"A public-health option will give a boost to small businesses who cannot now compete with large businesses due to the inability to offer a health-care plan."

How so? Don't the health bills mandate that small businesses offer insurance AND pay most of it or otherwise pay an almost equal payroll penalty? If small businesses are not currently offering insurance, because as you say they are unable, does that not mean those businesses will either go bankrupt or fire/downgrade employees. You don't think those mandates will trickle down to the employee?

In regard to Whole Foods, while Mackey's company pays for health care, that cost is passed on to the consumer through the jacked-up prices at Whole Foods.

On another track, consider the phamaceutical industry running commercials targeted at the general public for prescription medications. The commercials are costly and this cost must be relevant to the exorbitant cost of the pharmaceuticals. Will a physician prescribe a drug because a patient liked a TV spot.

The current health care framework is the most significant block to increased employment in this country and unemployment is the deepest economic problem we have.

Don't confuse health CARE with health INSURANCE. Don't believe that health INSURANCE (either from private or public "options") will provide better health CARE. Talk to your doctors, and see if they can work with you. Look at your State options, there may be something there for you, too. You can't always trust Doctors, either, so look around, get a second opinion (like we USED to do). We've been scammed by Doctors, too.

Remember, one of the greatest lies is "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." Don't fall for it. Government "helping" people is never as successful as people helping people.

You want to lower health care costs? Volunteer at a hospital, clinic, somewhere. But don't sit around sanctimoniously and preach taxing others (but not yourself) and think you're accomplishing something for the little guy. Getting someone else to pay for it doesn't make it cheaper, doesn't make it better, and doesn't make it sustainable.

And for those saying Medicare is a government program and it's working... Hello, McFly! Weren't the Democrats in Congress warning us how Medicare was going bankrupt? Have you tried to find a doctor willing to take an additional elderly person as a patient? Why are there Medicare Supplimental Insurance policies available?

eeebee: You go, girl!

Many libertarians are people devoted to social justice, but see most large scale government meddling as being counterproductive and harmful to this goal. Look at, for instance, housing project: created with the best intentions in mind, and yet created a hell on earth and a generation of grinding poverty for urban blacks. If one opposed things like this, would it be because one only cared about the "bottom line?"

Same with health reform: many feel that it will help to cement a fundamentally flawed and broken health paradigm, of waiting for people get sick and spending lots of money to cure them. Thus, some folks you wouldn't find at the GOP convention, such as Andrew Weil or Mike Adams, are strongly opposed to it.

I mean, there are some more "right-wing" libertarians - but there are many too who are cousins of anarchists, and are some of the most consistent anti-war and anti-imperial voices around.

On a side note, I don't see how you can blame Whole Foods for driving up prices. On "health" foods, they are sometimes 50% cheaper than the small local stores. On bulk grains, they are simply unbeatable. As for produce, you can get that at many places...

And if you buy from the bulk bins at whole foods, their price can't be beat. Ditto with their in store brands. Their produce, on the other hand, is a different story.

The reason we have such poor health in America today is because of the food revolution over the last 30 years. The introduction of processed everything and fast food. Look at some pictures of woodstock, or any youth of that era: do you ever see a single overweight person?

It's amazing that you don't give this guy credit for the truth of his statements. It was said by everyone from chinese taoist doctors to the founder of the Mayo clinic: the wise physician first tries to change the food.

And yet the mindless "liberals" of the huffpo/kos blogosphere (one half of the great swarm of ignoramuses who think there is a fundamental difference between the Dems and Repubs), want to crucify Mackey for stating the obvious.

Federal government is too large a scale to do anything efficiently, and large scale governments squelches democracy. On a large scale, the only people powerful enough to have a voice are corporations. Thus, we have the situation in America, where the corporations would not be nearly so powerful without government intervention.

AFTER the anti-union smear campaign in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the health plan smear campaign, underhanded corporate tactics against competitors(NEW SEASONS MARKETS), the buyout and closure of WILD OATS, NOW MACKEY is assaulting the PACIFIC NORTHWEST WITH MORE ANTI-UNION TACTICS and outrageous pricing schemes. SO I pose the question: DOES ANYTHING REALLY GOOD COME OUT OF TEXAS? if i were other corporate leaders i would distance myself immediately from this FASCIST! even the unabashedly greedy have something to lose from all that he has said. FACEBOOK? YOU BET!! PASS THE WORD.

How is it that political conversations are now "won" by the side who lies and sensationalizes the most rather than the side making the best argument?

Anyway - I agree with you completely - I just don't have the energy to write up a response as good as yours. Thanks for making it so I don't have to.

(Yeay Portland!!!)

Sorry - will return to the topic now.

whole foods bad; farmers market good; buy local and sustainable; there most certainly ARE a billion vegetarians in the world, just start counting the Hindus in India; there are essential nutrients that are hard to get from eating strictly vegan, (where do young vegans get the idea from that you can eat vegan without making special efforts to make sure your body is getting the nutrients it needs? Reading the wrong vegan books?); strong recent evidence suggests that the long life you see in vegetarian cultures has more to do with total daily caloric intake than with the fact that these people don't eat pigs and cows - lookup research in fruit flies, mice, and humans on ultra low calorie diets....

Sorry - that was my punishment to myself for going off topic...

:)

@Floobtronics: The man is entitled to his opinion, but he is terribly naive if he thinks that the voicing of that opinion in the WSJ isn't going to have collateral consequences.

Seems like you're pretty naive if you didn't think that was going to be the case either.

When [insert name of Fortune 500 company or executive] takes a stand on [insert issue here] somebody gets riled up. Is this somehow news to you?

How dare [Fortune 500 company or executive] have an opinion that does not comport with [Sean Hannity/Jon Stewart/Rush Limbaugh/Paul Krugman].

Not a thing, unless you want to re-evaluate your labeling procedure; you're a tad 'center-left,' as they call it....

I don't see a conflict.

Where does Mackey claim the HSA covers the deductable? Where does anyone claim that?

So...they don't sell kittehs in reusable bags?

I never ever said you or anyone else should take control of their illness -- that doesn't even make sense. You don't know the extent of coverage of the Whole Foods health insurance plan so you can't argue that the coverage is poor. I have a high deductible plan and it covers all the typical health insurance stuff after you pay the deductible and the out-of-pocket. My father died from a nasty kind of cancer, lymphoma, in his mid-50's, although he, like your mom, lived an extremely healthy lifestyle, very fit, ate right, etc. In fact, when he was on his deathbed, in the hospital on a ventilator, the doctors couldn't believe how he kept battling back because his heart just wouldn't quit because of his fitness level. All the preventative care that is being touted as the way to save all these health care dollars have recently been proven to actually add to the cost of health care -- not that I am against preventative care, but many diseases, cancers especially, are going to happen, mostly because of genetic factors, as you unfortunately know from having a genetic disease yourself.

@Radi0logy: I feel as if my diet is more diverse and much more nourishing then when I ate meat. The thought of eating meat normally brings up thoughts of grease, processed flavors, and a stomach ache.
Who are you to judge what others truely think?

@starrytrekchic: I think there are more purists then you are giving credit too, speaking as one of them.

It's about finding a chink in Obama's armor to derail his political power. Practically no one has bothered to read even part of the bill. They just hear health care and think 'big government' and don't even bother to think. It's all about being unhappy and talking points. The amount of gross ignorance on this subject is staggering when compared to the amount of arguing.

Most people read this site because a big government exists. The kind that requires at least minimal safety standards for medicine and surgery. They also interfere with automakers and food production, in effect telling business how they can do business.

There would be no avenue for consumer grievance if there wasn't 'big government'

As for expressing his opinion AND being the CEO of WF, I would say... PR FAIL. I don't begrudge him his opinion, but the guy sure could use a lesson in properly representing the Whole Foods brand.

They are definitely getting my business, even if it costs me a little more.

And that person should just declare bankruptcy and/or die?

I'm all for decent healthcare and decent health insurance but somebody has to pay for these very expensive cancer treatments. Setting aside the morality of medical bankruptcy, the reality is that premium payers subsidize non-payers. Don't you object to that?

If lifestyle choices only add 10% to the cost of health care than that leaves you in the 90% category. But 10% is still 10%.

I would much rather be an insurance pool with you and a few thousand like you than in a pool of people who ate poorly, smoked and didn't exercise.

As for complete proteins, do you eat just mountains of soy or beans? No? Weirdo. If you're like most people, you probably *combine* them with other foods, say, rice or grains. Coincidentally, combinations of certain foods create these complete plant based proteins you're so knowledgeable about.

Details here: [www.bodyforlife2.com]

Whole foods...more like Whole Paycheck! If I bought all of my groceries at whole foods I definitely would not have money to pay for Health Insurance. But you know...if I bought all my groceries at Whole Foods, I wouldn't need Health Insurance. Right?

@frank64: Interesting. I spent 20 years on a strict vegetarian diet. Very careful of what I ate, never touched anything closer to meat than milk and occasional eggs. I'm a type 2 diabetic now, with extremely elevated cholesterol. Wow, that extra money and stress over what I can and can't eat really did me loads of good! I have to concur with the folk who are trying to remind everyone that lifestyle choices are not the only reason we get sick. Unfortunately we can't choose our genetic materials before we're born.

While it's of course true that his company makes a lot of money off of people who make the "healthy lifestyle choices" he advocates, it's also true that people who make such choices have lower health care costs, and are less of a drain on the system. Frankly, if my tax dollars are going to pay for other peoples' health care, I think it's reasonable to require the beneficiaries of my forced charity to take better care of themselves.

@stevejust: There will be no such resolution.

Judging from the Town Halls so far, people are far more passionately opposed to "health care reform" than those supporting it. I'd be very surprised if Whole foods didn't see an actual bounce in profits as a result of this. A reverse-boycott, if you will.

