case the blood gushing from your bleeding heart has taken away from your normal brain function and you couldn't decipher that one on your own.
People don't die because they are uninsured. Ever see an autopsy report that says, "Cause of death: No health insurance"? No, didn't think so. Want to know why? Because that doesn't happen. In EVERY hospital in this country, there's a big old sign that says that people will NOT be denied treatment because of financial reasons &/or no insurance.
Get the fuck over yourself. Everyone has the right to an opinion, even a CEO of a multi-billion dollar business, or the leader of "The Free World" - even you.
I used to spend an average of $200 a week (or, about $10,000 a year) at Whole Foods. This week, after reading Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal I've decided to no longer shop at Whole Foods unless Mackey reverses his opposition to Obama's health care reform or the Whole Foods board replaces him. I am shopping at Trader Joe's instead.
Well, not so fast. TJ's was itself opposed by right (actually, left) thinking San Franciscans for being insufficiently politically correct. Among other things, one resident noted, ""Trader Joe's is a nonunion store owned by a secretive German family that sells specialty food and low-cost alcohol.... "Do we really need this in our neighborhood?" Read more: http://www.sfisonline.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/30/BAGMTM2HDE1.DTL#ixzz0OlK4SbRC
It's a pretty slippery slope to decide whether to buy a product based on the political views of its ownership or management. If that were the case, I certainly would never pick up a New York Times. Maybe I should find out what the CEO of HP thinks about gays in the military before I buy my next printer.
Hippy Nazis, who would have ever guessed!!
The old adage about how hospitals will always treat people with life threatening conditions regardless of insurance is just plain wrong. Yes, if you are in some terrible accident and go to the outpatient department you will receive life saving treatment (at the expense of those of us who are insured of course). But that’s not how most people die. If you have indications of some slowly worsening condition (like many forms of cancer) good luck with receiving treatment in a hospital emergency room. I know because I had a close friend who was unable to obtain insurance. She died late last year after failing to obtain any diagnoses or treatment over the course of a year and half, until she had eventually reached the "life threatening" stage. She did eventually receive some treatment under a state program, five weeks before she died. She would be alive today and for years to come if she had been able to visit a doctor and have routine tests when she first started having symptoms 18 months prior.
algy,
Just what is wrong with that? Sad, yes. Painful for her friends, yes. But wrong? Explain to me--to us all--just who denied her something that she was owed. It was written neither that she would die when she did nor that she would live the additional years that you seem so certain she would have had, free from accidents, random violence, and other diseases.
Yes, her friends miss her, but apparently not enough to underwrite the treatment she wanted. What? You say she would have been embarrassed to ask. Then wouldn't it have been even more embarrassing to ask a nation of strangers?
algy,
Just what is wrong with that? Sad, yes. Painful for her friends, yes. But wrong? Explain to me--to us all--just who denied her something that she was owed. It was written neither that she would die when she did nor that she would live the additional years that you seem so certain she would have had, free from accidents, random violence, and other diseases.
Yes, her friends miss her, but apparently not enough to underwrite the treatment she wanted. What? You say she would have been embarrassed to ask. Then wouldn't it have been even more embarrassing to ask a nation of strangers?
None ya', you're an idiot. Healthcare reform is necessary, regardless of having health insurance or not. Did you even bother to watch the town hall held in Colorado? There are people (for example) being treated for medical conditions, that have health insurance to supplement things like medicare/medicade, who are being put in the poorhouse because they still have significant expenses after the insurance companies are done refusing to pay for this, that or the other. Also, your completely thoughtless comment "In EVERY hospital in this country, there's a big old sign that says that people will NOT be denied treatment because of financial reasons &/or no insurance.", who the hell do you think ends up paying for that? Do you even have any clue about the cost that puts on the system? Seriously, get off Fox News for two seconds you Troll, you might learn something.
And as far as "getting the fuck over myself" because John Mackey has a right to his opinion; no one is saying he doesn't. I'm actually grateful to know what type of individual is actually at the top of this company, I might have continued to shop there otherwise. And I have the right to boycott him, advocate for others to do the same, and to refuse to give my dollars to someone whom I disagree with politically; it's called voting with your dollars, and it's about all we have to fight corporate power since they have taken over this country by influencing legislation. Besides, I think John Mackey needs to come down off his ivory tower and remember who make him a millionaire 100 times over, it wasn't some falsely stero-typed version of a WF shopper, it's average middle class, politically aware people like me. I know, I used to shop there.
To the author of this piece of fiction, just so you know, I can go 2 miles from my house to Safeway and buy organic olive oil, it's a Safeway brand you moron. Check some facts. Also, there is a little thing called a local market, mine is two blocks away and carries organic olive oil, produce, dairy, etc. Whole Foods is totally replaceable. I know, because I have very successfully done it. I will never set foot in that corporate farce again.
Quote
And I have the right to boycott him, advocate for others to do the same, and to refuse to give my dollars to someone whom I disagree with politically; it's called voting with your dollars, and it's about all we have to fight corporate power since they have taken over this country by influencing legislation.
