Holy war against Whole Foods
Image by That Other Paper via Flickr
A few months ago it was announced that Whole Foods was opening a store in South Burlington, Vermont. The Burlington area is, for those of you who have not lived there for years like I have, a hotbed of left wing politics and even lifestyles. One of the most popular lifestyles in Burlington is to be a localvore, an attempt to only eat foods grown nearby under environmentally sustainable practices.
Needless to say, a lot of people wrote into the local papers to complain that the last thing the Peoples’ Republic of the Greater Burlington Area needed was a chain store selling foods from who knows where at prices that will undermine local health food stores, food coops, and farmers markets.
And then, as if to prove that corporations really are bad, John Mackay, CEO of Whole Foods, launched a campaign this weekend against healthcare reform in the Wall Street Journal. According to Mackay’s op-ed,
We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health… We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.”
Now that Mackay has made his libertarian and perhaps even Darwinian views clear, people around the country and in the virtual world of Facebook are calling on responsible citizens to BOYCOTT WHOLE FOODS.
Russell Mokhiber: Boycott Whole Foods.
Mackay’s argument is familiar. I am visiting right now with my own conservative parents. They too wonder why people don’t do a better job taking care of themselves. After all, in their retirement, they go to the gym and work out with their trainer everyday. They go to an entire army of doctors to use the latest equipment to make sure their hearts are working, their skin has no growths on it that need to be taken care of, that their bones can hold up another ten years, another twenty even. They buy high quality foods at places like Whole Foods and have the most gorgeous kitchen with the most gorgeous view in the world in which meals are prepared. If they’re too tired to cook, they can go out to dinner. And yet, like Mackay, they think health care is not a human right (it’s not in the founding documents of this country) and ultimately the market is better able to provide it for everyone.
My parents are reasonable people. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say despite his pro-business, anti-labor policies, Mackay is a reasonable person. Both my parents and Mackay founded businesses based on some sense of providing needed goods in an environmentally sustainable fashion. Both my parents and Mackay worked incredibly hard to build their businesses over the course of many years. Being reasonable people, it is not impossible that they could be convinced of some basic truths: like a for-profit system will produce profit over health care and that yes, actually, health care and other basic needs, like food and shelter and education ARE human rights. That’s the definition of human rights: freedom from violence and having basic human needs met.
But how to convince reasonable business owners that we’re not trying to scam them by making sure that everybody goes to the doctor and the dentist when they need to? Perhaps the best way would be to start a citizen’s exchange,where the privileged trade their lovely and very nearly perfect lives for a week among the working uninsured. My neighbor is one such person, a middle-aged woman who works a variety of jobs, grows a lot of her own food, and has lived without health insurance most of her adult life. She also just found out that she has diabetes. My parents and Mackay might say “ah ha, she didn’t take care of herself,” but it’s not true. She’s thin and exercises a lot and eats locally. Illness happens, even to the righteous. Oh, and now that she has a pre-existing condition, she’s uninsurable except by a state-based program for working and poor Vermonters.
This is exactly the kind of program that Mackay and my parents oppose. The market can take care of her… except the market would refuse her since profit-driven insurance wants profit and therefore excludes the sick (which is, of course, exactly who needs insurance most). I think my parents and Mackay should come live in my house for a while. The view is of a parking lot and the kitchen can only be described as crappy. There aren’t personal trainers and an army of doctors in my address book, but I’m sure they can find them, with their primo private insurance. In my neighborhood, they can get to know some of the 46 million uninsured, not to mention many people who benefit from federal insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
The only question that will remain for them is whether or not to shop at the new Whole Foods or boycott it for local farmers’ markets and food coops.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Another thing being lost without giving the nation’s citizens affordable healthcare is the ability for spontaneous entrepreneurship and job mobility. People stay in the jobs they are instead of exploring new careers where they can shine and help companies reach new high, or refuse to start their own business, because they’re afraid of losing good coverage.
If you’re a wise business owner, you’d be in favor of streamlining and drastically improving healthcare in the U.S. You’ll end up with a smaller bill and a more mobile, dynamic labor market. I mean really, if you’re ready to rally in defense of the free market, why advocate restrictions on it?
I think that Laurie’s article is missing two key points for discussion:
1) What is the solution that Laurie supports? (and, perhaps, why)
2) What is the evidence in Mackey’s article that supports Laurie’s premiss?
I also must wonder, while researching the topic for her article, did Laurie read this: http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/
This is Mackey’s re-publishing of his text prior to editing by the Wall Street Journal, with a bit of explanation as an intro. He also invites comment.
In Mackey’s writing he shares eight proposals to provide health insurance improvements. In those eight proposals he shares specifics that are clearly guided by experience and reaction to the current insurance crisis.