@Trai_Dep: he seemed quite open minded to me.

On the other hand, supporting a bill that would be rammed through in the dead of night before being read - that's the opposite of open minded.

I, for one, will make it a point to shop at Whole Foods even more frequently than in the past. I support the right of anyone to voice their opinions in a rational, reasonable manner, as well as offer alternatives to the current proposals. Given that the Democrats in Congress wanted to ram this bill through and Obama wanted to sign it before the August recess, before ANYONE read it, should give anyone great pause.

That Mackey contributed to the debate with well thought out proposals, coming from a position of great authority in corporate responsibilty, makes me want to give my grocery dollars to his FOR PROFIT company.

Also, really? The OP gets disemvoweled for daring to suggest a bias in the presentation of this story, but this comment gets to stay?

And I hear the IKEA employees for frequently being seen out there checking that it's a hybrid.

Now if only I could convince others in Austin to stay the hell out of disabled spots when they have no right to be there...hell, I've got a disabled pass and my husband does NOT use it when I'm not there to need it!

PS Some baby/maternity supply stores have spots for preggy moms and let me tell you, that was appreciated when I was at 8.5 months and couldn't see my feet...

Expecting your neighbor to pay for your food, mortgage, and healthcare - in addition to that of his own, is the opposite of progress or even basic human dignity. You are not born with the right to the product of another's labor. Period. The health care debate ends there.

WF has taken a pretty radical step in the right direction. The next step would be to eliminate health insurance altogether and allow REAL competition in the health care market instead of having your healthcare directed to certain doctors and certain procedures by an insurance company. The answer is not to replace insurance companies with the gov't, it's to give back control to individuals.

And for you vegetarians. And he goes through how many insects and rodents are killed growing plants and that you cannot have sustainable farms without livestock.

@JuliB: Sharpen your pitchforks, everyone!

@stevejust: Ever heard of the Business Judgement rule?

This was brought up in another thread last year at this time, and I'll repeat much of what I said there....

I have a mild soy allergy, (symptoms much like lactose intolerance,) and Whole Foods carries many things that I'm unlikely to find soy-free elsewhere.

When my wife and I do our weekly shopping, (after pre-planning our dinners for the upcoming week,) she drops me off at WF and she does half the shopping at the Kroger across the street.

For those who think we aren't doing this out of necessity, have you ever tried to find soy-free bread at a normal grocery store? My niece once described us as being more label-conscious than vegans. If it weren't for WF, I wouldn't have been able to have many things such as Mayo during the past 10 years. (In addition I like having more types of cheese to pick from than just 15 different varieties of processed or industrial cheese.)

For me, Whole Foods is among a few choices that I have. 1. We could make everything from scratch. (We cook a lot, but we don't have time to cook everything from scratch). 2. We could eat what everyone else eats and have higher medical bills for me. 3. Or we can pay extra money for some items that I don't have to worry about eating.

Even though as a company WF is not perfect; number 3 is well worth the price for us.

Despite its deficiencies, we and may other people with food allergies are grateful that the company exists.

James T. Savidge, Monday, August 17, 2009

@Hanshiro: Wait a minute...I oppose my tax dollars being spent by killing others in an unjust war, yet I'm for my tax dollars being used (as long as they eliminate other waste) to help others get the medical attention they need.

I'm a moderate conservative. What do I do now?

May I also suggest Quinoa?

James T. Savidge, Monday, August 17, 2009

I know many people have interpreted that to mean that he's just trying to plug Whole Foods as solution to health care problems in the US. That is just silly. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you can actually buy whole foods from any grocery store in the USA, and probably at a substantially lower price then at Whole Foods.

There is no direct relationship between global economic progress and advances in medical technology. For instance, suppose someone came up with a cure for cancer tomorrow--which cost $40 billion dollars per patient. Clearly, there would be limited availability for such a treatment, which would manifest itself either through free market means, or rationing, or denial of the treatment to everyone since some (most!) of us couldn't afford it.

To say that single payer can solve our inability to provide essentially unlimited health care to everyone is to imply that some unknown mechanism automatically increases the gross economic output to match every advance in medical science, but that unfortunately that increased wealth ends up in the hands of people who won't share it with everyone else.

Is it really rational to believe that we'll be able to pay for unlimited health care for all, or is that even more an act of faith than believing in the invisible hand of the free market?

Horsecrap. More demonizing an industry. It *is* their job to pay as little as possible while providing what the insurance promised. They are in business to both make money and make people's lives better by providing insurance. Otherwise they'd be another hypo-allergenic cat company.

Words fail me....

"Which is why I'll continue to call anyone in favor of government-run health care a communist..."

You'll join us, comrade, when you become eligible for Medicare and Social Security. And don't even think of calling the police or fire department, as they are social programs too.

Instead, demonstrate your commitment to your 'convictions' as you sit defiantly in your burning, ransacked house while the bankruptcy over your necessary hospital visit claims the remainder of your income.

It should be just "muffin." Really.

You managed to work in almost all of Glenn Beck's talking points! Even threw in ACORN! Impressive. The only thing missing is your blaming Clinton.....

(btw..."tolerance" doesn't equate to "doormat.")

DOWn, baby, DOWn!

So, that leaves an employee in their first couple of years with the company with about $1700 in out-of-pocket costs hanging over their heads should they need care. For someone making $10-$12/hour that's about three weeks of take-home pay.

@dreamsneverend:

Whole Foods offers health insurance, therefore Whole Foods would be completely unaffected by this legislation.

I also guarantee that they currently spend more than 8% of their GPM on health insurance, which is all they'd be liable for under HR3200.

@Rugbydan:

THAT is your defense for saying that we shouldn't spend money on health care to insure those who aren't insured by their employers? That businesses can't be trusted to do right by their employees?

We need a balanced budget, for sure. Perhaps we could do that by spending more on our people, and less on wars against nations that we have no business fighting wars with? Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan were the reasons we got into a huge mess, yet we spend far less in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq, and we simply bend over for the Saudis.

Funny how the only truly balanced budget in memory was produced by a "tax-and-spend" liberal who worked to get us a national health care system. Not only was it balanced, but it *paid down our national debt*.

...and shell out $2,500 as a form of penance for your sins.

Mackey evidently considers himself a kind of benevolent fatherly scold... ;-)

As for the "invisible hand", we have nothing like a free market in health care or health insurance now, so not sure why any of the new health-care proposals would change that.

If you want to boycott insurance on principle and pay for your chemotherapy out of your own pocket, go right ahead, Just keep your Big Nanny paws off my contract.

This is a political story so most political comments are in line. However, as our rules state, we don't want comments that just espouse partisan politics. If your comment does nothing except slam the other side, that's not acceptable. Defend your position, criticize others' positions... but don't just post another tired anti-Obama or anti-Bush comment with no substance. Is your post related to the original article and based on substantive discussion? If not, don't post it.

Likewise, don't slam the site or other commenters. That doesn't mean you can't be critical of the position of either, but it needs to be substantive. Insults (e.g. "asshat" or "moron") or accusations of rules violations ("troll") aren't appropriate.

The worst offenders' posts should now be disemvoweled. If I missed any or there are more forthcoming, remember to contact me (moderator@consumerist.com). Don't post here to point out others violating the rules.

Fr Pls, Rd, bm, t l., ny pnns t th rght f Lnn s "rght wng."

s lwys. Trlly trllrsn.

'm gssng mst f th ppl wh wld byctt Whl Fds vr smthng s mnr s DRNG T HV N PNN N PPSTN T R LRD ND SVR BRCK BM r th sm flks wh chckld t thmslvs bt hw nblvbly flsh t ws fr Bll 'Rlly t byctt prdcts frm Frnc. r Dx Chcks CDs.

mrc: Whr vry mn s nttld t hs pnn, nlss t's dffrnt frm mn.

By th wy. ppstn t ths hlth cr pln s nw mjrty pnn. Lk t th plls. Myb rmvng th mg f Whl Fds bng str prmrly fr th grnl-tng hppy crwd s xctly wht th cmpny nds t grw.

I wonder how many of the commenters here are in favor of using laws to force restaurants to include detailed food information, but are offended that Mackey points out that, yes, you can buy healthy food voluntarily at his stores.

I wonder how many consumers would think that it would be a good idea to shop at a supermarket which deducted a fixed amount of money from your paycheck, let you go into the store and take what you wanted without posting the prices, and then several months later sent you a bill telling you how much everything cost, and how much over and above what you paid you would now owe--and that yes, zucchini is covered, but toilet paper isn't. Such is our current system.

I also wonder, if health care is a "right", exactly who is REQUIRED to provide it, and at whose expense.

I also wonder why people who sneer at the "invisible hand" of the free market think that some other invisible hand provides an equilibrium that will magically provide the resources to provide all the health care that everyone wants or needs no matter how labor-intensive or technologically sophisticated.

I do go in to buy coffee which is priced the same as it would be anywhere for the same quality. I have heard that they are competitive brand for brand on things you can get in supermarkets. I did learn they are redoubling their efforts to compete with places like Trader Joe's(which I really like). So depending on what you are looking for they may serve a niche.

I think what the previous poster was referring to was body composition. I have a few Indian vegatarian friends. The major issue with their diet is PROTEIN and Amino Acids. Omega 3's are also an issue, as are certain vitamins.

The main thing they need to consume allot of is Soy protein powder and tofu. They don't really consume milk products, so aminos are hard to come by there. The men are skinny and the woman can have issues with skin problems and sagging skin. These are known cases of amino acid deficiency.

You CAN be vegan and be healthy and get what you need. But you have to 1: buy GOOD quality vitamins, 2: You need to take a protein powder or eat allot of hemp and/or soy protein based products, 3: You need to make sure to take flax seed oil (and allot of it. ALA omega 3's are useless to the body. The body converts it into EPA and DHA omega-3s, but the conversion rate is poor. You need to consume 3-4 times the amount of flax to reap the benefits of one or two fish oil softgels).

