TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Whole Foods
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whole Foods

post #1 of 63
8/20/09 at 1:37pm
Thread Starter 
Whole Foods is a great employer, 50,000 employees that are treated good and have good health care benefits.

The owner of Whole Foods, John Mackey, is not in favor of the Health Care Bill and has voiced his opinion (I know, I know, terrible crime) and wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal with some suggestions of how to improve our existing sytem.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Quote:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
There are more suggestions if you read the link.

So, now, the Left is hopping mad at John Mackey for having the audacity to be against Barack's health care bill. So the Left is calling for a boycott against Whole Foods.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14591/...th-care-reform

Quote:
Not very smart for a company that depends almost entirely on wealthy Democrats who are willing to pay five dollars for a six ounce carrot soda. Come on, you can do it, boycott them for at least a week and discover how much money you can save at Trader Joe's.
There is even a Facebook group pushing for a boycott.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119099537379

That is how stupid some of this far left people are. Oh yeah, let's boycott Whole Foods and put another 50,000 people out of work and on the unemployment rolls. What the heck is wrong with them? Whole Foods employees have is made.

And to top it ALL off, the owner of Whole Foods, John Mackey, takes no pay, he takes $1.00 per year. All the money Whole Foods makes goes back to the company and the employees.

So, let's just get out there and put that darn Whole Foods out of business.
Reply
post #2 of 63
8/20/09 at 1:59pm
Good for Whole Foods! And they didn't take any darned stimulus money either!
Reply
post #3 of 63
8/20/09 at 2:07pm
Quote:
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?
So much for his plan. One of the main objectives of reform is to provide coverage for the 47 million Americans who don't have it. He wants them covered by charitable donations?
Reply
post #4 of 63
8/20/09 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
So much for his plan. One of the main objectives of reform is to provide coverage for the 47 million Americans who don't have it. He wants them covered by charitable donations?
Well...I can see both sides there...on the one hand, if it could be done, it would be better than raising everyone's taxes because it would be paid for by people who decided that they can afford to. On the other hand, of course, it's hard to say if it would work.

Probably the most practical solution would be to try the charity option first, and if it works let it keep working, and if it doesn't work, give it a smaller role, which would allow it to at least reduce the cost of a healthcare system paid for by taxes. But I don't expect Congress to ask me what I think of it.
Reply
post #5 of 63
8/20/09 at 6:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
So much for his plan. One of the main objectives of reform is to provide coverage for the 47 million Americans who don't have it. He wants them covered by charitable donations?
But 25% of those without coverage are illegal aliens, Barack said that the Health Care plan wouldn't cover illegal aliens. You aren't saying that Barack is lying are you?
Reply
post #6 of 63
8/20/09 at 11:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
So much for his plan. One of the main objectives of reform is to provide coverage for the 47 million Americans who don't have it. He wants them covered by charitable donations?
We can debate Mackey's plan. But the larger issue is that liberals are calling for a boycott of a business simply because they don't like the CEO's opinion.

Just another fine example of the tolerant, open-minded, intellectually superior left. Their call for a boycott is a shameful, juvenile response to an American citizen exercising his right to free speech.
Reply
post #7 of 63
8/21/09 at 4:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
We can debate Mackey's plan. But the larger issue is that liberals are calling for a boycott of a business simply because they don't like the CEO's opinion.

Just another fine example of the tolerant, open-minded, intellectually superior left. Their call for a boycott is a shameful, juvenile response to an American citizen exercising his right to free speech.
I don't see what the issue is. Everyone has a right to free speech, even the boycotters, but that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences when you excercise it. It is a technique that is used by the "right" and the "left". It is no different than conservative right wing group that boycott business that support gay rights or gay rights activist that boycott business that don't. It is just a tool to get their message heard and the boycotters have every right to do that as did Mackey had to get his message heard. I am not sure why it is shameful or juvenile. Or should boycotting in general just not be allowed or only allowed if it matches a particular agenda.
Reply
post #8 of 63
8/21/09 at 5:08am
I am an occasional Whole Foods shopper, that said, it is unbelievably over-priced. Of course the CEO can afford health care benefits for his employees, the mark up is through the roof. No wonder the nick name for Whole Foods is WHOLE PAYCHECK!
Reply
post #9 of 63
8/21/09 at 6:53am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peachytoday View Post
I don't see what the issue is. Everyone has a right to free speech, even the boycotters, but that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences when you excercise it. It is a technique that is used by the "right" and the "left". It is no different than conservative right wing group that boycott business that support gay rights or gay rights activist that boycott business that don't. It is just a tool to get their message heard and the boycotters have every right to do that as did Mackey had to get his message heard. I am not sure why it is shameful or juvenile. Or should boycotting in general just not be allowed or only allowed if it matches a particular agenda.
What right wing groups are boycotting businesses that support gay rights?

