This hurts me. I have good friends at Whole Foods. But now I have another reason not to shop there.
If you are a progressive and you are shopping at Whole Foods, you are feeding a high-priced machine that violates many of your personal principles. Please join me in shopping elsewhere. And just so you know what soapbox your hard-earned dollars are funding, consider this from Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in the Wall Street Journal.
The last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. :: Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.A careful reading of both documents will not reveal any intrinsic right to education either. I'm guessing Mr. Mackey would like to do away with public schools, too. Stop shopping at Whole Foods. Period. And make sure they know why. Mr. Mackey is certainly entitled to his opinion. And you're entitled to take your business elsewhere.
Comments
Options
If you believe that health reform is needed but you don't support government-backed insurance, what options do you have to offer?Do you agree that we should have universal coverage?
I support the public option
Terri, I very much support a public option. In fact I would prefer a single payer system. Did not mean to give any other impression. Health care is right not a privilege.However, it is possible but very unlikely to get reform without it. It would take a straight jacket on the private insurance business that they would not accept and a real restructuring of our health care system that I doubt will happen anytime soon. I pointed out that in Germany the insurance is private but is financed through employers, employees and the government. The companies are very tightly regulated. However I do not believe it will translate into english.I have also lived in the UK a couple of years and the Right is consitently fabricating untruths about their system. However, I was much more impressed by the French system. If you talk to just about any expat who is in that system or just about anyone who has experienced living under both ours and theirs they will tell you how stupid the US health care system is.It's not that you can not get great heath care in the US. We have some great instituitions, great technology, great physicans and nurses. It's easy to access if you are rich. Otherwise it becomes more and more difficult to the point for a large number of people near impossible. In the US it's all about money not about our health. That is in fact the way we ration health care. We ration by how much you can pay.
The private sector insurance companies
are far superior to government programs. In fact, we are giving out huge bonuses despite the deep recession. That's capitalism, baby. You just have to know how to be fast on your feet in the market-place.Sincerely,AIG Board of Directors
Most companies Fail
By your logic, the private sector could never work. Most companies FAIL WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS.You don't even understand what you're railing against. The USPS works very well and is handicapped by rules that gave FEDEX and UPS an operating advantage.I understand Barnie Frank more than ever.
Turning your question around.....
what is your passion for private health insurance? It's failed to provide sufficient coverage at an affordable cost for all Americans, causing us all to pay higher costs due to all those who use the ER for their primary care.
Single-Payer system
(Know this is far-afield of the Whole Foods/Mackey issue but it's certainly timely and there's a great deal of misunderstanding out there on this issue.)A huge part of the problem with the current system is the duplicate (multi-plicate!) bureaucracies who have all to be paid out of our health-care dollars and with whom health-care providers have to deal. For each insurer, there's a hierarchy of claims people, appeals people, account specialists, etc. that is replicated in all the other insurance companies. Moreover, their mission is not to simply process the claims; their mission is to make sure the least possible amount of money is paid out on those claims - hence decisions get made on other than medical bases far too often, and too often the default setting is denial of a claim. It's expensive and very time-consuming for those who should be spending
time providing health care but who, instead, spend enormous amounts of
time with paperwork, phoning, appealing, and navigating decisions on
behalf of their patients. In addition, health care providers need extra personnel in
their offices dedicated to the paperwork, knowledgeable about all the
various insurers' policies and documentation.And it tells you something about the contrasts of private vs. federal administration to know that, while Medicare spends roughly 8 cents on the premium dollar for administration and overhead, private insurers spend roughly 35-40 cents. Ask which bureaucracy your own doctors and therapists prefer to deal with, and you might be surprised.
Amen, Priscilla
I have, personally, watched nurses argue with health insurance providers because they were denying basic care - GYN exams and mammograms. The reason was that these women had late-stage cancer and had chosen to participate in clinical research trials (Federally-Funded) in an attempt to stay alive.A decision by Insurance Companies to stop medication (Tamoxifen, I believe) for a breast-cancer survivor may have contributed to the death of a friend of mine's wife. You can never be sure, but within months of her being taken off meds, her breast cancer returned and she died from it. Now, we have come a long way in Women's health, but I doubt there is a woman alive who has not or will not be disqualified from some coverage under this system for a "pre-existing condition" or denied coverage, because in spite of everyone wearing pink ribbons, women are treated as second class citizens in our healthcare system, because they are a "bad risk." Frankly, having seen it first hand, it still makes me angry. I know this is it's own topic, but I feel like you have made this most relevant point in this debate. Thank you for speaking up and pointing out the real issue.
