Healthcare Op-Ed From Whole Foods CEO Rattles Customer Base

Mackey's views may have more to do with the possible "Value Added Tax" (VAT) that would help pay for healthcare at the expense of big business. A very popular choose in europe.

VAT apply to all commercial activites involving the production & distribution of goods and provisions of services.

Think how that would effect the WFM "365 brand".

I can't help but think about how India's cell phone cost's are a fraction of what we pay in the US, due to the government having a cell phone option for people choose if they feel the commercial options are to costly. Obama's plan would hope to work in the same way.

If you're interested you can read Whole Foods pathetic, mealy-mouthed attempt at damage control here:

http://tinyurl.com/n9gsad

It was all a big misunderstanding, you see. Mackey really wants to further health care reform and after all he never mentioned Obama by name, so what's the fuss? Why Mackey chose the Op-Ed page of the conservative anti-Obama, anti-health care reform Wall St. Journal instead of some other publication is not explained, but does it really need to be?

"Health care is a service that we all need," Mackey wrote, "but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges.

This Libertarian nut is comparing health care to grocery shopping? Sure, next time I need open-heart surgery, I'll just go down to my neighborhood State Farm office and buy myself some health insurance.

And he says there's no "intrinsic right" to health care in the Constitution. Someone might want to remind Sir John that there is an intrinsic right to own slaves in the Constitution. Also, it says nothing about capitalism, yet these Ron Paul nutjobs automatically assume the U.S. is a "capitalist nation."

I assume all of the folks who will be boycotting WF because of their CEOs caveman views on health care reform will now be buying their groceries from a company with progressive views on the subject, like WalMart.

Austin is full of better alternatives for wholesome, organic or locally grown food:

Austin Farmer's Market

Wheatsville Coop

Sun Harvest

Farm to Market Grocery

Fresh Plus

Greenling Delivery

Community Support Agriculture (CSAs)

etc

The list goes on and on.

Boycott Whole Foods!

I can see just where the pro-Mackeys are going. They'll try to defuse his potentially explosive comments by

casting him as just another average Joe speaking his mind...no big deal and nothing worth mounting a boycott over. Yeah sure. You can bet Mr. Mackey is now being quoted ad nauseum throughout the conservative universe as absolute proof that Obama's health care reform efforts must be defeated. Such a resounding PR appeal to the right wing might almost indicate Mackey's thinking of a political career.

You got it all figured out.

In a way I'm glad Mackey said these things because people who shop at Whole Foods need to be reminded that he is a successful businessman who has greatly expanded his organic empire for better or for worse (depending on whether you like his store or the smaller store he put out of business). It should be no surprise at all that his views are what one would expect from a successful business man--pragmatic and darwinistic. He doesnt care if smaller businesses fail because as improves his bottom line and he doesnt care if people can't afford health care. Keep it in mind next time you think you are doing the world some kind of favor by buying from WF rather than another corporate entity. People need a reality check if they think WF is going to save the world. Puh-lease. it's just another corporation

saustin- excellent point. Btw, Obama has already said multiple times that he will not sign a bill that doesn't have a solution built in to pay for it-- and do we really see Congress passing any bill without these measures in place? There isn't going to be a magic "poof" placing a bill into law. What amazes me is that people without solid long term health care options are the same individuals who are at these town hall meetings arguing against a national, reliable, health care plan, but, they are not proposing any kind of solution. These people are supporting the worst option for them-- status quo! I have a great job and a great plan with a large company in Austin that is self insured, but who is to say that this will always be the case? I'm terrified that something could happen to my job and I could be left without any coverage!

You know, it works both ways... I've never really been aware of Whole Foods. Not only is the man at least constructive with his opinions, look at the publicity he just bought! A gamble for sure, but he is not where he is because he is stupid. The poor/bleeding hearts out there can dislike him for his success, but if they were as talented as he, they would be on the other side of the fence with him.



Anyone who thinks that the "power of the people" is behind health care reform hasn't been watching presidential popularity polls.

Boycott if you like, I will seek this establishment out in order to buy his baguettes and anything else I need that he sells.

To theTrev: go for it, but bring lots of money. Lots of money, twice as much as you are used to. Just consider it a Disneyworld Grocery Store trip on your Staycation 2009. Mackey, I remember you when you ran the little cool Hippie Grocery "Saferway", before you sold your soul. What happened Dude?

Clearly, you have never shopped at a Whole Foods but that's neither here nor there.

What is irritating is the leap you made that if you disagree with Mackey's comments you are a bleeding heart. How openminded are you?