End Quote
Note, please, that Mr Mackey does NOT have the same right as you to withhold dollars. The government takes it from him at the point of a gun and gives it to you. They do not take yours to give to him. He does not have the right to advocate for others to withhold their (tax) dollars; doing so would land him in jail.
I wish I lived in your dreamworld. Things would be so much more panacea-like!
Signed,
FairTax Advocate
You're not even making any sense. How is it that I'm getting any dollars from Mackey? If anything, because of the inadequate healthcare system that fails to appropriately cover even the insured, let alone the uninsured who put extra strain on the healthcare system, I am in the same boat as Mackey. Healthcare reform is aimed at reducing waste in the existing system, and an increase in taxation for those making over 200,000 a year to cover it. Those who make more, should pay more. That's what I call fair taxation.
My apologies: I presumed, because you're advocating for the government withholding of dollars from someone who makes a lot of money that you were a typical liberal who doesn't make very much. I see now that you're an atypical liberal who makes enough to pay taxes.
How does it feel to have someone decide for you that money you have earned through your labor can be better spent on someone else? How does it feel that you are prohibited from making the same choice with your tax dollars as you make with your discretionary income? (Note: I already know the answer to the question; it's rhetorical in nature. Just wanted to help you think of this from a different perspective.) And please don't trot out the old tired line that we need to step up and have some compassion... what gives anyone the right to legislate compassion using my dollars?
And how, pray tell, will a government program reduce waste? Can you name a single government program that has reduced waste? Just one.
We're back to the constitutional mandate issue: where's the constitutional mandate for health care? For "Cash for Clunkers"? For "Cap and Trade"?
I couldn't find it either.
Thanks, Algy, for making the other point I meant to make. People ARE dying due to a lack of insurance, and it's absolutely ridiculous. None 'ya appears to be one of those right-wing trolls who creeps around the internet, trying to spread the right wing talking points, and generally derail thoughtful, productive discussion. None 'ya, you better hope you never get seriously ill, insured or not, or you might learn more than you want to about our glorious healthcare system. And pulling the Nazi analogy out is really lazy, and a low IQ indicator. Try a little harder next time.
"People don't die because they are uninsured. Ever see an autopsy report that says, "Cause of death: No health insurance"?"
People don't die of cancer either. They die of their heart stopping. So if "complications due to lung cancer" or "end-stage renal disease" are legal causes of death, I believe that "complications due to lack of healthcare" might also be acceptable.
McArdle writes: "The CEO of Whole Foods is not allowed to have a different opinion from you on a national domestic policy issue? Rilly?"
JJJ responds: Of course he can HAVE any opinion he wants on any policy he wants. That his name and position with a particular company, that which gives him access to the media, links his opinion on a particular policy inextricably with Whole Foods. While I am suspicious of public relations pursued through the Op/Ed sections of newspapers, this move was strategically stupid. What is the business or political upside for Mackey here? He and his public relations people should have known better. Thus, one could rightly question his business acumen as of a result of this idiotic move.
McArdle writes: Not that I'm exactly sweating for the fortunes of Whole Foods. Quick: name the last time a consumer boycott achieved a result of any significance. (Getting American Airlines to stop using animals in its ads doesn't count.) I have to go all the way back to the JJJ responds:
JJJ responds: Setting aside Ms. McArdles reading and interpretation of history, the fact that the Whole Foods Communication Team responded to this incident (by working a very long weekend, I'd bet) is evidence that the company is worried about the fallout. As for Whole Foods' fortune sweating, recent market data -- you know, actual EVIDENCE -- of Whole Foods fortunes has been available for some time. Sales at Whole Foods is down as much as 30%, mostly due to a flagging economy. Hey, but doesn't McArdle sound snarky with her bus boycott bologna?
McArdle writes: Here's why boycotts don't work: the vast majority of customers don't care. And yes, that includes the vast majority of Whole Foods customers, a surprising number of whom drive SUVs and even--I swear!--occasionally vote Republican. Now consider the demographic that cares enough about health care to actually boycott a company over it. Most of them are a) wonks or b) political activists. The latter group is disproportionately young and does not spend a great deal of money on groceries. The former group is tiny.
JJJ responds: McArdle expects us to believe that many if not most of use don't care, and that because many of us drive SUVs (non seqitur) that in some way reveals something about the Whole Foods demographic. Because my wife works as a brand manager for a food company, and because one of my best friends works as a public relations director for a large, national restaurant chain, I can relay this statement with complete confidence: "Their customer base is affluent liberals, the same people who really want to see health care reform." McArdle's bluster is not backed up by any data, so I will trust the experts I personally know to assist me with understanding the shoppers who frequent Whole Foods. McArdle's attempt to baffle with bulls*it is pretty transparent here.
JJJ ends: It's too bad that Ms. McArdle a/k/a "Jane Galt" provides such a weak essay here, because I really have much higher expectations for The Atlantic. But since magazines would rather diversify their staffs with affirmative action appointees like her (young, cute, female, saucy, and snarky conservatives) to spice up the blog pages. readers get stuck with predictably pedantic pablum.