I know a few vegetarians that are overweight. This stems from over consumption of carbs, not nearly enough protein and lack of other nutrients.

I don't choose to be vegan cause I don't like creating Estrogen in my body by consuming Soy. I'm a man. Extra Estrogen = problems growing muscle mass.

BTW, Soy and Hemp protein are the ONLY complete plant based proteins. Other plants, such as beans or sweet peas, provide great amounts of protein BUT don't provide all the essential amino acids that the body needs.

Note that I said libertarian, not Libertarian. But I much prefer Libertarians to socialliberalfiscalconservatives. At least Libertarians call a spade a spade, instead of calling it a sharp-edged tool for digging.

So.. nowhere.

He's a troll who's never met a vegetarian, let alone a vegan. It's not worth your time.

You can get fruits and vegetables anywhere. You can get junk food at WF. He is also correct that we could eat healthier. He is not stating he thinks everyone should go vegetarian. Or WF foods are better. You are over stating what he is saying.

Besides, if what he is saying is correct, does it matter that he might benefit from it(I don't think he does benefit). You need to argue what he said is wrong more than why you think he said it. Do you think Americans might be a little better off if they gave up the burgers and fries for apple and lentils? If you think so then why he you THINK he said it offers little to the discussion.

Also, you guessed wrong. Strike two.

Aside from that, health benefits are treated differently than actual paid salary, which is one of the reasons employers started offering them.

Respectfully, I must disagree. I do not find meat tempting. I never secretly wish I could have some. I do not bend the rules, and nor do I ever want to. When I used to eat meat as a kid, I would often feel over-full or unwell after a meal. That sickly over-fed feeling has never happened to me after a veggie meal. I am sorry you have not have a good experience with veggie food before. Like any food, it can be prepared horribly and taste awful. When well cooked, it can be delicious and satisfying. I love food, and take pride in cooking meals, and my meat-eating friends (which are most of my friends) often ask me to cook for them.

Addendum, TMI edition: I was surprised to find that many of my meat-eating friends generally have a hard time on the toilet. One of the hidden benefits of a veggie diet is the toilet time: it is quick, satisfying, and when you're done, you know you're done. That's a perk that really should not be under-estimated.

Of course it is true that WF donates money to worthwhile causes. They get tax benefits and good publicity for doing so, particularly since being perceived as a "great humanitarian company" is part of its marketing.

I disagree. I have it on good authority that the words "essential fatty" have never been more true.

I've heard this from many people, but I am a little skeptical. The average vegan lifespan is the same as the non-vegan population, which, if vegans were nutritionally deficient, you would not expect. Also, I have been vegan for all of my adult life (almost 10 years), and I feel perfectly well. I do not take special supplements, or worry too much about diet, other than trying to get a general variety (a mix of fruit/veg, carbs, fat, and protein each day - for example, a curry with rice has all of those things.) I am healthy and strong, relative to the general population. When I get my annual physical, I have never been low on any vitamins or minerals. I exercise for 1 or 2 hours most days because I enjoy it. I am friends with maybe 10 other life-long vegans, and none of them have any particular health problems. None of them micro-manage their diet. Yet people regularly tell me I need to eat X, Y, or Z or I will keel over dead. It is true that some people use veganism to mask an eating disorder, or restrict themselves to silly diets like just sprouts, but those people will have problems no matter what label they choose to identify with. I think most people's concern about a vegan diet is genuine, but I also think there is an element of suspicion about people who make a choice that seems unfamiliar and extreme. People used to say all the same things about vegetarians, and insisted it was unhealthy and irresponsible, but it's now recognized as quite healthy. I think as veganism becomes more accepted in the mainstream, the "medicalization" of veganism will also become less common.

For many, that means taking expensive drugs that work vs. cheaper drugs that do not. I can luckily use generics of my prescriptions, but even then, sans health care, the drug cost would be hundreds of dollars per month. Incidentally, people are beginning to cut back on their necessary medications because they can't afford to take the full dosage. This leads to a progressive decline in the control of the disease and eventually escalated health care costs.

What is the extent of the health care coverage one gets with Whole Foods? My mother (the most healthy-eating, healthy-acting person I know) had a rare form of cancer that cost probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. She had surgery, a hospital stay, chemotherapy, plus many specialists (pain, physical, nurse) to help her through it. She had her pension plan and teacher's retirement health insurance to rely on. What does the average Whole Foods program purport to offer? Remember that many high-deductible costs may cap at 30K or less and not cover things like anesthesiologist bills or hospice.

In no particular order:
1) It is difficult for me to work a full-time job because my brain makes it hard for me to get out of bed. I do it as much as I can and have worked 60+ hour weeks. I try to get past it as best I can, but my genes have totally screwed me over.

2) My jobs (plural) do not offer me health care because I am more or less a contract worker. If not for COBRA from my previous job, which will go up to 400+ dollars a month in December, I would have to search for an insurance company. I would be ineligible for regular insurance.

3) State-run insurance is not available in MA to me because I have COBRA. You need to be ineligible for employer-based coverage to apply for MassHealth. When that runs out, I will need to try and apply (assuming I don't have a full time job by then).

I do not see where the plan offered by Whole Foods does not fit into the guidelines stated by Consumers Union. How do you think a plan that the employee pays less than $100 a month for does not qualify as affordable? That is only if the employee needs the health care -- if he doesn't use it, he doesn't pay anything. Free health care for everyone in the country is not economically sustainable. There won't be anything left.

I and several other commenters have pointed out that consumerist.com's stance seems to have changed very recently. What is wrong about not reading a website because you don't like their opinions? Numerous commenters have said that they will stop patronizing Whole Foods because they don't like the opinion of the CEO. That's not wrong, that's their choice. Why would it be wrong for me to stop reading Consumerist? It wouldn't be to "punish" them for their opinions. It would be because my online reading time is limited (although I seem to have been on here all afternoon) and I'm not interested in reading the personal opinions of the writers here. I am interested in reading stories of consumers that have fought against injustice and the outcome of their cases. Just because I am a conservative does not mean I don't have a strong sense of justice.

Healthcare in this country is not limited to involvement of insurance companies. The pharma industry routinely encourages pointless prescriptions to validate and justify the cost of bringing a less-than-stellar drug performer to market.

Rent "The Constant Gardener."

Putting a profit motive before a patient is an abomination, as is using the population at large as guinea pigs. (Ever listen to a drug commercial where they slip in the phrase, "linked to/can cause death?") The arrangement of the US healthcare system, where one must choose between health and rent, bankruptcy or eating is unconscionable. It was the pharma lobby that just recently shafted us over pricing, thanks to the spineless dems and Obama.

I meant exactly what I said...

@Esquire99: Yeah! And I'm so tired of my taxes paying for education! Listen Up parents! Pay for that shit yourselves!

Good for him for saying that people should be accountable for their own health, primarily via lifestyle and dietary choices.

@smartmuffin: Good to know you support SEIU's agenda. :)

@♥♥♥: Because I think boycotting entire organizations due to political beliefs is generally silly?

@smartmuffin: ConsumersUnion and SEIU are allies, you dolt.

@smartmuffin: Why are you here supporting a site like the Consumerist if you don't agree with their stance on health care reform?

@eeebee: Really? Yeah, ok, so ya been around since November of 06, how did you not notice that the Consumerist was bought by Consumer Reports who is owned by "Consumers Union"

UNION! Arghhhh! Scary!

"All Americans should have access to affordable, dependable and quality health care. No family should face financial ruin to pay for care, and no family should suffer because of unsafe or poor quality care. Join Consumers Union's work through our Prescription for Change health reform campaign, and our Safe Patient Project quality-care effort. Your voice matters when it comes to your health-use it!"

If you bothered to go over to [www.consumersunion.org] you would know what they think of health care reform.

The U.S. spends significantly more of its Gross Domestic Product on health care than other countries. Yet, many countries provide coverage to all their residents, while our country leaves over 15% of Americans uninsured. Every consumer must have access to quality health care at an affordable price.

[www.consumersunion.org]

So now you know what Consumerist's stance is, but of course, you know if you stop visiting the site then you are merely trying to punish them for voicing their opinions - and that would be wrong! - right? Right?

@Hanshiro: I never meant to imply that you suggested doctors should be enslaved. I was expressing clarification as to suggest that we likely *agreed* on that point. That the problem is not with our health CARE but with our health INSURANCE.

It's no coincidence that the Obama administration is now referring to all of this as health INSURANCE reform rather than health CARE reform. Americans are more than satisfied with their health care. They have a strong dislike; however, of most insurance companies (and usually for good reason).

Your first post started with your statement of how you thought "for profit health care" was evil, and I'm not sure that's what you really mean. The French system still has doctors making a profit, does it not? Any business that takes in more money than it needs to meet expenses is "for profit." That doesn't *necessarily* make it evil.

@♥♥♥: You seem to have Whole Foods confused with ACORN or SEIU. They're a grocery store, not a left-wing activist hobby shop.

@mythago: hehe Colbert said the other night, "It's freedom of Speech, not freedom of Listen!"

How dare anyone demonize another person. I mean they are practically calling him the anti-christ. Oh wait, sorry, that was a bunch of religious right-wing nuts who said that Obama... Nevertheless - yeah! How dare those lefty's express their opinions by shopping somewhere else!!!

@ecwis: This is kind of like a Gun Shop owner writing an op-ed in support of gun control legislation. If the gun shop customers then decided to buy their guns somewhere else, would you call them ridiculous?

@ecwis: This is kind of like a Gun Shop owner writing an op-ed in support of gun control laws. If the gun shop customers then decided to buy their guns somewhere else, would you call them ridiculous?

Invoking an absurd characterization of what I said doesn't bolster your claim of being a, well, smart muffin.