At least there was somebody for them to call
The nurses that were arguing with that insurance company at least had a fighting chance of being heard by somebody who could possibly make a decision.Now, imagine that the same scenario took place, but the call is taken (if even possible) by some federal GS-9 patronage-job lackey in Outer Nowhere, Illinois. Maybe the same person who is today supposed to be cutting the checks for the 'clunkers' program - oh wait, that's not happening either.Sorry. I'll take my chances arguing with United Health or Blue Cross any day -- over an unelected government bureaucrat. Too bad that the discussion about taxpayer subsidized health insurance (not health care, try not to confuse the two) obscures the real issue, which is an attempt at permanent consolidation of 10th Amendment State's rights into the Federal sphere. This is nothing more than a power grab by the Left, even bigger than the one they pulled off in 1917.
Speculation...
It is pure speculation that one would need to call anyone or even if you did that it would be a partronage job. However it is not speculation that the individual at Blue Cross is paid to turn you down and could care less about your heath. Its great to use your imagination to create imaginary fears, The next step is to now claim them as facts.
Reality
I am talking about real situations. You are making stuff up. When you start dealing in reality, let's talk.One day, you will spend five hours on the phone with an insurance company and you will understand.
The speculation is a
The speculation is a government bureaucracy and a set of government rules that do not exist. According to your post you pose it as a hypothetical. If was not please correct. The reality is that I have spent hours with an insurance company bureaucrat and 2 levels of appeal that wanted to deny an out of town emergency room visit on a potential recurrence of a cardiac event. The reason? I did not take the time to get permission before I went to the emergency room. It was also a Sunday. My doctor also spent literally and I mean literally much time screaming at them. It was finally settled after the 2 levels of appeal. So I am very much aware of reality when it comes to private insurance. It works great as long as you do not need it.
I was talking to the other guy
I have so many horror stories that they are just too many to count. I agree with your point here entirely, Dave. :)
My research says 2 to 3 cents and private at 20 cents.
My research says 2 to 3 cents for medicare and private at 20 cents. Medicare is about 10 times more efficient.
Thought crime
There are two reasons that a boycott of Whole Foods over this issue is, from my perspective, a dumb idea.
#1: With Earth Fare gone and Weaver St. way across town, my options for purchasing organic and natural foods are limited. I shop wisely at WF - I exploit sales, bulk bins, and house brands pretty extensively, and I think I pay less there than I would to buy the same items (in organic form) at HT or FL. Furthermore, many items I buy at WF are simply unavailable at conventional grocers. So for me, boycotting WF would be cutting off my nose to spite my health, not to mention my wallet.
#2: A more important reason, though, is that the boycott under discussion was prompted by a disclosure by the company CEO of his thoughts on an issue. Those advocating this boycott have made it known that the purpose of it is to force WF to choose a CEO who thinks more like they do about health care. It is one thing to boycott a company or individual for something it does, like dump toxic waste or exploit children or give money to politicans you don't like. It is an entirely different matter to boycott a company over something it says, particularly if that speech is an op-ed from the CEO in his capacity as a private citizen rather than a press release or other official statement.
The use of populist political tools such as boycotts and protests to attempt to influence the subjects on which a corporate leader may speak or express an opinion is abhorrent to the principles of democracy and free society. These techniques have been used for years by the far right to hurt companies deemed by some authority to be pro-choice, tolerant of homosexuality, or simply insufficiently Christian; it is extremely disheartening to see them now trotted out by the left, particularly against a company that, as others have pointed out, is actually an excellent corporate citizen on many progressive issues.
The primary danger from this sort of thought-crime vigilantism is that corporate leaders with experience, influence, and valuable insight will remain silent for fear of antagonizing one special interest or another. It is highly unlikely that any one individual's views will line up precisely with the accepted platform of any major political group, at least not if they are independent and critical thinkers. It appears to have escaped almost everyone's attention that Mr. Mackey calls for individual health insurance to be taxed at the same rate as employer-provided health insurance, a reform that even arch-progressives have been advocating for years. This is ample evidence that Mr. Mackey is in fact a human being who believes what he believes for some kind of reason, not because he is a Republican pawn.
Furthermore, I have no doubt that if those of you who are so eager to throw stones at Mr. Mackey were to all congregate and compare your views on health care policy, you would find that even among yourselves you disagree on many things to such an extent that you would find the views of your fellow activists morally repugnant.