In short, he wants reform and improvement. In his article he explains how to achieve improvement. In his article he is specific and, clearly, concerned for the health protection of Americans – especially employees of Whole Foods.
Exactly where, in these eight points, does Laurie find disagreement?
Mackey does explain how his company takes care of his employees, even those with fewer than full-time hours. That is fabulous. If we boycott Whole Foods, we could force the unemployment of their staff. Then those individuals will lose their health insurance. Explain how that helps?
Again I ask, what, exactly does Laurie propose as a better solution?
Obviously this is a side note, but…
“Now that Mackay has made his libertarian and perhaps even Darwinian views clear”
I never quite understand this conflation of Darwinism with the right-wing’s ’survival of the fittest’ economics. Darwin was talking about evolutionary process not how society should actually function. There are plenty of left-wing Darwinists from Peter Kropotkin onwards to Peter Singer today believe in concepts of mutual aid.
Furthermore if one considers gene theory, then survival of the fittest merely comes down to genes, and best way for gene survival might very well be that of mutual aid/cooperation.
Mackey is about limited government, economic choice, and individual responsibility. All very constitutional attributes and, in the abstract, unarguably admirable. Setting values aside a moment (such as some people feel access to health care should be an alienable right as a citizen, as much a right as clear air and clean water; while others, like Mackey, feel access to health care is a personal choice and shouldn’t be mandated by government or be a private business obligation). I found a TV interview between Bill Moyers with Wendell Potter interesting. Wendell Potter is a former SVP of Corporate Communications for 20 years at Cigna. He is now considered an industry whistle blower, the Jeffery Wigand of the health care insurance industry: Here’s the link:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
See, this is why I should always read my True/Slant before I go out and buy anything, like the organic fruit I picked up at Whole Foods today. Damn them! Mackey even starts his column with a quote from MARGARET THATCHER about SOCIALISM. What a cockroach. It’s always been obvious that Whole Foods doesn’t care about health or about people, it’s just really good at selling things to people who care about health. But this is too much. The fangs are showing through the lamb’s clothing. The very sad part is: Whole Foods’ arrival on the South Side of Chicago made a significant impact on the area’s diet. Now we have to go back to polish sossages until they boot Mackey’s ass out of those silently gliding glass doors.
Laurie,
Your idea of a life exchange is one I find quite appealing. I would happily trade my life with some snobbish peer who lives in a nice neighborhood, with a nice car, etc. Nice life. But then amazingly, I would come back. That’s not who I am, or who I want to be right now. Back to point though, there are actually “poverty simulations” I know exist. When I say “poverty” I mean below the poverty line. Shacks, no cars, etc. It takes about 3 hours. I would prefer something much more immersion, like a week. Brilliant chance to see how the rest live, a perspective I find missing so often.
Why would anyone expect Mackey to support conventional government health care which has repeatedly tried to put him out of business and shut down the organic and health food industry?
It seems folks are really missing the boat on this one.
Another reason for me to avoid Whole Foods.
The first was Mackay’s nasty blog war against Wild Oats. My brother worked for that company, but left after the Whole Foods takeover. His complaint was that Whole Foods was only interested in the bottom line – this from a man who has run his own business for more than 20 years, and was an accountant before becoming self-employed.
Is it possible your parents don’t come over because you’re a whiner?
Wow, great comeback. Calling me a whiner. Brilliant, really. I guess you have no actual argument against access to health care so making nasty personal comments is the best you can do? Maybe your time would be better spent coming up with a counter argument, not a snipe?
In response to another comment. See in context »So many great comments. I forgot about that nasty Wild Oats blog, but now I remember that whole thing was pretty shady. And of course it creates a dilemma for people who want to use our purchasing dollars in responsible ways- I suppose like American Apparel clothing- union busting, “barely legal” teen porn site supporting, and yet, pay a livable wage and have environmentally sustainable practices. It’s not just the omnivore’s dilemma, but the shopper’s as well.
Ms. Essig,
I still don’t understand why you support health insurance, and not generally access to health care. Why should one need to have insurance to have access to health care?
Here a video by John Stossel about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&feature=related
I’m specifically referring to the interview with Dr. Barry, who refuses to take insurance, saves his patients money, and still is profitable.
I haven’t heard anyone address the inflation created by the federal reserve, which is relevant because it pushes prices up while the wages for the poor stay stagnant (and in real terms decline) pricing out poor people from access to a number of things, including healthcare.
Also, what if a govenrment-option is managed by unethical people? Would it still be better for the less fortunate person? Does it really matter whether its a for-profit? Or is access to healthcare for everyone provided by ethical people, regardless of the organizational structure, the key to success?
In response to another comment. See in context »