Nowhere did I advocate working as a slave. Read this:

[www.boston.com]

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

The system utilized by the US, frankly, kills people and is not a sustainable template. The French, among most others, are demonstrating a working model, yet the pharma/insurance lobby are baldly lying about the possibilities.

But never mind that. I base my desire for a balanced budget solely on financial feasibility for my future and the future of my children, not on a desire to bomb "brown people".

No worries, though. Don't put forth a decent argument, and call me a racist. That's par for the course for you and your ilk. You disgust me.

Now if only management didn't f#$% everything up and continue to make cars no one wanted...

a diet without meat in it leaves one feeling unfulfilled and undernourished. If you're TRULY honest with yourself you can admit this.

HAHAHAH.

Thanks for the funny joke.

Many in the health care industry have said that a large percentage of their patients are there for lifestyle reasons. It should be dealt with in some way and if just raising the issue makes us mean spirited radicals we have a huge problem.

I think that admitting you'd vote for a bill w/out reading it, or having a trusted aide read it, borders on treason.

Thanks for speaking for all of us, but I've never felt unfulfilled or undernourished in the 13 years I've been veggie. And no, meat is not appealing to me, at all. The smell of almost all of it makes my stomach turn.

And here, now you know a veggie who never makes any exceptions and is never remotely tempted to.

@S-the-K: You have to give the left credit though, it's actually been a pretty brilliant and effective strategy.

When you prop up George W. Bush and Bill O'Reilly as "right wing" then anyone who actually IS right wing is automatically a crazy extremist who you don't even have to listen to.

The good news is, the other side can play this game too. Which is why I'll continue to call anyone in favor of government-run health care a communist, no matter how many people on this site yell and scream that I'm using the word wrong.

@Hanshiro: Let's just clarify something here:

For-profit health CARE = good. Doctors are not slaves. They are entitled to make a living. A darn good one, in fact, seeing as how demanding and difficult their profession is.

For-profit health INSURANCE = not so much. Most consumer advocates advise you not to buy extended warranties, right? Generally because the expected return is less than the expected payments (which is why companies sell them). Health insurance is basically an extended warranty for your body. The average person pays more into the plan than they get out of it, which is how the insurance company stays in business.

The confusion between health care and health insurance is really making this debate a lot harder than it should be. Health care in this country is great, and is available to everyone. Health insurance is mostly lousy and not as easily obtainable.

Dr. Mackey's advice is, "Eat an organic apple...."

Besides, they weren't my lists. I think the whole thing was stupid.

I'm sure the DNC/ACORN "community organizers" are astroturfing the protests. Then again, this is yet more proof that we have a Leftlist blacklist in the country. If you express an opinion that is not approved by Socialist Democrats, you will be destroyed. You will be blacklisted, boycotted, blackballed, persecuted, fired by Obama, and forbidden to earn a living for the rest of your life.

Leftists continually preach "tolerance" but Leftists are the most intolerant people in society.

I find for-profit healthcare among the most barbarically regressive businesses ever inflicted on any society. The accepted notion that people in declining health should wade through minutiae designed specifically to perpetrate legalized fraud on their customers, with government lobbyist backing no less, is ludicrous.

How many future leaders, explorers, authors of incredible art and music, sciences, etc. have been sacrificed on the alter of profit? How many people would truly swear allegiance to a republic that cavalierly throws their citizen's health to such a craven and unsupervised industry?

The current system is so threatening, so monolithically oligarchical and closed, so symbiotically aligned against their own subscribers as to render any fairness or humanity at odds with such a system.

The theory about spreading the risk remains only a theory in the harsh glare of pecuniary slash-and-burn policy which requires human anguish to sustain a profit motive. That is not an enlightened choice for a society purportedly seeking to clothe itself in moralistic veneer.

Insurance companies are far from 'healthy,' particularly in light of their numerous and varied activities to hasten the erosion of any opposition or threat to their symbiont shakedown in a cornered market/monopoly. These very insurance corporations that strive to remain 'healthy' by cloaking their stock market losses in the oily obscurantism of out-of-control malpractice cost accusations in order to raise their rates several-fold and, accordingly, reduce real protections for individual doctors and treatments for their patients are virulently parasitic. As you can easily surmise, this gambit by the insurance monopolies leads to ballooning malpractice rates, among a host of other costs.

The loser is, of course, the consumer who is reduced to picking whatever scraps remain in the back alley after such a market orgy of unregulated manipulation and back-scratching cronyism. And after such elaborate game rigging, only after the table is set does the true vampiric nature of the industry emerge to sustain itself on a necessary consequence of human existence. Few other industries wield the power of life or death with such benighted cooperation from the populace. Only a war or the highways take more annual lives, and those do not discriminate based on worth or bank account. Fewer still are the entities who pride themselves on accumulating money from death and the resultant cost savings by denial of medical assistance, even awarding bonuses based, essentially, on how many of their promised and paid-for services they have withheld.

Were I to veer into the banalities of religion, surely such an enterprise would qualify as unholy.

I think that would be the best solution, and doing something to make sure the out of pocket prices are not more than what insurance companies charge would be less radical to what is being proposed.

The problem is the health care industry would hate this(which is fine with me, just try getting it past). Right now, and in the upcoming plans they have a blank check to raise prices. A few months back hospitals and drug companies raised prices (I think around) 10%. During a recession! That is really all the proof we need.

I am sure that any reform that gets past is just going to allow them to continue what they have been doing right along. The insurance system(and even a Government system) allows it.

Secondly, you are giving wayyy too high figures to Buddhists and Hindus. Probably less than 10% are actually vegetarians.

Figures in the U.S. are a GENEROUS 6%, of which probably less than half a truly strict vegetarians. Even the strictest vegetarians I have known my life are "vegetarians... except for one special meat".

The truth is, and if you're a vegetarian you know this already, is that sticking to an all vegetable diet is very, very tough. Meat is hard coded into our brains as food, we find it delicious, and a diet without meat in it leaves one feeling unfulfilled and undernourished. If you're TRULY honest with yourself you can admit this.

You're reading a blog.

@Laura Northrup: Right, which is why I'd support making health insurance illegal, even though 99.9% of the time I oppose any sort of government regulation/involvement in the free market economy at all.

As long as a lot of people aren't actually paying for their own medical costs, there is no incentive for the providers to keep costs down. Get everyone to pay their own, and either costs will fall, or doctors will not have any patients anymore.

I don't patronize the businesses on here that are universally hated because of either personal experience (U-Haul) or hearing too many bad experiences (BOA). I live in a smaller town and use local businesses whenever possible. I would like to continue reading about business and consumer experiences, not the personal political opinions of the writers. I don't read Fox News, just like I don't read The Daily Kos, too much extremism.

So the employee forks over, before even getting his paycheck, "up to" $900.00, in addition to his health insurance deduction, to achieve matching funds, provided the company decides to maintain that policy, which the employee has absolutely no control over.

At best, the employee is obligated for $1,600 before any insurance kicks in, provided the insurance covers the claim.

Who underwrites this policy, "Damocles Insurance, Inc.?"

The public image of WF is that it sells healthy organic food, which is why Mackay got flak for the junk food comment. Gee, we would all live to be 100 if we just ate a plant-based diet, wonder what stores pretend that's what they're all about? Wink, wink.

His views are not pro-consumer, they are pro-his business saving money.

Of course Americans need a better diet, but it's a lot more complicated than "well just eat some plants". Bad food is heavily subsidized so as to be cheap, and the people who are at the highest risk of diet-related illness have the worst access to healthy food. The convenience store in the projects isn't selling organic produce.

@smartmuffin: I really, really like the idea of HDHP/health savings account combinations, like Mackey supports in his op-ed, but the fact is that as long as medical service and drug prices for customers who pay cash stay utterly out of control and higher than the prices that insurance companies negotiate with providers, it won't work well for consumers.

And, withholding your political participation because no perfect alternative exists is the same as not participating at all. Which is fine, but if you don't participate, I think you lose the right to yammer on and on about how sad puppies are when unicorns can't manage a win to the Oval Office.

No fantasy world: I'd say a billion is pretty conservative.

@veg-o-matic: No. His ratings are. That's also the reason *why* they keep him on the air. Not because of some crazy right-wing plot. Because he gets ratings, which makes them a lot of money. He gets ratings because people enjoy hearing what he has to say.

It's well documented that in *every* credible opinion poll, more people oppose the current health care "plan" than support it. I don't know what else to tell you.

Thus, I will say: I'm not concerned about the theoretical spin you dimwits are putting on the only good plan there is for national healthcare. People are fucking dying because they can't afford basic care (Want me to find the story of the kid who died from an infected tooth b/c he couldn't get dental care?). People are turning the ER into a private clinic because they can't afford a doctor; this is overloading the ERs and causing some hospitals to fail. Other people are fucking going bankrupt because their awesome insurance doesn't cover things like childcare. Or can't get health insurance because they are depressed and that's a pre-existing condition.

Stop whining about deficit spending. People of your ilk don't care about social programs at all, so you don't have to worry about funding being stripped from after-school care, environmental policies, and so on. You just want a balanced budget to we can shoot more money at brown people.

Where do you plan on putting it? I think it would go nicely on a mantle.

@JonThomasDesigns:

"Great humanitarian company"? Yeah right. I guess it depends on which humans you value and how much. Does Whole Foods have any grocery stores, by that name or any other in poor neighborhoods with poor nutritional offerings and shitty health outcomes? No, because that goes against its actual overarching philosophy of selling expensive food to suburbanite do-gooders.

"socialist/communist" companies?

So this person shopped exclusively at workers' collectives?
Your propaganda is very tired.

@Esquire99: My proposed solution is to make all health insurance illegal. Require cash payments for every individual procedure. Costs will go down overnight when suddenly it dawns on society that the overwhelming amount of medical care is NOT life or death, that people CAN put a price on it, and that the current prices are way way WAY too high.

