Guest Columnist: Our Country Is No Corporation

Ed Note: The following is guest column by E. R. Christenson, in response to Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey's WSJ op-ed piece last week. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the outlook or beliefs of anyone else in the IST network.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

—Winston Churchill

Once, back in New York, my cancer-surviving-and-deep-in-medical-debt friend and I were sitting around, watching a Japanese movie. I don't remember which movie it was, but I do remember that, as the opening credits rolled, the word 'EMOTION' popped onto the screen and some happy little music played.

EMOTION was probably a Japanese film company or affiliated studio or who knows what. It was also the most affecting part of the movie, an unexpected and spare reminder that the dramatic experience - the human experience - is emotional.

This memory revisited me last week as I stood in my Austin kitchen, slicing bread.

I had learned not five minutes before of John Mackey's stance on health care, discovering that he was not on board with Obama's reform package. Because I so respect his business, it felt like a PBD: pretty big deal.

Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods and local big macher, had outed himself as a non-supporter of Obama's plan with a piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. He argued for a more hands-off, Libertarian approach to health care. Citing examples from Whole Foods' own successful insurance plan, Mackey offered eight policy remedies, including:

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

And the unbeatable final suggestion:

Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

It's hard to argue with Mackey's logic, even though he made no mention of how to deal with the issue of pre-existing conditions. But let's forgive that and examine the more troubling aspects of his article.

Maybe I just expected better from an old-Austin hippie, but Mackey seemed to be using the crisp language of corporate authority to speak out against a plan that would largely benefit the poor and disenfranchised. By offering mostly bullet points about an alternate, 'non-socialist' plan, he also appeared to be doing the deed without much feeling.

That raised a red flag for me because health food nuts like Mackey are deeply passionate people (I'm a health food nut into other health food nuts, which is how I know). Second, health food nuts' movement towards health is often rooted in the painful experience of being or feeling unhealthy, or being or feeling surrounded by something that is sick - literally or figuratively. It surprised me that Mackey didn't identify with the struggle. It felt like he was out of touch, maybe even with himself.

I would not normally come down so hard on anyone, but Mackey is an opinion-maker in the local and global community, and what he says really counts. I raised my eyebrows at some of his thoughts:

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending - heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity - are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Mackey's words struck me as if he had grabbed a megaphone from his Ivory Tower and shouted, punishingly, into the drive-through window of a White Castle.

So many things about mainstream American industry (and attendant culture) encourage poor health habits, and profit from them. It is appreciably difficult for Americans to lose that big butt, control diabetes by eating well, and limit stress if they have children, commute by car, or encounter limiting factors like money and time.

Considering this, Mackey's perceptive powers suddenly seemed diminished. Conflict also seemed inherent in his argument when he encouraged a more balanced American lifestyle (something that would actually require a tremendous amount of government intervention), yet, in the same breath, found great fault with socialized medicine. Note Mackey's fear-mongering language:

All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

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

When I read this, I thought of that old aphorism: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Could not the same be said of socialized health care? No system of medicine is perfect, but that one seems preferable, at least. (Plus, Mackey's statistics appeared bogus because, in California, there are over 1 million undocumented immigrants. Most of them are 'in line' for health care coverage, right?)

I also bristled when Mackey went all 'founding fathers' on his well-educated readers. He sounded like he was fixing to put on a powdered wig:

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This 'right' has never existed in America.

Only a privileged, insulated person could write such a thing. That is because there's no explicit mention of slavery, abortion, homosexuality or immigration in the original documents, either. I know I am not the first to make this point.

And, while Mackey might be correct when he asserts that (universal) health care is not an American 'right,' wellness is deeply connected to our national aspirations to uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

For these reasons, I cannot trust John Mackey's arguments, though I remain glad he felt engaged enough by health care reform to make them.

I do, however, trust Barack Obama's arguments. This, while not entirely understanding his plan. And who does? Only about 20 people. Very problematic.

Still, I'm with it, because Obama's actions seem to be profoundly - and righteously - guided by personal experiences that he speaks openly about. Not legal experiences. Not corporate experiences. Life experiences.

Barack Obama's mother, Ann Soetoro, died of cancer in 1995. She was in her early 50's. After being diagnosed, Soetoro's last months were apparently spent haggling with health insurance companies over coverage (and decreasing her chances for survival, in the process).

Obama has not forgotten, and we see the consequence in his actions today, as the political is ultimately personal.

Despite the moral backbone of his health care overhaul - and because of his difficulty in figuring out how to effectively promote it - the President will likely see The Plan morph into some kind of ObamaCare and MackeyCare compromise.

But in the face of compromise, let's remember: our country is no corporation. Let's make sure we don't run it like one.

EMOTION.

Email This Entry


Comments (16) [rss]

Ugh.

"It's hard to argue with Mackey's logic"

re: HSAs

No, it's not hard to argue with that logic at all.

A guy like Mackey gets 33% or greater benefit for every dollar he diverts into an HSA. In other words, if he has a family plan with a high deductible and can (next year) put $6000 into his HSA (roughly the limit), he gets a benefit of about $2000 in the bargain (his $6000 pre-tax is equivalent to about $4000 after tax).