"Mackey's no stranger to controversy. He battled the Federal Trade Commission as he took over rival Wild Oats Market, and fought off the Securities and Exchange Commission investigating his anonymous postings on a financial web site."

You fail to mention that the problem was that Mackey was spreading lies about Wild Oats under a fake name in order to drive down the price while Whole Foods was taking it over.

He is not free thinking, he is self serving. Whole Foods is not a good company doing good things for good people.

Yes Yes Yes! I've been telling people that for years. I'll tell people, hey these are ruthless corporate thugs at Whole Foods, not the nice hippies that once ran one of the original locations on lower greenville. Their tactics with Wild Oats were just despicable. Sure, they are free to express an opinion. Likewise, I'm free to take my business elsewhere.

Mackey has several good ideas and if it works at Whole Foods great. The problem is he's saying screw everyone else that can't adopt this model. Let the good old market solve it, like it's done so well in the past. He completely ignores the people that can't afford coverage or to save anything with a HSA. Great attitude. Well just put everything under the mantra of personal responsibility. Meanwhile health costs will skyrocket do to the uninsured.

I suggest you call the Whole Foods downtown and ask:

"Do you carry health insurance? And is it affordable, or is it out of reach for me, like most of the items on your shelves?"

512-476-1206

The Whole Foods boycott is amusingly ironic, as WF is one of the few grocery chains who provide health insurance benefits to their employees (not just execs)

And just what's wrong with a boycott? Isn't every election a form of boycott where you throw support to one group while denying it to another? Boycott Whole Foods? Why not since a boycott is one of the few weapons the ordinary citizen has in a society totally controlled by the wealthy and powerful. I used to shop WF because they had the best french bread around but now they can take their baguette and shove it thanks to Mackey's reactionary rant. If he doesn't want me to have affordable health care why should I put money in his pocket?

Boycott’s are great, but is this worthy of a boycott? The man expresses his opinion in the op-ed of a newspaper. He didn’t shove it down your throat nor did he disrupt a town hall meeting.

The whole point of the op-ed was to provide an alternative plan to reduce health care costs and cover more people. He just happened to have a different approach than you. Is disagreeing with you some kind of unforgiveable sin?

Your joking, aren't you? Mackey isn't just some ordinary guy mouthing off with a gripe, he's a highly influential player in the health care game who's opinions are obviously important enough to get space in America's foremost economic newspaper. As such those opinions carry a great deal of weight and could influence the very politicians who determine what kind of health care we get. When the Mackey's of this world speak, the world takes notice and listens which is why those who disagree have a right to fight back with every legal remedy at their disposal...including a boycott.

And one additional thing – Mackey has long be lauded for his corporate philosophy and what he brought to the city of Austin. Now that he comes out of the libertarian/republican closet, he gets crucified? The guy has probably done more for his employees than a vast majority of corporate CEO’s and yet that doesn’t seem to matter because he had the audacity to hold a different set of beliefs! Jerk.

Mackey's op-ed isn't going to change anyone's mind anymore than any other op-ed that'll run. And he was doing what people with high visibility do – whether it be an artist or CEO. Again, you confirm my point from before – what’s the point of the boycott? To intimidate him into keeping his mouth shut? That makes you happy?

We’re all so willing to shut people up when we disagree with them, but think for a moment if the same actions were directed towards you, for expressing something you believed in.

"Is disagreeing with you some kind of unforgivable sin?"

Apparently the answer to that question is yes, to a growing number of people. Even the (right-leaning) Dallas Morning News commented on this phenomenon: "the idea that the stakes in any given battle are so high that extremism in defense of one's cause is no vice... These and other controversial matters become so charged with emotional maximalism that folks come to think of the other side as not only wrong, but evil... It's becoming increasingly apparent that what's broken is not only our health care system, but our approach to democracy."

One of Mackey's proposals stated, "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable."

The whitehouse.gov FAQ which tim directed me to (after accusing me of being uninformed) states, "The health insurance exchange is a marketplace that will offer affordable high-quality health insurance options. It will provide relief to families who have no insurance or do not get adequate insurance at work and cannot afford to buy it in the costly individual or small group market. It is also for small businesses that cannot afford small group health insurance. It is one-stop shopping that will enable you and your family to find a plan that is right for you."

So what's the difference between these two? I get the feeling it's more about reputation and whether someone has a (D) in front of their name or an (R) or in Mackey's case, an (I). I will admit that after reading the FAQs I found more in the plan that I agreed with than I disagreed with. But I am still skeptical about the lobbyist influence and the secret meetings to push in profit loopholes for the very industries that have a strong and vested profit motive to keep things as they are.