As far as WF treating their employees well--It's been a while, but I used to have several friends who worked for Whole Foods as well as Centra Market (the main competition in Austin). Central Market treated their employees better at the time (I don't know about now); and anywhere is certainly less expensive.

What boggles my mind is the elitist attitude that uninsured sick people will quietly go into a corner and be sick all alone. If they don't get insured (and healthy) they will spread their diseases to ALL of us. We all do better when we all do better.

This means that if Cigna or Aetna or United Health Care insures someone who is sick and dying and needs a certain medical operation to save their lives, the CEO's job is to find ways to avoid paying for that procedure. If they pay for the operation, that's less money for them, less money for their shareholders. The insurance companies are in it to make money, not to spend money on making people better. That's how the system is supposed to work. That's capitalism.

In the case of Whole Foods, the CEO's job is to convince people they should buy $4 tomatoes. Anything the CEO does that devalues the shares of the stock for the shareholders is something that the shareholders, who just lost money and are the real owners of the corporation -- can sue over. This is subject to something called the "business judgment rule", meaning if it was a strategic call that could go either way, and they just accidentally happened to order more widgets when they should've ordered more whoseits, well, they can't be sued for that. An innocent misjudgment isn't actionable. But profiting from driving down the stock, or knowing you're about to drive down the stock, absolutely is something that shareholders can sue over.

This is because under our captialism, the SHAREHOLDERS ARE THE OWNERS OF THE CORPORATION. MACKEY IS THEIR EMPLOYEE, AND IF THEY WANT TO FIRE HIM, IN THEORY,THEY CAN.

But if the CEO does something that very predictably drives down the stock price -- and not only that -- sells stocks short with that insider information -- it's not only something shareholders can sue for, it's something akin to what Martha Stewart went to jail for.

Do you really not understand this? Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. You can start here: [en.wikipedia.org]

I hate it when people who are so rah-rah capitalism don't understand any of the rules of the game. I can assume you fall into that category because of your "bias" allegation.

@LupusGray: Last I checked, Glenn Beck still has an incredibly high rated radio show, television show, and a best selling book. His sponsors are easily replaced, and he's still a millionaire. Keep trying, though.

That's not a great analogy though. Whole Foods is a public company, where Beck's ventures are not. In order for the CEO of Whole Foods to suffer financial *personal* consequences, this "boycott" would have to be SO devastating that the board of directors of Whole Foods either fires him or reduces his salary. Most CEOs have connections on the board, and it typically has to be REALLY bad for them to actually get fired. Let me know if it happens, I'll be shocked.

@Esquire99: I think there's a large gap between what people believe should happen in general and what people want for themselves. Most of the polling seems to support this.

Ask someone "Do you think everyone should get medical care for free" and the majority response is no. Ask them "Would you like medical care for free? (assuming equal quality, etc.)" and the answer is yes.

Everyone has a personal sense of entitlement, but then gets nervous about extending it to society at large. In general though, I think most Americans would agree with you in that having everyone get health care without paying anything is a bad idea.

@LupusGray: But that's simply not going to happen. The following assumptions have to be made.

1. A large number of people who otherwise would shop at Whole Foods are now going to not shop there, solely because of the CEO being against the current health care proposal.

2. No significant amount of people who otherwise didn't shop at Whole Foods might consider shopping there solely because of the CEO being against the current health care proposal.

3. The Whole Foods board of directors will be able to clearly identify this occurrance, and as a result either fire the CEO, or reduce his salary.

If any one of those three things doesn't happen, he's fine. Good luck with that.

I think any plan under discussion would in the long run increase health care costs. The main reason this issue is hitting the tipping point is it is the rising costs.

Done.

Mackey is a libertarian, which informs his views. Call him a "Nozickean," and not a "compassionate libertarian" if you want, but that statement is true. If it comes off as disparaging, that's a product of perspective, not intention.

@eerrrveryone else: I should clarify that I meant I agreed with the "plant-based diets are more healthy" thing, not that they would eradicate all disease, which is an overstatement on his part. My phrasing bad.

Also: we vegans get by just fine. We thrive, even. So you omnivores can suck it if you think you know what our dietary requirements are.

. . .like the previous administration often did, you mean?

I have to add that Mackey is not the only one who is against health care reform. Regional big wigs have been traveling store to store conducting "town hall meetings" where they take the opportunity to discuss why health care reform is bad for the company.

I do not think anyone will contest that bureaucracies are often ineficcient and wasteful. But being Libertarian does not necessarily mean lacking compassion or being right-wing, quite the opposite. It means the desire for an efficient, compassionate and ethical administration. A pork-barrel and freeride-less administration.

I want my tax dollars to be spent where they will do the most for the common good: Health, science, education are top priorities. Empowering and responsabilitizing citizen are top priorities. Telling folks what to do in their bedrooms and what religion is best for them and NOT priorities.

Obama's health care program is not perfect - no health care program is anywhere - but is far better than having folks left bankrupt, ill and dead. It is a good application of tax money, and economy of scale, as with any group insurance program, spreads the risk and should cuts costs. Other Libertarians I know all agree that corporate greed is not proper governance.

Libertarians are not blind Keynesians.

Or, if you prefer, the NAAWP.

They're really the ACLU of the second amendment.

@Hawk07: I'm not saying it's not expected. I'm saying it's WRONG.

Until you recognize that neither the Republicans or your precious Democrats care about what happens to this country, and only about filling the pockets of corporation, their buddies, and themselves, nothing will change in this country.

People like you are part of the problem.

When someone can tell me how these plans are financially feasible, I'll be all for them.

As for socialism, yes, that is the definition. The meaning, however, has been changed to mean more what communism originally meant. Meaning everyone get the same things regardless of how much you put into the pot. So I apologize, the public option is more a communistic policy, than a socialistic one.

That is not true.

As for police, military, etc., explain how these are socialist policies, as they exist in every form of gov't from fascism to democracy.

Also, name one democratic nation that currently isn't billions of dollars in deficit. A successful one, mind you.

Laura, according to the page the you linked to, Mackey still retained over one million shares after the sale--which means he still owned over 95% of the stock after the sale. When reporting about stock ownership and sales, it is very important not to lose the context as you did by reporting on the 5% sale while ignoring the 95% retained ownership.

This provides a good example for why you should do the math yourself before throwing your lot in with your conspiracy-minded readers. No amount of snark can cover for careless reporting.

Disclaimer: I must admit my own bias against taking shit too seriously.

Tort reform is essential - there should be the equivalent of Workmen's Compensation which would cover poor outcomes of medical care and make medical care much cheaper ( did you know some doctors have to pay over $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance premiums in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics). This would give relatively prompt compensation to injured parties (not the case now where malpractice cases can drag on for as much as ten years!)
Health insurance tied to employment is a leftover from World War II when wages and salaries were frozen and hidden subsidies such as health insurance were a way to get around the freeze.
Has anyone looked at the compensation of health insurance CEOs lately? That's money not going into health care. They are spending over $1,000,000 a
DAY to scuttle health care reform. Unfortunately for us, Obama is no Johnson, who was able to get Medicare through Congress in spite of all the "socialized medicine" scare tactics used then as now. Ask anyone now who has Medicare whether they want to give it up, even though it is imperfect.
The recent health care event in a stadium in Los Angeles shows us the enormous need. We are rationing now, by income.
Health care may not be a right, but it is certainly an economic advantage to any country to have a healthy population. Check the BBC's website showing the relative statistics for various developed countries showing what is spent on health care and life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality, etc. USA spends more and gets less. We can do better.

Jesus, Mike. There's so much anger and vitriol in your reply that it almost scares me. I may identify with a few libertarian ideals, but no, I'd rather stay as far away from a party that I view as a minority of ranting idiots as possible. But if labeling people floats your boat, that's cool.

Count me in as yet another progressive who will be taking my food bucks elsewhere. Oblivious priviledged ass. Has anyone else noticed the total lack of imagination present in conservative minds? They just cannot imagine being vulnerable and in need. It's just sad.

I believe this is directly descended from having a President who tells people who disagree with him to "stop talking," only the next day to espouse the virtues of a "spirited debate" in a democracy (Hey Barry - nice mixed signals there). Add to this the leadership of a legislative body calling people who disagree un-American. Further add to this a snitch mailbox. Shall we revive the House Committee on un-American Activities while we're at it?

Gang, people are -- get this -- *ENTITLED* to their own opinions, even when they don't coincide with yours.

As for the remarks of the man at the top of WF, and the ire he's drawing - Gasp. How dare he have an opinion? At least not one that doesn't line up with the crunchy-granola-activist-government-will-solve-it-all-for-me types?

Now, considering Americans pay the MOST for healthcare, yet receive no where near the best healthcare, clearly its a Consumerist issue, and they'd be on the side of reforming that sad state of affairs.

Some people called for a ban on Whole Foods, Consumerist reported on it. The end.

Nope.

In fact, if you read the response (and mentally censor the 'angry') it states, and I am paraphrasing, "he cares less about the community (his projected image) and more about the bottom line (his apparent true self)".

Now, to a lot of people, this isn't a surprise. But, I will admit, that Whole Foods and other such natural grocers always came across as "This may cost a little more, but it's better for you"... I think what people are most upset about is that at Whole Foods, that statement seemingly only applies to the money spent by Consumers, not the Company.

True, but the article is a veiled attempt at support for the House version of health care reform. If Consumerists wants to support HR 3200 then make a post about it. However making a post about Whole Foods CEO and attaching political opinions about HR 3200 is just silly.

As someone who's studied this topic rather extensively for grad school, I think Mackey's being jumped on rather unfairly. While I think he should have kept his opinions to himself as an obligation to the company and his stockholders, his proposals aren't completely off base and are rather well thought out and bioethically sound.