Also, no one is disputing the fact that people have the right to boycott and no one thinks that boycotting should not be allowed, I sure Sue doesn't. It doesn't change the fact that 50,000 people are employed by Whole Foods and many on the Left think they should be put out of work and make 50,000 MORE people on unemployment and without health care coverage.

The issue, IMO, is because Mackey has different ideas about Health Care, many liberals want to put 50,000 people out of work. So nice of them.
Reply
post #10 of 63
8/21/09 at 6:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
We can debate Mackey's plan. But the larger issue is that liberals are calling for a boycott of a business simply because they don't like the CEO's opinion.

Just another fine example of the tolerant, open-minded, intellectually superior left. Their call for a boycott is a shameful, juvenile response to an American citizen exercising his right to free speech.
Great post!!!!
Reply
post #11 of 63
8/21/09 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What right wing groups are boycotting businesses that support gay rights?

The issue, IMO, is because Mackey has different ideas about Health Care, many liberals want to put 50,000 people out of work. So nice of them.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/17/news...ghts/index.htm

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/...ights-support/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383561,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/22/maga...ion=2007062211

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158232,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...rvatives_x.htm

I am sure I can find more examples of boycotts against companies that supported gay rights but I should think this should be enough.

How is this boycott for a week going to put 50,000 people out of work? I think that is an exaggeration.

The boycotters are trying to get thier point across. Free speech should go both ways not just for the person saying what you want to hear. At least I think it should.
Reply
post #12 of 63
8/21/09 at 7:27am
Didn't Rosa Parks, et al, BOYCOTT the buses due to the opinion of the law. Boycotting is a fine American tradition!
Reply
post #13 of 63
8/21/09 at 8:14am
Thread Starter 
I am ashamed of any so-called Christian groups that boycott companies that give gay people equal rights. It is a big source of contention for me.

I do not believe it is something Jesus would approve of.
Reply
post #14 of 63
8/21/09 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I am ashamed of any so-called Christian groups that boycott companies that give gay people equal rights. It is a big source of contention for me.

I do not believe it is something Jesus would approve of.
I agree. Not all "Christians" can be grouped together as united behind a particular issue. There are radicals within every group or religion. I think we all get a little miffed when someone we don't even know tries to put us in a box they have labled.
Reply
post #15 of 63
8/21/09 at 10:52am
Okay, so then what have we learned here today...

That we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about religions based on the behavior of radical, fringe groups...

AND

That we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about political parties/ideologies based on radical, fringe viral campaigns.

That about sums it up, eh? Group hug?
Reply
post #16 of 63
8/21/09 at 11:23am
What confuses me here is the reason for the boycott...


It makes sense to me to boycott a company whose policies you don't approve of - people who try not to support companies who use sweatshop labor, for instance (to try and pick a cause that most people would disapprove of :p). The goal then would be to try and get the company to change their policies and end sweatshop labor usage. The company then must choose between their customer base and their particular policy.

What exactly are people boycotting in this case? What policy do they not like of Whole Foods - the fact that they seem to treat their employees pretty well when it comes to healthcare? The fact that their CEO has different ideas on health care but takes care of his employees using his methods?

Maybe people think his ideas aren't practical or wouldn't work for a nationwide system, and that's their perogative...but what exactly is boycotting them supposed to do about it?

I'm just trying to figure out what people think will change, or even not change, by boycotting this company...
Reply
post #17 of 63
8/21/09 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I agree. Not all "Christians" can be grouped together as united behind a particular issue. There are radicals within every group or religion. I think we all get a little miffed when someone we don't even know tries to put us in a box they have labled.
I agree. Who is trying to put Christians in a box?
Reply
post #18 of 63
8/21/09 at 11:36am
of course, CEO of Whole Foods would not support the health care reform, he wants people to spend all their money on prevention, thus buying food from his chain of whole foods just so that their insurance company doesn't charge them extra for being obese or having high cholesterol like they like to do.Now, eating foods from whole foods isn't going to make one thin, but people aren't very bright...I know so many people eating their supposedly healthy foods thinking they are on a diet and proud of themselves, when it's the quantity that matters more not as much the quality.It costs $75 extra for my insurance if you are overweight, have high blood pressure or high cholesterol ..That's $75 added to the monthly premium...$25 more if you are a smoker.
Competition isn't going to solve the problem...there is competition in the auto insurance industry, and that doesn't mean they don't use every scientifically correct way or statistic they can to get more money- they use age, sex, how many tickets you have and apply price discrimination...
Reply
post #19 of 63
8/21/09 at 12:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
of course, CEO of Whole Foods would not support the health care reform, he wants people to spend all their money on prevention, thus buying food from his chain of whole foods just so that their insurance company doesn't charge them extra for being obese or having high cholesterol like they like to do.Now, eating foods from whole foods isn't going to make one thin, but people aren't very bright...I know so many people eating their supposedly healthy foods thinking they are on a diet and proud of themselves, when it's the quantity that matters more not as much the quality.It costs $75 extra for my insurance if you are overweight, have high blood pressure or high cholesterol ..That's $75 added to the monthly premium...$25 more if you are a smoker.
Competition isn't going to solve the problem...there is competition in the auto insurance industry, and that doesn't mean they don't use every scientifically correct way or statistic they can to get more money- they use age, sex, how many tickets you have and apply price discrimination...
John Mackey, owner of Whole Foods takes no pay, he gets $1.00 per year, all the profits go back to the company and the employees. So I don't think there is a personal "greed" motive going on.