My point is this: If boycotts such as this succeed, they will succeed in nothing more than censoring the thoughts of everyone who, through speaking their mind in public, would risk harming their own economic well-being and the well-being of their employees and investors. Such a development would bring America that much closer to other regimes throughout history in which opposition is the privilege only of those with nothing to lose. No doubt some of those whose signatures adorn this petition still have Bush-era bumper stickers reading "Dissent is patriotic." Perhaps they should update their slogans.
PS. The comments on Mr. Mackey's blog seem to be evenly divided between I-am-never-coming-here-again and I-am-coming-here-more-often screeds. Lest I be accused of bias, I should state that I view the opposite response in a similarly dim light, although I suppose that if the decision to shop there were driven by the desire to simply encourage freedom of speech, that might be OK.
Too narrow a view
The balance of power between individuals and corporations in America is madly skewed in favor of the latter, not just in terms of rights, but also in terms of access, influence, and downright control. Mackey's presence in the WSJ is because he is the CEO of Whole Foods. The idea that his personal positions are separable from his corporate leadership is absurd on its face. No one is challeging Mackey's right to free speech in the slightest. He can and does say anything he wants, and will continue to do so regardless of what happens to Whole Foods. His is a millionaire many times over. That said, I believe every individual has an obligation to consider the impacts of
his or her purchasing behaviors on the greater and common good. Healthcare is a big issue for me and I am working on may fronts to promote reform. Mackey is an adversary. A broad-based boycott of his stores is part of the debate. It seems there would be no position Mackey might take personally over which you would find it unacceptable to shop at Whole Foods. Is that correct?
Free speech, unequal speech
Mr. Mackey's "individual" speech is not equal to that of someone who doesn't own a company and have easy access to a pulpit like the Wall Street Journal. His speech is, indeed, protected under the 1st Amendment, as all of ours here would be. However, he has considerably more impact on the debate thanks to his financial, public relations, and media resources. Boycotts in cases like this are called as an effort to enable the hundreds or thousands of individuals to "speak" collectively, even though they do not have the same "megaphone" that money and personal clout has -- as Mackey has. Such gestures, in fact, have been considered speech acts, also with 1st Amendment protections. However, whether they work depends partly on timing and partly on their goal: Getting people to quit eating grapes to harm the market for them worked in the short term, but the ultimate goal (improving the farm workers' situation) was more complicated. Drawing attention to disagreement with Mackey by trying to affect WF patronage may work from the point of view of getting media exposure, but the goal itself (supporting health care reform) is somewhat removed from the immediate relationship between consumer and local store. Unfortunately, the public has become quite jaundiced about social activism at the same time moneyed, powerful interests have become enormously skillful at public relations and promotion, even coopting formerly effective methods (i.e., disrupting public meetings) from counter-culture "playbooks." Even the idea that "dissent is patriotic" has been coopted to discredit those genuinely believing that established practice and policy are dangerous. Turn-about, when one side still has the advantage of entrenched money, power, savvy at manipulation of public opinion, and national inertia, is not truly "fair play." We still have a basic problem in unequal speech, despite equal protection.
I wish I had your way with words
Nicely said.
I think we're mostly in
I think we're mostly in agreement here - my criticism is directed at the use of a boycott with such a nebulous goal. I support boycotts when their purpose is to affect the target's actions, such as exploiting farm workers, but not when the purpose is to affect the target's beliefs.
Mr. Protzman argued that "a broad-based boycott of [Mackey's] stores is part of the debate." But it's unclear to me how a boycott can be considered a debating tactic. A boycott raises no issues, presents no arguments, and introduces no evidence. It serves only to act as a crude measure of one group's disagreement with another. It is an economic sanction, no more or less.
Mr. Protzman admits as much when he says that Mackey "can and does say anything he wants, and will continue to do so regardless of what happens to Whole Foods." Clearly, therefore, the goal of the boycott is not to change Mackey's mind. What, then, is the goal? To get Whole Foods to fire him? Who would take his place? What rational CEO would accept a job knowing that he would be likely to be fired if a sufficiently large interest group took exception to his beliefs - beliefs, I should add, that have little to do with the day-to-day operations of a chain of grocery stores?
I will concede Mr. Protzman and Ms. Murphy's point that Mr. Mackey's speech has more influence and reaches more ears by virtue of his position as a CEO. However, I do not believe that this fact is a counterargument to my position, which is, as I have said, that a boycott is not a debating tool.