As a big proponent of the single payer govt run system and an Obama supporter, I was fully prepared to be disgusted by the op-ed, but I wasn't at all. A lot of his proposals would be great improvements if they could be evenly and quickly applied for ALL americans, but the main problem is that they can't and the regulation needed to make them succeed would be subject to many of the same criticisms of overreaching govt that a national health care system would.

I would have no problem with employee funded HSAs with high deductible insurance plans IF preventative care was fully provided for without deductibles, if all employers had to provide an govt mandated minimum level of coverage, if these plans were completely portable between employers (like 401k plans are), and if there was a preventative healthcare plan maintained for periods of unemployment. But as that would be much more complicated and require more total $$ to run than would a single payer system, people need to realize that we would all be SAVING money for better healthcare under a govt run system where people who can't afford care delay treatment and end up in very expensive treatments once the problems become harder and much more expensive to treat in emergency care.

[www.lp.org]

Really not hard to find. They have been against the wars for a while.

@Hanshiro:

I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this one. The incentive to spend the first $2500 carefully comes from the fact that they roll over the balance of the $1800, not necessarily that they pay it in the first place. I do agree with you that the possibility they might delay healthcare could still be a risk, which is why high deductible insurance policies still need to be combined with preventative care that is covered even if the deductible isn't met (which is govt mandated).

While I'm fully for a single payer govt run system, the system that Mackey is proposing is quite well thought out and rather sound IF it could be implimented quickly and well, which it can not.

@frank64: Exactly- Whole Foods is putting $1800 into each employees HSA account and the High Deductible insurance kicks in after $2500, so the most an employee would be out of pocket is $700 the first year. Of course, the balance of the $1800 rolls over to cover so for the most part, that would more than cover the full deductible if the employee gets really sick of course unless they drain the HSA if they are chronically sick. Still a MAX of $700 a year shouldn't bankrupt most families and is very reasonable.

<sarcasm>No shit? You're a libertarian? Why, before your illuminating clarification, I thought you were a flaming liberal socialist who supported the current health care proposals and just cried "Bias!" out of the goodness of your No-Spin heart.</sarcasm>

______
* I know you labeled yourself "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", not libertarian. Last time I looked at the World's Smallest Political Quiz, that's the definition of a libertarian. If you take the quiz and do not get scored libertarian, please accept my sincere apologies.

The idea is: if you keep the deductible high enough then people won't use it. Even if you pay your deductible you may owe the doctor money for the visit as well because even on the "selected providers" insurers leave you (okay...me) with a bill of at least 50% of the total. Average cost to see a doctor/blood test (office visit) = deductible + 300 dollars. <--Of course not taking into account the monthly fee to keep insurance.

I am stunned John Mackey is still running Whole Foods! Was he not investigated for that whole "troll" event by the FTC?? Did he not screw up the purchase of Wild Oats? John Mackey still bring in charge of this company and being able to write an Op-Ed piece is stunning!

@Hanshiro:
+1. Excellent response.

(and nope, I wouldn't buy the yogurt covered pretzels, but that's mainly because I don't eat dairy...).

I'm all for voting with your wallet, but I think boycotting a store just because of a political disagreement is ridiculous. Maybe if the company used their profits to support a certain political agenda, then I would consider boycotting the store but the CEO is just voicing his opinion on an issue.

As the CEO of a public company its unethical to be makig public comments like this , not because of any particular viewpoint , but beacuse it may adversely affect stockholder wealth. His job is to make stockholders money .

As far as the (up to) $1,800, I believe that is funding deducted from the employees own paycheck before taxes and used to supplement the deductible.

Mackey's own quote, "This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully," is tantamount to acknowledging that employees will be more likely to delay needed medical care. That's not such a great plan, imho.

Notwithstanding the indisputable fact that none of Mackey's proposals will achieve better results than single payer. That the US lags behind such places as Malta in infant mortality and adult longevity should be all the evidence necessary to find Mackey's diversions faulty and ill-considered.

I know! Myself being Jewish and I keep a kosher home, whenever I need Kosher meat, I have to go buy my meat at Albertsons or QFC. Thank G-d for the "junk food" grocery store! G-d love ya!

"It all started with Mackey's Tuesday WSJ op-ed, which suggested, among other things, that the health insurance options provided to Whole Foods employees should be a more popular option to control health care costs"

Try again.

That what you want to hang your hat on? Really?

From the deadly incompetence of Katrina to the Bald lies of Iraq to Pat Tillman, waterboarding, torture, indefinite detainment, no WMD, Abramoff, FEMA, Halliburton, Loyalty Oaths, missing $Billions, Yellow cake lies, Downing Street memo, flying binLadens family out after 9-11, Stonewalling investigations, wiretapping, habeas corpus, the list is endless.

The fact that the congressional sheriffs have surrendered their duty doesn't mean the bush administration wasn't the most egregiously corrupt group of thieves in US history; with over 1 million people murdered for a fat lie, and millions more irradiated via depleted uranium.

I'll defend the rights of the accused when we re-institute the rule of law and extend it to those declared innocent detainees that first bush and now Obama have kept hidden away to hide America's shame.

Bush apparently didn't need evidence to throw people in jail, torture them or kill them. I extend him the same consideration he extended them.

FYI - everyone is going to do whatever it is they do partly for their own self-interest.

But, keep demonizing Rupert Murdoch, ManBearPig, and whatever else it is you need to attack that day.

I do agree that this whole independent contractor status vs. employee status issue is a huge problem that continuously gets worse. However, I'm not sure about whether Whole Foods engages in this practice.

The Consumerist isn't for profit? Don't tell potential buyers that because a few months ago (maybe 6-8 months), the Consumerist had a post saying it was up for sale where people proceeded to harass the site about profitability, amongst other things, that then got deleted.

And consequently, it can also decide who DOES support Whole Foods.

I honestly wouldn't have expected the WSJ Op-Ed piece to come from the CEO of Whole Foods, but his stock and my interest in his store just went up this past week.

I second your post.

Or do I assume wrongly that you vigorously defend the rights of the accused?

It's funny to hear businesses complaining at taxes when they are at their lowest point in history (the same level as the highest taxpayer rate...about 35%).

Of course these businesses create the problem by dodging liability and hiring people as "independent contractors" giving them no benefits but treating them like employees. Indy contractors get hit for insurance (because they have no benefits), expenses (may not be fully deductible) AND self-employment tax which is about 15% of AGI as I recall.

She did not mention it at all. Her link that would show that figure does not constitute "reporting" it. Yes, it would take just a small amount of effort to find the data, but it remains that she only wrote about two items that would tend to portray Mackey in a negative light to her audience. You'd have to be quite disingenuous to dispute that.

2. sure. I get that. But as I pointed out - how do I know that the CEOs of my alternatives aren't putting money into the same causes or have the same politics?

As simply as I can put it, WF offers better benefits to its clerks than the average store, grocery or otherwise, offers theirs. Thus, his perceived "crappy" plan is currently better for such workers than most employers' since that means no plan at all. That's all I've been saying...

Fresh & Easy
Trader Joes
Walmart (the supermarket one)

You can get the same stuffola at F&E and Walmart, maybe not trader joes but they always seem busy regardless of their limited selection. Honestly, with the price and quality of Fresh & Easy I'm not sure why people would shop anywhere else unless they don't exist in their local area.

Not a word of that is true.

I have to disagree, and I think medical science would disagree as well. Millions of people live their whole lives as vegetarians, and they tend to live longer than meat-eaters, even when controlling for life-style factors.

Actually, that's not true.

Humans evolved as omnivores, and do need certain nutrients that are hard to find in non-animal food sources. The vast majority of vegetarians on the planet still eat milk and eggs, so that does the job.

Vegans, on the other hand, have to be hyper vigilant about nutrient intake, to the point of taking supplements in many cases. Total protein intake can be easy to shoot too low on; B12 isn't too hard, in the form of fortified soy beverages; calcium and iron are more challenging, but not too bad. The Omega-3's are the toughest, as the best sources tend to be fish based. Flaxseed is an acceptable source for omega-3s, but not in regular mealtime quantities. To get enough, vegans usually need to take a (processed) supplement of concentrated flaxseed oil or algae-derived oil.

The raucous protesting before the illegal war, to save lives, was 'anti-patriotic.'

The raucous, staged, armed protesting to condemn people to more deaths at the hands of the pharma/insurance lobby at town halls is 'uber-patriotic.'

The disparities are admittedly lost on me.

@nstonep:
AMEN!

And for the record, even Wal-Mart is in favor of the public option.

@veg-o-matic:

I won't argue about what is the better diet (i'll leave that up to other more qualified people.) But I will argue over your line about caring about nothing but the bottom line:

"but he himself is a libertarian who cares for little more than the bottom line."

Please correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like your complaining because he cares for nothing but the bottom line. I see nothing wrong with that. He is the CEO of a major For Proffit Buisness why shouldn't he care about the bottom line.

Further reading: Atlas Shrugged. (and before you start screaming at me I do think she goes to the extreme to get her point across but it is a valid point. There's nothing wrong with proffit and making money.)

@Hanshiro- True but we should be able to find out if this was an automatic sell or a choice made at the last min.

Even I put orders on my stock to buy/sell automatically if the price reaches a certian point.

"But don't let me stop you. By all means, attack those @sshole, lying, war-mongering, chickenhawk, city-killing, money-pissing, three-day-workweek, do-nothing, culture-of-corruption Republicans.

There, fixed it for you...

The public option is there to guarantee that those who are excluded from the private insurances' risk pools for being "too risky" (gee, where's the risk being placed if not on the insurers?) can still be insured by eliminating the cherry picking of those they insure. That's not socialism. That's holding the insurers accountable for what they're supposed to be doing, and indeed what they USED to do.