Of course competition works. Car insurance companies compete and the way they compete is giving more bang for the buck. It is a well known fact that certain age groups and certain sexes get in more accidents and get more tickets. That isn't price discrimination, it is truth.
Reply
post #20 of 63
8/21/09 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

It is a well known fact that certain age groups and certain sexes get in more accidents and get more tickets. That isn't price discrimination, it is truth.
Oh yes just like it is a well known fact and "truth" that people who are obese in the long run need more money for health care because of chances of diabetes and heart disease...
That doesn't make it okay for insurance companies to use this information to prey on people's disadvantages...For car insurance, I'm willing to accept it as much as I don't like it. But health insurance is different, I don't think it's ethically correct for them to do it.

Quote:
Price discrimination exists when sales of identical goods or services are transacted at different prices from the same provider. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

Yes, it IS price discrimination. Even if they didn't use age or sex, if they simply used statistics of how many accidents you've been in to determine the price, it is still price discrimination.
Reply
post #21 of 63
8/21/09 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
John Mackey, owner of Whole Foods takes no pay, he gets $1.00 per year, all the profits go back to the company and the employees. So I don't think there is a personal "greed" motive going on.
John Mackey is a free market advocate. I am not sure why he takes a $1.00 pay but you can be darn sure that is not all he earns in a year. This is the same man who anonymously posted on a internet message board how a competitior, Wild Oats, was not doing any good and how Whole Foods was beating them. He did this because he was trying to take them over until the FTC had to step in. So I don't believe he is not a completely altruistic guy. For all I know he took a $1.00 PR salary to convince all those shoppers that he was just in it for the pureness of his products. And for all I know he may be altruistic. But it is safe to say he is not worried about his healthcare or mortgage.
Reply
post #22 of 63
8/21/09 at 1:24pm
At least Mackey is CEO who started his business from scratch (as opposed to some of these corporate bigwigs who run their mouths and went straight from an MBA degree to a Fortune 500 company), but I still don't agree with everything he says. A company his size can easily negotiate good deals with insurance providers so him crowing over what he offers Whole Foods employees doesn't impress me in the least. I'd like to see him start over now (instead of 1978) and see if he sings the same tune trying to offer benefits to 5-10 employees. Also his company is based in Texas - I'd like to hear what he would say if he were based in say Montana or Idaho.

It don't see the problem with high-deductible health insurance - those are easy to get.

The one thing he says that I'll go for is allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines. That would create competition in small states with few providers (who get away with raping the small businesses that are obliged to offer coverage to their employees but aren't big enough to negotiate their own terms the way big business does.)
Reply
post #23 of 63
8/21/09 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
At least Mackey is CEO who started his business from scratch (as opposed to some of these corporate bigwigs who run their mouths and went straight from an MBA degree to a Fortune 500 company), but I still don't agree with everything he says. A company his size can easily negotiate good deals with insurance providers so him crowing over what he offers Whole Foods employees doesn't impress me in the least. I'd like to see him start over now (instead of 1978) and see if he sings the same tune trying to offer benefits to 5-10 employees. Also his company is based in Texas - I'd like to hear what he would say if he were based in say Montana or Idaho.

It don't see the problem with high-deductible health insurance - those are easy to get.

The one thing he says that I'll go for is allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines. That would create competition in small states with few providers (who get away with raping the small businesses that are obliged to offer coverage to their employees but aren't big enough to negotiate their own terms the way big business does.)

well put... I have paid my own insurence for yrs .. The WHOLE thing and no I dont have near the coverage of any company with any employees
Reply
post #24 of 63
8/21/09 at 5:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
At least Mackey is CEO who started his business from scratch (as opposed to some of these corporate bigwigs who run their mouths and went straight from an MBA degree to a Fortune 500 company), but I still don't agree with everything he says. A company his size can easily negotiate good deals with insurance providers so him crowing over what he offers Whole Foods employees doesn't impress me in the least. I'd like to see him start over now (instead of 1978) and see if he sings the same tune trying to offer benefits to 5-10 employees. Also his company is based in Texas - I'd like to hear what he would say if he were based in say Montana or Idaho.