===========
"Their customer base is affluent liberals, the same people who really want to see health care reform." McArdle's bluster is not backed up by any data, so I will trust the experts I personally know to assist me with understanding the shoppers who frequent Whole Foods. McArdle's attempt to baffle with bulls*it is pretty transparent here.
============
Thank you, JJJ. Anyone who shops these stores knows better, but thanks for pointing it out to the repuglicans who think they have found a friend in John Mackey, but will never step foot in his stores despite claims to the contrary. Between the prices and the lack of oscar mayer and bud light, even if they did manage to make it in once, it would be the last time! I think it's funny how they are all trying to hop on the "anti-socialist" bandwagon with the extreme right Liberitarian who would gladly take their social security and medicaid away too. Are they willing to give up that "socialist" service? I doubt it very much.
As far as an inability to follow through on a boycott, righties need to stand back and watch the show. Loyal customers are PISSED OFF, me among them. I did my shopping for the weekend at two of my local stores, one of which I had been meaning to check out-- this was all the incentive I needed. Between local stores, Trader Joe's (who is going to profit from this big time), and my local Farmers Market, I have found that Whole Foods is totally replaceable-- and for a lot cheaper! I will never go back.
jellybeanbonanza,
Where I live now, in the Southwest, we have Sunflower Market, an inexpensive alternative to Whole Foods. I do almost all of my shopping there, and have only been to a Whole foods twice in more than a year. Mostly, I stay away because (a) I can't really afford it and (b) because I find comparable, fresh and seasonal goods at much lower prices at many other local markets. For example, when I needed shellfish to make a meal, I went to an Asian market near my home. When I needed carne asada, I went to a Mexican butcher.
Many people, irrespective of politics, have had to learn to be frugal. I guess I have always been that way (practical, Midwestern upbringing, I guess). If Mackey understood is clientele better, he'd know that while a statement like this might normally go unnoticed, during economic times like this, the effects could be substantially worse. Bad for business...
If you haven't seen the Whole Foods press statement from today, I will post it here. *Hey, if I do, will The Atlantic pay me for doing McArdle's job? Anyway, the statement is pretty lame; almost as lame as Mackey's Op/Ed.
JJJ
Unlike our dear author, I actually don't find issue with hitting a few different stores to get what I need, regularly do, and it can even be spread out over different days. I never even have to go outside of a 3 mile radius to do it either, and one store I can walk to for at least one of those trips. Then again, I can walk, chew gum and remember my canvas bags. Sorry, just exorcising one more demon about this ridiculous, baseless article. I'm feeling much better now.
What I was going to start out saying is that I agree with you about alternate sources, both for quality and cost. I had certain things that I could find at WF, like environmentally friendly fabric softener, vegetarian sausages, things like that. So I would go a couple of times a month, maybe check out additional seasonal local produce while I was there, or whatever they might have on sale. However, I've always had issues with their practices. For one thing, they import way too much of their produce when they should make more of an effort to support local farmers at the various locations. This is especially true of organic produce, so much of it comes from Mexico, and I have heard some concern over regulations. I live in CA, and it's shameful what is happening to farmers here, and the lack of CA produce is astounding at WF. They could be doing so much to help, but they are only interested in profit, of course. They are also anti-union, which seems very contrary to the spirit of co-op. And for all they claim as "values", I've heard those often turn out to be hypocritical as well. This guy lays out quite a few: http://michaelbluejay.com/misc/wholefoods.html.
I think you make an excellent point about the need to be frugal in this economy, it is another thing that could already be affecting their bottom line; now add a boycott. I'm really going to be watching for those quarterly reports now! I guess the nice side benefit to all of this is that more and more people are getting back in touch with their local farmers market and grocers, and maybe rethinking how they function from a financial standpoint in general. I already try to throw most of my money at local/US business, but I think my efforts will be furthered now.
Please do post the link to the WF statement today, I'm curious to read it. Not having read it, I can say at this point I feel the best thing they can do is fire him as the CEO. He has become a huge liability, and had I known who was heading up WF before, I would have given them up a long time ago.
And you should totally get paid, someone needs to do her job since she can't seem to. What a tool.
re: Masnik, since reply on that thread is an unavailable option:
+++++++++++
My apologies: I presumed, because you're advocating for the government withholding of dollars from someone who makes a lot of money that you were a typical liberal who doesn't make very much. I see now that you're an atypical liberal who makes enough to pay taxes.
How does it feel to have someone decide for you that money you have earned through your labor can be better spent on someone else? How does it feel that you are prohibited from making the same choice with your tax dollars as you make with your discretionary income? (Note: I already know the answer to the question; it's rhetorical in nature. Just wanted to help you think of this from a different perspective.) And please don't trot out the old tired line that we need to step up and have some compassion... what gives anyone the right to legislate compassion using my dollars?
And how, pray tell, will a government program reduce waste? Can you name a single government program that has reduced waste? Just one.
We're back to the constitutional mandate issue: where's the constitutional mandate for health care? For "Cash for Clunkers"? For "Cap and Trade"?
I couldn't find it either.