I think the reference was to Mackey's proposals, not the bill considered. That said, the police, military and fire departments are 'socialist policy' too; lest you forget...

Those do okay, I think.

@Segador:
"fiscally I'm extremely conservative"
Me thinks that you are confusing being a socially retard selfish bastard with being fiscally conservative. Social justice issues and any issue addressed with taxpayer dollars (roads, military, etc) should be operated in the most fiscally conservative manner possible to achieve the desired result. The method of operation does not alter the priorities/principles. I'm a health-challenged poor bleeding heart liberal that often cares for foster kids, you would probably mistake that for meaning that I wouldn't rip your face off in a heartbeat if you messed with one of them or invest my last dollar in them. I'm fiscally conservative, so please don't confuse or co-opt that fine practice as is the usual practice of the right. Selfish sarahs are not fiscally conservative, just garden variety selfish assholes.

Oh no, he posted something on the internet. Don't take his views seriously!

Because it's easier for him to conflate dissent with some appearance of yearned-for censorship. Evidently, Hipwr equates expressing disagreement through purchasing power with punishment, punishment with intimidation/censorship and stifling first amendment rights; despite his inability to discern the difference between "misinformation," with "wrong views."

I don't intend to fund, even in part, Mackey's preferences when they are so clearly at odds with mine. Why should anyone be chided for not wanting to subsidize opposing views?

Should have read:

Just like how AIG and Lehmann Bros and Bear Stears were highly successful and rolling in money, right! They would never do anything that could lead to Bad Things.

This is why nothing gets done in America. The sooner people realize that both major parties don't care one iota about everyday people, the better of we will be.

But don't let me stop you. By all means, attack those meanie Republicans.

Do you call everyone you disagree with a nut job? I'm sure you're quite popular.

Health care as is has not been helped by the bloated ways of medicare/aid. It's something I am willing to deal with though because there are SOME who need it. However as 18-50 year olds participate as good citizens they need to hold jobs and protect their health themselves and that includes catastrophic insurance while paying out of pocket for the small things (like preventative visits) in a perfect world.

Uncle Sam can't do it better, the individuals of this country can and that's why even with the bloat we are still the most innovative place on this planet......for now.

I will never shop in a Whole Foods ever again, this was the last straw.

1) The CEO being an ass may well affect how the company treats its employees and customers.

2) If the CEO is putting money towards causes you find reprehensible, guess where that money ultimately comes from?

@frank64:
Boy are you ever the poster boy for casting pearls before swine. I sure wish I had eaten better and avoided the crippling problems of my spinal stenosis. Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts and to hell with everyone else, after all, they obviously just made bad choices. Here are couple more pearls (unoriginal thoughts I'm unable to credit) for you to step on:
-Humans have a fundamental need to create and maintain a narrative for their lives in which the universe is not implacable and heartless, that terrible things do not happen at random, and that catastrophe can be avoided if you are vigilant and responsible.
-It's like escaping from quicksand - if all of your strokes are perfect, you can pull yourself out slowly, but if even one little thing goes wrong, you're slurped right back in.
Thanks ShariC for your spot-on comment.

Last time I check we are billions and billions of dollars in the hole, so obviously the plan ain't working too well, is it? But I guess we can just print more money, right? It'll be like Zimbabwe recently where a dollar isn't worth anything anymore.

Then NOBODY will have healthcare. Or any of those other things you listed either.

People who don't care about Mackey's op-ed, or who agree with him, will continue shopping there. Other people may decide to take their money to competitors. The problem is what?

And you are again conflating criticism with censorship. Nobody has said it is 'unacceptable to express your opinion' about the health plan proposals. Why would you pretend otherwise?

Is it not journalistically unethical to allow someone who would benefit financially from promoting his views in the editorial pages of a paper WRITE an editorial?

This piece of work belongs in the advertising, not presented as editorial.

He's pushing what he sells. The Wall Street Journal should not have published this.

See you guys are nitpicking instead of logically discussing the issues.

That so many Americans are overweight needs to be dealt with. He is at least trying. Making excuses for the overweight will not help and these excuses is part of the problem.

I think he is genuine in his belief, and Americans as a whole would be much better off following his advice on diet. I have been trying to eat better and don't shop at Whole Foods.

I am no fan of Obama, there are a host of things hypocritical and just plain wrong. He has flip-flopped on too many promises to have me believe he is anything but a failure. (His telecom immunity leadership, helping to hide bush's crimes, put me off of him permanently. His resistance to prosecution, his backdoor deal-making with the pharmas to screw us ain't helping.

However, your reference to a 'massive new entitlement program' doesn't recognize the daily $720 Million we are pissing away in Iraq for a pack of lies, not to mention the smoldering wreckage that Cmdr. Shortbus left everyone.

That would have paid for healthcare, infrastructure and a myriad of badly needed programs.

We still lag behind almost every other civilized nation in healthcare, and none o Mackey's suggestions get the results that single-payer would and does. It is proven in other countries, despite the misinformation campaign that the pharms & insurance scumbags are waging.

Math Fail? So all americans are overweight and the obese aren't considered overweight? Thanks for trying, Mackay.

Making the right choice is the first step. Saying that the idea that making the right choice for a desired outcome is ONLY the idea of the privileged? I think it holds true for the unprivileged even more so than the privileged. Many an underprivileged has very well for himself by making the right choices, and many of the privileged have fallen. The good ole USA is one of the best places in the world for underprivleged to make their way.

I understand pointing to this as a clear misstep by a CEO but to hang your criticism on him saying "eat healthy" and suggesting it was a veiled "buy Whole Foods" statement is silly - especially when you follow it by saying he expected the statement to hurt business.

When Senators, Congressmen and even the President stand up and list healthy diet and exercise as things that we need to educate children on (and even frame them as preventative care in the context of the Health care Reform debate) we nod our heads and smile.

When a CEO of a major "health food" chain mentions it in passing (not even as one of his 5 or so main points) it immediately makes his op-ed laughable?

@Hanshiro: Oh, and by the way, the old "the last guy did worse" argument doesn't work for me.

@Hanshiro: You erroneously make the assumption that I defend Bush's actions. I was very disturbed when I found out what was in the Patriot Act that was hastily pushed through Congress (sound like a familiar tactic?).

I suspect you weren't in favor of the Patriot Act as well. But, how do you feel about it now? It's still in place (& our current president had a role in its re-authorization). Is it more acceptable to you now? Rendition? Still there. Wiretapping. Yep! Secret CIA prisons? Yessir! No one's crying about that now that their guy is in charge. And we're still in Afganistand and Iraq, too! Where's the outrage and the marches?

The hypocrisy is staggering.

As for the snitch site, it's up the person making up the report to determine what he/she deems "fishy". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's still sent off to the White House and kept on record. You wouldn't find that unacceptable if the man in the Oval Office were different?

Oh, about bush's emails? What happened to the thousands of "lost" bush emails? Funny how bush misplaced all that 'evidence.'

@mythago: I find hypocrisy problematic. Like it's fine to block Marine Recruiters from doing their job, or shout down a "Minute Man", or attempt to rub paint on Condeleza Rice, but it's unnacceptable to express your opinion about a proposed massive new entitlement regardless of whether you are rudely yelling at your elected official, or writing an op-ed.

Bush simply violated the law and spied on Americans' communications, so much so that congress had to retroactively make a law to protect bush's activities.

Not only that, you're saying the link is asking for 'misinformation,' meaning, I assume, outfits and insurance-funded front groups looking to derail reform. That doesn't constitute "wrong" views as you first misleadingly claimed, but inaccurate information used to misinform.

Your bias, however, is most clear....

See how logical that is?

The consequences to Mackay of free speech are that others will also choose to exercise their free speech. Why do you find that problematic?

@eeebee: "Consumerist needs to take a lesson from Whole Foods about stating their political views to their customers when the customer might not necessarily agree with the political views and might boycott the company/website."

The problem with your statement is that Mackey DID NOT express the views of the company, Whole Foods Market, he expressed his own view...as a stockholder, I want my CEO to keep his F-in political views to himself rather than running the chance of reducing stockholder value. I don't care what that asshat thinks of health care or UFO's or condoms or Iraq or George Bush or Barack Obama...Mackey, shut the f-up and concentrate on maximizing profits...it's YOUR SOLE JOB....

A public-health option will give a boost to small businesses who cannot now compete with large businesses due to the inability to offer a health-care plan. Why do you think that Mackay might be opposed to such a thing?

There is a huge difference in presentation that engenders discussion as opposed to anger. Mackey simply pontificated from a pretentious CEO's perspective to presume what everyone else needs.

His judgment is somewhat questionable from that 'perspective.'

@thegirls: The White House is required by law to keep all of these email communications.

I wonder what would be said about Bush if he tried this kind of BS.

I'd be right there with the Left calling him to cut that shit out immediately.

See how logical that is?

See? I can make up stuff about you, too!

That said, it's freaking hilarious that Mackay is talking about a "plant based diet", given the bajillion-dollars-a-pound frou-frou meats his stores sell.

@Hanshiro: [www.whitehouse.gov]

There's an email address there to forward information about those spreading "misinformation".

You didn't know about this?

It's not a law enforcement tool; it's pure partisan politics. Go figure.

..and which "wrong views" are you referring to?

Why would the CEO of a "great humanitarian company" clearly put their company's earnings at risk by prostituting his position and publishing a very controversial editorial? You'd think he would be more discreet in his position and more responsible to his employees!

The consequences are all his, not those who decide not to support such a CEO with their dollars and not Consumerist.

Consumer education and protection is about more than just saving yourself a few bucks.

(I do refuse to shop at places that INSTITUTIONALLY support policies I find problematic.)

I find this a little troubling because of the way he seems to have used his customers, based both on this and past behavior, but he does have a right to express his opinions, even unpopular ones. And I have a right to decide I care or don't care, and shop or not shop as my conscience dictates.