When a boycott is deployed against someone because they choose to speak their mind, its only goal can be to silence them. It is no more effective at advancing public discourse than disrupting a public meeting by yelling endless slogans. It is a tactic designed to instill fear and wield power, but here its power is wielded to no particular end. Where is Mr. Protzman proposing that people take their business? Other grocery store CEOs are little more enlightened than Mr. Mackey. Mr. Protzman says that "every individual has an obligation to consider the impacts of
his or her purchasing behaviors on the greater and common good." I agree. What impact is intended from this boycott? How will the common good benefit from this tactic? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Regarding Mr. Protzman's assumption that "there would be no position Mackey might take personally over which you would find it unacceptable to shop at Whole Foods," that is correct. I believe in freedom of expression as strongly as Mr. Protzman believes in health-care reform. So long as Mr. Mackey's positions do not result in neglectful policies toward his workers, I support his right to say whatever he wants in whatever newspaper will publish him without fear of reprisal. I think he is wrong. I think the policies he advocates would result in an increase in human suffering. But it is not for me to decide who may speak on this issue or what they may say, and I am not so arrogant as to think that the best way to deal with my adversaries is to silence them. The time may yet come when I will have something unpopular or offensive to say in which I deeply and truly believe, and I can only hope that by that time this country will still have some respect for the opinions of others.
To answer, not to silence
"When a boycott is deployed against someone because they choose to speak their mind, its only goal can be to silence them."Sorry, can't agree with you there. There is no way, logically or logistically, that a boycott can be a "silencing" gesture - for one thing, it's too late: the person/organization has already already spoken. There would be no boycott if it weren't in response to the speech. To "silence" a speaker, the boycott would have to be in anticipation, a pre-emptive act. A boycott is an answer or rebuttal at best, and most often it is primarily a classical form of protest.As I've said before, a boycott of a product that comes from questionable materials or methods of production is more pertinent - whether or not it's actually effective. Here, the link between that which is questionable and that which is boycotted is much more indirect. But clearly, the goal of this particular boycott would be to draw the media attention that would not otherwise be available -- and not really to have any effect on WF's bottom line. I do get weary of claims that liberals or progressives or Democrats try to shut down the speech of the other side. The spectacle of the current town meetings on health care -- not to mention a history that can include aggressive anti-abortion tactics, the double-speak "free speech zones" set up on the perimeter of Bush addresses and political rallies, and the more insidious domestic security breaches of citizens' rights -- bespeak a very tarnished kettle lying in wait for a pot to call black. Disagreeing with someone who's spoken out publically and trying to be heard despite the odds is simply not the same as attempting to silence that person. In any verbal brawl, you have to note who is shouting the loudest before you can even suggest someone's trying to silence someone else.
Yes, obviously the boycott
Yes, obviously the boycott does not apply retroactively. But I still think it is a silencing gesture in the way that a lawsuit can be a silencing gesture - it can have a chilling effect on the future speech of the target and others in a similar position. This argument is bolstered by the fact that some supporters of the boycott have argued that they would prefer a future in which Mr. Mackey and others like him were silenced.
I also think the point remains that the purpose of the boycott is too vague. If the purpose is only to draw media attention, it seems ill-conceived, since any media coverage will probably include Mr. Mackey's op-ed as the inciting incident.
Mackey's a big boy
If he wants to side with the big corporate health companies against regular people, then surely he can take a little feedback in the form of free speech and decision-making. Nothing wrong with sending a message to someone who holds a powerful lever of power.
You're right.
It's really a waste of time and typing for people who don't have to work a low-wage job (and likely still cannot afford the healthcare offered) to wax poetic over how nice it is that a company cares.
false analogy, real chill
A boycott is hardly equivalent to a lawsuit, even if part of the mission of both may be some sort of nuisance. A lawsuit ultimately does have the prospect of imposing the force of law on the defendent. A boycott simply sets up a framework of choice in the public eye - the public has the choice of joining the boycott to make a gesture-statement on an issue; and the target of the boycott has the choice of continuing to do what has been found problematic and gambling on the risks of doing so, or else to do something else. Moreover, it's either naive or oddly absolutist to assume that expressing extreme anger and disagreement with a VIP's public statement on a critical issue wouldn't/shouldn't include the wish not to hear from that person again. BUT that's not the same as holding a gun or a lawsuit at their head to ensure his/her silence. People on the other side of this - and many other issues - have called publicly for their opposition to shut up and sit down so often that it's almost inane. The wish for a "chilling effect" is universal in a vigorous debate. But only if the ones hoping to chill the other side have overwhelming power can the "chill" be tantamount to a full shut-down.We may agree that a WF boycott as a challenge to the speech of its CEO is somewhat indirect and likely to fail -- and that a success could be very harmful to all employees, suppliers, and communities, which would be counterproductive. Nonetheless, Mackey has the megaphone he does because he heads a company; thus directing action at that company is a symbolic challenge to the source of his power and access to the WSJ pulpit.