++++++++++
First of all, your assumptions about "liberals" goes to show that you must not know any, which makes your already narrow perspective even more so. And before you try to tell me how I don't know anything about "conservatives", trust me, I do. Friends, family and foes; I KNOW them. Liberals are not poor, needy and unemployed, just waiting for you to hand over your money to them. Many, many of us are affluent, educated, contributing, tax paying individuals; and we have something you lack, compassion for others less fortunate than us. We also understand that all classes in a society have to be supported in order for society as a whole to flourish. If you lack compassion and understanding of this concept, I can't help you, but you should really look within at your motivations and obvious prejudices.
Second (and again, if you really need me to spell it out for you), if you bothered to watch the town hall in Colorado, you would have learned how this program plans to reduce waste within the existing healthcare system. In fact, it is a large part of how the health care program WILL PAY FOR ITSELF. Something the Republicans never did with their prescription drug plan for seniors; we're still paying for that one. The other part comes from a tax increase for people making over $200,000 a year, like I said before , that's fair.
Third, as far as your "rhetorical" question
"How does it feel to have someone decide for you that money you have earned through your labor can be better spent on someone else? How does it feel that you are prohibited from making the same choice with your tax dollars as you make with your discretionary income? "
I will feel a whole lot better knowing that the money that is ALREADY being taken out of my paycheck to cover the cost of the millions (it's called FICA, look into it) in this country to frequent ERs rather than having access to preventative healthcare, and the ability to visit a doctor rather than the ER for non-emergency care in general. will be reduced by providing healthcare for everyone, and will reduce the costs of the healthcare I already have by creating competition to healthcare corporation, and removing their monopoly, which is what is costing all of us. I will feel pretty damn fine, thank you.
You got me, healthcare is not a constitutionally mandated right. Neither is education, so I suppose we should shut down all of our public schools too. Really, if you want to live within a society, and partake of all the benefits therein, you have to consider more than yourself. My advice? Go grow a soul. Lucky for you, you don't have a debilitating illness or injury that has forced you to face the realities of healthcare for both the insured and uninsured, you better hope you never do under the current scheme.
To our customers,
As you are aware, John Mackey wrote an Op/Ed piece that was published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week on health care reform, one of the biggest and most emotional issues facing our country. John’s intent was to express his personal opinions — not those of Whole Food Market team members or our company as a whole. Still, it’s very clear that John’s piece offended some of our customers, other members of the communities we serve and some of our team members as well.
We offer you our sincere apology.
We’d like to clarify a few things that have been misinterpreted:
John’s Op/Ed piece was written in favor of health care reform.
In response to President Obama’s invitation to all Americans to put forward constructive ideas for reforming our health care system, John was asked to write an Op/Ed piece and he gave his personal opinion. John titled the piece “Health Care Reform,” but an editor at the Journal rewrote the headline to call it “Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare,” which led to antagonistic feelings by many. That was not John’s intention – in fact, John does not mention the President at all in his piece. John has posted the unedited piece to his blog where people can read it as it was intended.
Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue.
That said, we have attempted to be part of the solution in health care reform for many years by providing innovative health care options to our team members. We believe that our high deductible medical insurance plan coupled with a company-funded HSA is an excellent way to empower team members to make their own health care choices.
John wanted to share our experience with others through his Op/Ed piece. He believes that the specific ideas he put forward would improve access and cost of health care for more people. Because our plan has held down overall costs (relative to other plans), Whole Foods Market has been able to pay 100 percent of the premiums for our full-time team members — about 89% of our workforce. (Part-timers are eligible for the insurance plan too and pay the premium themselves.) Our team members vote on our plan every three years to make sure they continue to have a voice in our benefits.
Whole Foods Market has a 30-year track record of caring about our customers, team members and communities. From local loan programs to salary caps, from donations to non-profits to funding the Whole Planet Foundation, our innovative programs are created and designed by team members who care about their fellow citizens.
We all know there are many opinions on the health care debate, including inside our own company. As we, as a nation, continue to sort through this together, we are hopeful that both sides can do so in a civil manner that will lead to positive change for all concerned, and we thank you for sharing your opinions with us.
Kind regards,
Customer Communications Team
Whole Foods Market World Headquarters
550 Bowie Street
Austin, Texas 78703
Whole Foods: "John’s intent was to express his personal opinions — not those of Whole Food Market team members or our company as a whole."
Reply: Too bad. He's the CEO. It is because he is the CEO that he was given a fora to speak in the Wall Street Journal. Thus, his opinions ARE the Whole Foods opinions.
Whole Foods: "...an editor at the Journal rewrote the headline..."
Reply: Then the CEO is not only stupid, he is naive. Editors do this all of the time. If the CEO didn't know better, his people should have known better. Regardless of the headline, Mackey's piece includes familiar, conservative talking points. Thus, he really adds NOTHING of importance to the discussion. Whether Mackey mentions the president or not is moot.
Whole Foods: "John wanted to share our experience with others through his Op/Ed piece."