And again, I did not agree 100% with everything that Mackey proposed. But as much as people on the Left accuse people on the Right of being reactionary, close-minded, etc.... well gosh, after entering into this foray and commenting in what I thought was a reasonable fashion, and being scolded for buying into Libertarian selfish nonsense just for saying Mackey made some good points.... the Left isn't really all that appealing either.

Eating Healthy is a good thing and Austin has many choices besides Whole Foods. Sun Harvest is my pick due to the much smaller size of the store and cheaper prices. I don't support Mackey's politics and Whole Foods is too expensive for all but the elite class anyway. Boycott his Republican/Libertarian/Teabag nutjob ass. Thank you.

I don’t think Whole Foods will be hurt by any potential boycott because most of its shoppers are not uptight jerks that turn political ideology into a moral code. Unless they are. Then a boycott would be wildly successful and Whole Foods customer base may succeed in…well, I’m not sure what it would accomplish other than intimidating someone into not expressing their beliefs.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. I know tolerance isn’t easy, but c’mon.

Boycott whole foods, and protest it too: http://www.meetup.com/Boycott-Whole-Foods/

What it will accomplish is media attention FOR healthcare reform, instead of a media circus against it.

Sorry GeorgePorgie, I wasn't responding to you, but for some reason it posted under your post.

https://jobs20-wholefoods.icims.com/jobs/40714/job

Oh snap! I'd love to be the person to say "Well if you would have just eaten properly(i.e.organic-read deeper Whole Foods products)and had not taken gross advantage of our finest wines, cheeses, and beers I may have been able to approve your health request here at WFM. May I suggest aromatherapy? Good Luck!" Am I qualified or what...

This goes to show it's not only Republicans wanting to stop national healthcare.

Keep healthcare private and work to stop the insane markup of services.

I'm just confused by the public option, and why it's even necessary? If the exchange is everything they say it is going to be, why do you need the public option?

The public option means the government offers a healthcare plan that you, the consumer, can optionally enroll in if private healthcare companies deny you coverage, or offer a worse off deal.

The public option is necessary because private insurers do not "care" about providing the best health care to the consumer, they "care" about profits. That is the function of a corporation -- to meet shareholder expectations.

That's why it's so absurd the misinformation the deather movement is spreading about "the government offing granma" -- meanwhile private health insurers have been "offing granma" simply by denying her coverage when she gets an expensive illness like cancer as a routine practice for some time.

The public option has no profit motive. It would be offered, optionally, by the biggest non-profit institution there is -- the US government.

Mackey is absolutely right. This is why he has been a successful business man. Health care absolutely needs a ton of work, but anybody with a lick of sense understands that you can't buy something if you can't figure out how to pay for it. The only real way to finance it is to raise taxes like nobody's business on those who actually work for their money. Those of you that are behind that idea, wait and see what it does to the job opportunities for you and your children, grandchildren. Beyond money, do you really want the government who can't figure out how to run ANYTHING well let alone efficiently make life or death decisions on your behalf? Pretty scary.

I love the way many like Mackey are NOW concerned about government deficit spending, just as we are on the cusp of major social change that is long overdue, imperfect tho it will be. Where was the concern for government overspending without sufficient tax revenue to pay for it, when the expense was not one but TWO wars in Asia that are pointless, bloody, and none of our business? I'll tell you where he was, enjoying his tax cuts and keeping his head down under the Cheney nightmare, that is IF he had the cojones and conscience to oppose the wars. Somehow I missed his expression of outrage and concern then, so I can't be sure. I think I'll ignore his advice on a major social problem (millions of uninsured people-in Texas alone) because I think he hasn't a new idea, or a backbone. Ability to run a grocery store isn't proof of anything other than ability to run a grocery store.

How much shelf space is given over to health products at Whole Foods Market? Think about it. The manufacturers of those products are not all wonderful mom and pop organizations.

What Mackey brought to the table is the same warmed-over Republican crap that's been peddled for the last 8 years (remember, HSA's and high-deductible plans were largely a Bush effort).

And once again, they don't help - they don't insure any more people; they don't make health care any more transparent (despite Bush-era promises to the contrary); and the economic benefit of HSAs is proportional to your marginal tax rate - meaning rich guys like Mackey get a lot more use out of them than do his workers.

I've been on a high-deductible plan + HSA for 4 years now (only choice at this company). It's great if you can afford to fund the HSA and are in a high enough tax bracket to make that worthwhile. Oh, and if you don't actually use health care. That doesn't really solve anything like the problem we face today - people who could afford to fund thousands of dollars each year into savings accounts and/or didn't use health care were doing OK before.

casual observer - The Dems aren't offering "you-can-have-it-all-for-free care for everyone".