One of his cashiers gets 0% benefit, most likely, up to a whopping 10% in some cases, for every dollar they divert (or Mackey diverts for them) into an HSA. At best, their $6000 pre-tax was equivalent to $5400 after tax; they only saved $600.

This is because, yet again, campers, an HSA only benefits you at the level of your marginal tax rate. This is why rich guys like them so much - they are an additional way to shelter earned income from federal income taxes - they do nothing to help those earning fairly low amounts of money, and a lot less to those in the middle incomes, who are likely to pay 15%-25% in marginal tax rates.

HSA's can be funded any number of ways, not with just pre-tax money or tax deductible contributions. Employers and employees can fund them with some of the same money they currently use to pay low deductible insurance plans. You’re focusing on only one means of funding these accounts.

The current proposals in congress will require people to purchase insurance, with certain people getting credits they can use to buy insurance. Why can't some of this money be used to fund HSA's?

As it stands, under the current situation and under the current proposals you have a 3rd party paying most of your health care costs. How can we expect to keep costs down when individuals are so far removed from most medical billing?

So because President Obama has less legal and economic experience, E. R. Christenson trusts his opinion on one of the largest economic reforms in United States history over that of an experienced and proven financial expert and capitalist? Sounds like a typical bleeding heart. Is it because he thinks Mackey is just another evil corporate CEO out to make money? This isn't exactly what comes to mind when I think of Whole Foods.

Why is it that the only explanation you people have for why someone would be against universal healthcare is that they either hate sick people or have never seen one? Is it that hard to see that people actually believe the governement can't solve their problems, especially when the government controls 60% of the healthcare market already?

It's quite ironic that he uses emotion as a motif since knee-jerk reactions to EMOTION are exactly what people like Christenson are providing.

Funny, that's exactly what comes to my mind when I think about Whole Foods - among other things like union busting and overpriced packaged foods that don't contain high fructose corn syrup (as if that's the only unhealthy thing out there). Mackey is out to make money, period. Just because Whole Foods spends a lot on their store environment to make it feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make them altruistic.

arg - that was meant to reply to this:

McRumplstein - Sounds like a typical bleeding heart. Is it because he thinks Mackey is just another evil corporate CEO out to make money? This isn't exactly what comes to mind when I think of Whole Foods.

Mackey's statement that people are (mostly) to blame for their own maladies. I wonder if he'd feel that way if he had a child with spina bifida or Down syndrome? Good luck getting health insurance if you do.

He also reveals his ignorance of Constitutional law. No, John, there is no "intrinsic right" to healthcare, because there are no individual rights enumerated in the Constitution, period. It's a document which sets out the powers & limitations of federal government. It has nothing to do with personal rights (other than citizenship).

It is a misnomer to say that the government "controls" 60% of the healthcare market (through Medicare and Medicaid), as if these programs were taking business away from private insurers.

In fact, Medicare and Medicaid are government programs that insure the very people that would be rejected by private insurers today -- the poor and the elderly.

IF you don't want government to solve your problems, then CHOOSE not to apply for the public option insurer. Personally, I find it hard to believe that idealogical purists who have lost a job or gained a pre-existing condition (migraines, cavities, a mole, for example) and find themselves unable to get private insurance would at that time refuse a public, government administered insurance option. But that's certainly your right to do under the current Obama plan.

Put your health where your mouth is if you really want to refuse government run insurance, choose not to enroll. Again, the is your option according to the bill being discussed. But please let the rest of us exercise that same freedom of choice.

The public option is not simply “another choice”. The worry that many have is that, particularly on the insurance exchange, you’re going to create a strictly regulated market where private options are expected to compete with a subsidized public option. Obama claims the public option will be self sustaining and competitive in this exchange. If that’s the case, what’s the point of the public option in the first place if you all you have to do is establish a set of rules for insurance companies to follow? Obama used the comparison between the postal service and UPS/FedEx as an example of how private enterprise competes with a public option. One of the things that makes that an inaccurate comparison is that Fed Ex and UPS are relatively free to operate however they’d like. They can charge what they want, easily (again in a relative sense) choose the service they’d like to provide and the days they would like to deliver. If parcel delivery worked like the insurance exchange is supposed to, FedEx/UPS would be told where and they would be allowed to deliver to, they couldn’t delivery on Sundays (maybe even Saturdays), they would have a cap on what they could charge or any other number of mandates. All while not having the benefit of operating at a $5 billion loss like the postal service. It’s unlikely that they would stay in business or be any near competitive to the public option.

I've heard a lot of people cry foul about Obama's comparison of the USPS to FedEX. A lot of the criticism is focused on how the postal service's operating budget is not self-sufficient.

Those critics need to recognize that the postal system is a piece of national infrastructure. It shouldn't be expected to be self-sufficient. Our highways aren't. Our schools aren't. Our libraries aren't.