Reply: Clearly, the PR flaks at Whole Foods forgot that this was Mackey's opinion when they wrote "OUR experience." Thus HIS particular opinion is informed by HIS experience as the Whole Foods CEO. So, it is not entirely a personal opinion, rather reflects and is reflected by his company.
Whole Foods: "We believe that our high deductible medical insurance plan coupled with a company-funded HSA is an excellent way to empower team members to make their own health care choices."
Many middle class and poor Americans cannot afford high deductible insurance plans or health savings accounts. Many HSAs are simply tax deductible accounts to which companies pay absolutely NO benefits. Companies can offer HSAs to their employees at little or no cost. And, the benefit of an HSA can ONLY be realized if the employee has enough money to actually save. HSAs, just like mortgage deductions, favor richer segments of the American population, just like large companies that can afford tax dodges that offshore their corporate headquarters to Grand Cayman or Antigua. Rich benefits for rich people. Some innovation!
Whole Foods: "He believes that the specific ideas he put forward would improve access and cost of health care for more people. Because our plan has held down overall costs (relative to other plans), Whole Foods Market has been able to pay 100 percent of the premiums for our full-time team members — about 89% of our workforce. (Part-timers are eligible for the insurance plan too and pay the premium themselves.) Our team members vote on our plan every three years to make sure they continue to have a voice in our benefits."
Reply: Whole Foods ability to pay "100 percent of the premiums" is primarily due to its size as a company, not due to Mackey's ideas about health care. It's called market power. A public option would provide many people the ability to possess affordable health care coverage BECAUSE the pool of participants would literally include EVERYONE.
Whole Foods: "Whole Foods Market has a 30-year track record of caring about our customers, team members and communities. From local loan programs to salary caps, from donations to non-profits to funding the Whole Planet Foundation, our innovative programs are created and designed by team members who care about their fellow citizens."
Yes, nobody said that Whole Foods was an uncaring company. Many people made specific, germane criticism about Mackey and Whole Foods regarding his Op/Ed. Whole Foods' damage control effort seems desperate, and surprisingly, their response is pretty weak considering they had all weekend to work on this message.
JJJ
Thanks for the post JJJ.
Overall, the apology lacks.
First of all, blaming the editors for a bad title is a cowardly act. Obviously, they had read the first sentence in that op-ed and surmised what the rest of us had. I don't care if he intended the title to be "Health Care Reform" , "Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare" or "Who Needs Healthcare When You Can Eat Whole Foods" if the first thing you say is an anti-socialist quote from Margaret Thatcher. We know what that means. I am so SICK of extreme right wing republicans and libertarians trying to act like we don't already have socialized healthcare in this country, it's called medicaid, and if you have such a problem with medicaid where have you been all this time. What about the VA hospitals? Good enough for congressman and vets should be good enough for the rest of us. And finally, what is being proposed in several bills, that's right there is NO SINGLE BILL at this time, is not even befitting the definition. Only the program to pay for medical care is going to be a federally run program, not the medical care itself.
Second, for all the "John wants healthcare reform" crap, they fail to address the one thing that is pissing all of their "liberal" clientele off:
"A careful reading of both The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter, because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America."
They can't blame that one on the editor, and it goes against the core of the healthcare reform movement, and the majority of the (now former) Whole Foods customers who support that reform. Try again Whole Foods, this time with a pink slip for old Johnny boy.
And check out the annotated version from DailyKos, for a laugh
Annotated Verion
To our customers,
**Please still be our customer...**
As you are aware, John Mackey wrote an Op/Ed piece that was published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week on health care reform,
**As you are aware, John Mackey (who we are not calling our CEO in this letter btw) wrote an incendiary and factually challenged article meant to further erode support for health care reform**
one of the biggest and most emotional issues facing our country.
**You hippies are so darn dramatic**
John’s intent was to express his personal opinions — not those of Whole Food Market team members or our company as a whole.
**Because a CEO in no way represents the company**
Still, it’s very clear that John’s piece offended some of our customers, other members of the communities we serve and some of our team members as well.
**In other news, sky still blue, fish like water and Ross loves Rachel**
We offer you our sincere apology.
**We are totally freaking out right now!**
We’d like to clarify a few things that have been misinterpreted:
**Our PR department has spent a few days working on some spin. Here it is:**
John’s Op/Ed piece was written in favor of health care reform.
**The kind of reform that is only made possible by entrusting the same people who have created this mess (insurance companies and major corporations) to solve this mess.**
In response to President Obama’s invitation to all Americans to put forward constructive ideas for reforming our health care system, John was asked to write an Op/Ed piece and he gave his personal opinion. John titled the piece “Health Care Reform,” but an editor at the Journal rewrote the headline to call it “Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare,”
**I swear, it was someone else who did it.**
which led to antagonistic feelings by many. That was not John’s intention
**Well duh!**
– in fact, John does not mention the President at all in his piece. John has posted the unedited piece to his blog where people can read it as it was intended.
**Not clear whether and for how long it will reference socialism, be riddled with falsehoods and still wrongly infer the public option is an unfunded entitlement.**
Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue.
