Whole Foods has a full-fledged problem

It's sad, isn't it?

The head of a company that is completely unrelated to health care gives his thoughts about that subject, and is in turn torn apart by his leftist consumers.

In no way was it a smart business move, but the reality of it hits hard. Many Whole Foods customers hold left wing ideals, and thusly are not open to the opposition. They boycott Whole Foods because of an opinion of health care, which has nothing to do with the products they have been consuming for the past years. "Those evil opponents of this particular health care reform model should get none of our business, even if we agree with the business model they have upheld with this particular company since 1980! It makes perfect sense!"

No need to try and understand the logic behind Mackey's statements (He's just a successful business leader of the pas 30 years). He disagrees with Obama, and therefore is an idiotic, anti-reform zealot, right?

ChivalryLives wrote:
"He disagrees with Obama, and therefore is an idiotic, anti-reform zealot, right?"

Uh, no. He just made a business blunder - UNLESS he is trying to tap a new base of angry, self-described "conservatives." He just might succeed.

As for the Dittenheimer, I quit shopping at Whole Foods years ago. Too pricey, too snobbish. Do I hold "left-wing ideals"? Some. But I also voted for Pat Buchanan in the 1996 GOP primary (he was anti-NAFTA), voted for John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary (I saw Bush as oilman first, American second) and sent $100 to the Ron Paul campaign in late 2007. I did vote for Obama in November of 2008, mainly because Palin was so out of touch with reality.

You are the one who insinuated Mackey was idiotic, even if it was in a sarcastic manner. Left is as left does, oh ye of chivalrous leanings! As they used to tell us in boot camp, "Left-Left-Left-Right-Left!"

One more thing: Just because someone reports something doesn't mean they agree with it and hold it as a life-guiding principle. Journalism 101, where are you when America needs you?

I did not intend for my post to be directed at you specifically, I was just expressing my disdain toward those who are so quick to overreact. I don't normally shop at Whole Foods for basically the same reasons as you: "Too pricey, too snobbish." My experience with Whole Food specifically led me to my conclusions about the average consumer of its products. Obviously not everyone that shops or has shopped at Whole Foods is of the leftist persuasion, however many are. This so-called outrage that people are expressing is because Mackey's statements do not fall directly in line with the current Democratic view of health care reform. There is no discussion about his actual words, simply a knee-jerk reaction to a different view. Party politics before wisdom, I suppose.

Thanks for continuing the dialogue, ChivalryLives.

Now, let's see, if Bill O' Reilly suddenly started talking about the need for the Fairness Doctrine to be restored, do you not think that it would shock a great number of his viewers? That's the phenomenon Whole Foods is experiencing right now. It's as if WF suddenly decided to go into onsite partnerships with a fast food chain specializing in high cholesterol fries and extra fat meat.

Remember - what you look for is what you see. To be truly informed Americans, it is our duty to look at things from more than one perspective and then make a decision as to which perspective we find to be the best for ourselves and our fellow citizens. That's all. No death panels, no forced abortions, no forced druggings. Just more options for a free people in a free country.

NO GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, IT CAUSES CANCER. 15/8/2009.

We were duped into beleiveing that the Whole Foods business model was that of concern for a cleaner and more just world. We supported our beleif in this with the extra dollars- we paid extra for that, not just the foods. Now we are shown that this was never the case, so I am not just boycotting whole foods, I am dropping them complete;y. Boycotting suggests that this refusal could end- but it's not going to. Eschew all meat, and shop local farmer's markets from here on out- next spring I plant my Victory (over Whole Foods) garden!

So you are implying that Mackey's words contradict the meaning of a "cleaner and more just world"? How, exactly, did you arrive at that conclusion? He is in favor of health care reform. He has a list of cost-reducing, efficient ideas that would reform health care in a positive manner. Not only this, he gives the reasoning behind the items he lists. But, because his plan is different from the current bill being pushed by Democrats, you will never shop at Whole Foods again? Heck, he's better than most Republicans - he is actually providing a viable alternative to the current bill instead of simply opposing it.