If we were to shut down the USPS and then rely on private companies to deliver packages and letters, we'd take on greater overhead for sending physical objects. People that live in remote, low-volume mail regions would be crushed by postal rates. Also, by depending on a private mail corporation the country could be in a disastrous situation if that company were to go out of business.

Seth

"People that live in remote, low-volume mail regions would be crushed by postal rates"

They would not be crushed, they would simply have to pay slightly more. These are just market signals that living in a very remote place is going to be a more expensive lifestyle. Currently, I (in the city) am absorbing the costs of those who live in remote areas. How is this fair? I chose a more convenient place of residence, why should I be forced to pay these costs because of a government monopoly?

"Also, by depending on a private mail corporation the country could be in a disastrous situation if that company were to go out of business."

Nonsense. When UPS went on strike did Fed Ex and DHL fail to provide your delivery services? There will always be competition, ESPECIALLY when a company goes out of business.

As far as healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid are perfect examples of what might happen if a full government insurance option was implemented. Private companies cannot compete without raising prices. Shit, look at any private college today, the only way they can compete is by having ridiculous tuition rates.

user-pic

I wouldn't be surprised if Mackey is trying to make a play by shorting his own stock. Writing this anti-proletariat column is a great way to alienate his customers and reduce numbers for his next financial reporting period. Reminds me of his scheme to reduce Wild Oats stock price before the buyout by posting comments on a stock forum.

Seth


Thank you guys for taking the time to respond to the article. I really appreciated it.

My essay isn't the best or brightest writing on the subject of health care out there, but I felt compelled to express my disappointment in local leader and hometown hero Mackey, and a general feeling of alliance with that nice, brilliant guy we call Prez.

Seth, you raised a very interesting point about Mackey's possible shorting of his own stock. If so, he's a maniacal genius. But I don't think we can give him that much credit.

Also, I'm with Rydia. The public option is supercritical because the goverment has tremendous buying power. At the same time, it doesn't care about making a profit. An editorial in yesterday's Times made the point better.

I think a future with a public option would be brighter than we can now know: people leaving their ball-and-chain jobs to raise their families, practice their crafts, start businesses. Our culture would flourish -- I like to think!

Speak out!

ERC

"People leaving their ball-and-chain jobs to raise their families, practice their crafts, start businesses. Our culture would flourish -- I like to think!"

You really think the government is goin to provide some sort of Utopia don't you? Have you learned nothing from history? Does the Soviet Union mean nothing to you? Does Cuba seem like the kind of place you want to live? Do you think it means nothing that these European socialist and quasi-socialist countries are all in massive amounts of debt?

This country is controlled by their ball and chain jobs BECAUSE of the government. Insane taxes have stifled our economy while Washington is going TRILLIONS in debt. Do you have zero concept of a FIAT currency? Every time the government creates more money it reduces the value of the dollar in YOUR pocket. THIS is why people are working day and night to make a living. THIS is why both husband and wife have to work to support a family as opposed to one 50 years ago. Every time the government creates another program or regulation(like healthcare) it runs private companies out of the market, creating more "national debt", and inflating more costs.

When will you people learn? This "healthcare bill" is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Dear McRumplstein,

I don't think you're entirely wrong (although Cuba happens to excel on the health care front).

And it's true, I own it - I have a somewhat magical vision of how life could be (better) if (only) we had universal health care.

That said, our current system is broken.

The more people who are engaged in thinking about it critically, discussing it, showing up at meetings, calling their representatives, etc., the better chance we have of winding up with reform that is effective and fiscally viable.

I am now going into retirement. Good night. :)


Yours truly,

ERC


McRumplstein,

If the insidious socialist threat to America--that is, collecting taxes and applying them to equal availability of basic services--is the reason we have to work so hard without getting ahead, then why do the French have a 35-hour work week and 40 days of vacation per year?

And why does the Economist report that "the gap between the rich and poor is wider in America than in any other advanced country"? Why does that income inequality gap keep widening as it has for the past 30 years?

Is it really all just ideological flaw--that we need to let corporate greed and free market capitalism run unchecked in order to recapture peace, happiness & wellness? Or do we even share the same utopian goals?

Or could it just be that maybe, just maybe, as Business Week reports, The Health Insurers Have Already Won.

user-pic


It's so painless + now is the time.

If you believe in the public option, give Rep. Lloyd Doggett a call.

Doggett's @ 202-225-4865.

Thank Doggett for his work on the issue so far. MoveOn just said he did this laudable thing:

Sixty House Democrats—including your Representative, Lloyd Doggett—have signed a written pledge to not vote for health care reform unless it includes a robust public option. That's more than enough to block a bill without the public option.



Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Austinist

Austinist is a news and culture website about Austin, Texas. We publish Monday through Friday, and also maintain a guide to local arts and entertainment events that we call the Weekly IST List.

Editor: Allen Y Chen
Publisher: Gothamist

Recent Comments

Dig It

Contribute

Latest Tip:

where's the public outcry over the condition of waterloo park?
[more]

Latest Photo:

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Austinist.

All Our RSS