See here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c4

Especially:

"Why should people with insurance pay to cover those who don't have it?"

and

"What is the insurance exchange?"

We can upgrade you from "casual observer" to "informed observer"!

Don't worry, Tim, I'm definitely not casual. read it again.

And btw, I'm all for universal, single-payer, access to health care for everyone. But unfortunately, the Dems are not offering that. They are staring at the same big lump of poo that we've had in place in our country for the last 30 years, making compromises with the industries who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo (and who lined all their campaign coffers), and then cobbling together a little side-lump of poo to stick onto the big giant lump of poo we already have.

Mackey offers suggestions that are completely different than what I've heard out of the Left or the Right. And I found his opinions thoughtful. It doesn't mean I endorse all of what he said.

The man's got a right to his opinion and he really knows how to run a grocery store. It is somewhat refreshing to see someone bring options to the table instead of only venomous rhetoric, head banging, gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Boycott? Over a discussion? Because he has an opinion?

I'd leave boycotts for those organizations failing to act ethically.

well said!!

Doesn't a boycott seem petty? It's like freedom fries all over again

Well, I spend about $250 a week at my Whole Foods store. Multiply that by thousands upon thousands in just the Greater Bay Area and then by 52 weeks.

I think it will say a lot.

At least he's offering some real, tangible solutions to the problems our country faces. What is anyone else offering? Dems? Pie-in-the-sky, you-can-have-it-all-for-free care for everyone. But no thoughts given to the logistics or the unintended consequences. Republicans? They have no solutions whatsoever; all they do is grumble and complain and disrupt discussions because someone with a (D) in front of their name suggested we change things.

True, Mackey's suggestions all involve changes to health insurance and pharmaceuticals; but really, after everything Obama has said, all the plans the Dems come up with, also involve allowing Insurance and Pharmas to keep their windfall profits at all of our expense.

Lastly? Not that it precludes anyone's right to fair access to health care -- but Mackey has a solid point that our expectations about our own health and longevity rest squarely on our own personal responsibility. That means eating well, drinking in moderation, not smoking, exercising, etc. At least this fellow is offering up some options of things we could do RIGHT NOW that would improve the landscape of health care in this country -- and all framed with thought given to the market place. Everyone's a critic, but nobody seems to offer any other solutions!

First off, as the other poster responded, none of the bills out there right now are a "you can have it all free." Second of all, you mention being healthy requires "personal responsibility" "eating well" etc... Yes, we could probably all take more responsibility in caring for our health. However, when the government allows so much of our food to be injected with chemicals, hormones and doesn't demand it be labeled that way, when the FDA allows items like corn syrup to be considered an "all natural" product, and when the majority of the food on the shelves of grocery stores are franken-foods, how on earth can I take personal responsibility for my food intake? Not to mention the fact that stores that supposedly sell healthy food, like Whole Foods, are too expensive for the average family to shop at, especially in these hard economic times.

"Dems? Pie-in-the-sky, you-can-have-it-all-for-free care for everyone. But no thoughts given to the logistics or the unintended consequences."

This is a complete misrepresentation of the major bills currently under consideration, and it makes me suspect that you're not following the issue at all. For the entire month of July, members of Congress and their aides did little other than research and discuss logistics and potential consequences! There were a million articles about it!

None of the bills in process are "you-can-have-it-all-for-free." These bills require someone (you, your employer, or a Medicaid-like entity if you're poor) to BUY insurance. The major change is that, under these laws, your insurance can't kick you off once you get sick.

Ask around: this has happened to someone you know.

HSAs are really cool when your marginal tax rate is 33% or higher (as it is for Mackey).

Not so much when your marginal tax rate is 15%, 10%, or even 0%, as is likely the case for his employees.

Smart man, that Mackey! He's 100% right!

It's so easy to be libertarian when your rich...

it's also easy to be libertarian when you have no health insurance, make $11/hour, and spent $2000 in the last month on health care. and you know where that money came from? my pocket. because i knew some day i would need it.

sure the rich have better access to health care. government-aided programs will not ever change that. the rich have better access to ferraris and caviar too. and that's the way it will always be. even any socialist nation can see that.

And do you have $20,000 - $200,000 saved in case of catastrophic illness (car accident, brain tumor, cancer)? If not you are in danger of being excluded from coverage the moment you become a profit liability for your private health insurer:

Insurers Revoke Policies To Avoid Paying High Costs

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875