The goal of a boycott is usually to change behavior
What is WF doing wrong? Polluting the environment? Not offering comprehensive health care to its employees? Exploiting cheap overseas labor? Using domestic sweatshops? Paying substandard wages? Discriminating against some population segment?I don't get it. An organized boycott can be useful in getting a corporation to change behavior. So what behavior are we trying to change here? What is the objective of this boycott? What's the measure of its success?
One measure - it shows resistance
to corporate power over our health.
From a Whole Foods employee
Who doesn't quite buy Mr. Mackey's view of things. Interesting stuff.
Other than a boycott
Whole Foods is a publicly traded company, and as such there are other avenues to go after Mackey, such as taking a lesson from shareholder revolts at other firms. If people were to dump their stock, that also could make a difference, without impacting local employees as much as boycotting the store. Also, going after some of Whole Foods' main suppliers could be fruitful, so to speak. Surely many of their suppliers will take principled stands, if they are properly informed. That approach might take the form of boycotting specific Whole Foods products, in a targeted attempt to get their wholesalers to influence them to dump Mackey.
Without disagreeing with
Without disagreeing with your other points, Weaverguy, how would a boycott hurt employees at the local store? Because they might be laid off because of decreased sales? Seems unlikely to me.I think if Mackey is going to use his business to promote his politics, then he should expect his customers to use their patronage to promote their own politics. Seems fair enough.
If Whole Foods is driven out
If Whole Foods is driven out of business by a boycott, then that would affect all employees, of course, including those at the local store.
However
I don't think that would be either the goal or the likely result of a boycott.
A boycott's intent is change by hurting the bottom line
Mark, A boycott's intent is to change behavior of a business by hurting the bottom line of that business not normally to drive it out of business. If the boycott was really effective in hurting the bottom line, then layoffs could be possible or less hours or less pay etc... I just do not see that a boycott is warranted in this case. The only behavior it looks like we would want to change is a CEO speaking his misguided mind.
Who knows?
Who knows what government can do? The federal government and to a lesser extent state and municipal governments have just become facilitation agencies for big business. The Post Office runs at a loss because they subsidize the delivery of 3rd class junk mail. Student loans are financially crippling college students because they have become an entitlement program for banks. Any recent expansions of health coverage to uninsured groups has been through payments to insurance companies. The prescription drug plan is for pharmaceutical companies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are solely for the defense industry, etc., etc. All resistance to change in the status quo is backed by big business.The democrats are negotiating with themselves (the GOP has stated that they will not participate) so they can appear to have been forced into a "compromise" that is really just a huge gift to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.I decided when I was about 20 that if the banking and/or insurance industries were in favor of something then I was against it. This concept has only been expanded to include almost all corporate interests.........Cam
LOCAL ISSUES
I agree with most of the posters here (ie not inventor or chris jones), but could you take this conversation over to Daily KOS or somewhere witha national focus?
Bring it back to our local Whole Foods store or drop it, please.
Jobs
While I agree, this is the wrong thread for the discussion as it's been threadjacked ... but I don't agree that it's not a local issue.Why?Blue Cross - Blue Shield is Orange County's 4th largest employer, with about 1600 workers. Many, perhaps most of these folks would be significantly displaced by a government takeover of their industry.Even if you don't care about these people or their jobs, you may still care about the ripple effect of those job losses in our community. OP is the only politically oriented blog I read. I think I'll stay here.
Conditions in the market place change
Inventor61 (whoever you are), as a libertarian, pro-market force guy, I'm sure you believe in letting market forces evolve the marketplace. This obviously entails some businesses going away while new ones rise to fill present needs. No need for your crocodile tears over the BCBS workers. Let them compete with a public option. Let them adapt. And - since the public option is so predicatbly a disaster - watch them prevail. If by some strange circumstances the public option shrinks their business a little, maybe some BCBS employees can get a job working for a real non-profit - the public program.
Carrboro resolution
In some unreported news from last week, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a health care reform resolution introduced by Aldermen Haven-O'Donnell and Gist. The resolution specifically mentions the public option for health insurance.
Pages