His "viable alternative" naively believes that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies put the interests of the American people above the bottom line. Whether or not one sees greater corporate control of individual health choices as a positive step is a matter of opinion. As for me, I prefer freedom of choice, healthy competition and at least some government oversight of aforementioned special interest groups - special interests that have driven health care costs sky high over the past couple decades.

I do agree with Mackey that individuals should take better care of themselves. No gripe there. I don't agree that the insurance companies are altruistic by nature, which is what he implies. Nor am I a government-first kind of guy. I have simply studied the options on the table and have come to the conclusion that greater government involvement would bring down health care costs while expanding access. Feel free to decide otherwise. Feel free to shop at Whole Foods, or scavenge out of trash dumpsters, or something in between, as you like.

As with many of the commenters here, you've parsed Mackey's words to make your point. In his editorial, he does not say he trusts the insurance companies to do anything other than selfishly look out for their own interest. What he did say: current regulation and specific laws provide cover for the insurance companies to largely do what they want at the expense, frustration, and anger of their customers.

Indeed, currently, there are around 1300+ individual health care insurance companies (HMOs and PPO insurance) operating in the USA. Because of insurance laws, these companies are only allowed to offer their products within the states they are filed. So, even a national player - think Aetna, CIGNA, etc. - are actually required to set up completely separate plans and administrative facilities in each state in which the do business. So, Blue Cross of California, for instance, cannot go into Alabama, and sell their product directly to an Alabama domiciled employer. As a consequence, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama enjoys a largely monopolistic market in its own state, unencumbered by pesky competition. In return, Blue Cross of California is forever protected from having BSBS Alabama coming after its customers. That's cozy, isn't it?

If we were to lift these laws, and employers were able to shop all 1300 insurance companies, you're damn right things would change. We would not have to "trust" that the insurance companies do anything for us. Rather, the everyday constant threat that any customer could immediately select any of the other 1299 companies if they weren't happy with their current would plan force all companies to - indeed, selfishly - see to it that their product met consumer demands. They'd do this by improving pricing and designing plans that people want to buy. Failure to do so would mean certain death (of the insurance plan).

Ultimately, Mackey simply stated that it is the individual that should be empowered. With 306-million potential customers, and the unrestrained requirement to compete for and meet those customers' needs, would dynamically change the entire manner for which health care is paid and delivered. Current laws and regulation puts the insurance companies at an unfair advantage so as to take advantage.

Skeptical? Then look at any other industry that has to compete everyday with new innovation, marketing, advertising, superior product delivery, etc. The computer from which you are currently reading this is a great example.

Health care should be cheaper, and better quality for all, regardless of people's ability to pay. The quickest way to this lofty goal is to ensure that it is in the insurance companies own selfish interest to deliver exactly that.

I went into Whole Foods tonight for the first time in many years. Very pleasant. Very pricey. But, I was able to procure what I wanted, for an amount I was willing to pay. No more, no less. I'll likely go back, simply to support sound thinking.

Farmer's Markets all the way! And hey, don't feel guilty about it if the kids want to stop at McDonald's after mom has been going ga-ga over the arugula! America is about freedom of choice, and the medical insurance philosophy put forward by Obama provides more freedom of choice than the current status quo. Pretty simple.

John Mackey is eating shoe leather now. (Don't know if it's organic or not...???)

This was definitely a business blunder. This issue is not directly about President Obama as partisans like to say. It is about the ability of people to sustain life after an accident or through illness. Mackey makes some good points about self responsibility but he is naive to think insurance companies (or pharmaceuticals) with their greed-first track record will make decisions in the best interest of the patient. And I am not naive enough to buy the scare tactics of failing healthcare in Canada or the UK to change my position. He speaks about healthcare at his company like all things are equal for each employer/employee across the US. And where do the uninsured go, oh yeah, a piggy bank that's filled by checking a box on a tax form, kind of like that $1.00 box to presidential elections. Laughable! I agree with him on one point specifically. We as individuals should have the right to choose and I choose to find a farmer's market or an alternative like Trader Joe's. Was about to become a Whole Foods customer until his editorial. Thanks Mackey for the heads up!

Whole Foods has this great reputation of putting "the people" before anything else. Those comments by the CEO just might throw that reputation out the window. Big mistake.

