Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey is a libertarian who published an essay in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week advocating his own views about health care. And now some of his liberal customers are so OUTRAGED by Mackey's unshirted evil that they're vowing never, ever to shop at Whole Foods again. Excerpt:
"I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.'s CEO John Mackey's views on health care reform, which were made public this week in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Wall Street Journal.
Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.
"I'm boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care," said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods "several times a week."
Behold, this is how Mackey's unspeakably blackhearted op-ed began:
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.While we clearly need health-care reform, 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. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
That's it. That's why some longtime Whole Foods customers are refusing to shop at the store anymore -- this, despite all the good things WF has done and does do in areas these people care about. Unbelievable. I can understand why somebody would disagree with Mackey, but to take such a maximalist point of view on this issue, and to turn your back on a store that presumably has been a good friend to you and to the agricultural and environmental causes you care about? Good grief. I'm not sure where I come down on the health care reform debate, but I welcome people like Mackey -- CEOs who run businesses that provide health care -- offering their creative thinking to the discussion. This is yet another depressing example of how difficult it is for people in this country to go off the reservation and think creatively about politics, economics and culture without having their tribe come down on them like a ton of bricks. Do you really think this is the way to spur creative thinking and innovation?
I don't spend a lot of money at Whole Foods, but I am definitely going to go by and purchase some groceries this weekend, and tell them I'm doing it to counter the boycott.
And the boycotters have stirred up my libertarian friend Trey Garrison, too. He writes on his blog:
Suck it, hippies and nationalized healthcare nerds. I'm about to make Whole Foods my exclusive grocery store even though I can't stand organic foods.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
John E.- Sure if the voters were willing to go to town hall meetings and raise hell for the rest of their lives. Oh, and endure being called stupid, ignorant, silly, etc. etc. for daring to offer a dissenting opinion.
TO: iew and JohnE
There is a legitimate need for tort reform, and it is NOT what the most flagrant abusers of the public call for, to protect them from what really are their just deserts. How about this as an alternative:
Limit most malpractice claims to actual costs incurred by the patient, plus reasonable attorney's fees (since otherwise one third of costs actually paid would go to the attorney, leaving the patient out of pocket). Make people whole, but no bonanza of free money to spend on whatever.
Then, for egregious cases of gross negligence, wrapped up in all the legal language needed to define what that is, allow for punitive damages based on the income of the doctor and/or institution concerned. If it is punitive, they should pay it, not be indemnified by some insurance company, and it should be scaled to what hurts, but doesn't actually wipe them out. Prohibit insurance for punitive claims. Don't allow punitive damages to enrich the plaintiff enormously.
I think that strikes a good common-sense balance, and it would bring costs down a good deal.
Limit most malpractice claims to actual costs incurred by the patient, plus reasonable attorney's fees (since otherwise one third of costs actually paid would go to the attorney, leaving the patient out of pocket). Make people whole, but no bonanza of free money to spend on whatever.
So what's a dead patient worth? Only what it cost to kill him/her plus attorney's fees? Now that's real smart there...
What's the big deal Rod? You seem to assume that there are no other retail outlets for natural and organic food. Simply transferring my business to another store won't diminish support for green and sustainable agriculture. I shopped today at another natural foods grocery/coop and although it was a bit further away, I happily discovered that the prices at this new store were cheaper. Thank you, Mr. Mackey.
Sorry, but infantile libertarianism does not count as "creative thinking."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.