It don't see the problem with high-deductible health insurance - those are easy to get.

The one thing he says that I'll go for is allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines. That would create competition in small states with few providers (who get away with raping the small businesses that are obliged to offer coverage to their employees but aren't big enough to negotiate their own terms the way big business does.)
You make some good points 2dogmom.
Reply
post #25 of 63
8/23/09 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Oh yes just like it is a well known fact and "truth" that people who are obese in the long run need more money for health care because of chances of diabetes and heart disease...
That doesn't make it okay for insurance companies to use this information to prey on people's disadvantages...For car insurance, I'm willing to accept it as much as I don't like it. But health insurance is different, I don't think it's ethically correct for them to do it.
I'm on the fence about this (as a person with a weight issue myself). The fact is, if someone's treatment is going to cost more in the long term, there are three ways for an insurance company to deal with it and not go bankrupt: not take them at all (no coverage for the person), take them on and raise everyone's premium (which hardly seems fair to everyone else), or take them on at a higher price.

The compromise I can think of would be for the insurance company to let someone in at the regular or closer to regular price if they agreed to participate in some kind of program, probably put together by the company's medical advisors, to lower their risk factors. Kind of like how car insurance companies will lower the premiums for teenagers (a high-risk population) if they take driver's ed (a risk reduction program).
Reply
post #26 of 63
8/23/09 at 7:48pm
Well of course I would prefer for this whole private insurance system to be got rid of completely. I'd take the health care system of France or England ANY DAY. But- if we HAD to keep it, I'd honestly prefer for everyone's premiums to go up to make it equal for those who may be at a high risk of certain diseases such as those who have high cholesterol or high blood pressure. I don't believe in commodifying one's health. That screws with my personal ethics and morals.
I know they do programs like these at some insurance companies. I do not think it's a good solution. I don't think someone's health should be treated as if it's nothing but another statistic...
Reply
post #27 of 63
8/23/09 at 8:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Well of course I would prefer for this whole private insurance system to be got rid of completely. I'd take the health care system of France or England ANY DAY. But- if we HAD to keep it, I'd honestly prefer for everyone's premiums to go up to make it equal for those who may be at a high risk of certain diseases such as those who have high cholesterol or high blood pressure. I don't believe in commodifying one's health. That screws with my personal ethics and morals.
I know they do programs like these at some insurance companies. I do not think it's a good solution. I don't think someone's health should be treated as if it's nothing but another statistic...
For the life of me I cannot imagine WHY you want our health care to be like France or England. I can't think of anything worse.

You live in this country, you know the government fails at every level, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, The Postal System. They cannot even run a Cash for Clunkers program and you want them to run a government health care for 307 million people? I am speechless.

What makes you think our government can do such a think and not have it be a total travesty?
Reply
post #28 of 63
8/23/09 at 8:06pm
Thread Starter 
I saw your signature and went:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes View Post
I'm on the fence about this (as a person with a weight issue myself). The fact is, if someone's treatment is going to cost more in the long term, there are three ways for an insurance company to deal with it and not go bankrupt: not take them at all (no coverage for the person), take them on and raise everyone's premium (which hardly seems fair to everyone else), or take them on at a higher price.

The compromise I can think of would be for the insurance company to let someone in at the regular or closer to regular price if they agreed to participate in some kind of program, probably put together by the company's medical advisors, to lower their risk factors. Kind of like how car insurance companies will lower the premiums for teenagers (a high-risk population) if they take driver's ed (a risk reduction program).
Reply
post #29 of 63
8/23/09 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
But- if we HAD to keep it, I'd honestly prefer for everyone's premiums to go up to make it equal for those who may be at a high risk of certain diseases such as those who have high cholesterol or high blood pressure. I don't believe in commodifying one's health. That screws with my personal ethics and morals.
I can see it that way for stuff that turns out to be genetic, because there's nothing the person could do about it. It screws with my ethics and morals, though, for people to have to pay for the choices of others. Like, if someone doesn't bother to brush let alone floss, why should people who take care of themselves have to pay more for dental insurance to cover that person's choices?
Reply
post #30 of 63
8/23/09 at 8:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I saw your signature and went:
It seemed witty to me, and I too find Congress ridiculous...I've sat out a couple elections because, from the options I could see, it was that or write in my cats.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Whole Foods