Of course, I don't have a nearby Whole Foods so it's all moot. :)

@Hanshiro: You're certainly right about the consequences. Even our own president wants us to report on people expressing the "wrong" views.

And I will refrain from supporting companies I disagree with. Simple.

The shareholders of Whore Foods are hoping like hell that people don't....

@StrangeTikiGod: True, but this statement will hurt stock prices.

@nstonep: My sarcasm meter may be broken, but are there really places with special parking spaces for hybrid vehicles?

The US lags behind Malta for Chissakes!

Commend Mackey for his republican rhetoric all you want, but the system that has demonstrated the greatest results is single-payer, nor do their citizens have to go bankrupt in case of an illness.

Like France (#1), Canada, and other civilized nations.

@MostlyHarmless: Isn't it a bit of a stereotype that only liberals shop at Whole Foods? And why must all liberals support all democratic legislation? I don't like the black-and-white-ness of this article. I'm sure if this guy had spoken out FOR the current proposals he'd be boycotted by a different selection of patrons.

People shop there because these "froo froo" stores sell a range of products that are difficult to find at the supermarket, and many people find the philosophy/image appealing. You don't, and that's fine, but many other people do.

I don't have to interact with the snooty idiots at Wild Oats, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe's.

Hmm, speaking of snooty...

Oh and I'll walk out with double plastic bags and park in your hybrid parking space, every time.

Yes, I too find spite to be a very persuasive tactic when dealing with people of other opinions...

@dreamsneverend: I'll seek out a Whole Foods in my area too. Never been there before, but I think I'll give it a try.

@StrangeTikiGod: Yeah, ostensibly. As in scratching the surface 1/132nth of a millimeter will reveal what our "representatives" are really up to.

Yeah I don't know if Mackay is aware that there are a lot of patrons (like me) who have better coverage than his stupid plans, and who would greatly oppose being pushed into an inferior plan. And who knows, maybe in a few years if I have to come up with $1-2K more for my family's health coverage, I might have to cut out some luxuries... like, oh, I don't know, overpriced groceries....

A boycot? What kind of wuss move is that? This man needs to be tarred and feathered and drug through the streets.

How dare he express his opinion!

While I disagree with multiple things in his post, what you said is a mischaracterization of his statement.

@Segador: Consumerist only pointed out that it is not a smart business practice to alienate your base - especially when that base is most likely very motivated about the thing you are dissing.

It would make as much sense as NRA endorsing gay marriages and saying socialization is a good thing.

The original post dealt with the backlash, without a direct link to the WSJ article it referred to. It SEEMED like it was inviting the backlash only just assuming that Mackey ideas were way off the mark.

This post would be helped a lot by a link to the actual article Mackay wrote, which is here at the WSJ.

There is plenty there that the typical wheatgrass-munching progressive would take issue with, as it's a pretty stereotypical Libertarian rant on Mackay's part, with some right-wing talking points thrown in for good measure. He thinks we should have the "freedom" to do business with insurers who with no restrictions on what they can sell where. Thanks, I'll pass.

Kudos to Mackay for offering some health insurance to his employees. That said, covering 90% of your employees sounds saintly only if you don't look at the details. The Whole Foods health plan is a high-deductible ($2,500/year) plan with an HSA. Even if the employer partially covers the deductible through the HSA I still wouldn't call that a great plan. $1000 or more in out-of-pocket medical costs is a lot of money to a typical Whole Foods employee making $10/hour.

We do not intend to continue to support a hypocritical business that believes more in lining their own pockets and shortchanging their employees health plans than in promoting the health and welfare of their customers and employees. We will take our health food business to Trader Joes or another alternative.

Oh and I'll walk out with double plastic bags and park in your hybrid parking space, every time.

But isn't it interesting that all of his national policy proposals also just happen to benefit him and his company? If you agree with him, that is fine, but remember all his suggestions for what the country should do also make him a richer man. He has just as much self-interest at stake as the politicians do.

Whole Foods sells meat, candy, and plenty of very high-fat items such as cream and cheese. They also sell non-whole grains and products containing white sugar. Mackey can preach all he wants about the benefits of a healthy diet but Whole Foods does its part to sell less healthy food. About 15 years ago Whole Foods started selling some of these foods, supposedly as a convenience for shoppers, and labeled them as 'crossover items'. They don't bother with the labels anymore.

I, for one, wouldn't mind at all if they went back to the Bread & Circus standard of the late 1980s; e.g., selling no products containing white sugar or cereals that don't contain whole grains. Don't think it would ever happen though, because they'd make less money.

And how many people are behind Mackey because they're libertarians or anti-national health care Republicans and his views mesh perfectly with theirs? Let's not pretend this is about logic or freedom of speech when it's really about political agreement.

@Haggie1: Amen. I am an independent and on social issues I tend to lean toward the left but on national security and fiscal issues, I tend to lean towards the right.

And frankly, in my opinion, if you're going to be on the side of consumers over corporations, that does tend to put you more on the left side of the political spectrum. Just my 2¢.

now i can't eat most of what is sold at whole foods at all because of autoimmune nerve damage to my stomach.

Brilliant man; saying things that gives reason for almost his entire customer base to not buy there. That's like if I owned a gun store chain and decide to give a rant on the benefits to illegal immigration and the Spanish language slowly invading the US. Sure, I have a right to an opinion, but making my customers angry is just... stupid.

Personally, I am way over the organic-ecofriendly-green-mania (or obsession) that swept the nation, so, whatever.

I don't agree with him myself, but that was fairly well-written and much better than the "it's MY DAMN MONEY!" argument I keep hearing over and over. His point about tort reform, though, that needs to be seriously taken into account.

I have to disagree, and I think medical science would disagree as well. Millions of people live their whole lives as vegetarians, and they tend to live longer than meat-eaters, even when controlling for life-style factors.

And the "Whole Paycheck" joke existed LONG before this site used it. Face it, Whole Foods is expensive, and if you were to do all your grocery shopping there, it could very well eat up your whole paycheck. Unless you're John Mackey, I suppose.

I completely agree with the CEO of Whole Foods when it comes to their health care plan. Health care costs will never be contained unless people take responsibility for their own health care spending and when it's given to them at little/no cost, they will use as much as they can. We do not have a Whole Foods anywhere near where I live or I would shop there in support of him. However, I don't think he made the right decision in writing this article because it does go against the beliefs of many of his CUSTOMERS. Boycotts of this type typically blow over pretty quickly however, so he probably doesn't have much to worry about.

or, it could lead to Mackey keeping his damn fool mouth shut.

There's nothing irrational about it. It's a choice not to further empower people who's views you find repugnant because giving them more power is tantamount to giving them political influence.

The other problem, of course, is that there's an utterly erroneous assumption that eating right, exercise, and steering clear of harmful substances of any kind will prevent health problems from developing. It will decrease the chances, sure, but genetic predispositions are in place. Children die of cancer. People are born with diabetes and the propensity for degenerative diseases. There are also stress-related illness, mental health, etc. which have to do with the sensitivity of one's nervous system and factors often beyond one's control.

The idea that making the right choices will lead to a particular desired outcome in any endeavor in life is the mindset of the privileged of this world. If you're born with a good set of genes and have the right options in life for economic or career success, that holds true. It simply isn't so for everyone.

They have some of the best benefits for workers in the world ,they pay amazing starting pay for even cashiers, they do more for 3rd world countries then any other major corporation i can think of.. never mind the effects on the earth etc ... so i hope you are happy with your self Laura... Its sad because i love what this website stands for .. but attacking wholefoods is not in the best intrest

And no i am not John Mackey : )

Congrats to the boycotters who are going to hurt WF employees who get paid more than other grocery stores, and have much better benefits.

/sarcasm

At most public companies, folks in Mackey's position keep their mouths shut. Also, most companies limit insider trades to a 30 day window following a quarterly or annual statement. It looks a bit odd to me that Mackey sold his stock on August 6, which was eight days before that window would have begun; Whole Foods filed their 10-Q (quarterly report) with the SEC on August 14.

If there is a Whole Foods boycott or other negative publicity due to Mackey's comments, and if Whole Foods' stock price declines compared to Mackey's sale price... well, I've seen stockholder suits filed for less. And if Mackey then buys shares at a lower price than he sold at, that's going to look extremely dodgy.

One might ask if Mackey can't exercise his free speech rights like the rest of us. No, sorry, he can't. Just like I can go to Vegas and bet on baseball and Pete Rose couldn't - at least, not and expect to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Choosing certain professions means you give up things. If Mackey wants to become a pundit and make controversial statements, he should quit Whole Foods.

I guess trying to tell Americans to give up their deep fried and meat based diet is just too much.

There are plenty of us who are quite liberal in our social views who know you can't SPEND MONEY on everything.

Ah well even though it's at a higher price than my local Publix I will give my support to companies I agree with.

Best thing to do with a troll like this, is to ignore him.

But this isn't about how the company is run. People are complaining because the CEO has stated his personal views about a national debate.

This is America - you don't need a reason to sue someone, although it usually helps if you want to win.

If enough people boycott Whole Foods that they have to lay off employees, other grocery stores will see enough of a sales increase to justify hiring new employees. Wages / benefits may or may not be the same.

His suggestions are sound, pragmatic, and rhetoric free. He is a very smart man and he has valuable information to share with us. Agree or disagree with him, but he should be heard and his willingness to bring his decades of real world experience and wisdom to bear on this issue should be applauded, not criticized.

I can't believe the lawsuits haven't been filed yet.

What he says about a plant-based diet is true, but when people complain about how prohibitively expensive it is to eat that way, they should realize that Mackey is one of the big reasons why that is so.

This latest drivel comes as no surprise to those who have been boycotting Whole Foods for years now.