**Though we do have official positions preventing unionization, we have no intention for holding our CEO accountable for expressing similarly regressive unofficial positions on his own time.**
That said, we have attempted to be part of the solution in health care reform for many years by providing innovative health care options to our team members. We believe that our high deductible medical insurance plan coupled with a company-funded HSA is an excellent way to empower team members to make their own health care choices.
John wanted to share our experience with others through his Op/Ed piece.
He believes that the specific ideas he put forward would improve access and cost of health care for more people.
**Even though he doesn't represent us, we are going to stick up for him, albeit with a few wiggle words.**
Because our plan has held down overall costs (relative to other plans), Whole Foods Market has been able to pay 100 percent of the premiums for our full-time team members — about 89% of our workforce.
**And by this we mean our workforce that worked over 800 hours and excludes dependents.**
(Part-timers are eligible for the insurance plan too and pay the premium themselves.) Our team members vote on our plan every three years to make sure they continue to have a voice in our benefits.
**See! Mackey totally gets healthcare.**
Whole Foods Market has a 30-year track record of caring about our customers, team members and communities. From local loan programs to salary caps, from donations to non-profits to funding the Whole Planet Foundation, our innovative programs are created and designed by team members who care about their fellow citizens.
**Really, we're good. An oil or tobacco company would NEVER say something like this.**
We all know there are many opinions on the health care debate, including inside our own company.
**But we haven't realized that our customers are largely progressive, well educated, and not likely to be swayed by provable falsehoods put forth by our CEO**
As we, as a nation, continue to sort through this together, we are hopeful that both sides can do so in a civil manner that will lead to positive change for all concerned, and we thank you for sharing your opinions with us.
**Please, please forget this ever happened!**
Kind regards,
**please!**
Customer Communications Team
**PR Department**
Whole Foods Market World Headquarters
**Where John Mackey has never set foot.**
550 Bowie Street
Austin, Texas 78703
**Home of emotional hippies.**
Grateful that no thoughtful discussion here!
Since this has brought the left wingnuts out of the shadows, shall we let both duke it out with tantrums?
Then, perhaps, the issues can be discussed. Whew, didn't ever think the left contained such a Limbaugh-esque faction. Boy was I wrong.
The only thing you've got right (anywhere on the right for that matter) is that your wrong. If you want thoughtful discussion you could 1) Reread the thread, because it obviously went over your head the first time, or 2) Post something other than a bunch of insults. We tolerate you on progressive sites, and after 8 years of your boy Bush, maybe it's time you quiet down and open your ears instead of running your mouth.
@ Porcini,
Please, provide us some thoughtful discussion. I attempted to analyze the author of this piece and the press release from Whole Foods Market. In the process, I did criticize McArdle, Mackey and Whole Foods, yet my statements were not completely insulting. In short, I attempted to provide a logical analysis, coupled with evidence. JellyBeanBonanza did the same, while also providing criticism from another source, DailyKos. Please enlighten us on your take regarding the issues, if you have any opinions, I'd like to hear them. But from your post, all it seems you have to offer is screed; (a) wing nut, (b) shadows, (c) tantrums, and (d) Limbaugh-esque.
Seriously, when I read troll-like statements like yours I wonder whether there is some comment-generating software that plugs popular insults into sentences for use by people like you so that you don't have to actually compose any original thoughts.
JJJ
More data for McArdle.
http://openleft.com/diary/14684/whole-foods-under-financial-pressure
Thanks for the link, that was an informative article, and now I have a new blog to check in on.
Why Boycott Whole Foods?
by Mike Hersh
John Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on 8/12/2009 quoting Margaret Thatcher and suggesting that all we have to do to fix the health care crisis is eat healthy and let insurance companies do whatever they want. No health reform needed. From the beginning, Mr. Mackey's Op-Ed was insulting and over-simplistic. It led off with this quotation: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," attributed to Margaret Thatcher.
This is ironic, because Ms. Thatcher undermined the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom by slashing funding for it. She also sought to impose poll taxes--charging people to vote--to suppress voting by poor and working people! Her misguided rightwing policies were so unpopular, she was about to lose her job as Prime Minister when she stumbled into a conflict with Argentina over some tiny islands and rallied nationalistic fervor.
Of course throwing around labels like "socialism" begs the question. If Mr. Mackey and like-minded opponents of health reform think modern government is socialism, then why aren't they fighting to abolish Medicare, or Social Security for that matter? They can't because it's political suicide, but Republican icon Ronald Reagan argued that Medicare would lead to tyranny. If successful, this boycott will mean Mr. Mackey cannot use "other people's money," namely our money to promote his extreme philosophy. Mr.Mackey also strongly opposes unions, and forced his employees into a high-deductible, low cost (to Whole Foods) health insurance plan. These actions reveal his real intentions for the rest of us. He's free to do that, but we're free to avoid enriching him and supporting his right wing ideology.