Yes, comments by the CEO of Whole Foods, as a citizen of "the people" of the United States of America, obviously discredits his reputations a an undeniably successful businessman.

Letting the insurance companies and corporations fix the current system? Isn't that like letting the fox guard the hen house?

All these people who are so worried about the "death panels" obviously hasn't had any first hand knowledge of working with Medicare officials who think buying some old guy his Viagra is more important than buying Grandma a shower chair so she can take a bath, be clean (and avoid illness), and not worry about falling and breaking something or helping someone buy a new pair of glasses so they can see and won't kill somebody while driving.

Mackey is not eating crow or shoe leather, organic or otherwise. He didn't start Whole Foods to get the approval of the crunchy cons and he does really give a damn about their political opinions, nor should he.
He makes $1 a year so go ahead and boycott the store, the employees will thank you I'm sure.

Jeff Carlson
www.harlemghost.blogspot.com

a conservative libertarian who happens to shop at Whole Foods.

I see so many anti free market commenters here who obviously have no clue as to how a free market actually works.
The ignorance is astounding but then again they voted for The WON so what should I expect. They are simply marks who Obama conned and they dare not admit they have been had.

Jeff Carlson
www.harlemghost.blogspot.com

>>I see so many anti free market commenters here who obviously have no clue as to how a free market actually works.

Pray, tell us how does free market work? The finance sector of corporate America has already taught us excellent lessons on how that works. After all they got all the de-regulations, self-regulation and more that was required to make free market principles work and encourage more competition. How? By making acquisitions and growing so big that they couldn't be allowed to fail and get bailed out by taxpayers! Now you may say "free market" principle should dictate that there be no bail outs and let those banks and auto companies fail. What you very conveniently forget is that when a giants falls, they trample and crush many small people on the ground they fall on. Those small people who had nothing to do with their failing in the first place.

Now in the health care debate I hear that we apply same "free market" principles and some how magically the insurance companies and private players others will behave any better. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

"Free market" seems to have become a code word for "corporate socialism".

Competition is good for the market place but not if govt also competes ! There goes one free market principle down.

If govt competition leads to single payer system with insurance companies dying, then why won't open field for insurance companies lead to a consolidation leading to private monopoly or duopoly ?
Case in point - telecom deregulation spurred thousands of competitors to phone companies. 20 years later after consolidation and big players using anti-market behavior to crush smaller competitors, we are back to only a few carriers - ATT and Verizon.

Why is a private Insurance bean counter a better gatekeeper to decide what treatment Doc should prescribe than a Govt bureaucrat?
Do you know that an average Insurance form you file to get health insurance lists about 1300 exclusions?

Libertarian version of Free Market is only fine in theory and impractical in implementation.

Nice article on Mackey. I think people trying to argue his points are missing yours, his ideology kept as a private matter to himself would be one thing, but expressing such a view contrary to that of his customers he has invited loss of business. Perhaps he feels so strongly about his political ideology he would rather lose business, but that does not make it a good business decision, and I doubt that a philosophy of selfish greed is consistent with such.

In any case, I have no problem with profit motivating socially beneficial behavior, but insurance companies are not motivated by profit to deliver health care. Unlike a grocery store which must deliver quality food at a fair price to compete and succeed, the fewer claims the insurer must pay the higher its profits. This leads to profits depending inversely on actual health care delivery.

Insurance companies could not exist except by government permission, at all. You don't need a charter to plant a garden and raise food, but insurance is a financial industry. We regulate financial industries for good reason, and when we fail to regulate them adequately, we create human disasters. Witness our present economy.

Expressing his political opinion was not a smart business oriented political move - agreed. Though his expression has the support of logical reason, it does not matter. His consumers are decidedly liberal, and as such react accordingly to every political definition of that title.

Reform of the health care industry is in no doubt of necessary. I just retain a disdain for hard-leaning political party lines that leave no room for informative, provocative discourse regardless of entrenched directional political influence.

keep it up its a great news kindly comment on mine one plz itz about terrorist and politics all...................... and your news is oysum.... this site is made for these type of newses...........