It gets worse. Mr. Mackey contributed money (again, earned from our pockets) to Tom DeLay's legal defense fund. DeLay--before he became a "Dancing with the Stars" dancer--waged war against progress, and resigned under indictment for several crimes. These days, DeLay regularly attacks health reform as government interference in families' health decisions. Sadly this principle didn't stop Mr. DeLay from overriding the final wishes of Terri Schiavo or her husband Michael, and involving the Congress directly in their family's health decisions. By backing Tom DeLay's hypocrisy with his money, Mr. Mackey has forfeited his chance to grab any more of my money. Whole Foods should fire Mr. Mackey, and respect their customers. Until then, we should stay away from Whole Foods.
John Mr. Mackey is entitled to his libertarian views, but we're entitled not to support these views with our grocery dollars. Libertarianism is an extreme point of view that opposes any government role in protecting civil rights, ameliorating poverty, preventing disease, maintaining roads or bridges. No child labor laws. No pure food and drug laws. No public education. No workplace or environmental protection. Just prisons, police, and the military. I believe most people behave responsibly most of the time, but those who don't endanger the rest. That's why we have speed limits and traffic lights. To prevent chaos and mayhem. Before labor laws, bosses locked their employees into sweatshops and paid them pennies per day. We saw what happened before the EPA: rivers caught fire and big cities were shrouded in smog.
If that's too long ago, consider the Bush Administration's bright idea of putting Wall Street swindlers on the honor system and watching as the whole economy collapsed. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan--another libertarian--admitted he "made a mistake" by putting too much faith in "free markets." Chagrined by the catastrophe on his watch, Mr. Greenspan admitted there is "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works" and "a critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down ... I still do not fully understand why it happened."
Well I understand why it happened. You can't rely on the honor system. Apparently Mr. Mackey hasn't learned this lesson. He thinks we should put health insurance companies on the same honor system that Wall Street swindlers abused. The threadbare, minimalist government libertarians advocate worked while the U.S. was a rural, agricultural nation, but modern life requires modern government. To prevent swindlers and predators from exploiting the rest of us, and to facilitate basic survivable behavior. Almost everyone accepts this. Libertarians refuse to face these facts, Mr. Mackey among them.
Once again, he's free to pontificate any way he wants, but not on my dime. If you care about progress, don't let him do it on your dime either.
But...but...but....
What happens to innocent employees injured by a boycott? People will shop elsewhere, and those places will hire more employees. A boycott isn't going to put Whole Foods out of business, but every boycott entails risks of economic consequences for employees. What happened to the employees of the Montgomery Bus system when Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat sparked a boycott? I'm not sure, but do we regret that boycott? In any case, we hope Whole Foods will fire Mr. Mackey, quickly and get a CEO who is more tolerant if not supportive of progress.
What about freedom of speech and toleration? There's no threat to free speech here. No one is asking the government to muzzle anyone. No one is demanding the Wall Street Journal shut down, and no one is telling Mr. Mackey he cannot express himself--even express his own intolerance. As Mr. Mackey himself wrote in his Op-Ed, "every American adult is responsible for his or her own health." I don't believe that we're all islands, and should be left to fend for ourselves, but I am holding him responsible for his own words. As for tolerance, unlike Republican opponents of needed health reform, we're not showing up and screaming at people or disrupting discussions. We're just making our arguments. Mr. Mackey's fellow libertarian John Stossel of ABC News' "20/20" said, "Perhaps what the 'natural' food nuts really hate is that Mr. Mackey is rich. They don't like profit." Why should we support someone whose defender thinks we're "nuts?" Mr. Stossel's reductio ad ridiculum argument is typical of simplistic "debate," and in that regard not much different from the disingenuous Op-Ed Mr. Mackey wrote for the Wall Street Journal in the first place.
Didn't Mr. Mackey actually try to offer constructive suggestions? Actually no. His suggestions range from self-serving (such as shop at his stores) to deceptive. I agree with eating healthy, but that's no answer for millions of Americans who can't get insurance or can't get their insurance to pay for needed care. The suggestion that "tort reform" will help lower health insurance costs is repudiated by every experience or study--pure propaganda like the rest of Mr. Mackey's "solutions." What is really bloating health care costs? Let's stick to the facts. For example, the CEOs of big insurance companies pay themselves nearly a million dollars a month! Rather than face up to this root cause of the health care crisis--greed and abuse of insurance executives--Mr. Mackey tries to mislead us. From his Op-Ed: "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." Wow! that sounds pretty scary! What he doesn't tell us is how long they have to wait. A day? A week? We can't tell from this Op-Ed. We do know that the situation in the U.S. is much worse. And that Canadians overwhelmingly support their health system. And that the "ObamaCare" under attack is not a clone of the Canadian system anyway.
We also know that Investor's Business Daily is a far right publication, hardly an unbiased source. But for the sake of argument, let's accept that scary number, 830,000 and multiply it by 60. That would barely approach the nearly 50 million Americans who have no health coverage at all, and can't even get in line to wait for treatment! Then, add the nearly equal number of under-insured who also cannot get the care they need. And add the millions more who have insurance, but due to high deductibles and lifetime limits, end up bankrupt when they or their family-member gets sick. The American Journal of Medicine reported that 62% of bankruptcy in America was caused by medical bills--and 75% of those families had health insurance. Meanwhile, health insurance company profits are sky-rocketing. They're making more money year after year by increasing premiums, raising copays and deductibles, and denying coverage. How do they get away with it? We have no choice. Thanks to a federal law called ERISA they're exempt from laws that promote competition in other industries. No wonder they're pulling out all stops to prevent any meaningful healthcare reform. This is happening now, and puts the lie to Mr. Mackey's claims that letting insurance companies do whatever they want would make things better for the American people.
To paraphrase Mr. Reagan, health insurance companies aren't the solution, they're the problem. We don't need libertarian Republican rhetoric about "empowering" individuals--which is just fancy talk for letting corporations do whatever they want including monopolize markets, exploit employees and bamboozle consumers. We need real health reform. Preferably single payer a.k.a expanded, improved Medicare for All. Anyone who opposes that should explain why they're not also opposing Medicare for our seniors--and if they're in Congress they should explain why "gubmint run healthcare" is good enough for them and their family. Back to Mr. Mackey and his efforts to trick people into accepting second-class health care or no care at all, his union-busting and arcane notions of what we need from government: Until Whole Foods fires him we should spend our money elsewhere. Boycott Whole Foods, and call or visit your local Whole Foods store to tell the manager about it. Also inform the Whole Foods's World HQ:
Whole Foods Market, Inc.
550 Bowie Street
Austin, TX 78703-4644
512.477.4455
512.477.5566 voicemail
512.482.7000 fax
Although I agree with many of your points, I would like to take issue with you for your caricaturization of libertarians.
You said:
>> Libertarianism is an extreme point of view that opposes any government role in protecting civil rights, ameliorating poverty, preventing disease, maintaining roads or bridges. No child labor laws. No pure food and drug laws. No public education. No workplace or environmental protection. Just prisons, police, and the military.>>
I consider myself a libertarian (although most definitely not the "libertarian Republican" kind) and believe that it is the responsibility of the US Government to attempt to implement those ideals stated in the Constitution which are -- since so many people seem prone to forget -- "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
By this definition, it is *absolutely* the business of the US Government to protect civil rights ("secure the Blessings of Liberty"), maintain roads and bridges ("promote the general Welfare"), regulate child labor ("secure the Blessings of Liberty"), regulate production of food and drugs ("promote the general Welfare"), and provide public education ("promote the general Welfare").
By the principles which many libertarians do hold, it *is* the responsibility of the US Government to step in to see that a necessary service is provided when a significant number of citizens can't provide it for themselves (i.e. that general Welfare thing again). We can all disagree on what 'significant' is and what 'necessary' is, of course.
Right now I believe it is clear that the operational state of the American health care system is such that one cannot effectively obtain even minimal amounts of health care without having health insurance. It has been reputably established that 18% of our population (i.e. the number of uninsured Americans under the age of 65) do not have health insurance. That's just about 1 in 5. Imagine if we took a similar stance to public education and decided it was ok for just about 1 in 5 children to go without education. At 1 in 5, I personally (evil libertarian that I am) certainly feel it reasonable for us to be having a discussion about something as necessary as basic medical care.
And it would not bother my libertarian principles at all to see a full or partial Canadian or NHS style health care system discussed or established.
To pull my contribution on this topic back to the original subject... John Mackey speaks only for himself and perhaps for other libertarian Republicans when he chooses to represent that the Constitution does not address issues like these.
Mr. Mackey represents in his editorial that a "careful reading of of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food, and shelter". One does not have to read very far down into the Declaration of Independence to happen on the phrase "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". It is not stretching a point at all to say that one should not be denied access to services -- such as health care -- that clearly exist to do nothing but provide for both life and happiness.
An "intrinsic right" to all health care in particular has become Constitutionally compromised if (as has happened) a heavily regulated system enforced by the full force and protection of both the state and federal governments has evolved such that is no longer possible for significant numbers of the citizenry to have the financial means to gain these necessary items for themselves if they attempt to operate within the system. It is Constitutionally unacceptable that their only alternatives are to go without or to open themselves up to the threat of incarceration if they attempt to operate outside that state-enforced system in order to have access to something that *is* an intrinsic right.
(And there is no doubt that there is a state enforced system. You just go try to avail yourself of the services or products or someone who is not a doctor or a pharmacist legally licensed to give medical care or drugs. If you do, men with guns will come to either your house or the unlicensed practitioner's house or both and deprive you of your personal Liberty. A true libertarian hence sees pretty much two solutions to this: (1) remove as much of the current regulations as possible so that the general citizenry can once again have access to service necessary to life and happiness, or (2) see that that service is provided within the well-regulated environment that has evolved to meet other Constitutional ideals).
A 'true' libertarian believes in the Constitution. Mr. Mackey does not fit the bill.
The boycott works for me. I won't be back until further notice. Megan, Whole Foods has lots of competition. Both my local supermarkets have natural foods sections, and I have a Trader Joe's down the street which is 30% cheaper for the same items. I'm tired of CEO's with opinions. Rumsfeld did it for me. He ran DoD like he ran Pfizer. Basta!