TPMDC
« Conservatives Support Britain's Socialized Medicine, Blog On It (The British Conservatives, Anyway) | Home | TPMDC Saturday Roundup »

Lanny Davis: Whole Foods Dust Up An Example Of Extremes On Both Left And Right

Turns out Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who brought heat upon himself and his company yesterday by penning an anti-health care reform op-ed in the Wall Street Journal--has at least one familiar defender: Clinton special counsel, and Lieberman ally Lanny Davis.

"The John Mackey piece, which I actually helped him a little bit on, has really been distorted as often happened in the blogosphere where people have short attention span," Davis told me.

Davis represented Whole Foods in a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission, in which they charged that the upscale grocery store giant was engaging in monopolistic practices. Davis is a supporter of single payer health care, but, he says, disagreements with Mackey aside, Whole Foods is a progressive company that has instituted a strict cap on executive compensation and that provides 100 percent of their employees with health insurance. (Mackey says that Whole Foods covers 100 percent of premiums for 89 percent of all employees.)

Davis says the dust up over Mackey's op-ed is "an example of how we on the left start to mirror the extreme tactics on the right."

"He didn't attack Obama. It was an issues oriented piece."

In the wake of yesterday's controversial piece, health care reform supporters have threatened to boycott Whole Foods.


420 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Mackey doesn't want to be held responsible for his views, it is that simple. Let him find out what the cost of those views might be.

user-pic

I say we boycott Lanny too!

user-pic

Who asked this weasel?

Go away, Lanny, you slug.

He absolutely deserves to take flack for his *public lobbying* on this issue.

user-pic

"He didn't attack Obama. It was an issues oriented piece."

What's Obama have to do with it? He wrote an issues oriented piece and now it has triggered an issues oriented boycott.

user-pic

Bingo.

A lot of liberal and progressive people, upon hearing what the CEO of Whole Foods had to say, decided they didn't like it and some decided that maybe they don't want to further patronize Whole Foods.

It is actually an incredibly reasonable response and nothing at all like "mirroring" the right-wing.

What a jackass.

user-pic

This is not an issues oriented boycott. Mackey provides health care for his workers. Where is boycott of all the companies that don't?

This is another knee jerk reaction by the Looking Glass Left that will ensure this discussion remains polemic in nature and solves exactly nothing. Anyone who advocates for a boycott of Whole Foods from the left has surrendered all credibility on this issue because it is clear they have left no room for political compromise or debate in their tactics.

At least the single payer crowd way win the war, nothing being passed instead of real bipartisan reform - just like they demanded.

user-pic

I don't particularly care what Whole Foods does for their employees, as I never plan to work for such an asshole. Mackey is working to keep my health care broken. That's the issue--the nation's health care, not the health care of Whole Foods employees.

Hey, I don't support single-payer and I'm not all that insistent on a public plan. But I damn well insist on the consumer protections in the current plan--guaranteed issue, community rating, federal oversight of what's covered and what's not. If Mackey is using his megaphone to fight that and put me at risk, then I'm going to do whatever I can to reduce the number of dollars behind that megaphone. I'll shop locally and avoid overpriced industrial organic.

user-pic

The man puts forth a plan that looks to fix things from his perspective. It had some poor choice of wording but was hardly a polemic. Much of what he advocates is actually in the various bills under consideration.

Whole Foods is no more expensive than other national chains with significantly more value for the dollars spent. Shop where you want, but I am sure they won't really be missing the dollars you never spent there in the first place.

user-pic

I've been shopping at Whole Foods a lot over the last six months and really like the place, but I'm not sure which other "national chains" you're talking about. They don't call it "Whole Paycheck" for nothing -- the place is generally pretty expensive. Yes it's a result of their having higher-quality, smaller-batch, better-ingredient foods, but you tend to forget that as you walk out of there wondering how you were able to spend $120 so quickly.

user-pic

Again, I have shopped recently at both Safeway and Whole Foods and there is virtually no difference in our weekly food bills. We were shocked to find that out as well. "Whole Paycheck" is more clever, yet meaningless, catchphrases that aren't at all accurate. Kind of like Death Panels.

user-pic

Basically, everyone who has actually ever shopped at Whole Foods says one thing, jason everett miller says another.

user-pic

Except that not a single person posting here seems to currently shop at Whole Foods. Let's see the price comparisons. Let's see something than opinions masquerading as facts that come across as childish bullshit. Whole Paycheck indeed.

user-pic

I know jason everett miller doesn't care about the truth, so I'll just lay it out here so people can see that he hasn't actually read the op-ed he's working so hard to defend.

Here he claims that the op-ed favors "medical best practice boards" (so far, that's the only example of anything other than deregulation jason has pointed to in the original op-ed)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/lanny-davis-whole-foods-dust-up-an-example-of-extremes-on-both-left-and-right.php#comment-3562691

Now check out the op-ed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Nothing like that is in the article. Everything in that article is an argument for one of three things--HSAs, tort reform, or deregulation. Even his "Medicare reform" proposal seems to want to move it in a consumer-driven direction. jason keeps saying the op-ed said X or Y, but he never offers up any actual concrete examples of something offered up from the article other than HSAs, tort reform, or deregulation.

user-pic

Please, do go to the link where I supposedly say he favors medical practice boards. Actually, don't bother, I'll bring the quote to you.

A couple of his ideas for deregulation would actually make sense in the context of new regulations to keep the health insurers honest. Some of his "market-based" stuff could be very effective if combined with more liberal controls over what the private sector can and cannot do. The medical best practice boards will certainly pass because they are widely supported by industry groups.
Anyone see me saying Mackey is for the best practices panels? I said his ideas combined with more liberal measures may actually be effective.

I did say I see the panels making it into the final legislation and will be unlikely to face resistance because many industry groups think they would lead to lower costs. Lower costs are good, revenue positive and would supported by conservatives. That isn't a revolutionary idea despite the rhetoric about death panels. No moderate really believes that. If they say they do they are just pushing your buttons because liberals are easy that way.

Based on your continued inability to even have a rational and fact-based discussion on this with me, I am hardly surprised that this particular paragraph escaped your understanding.

user-pic

Excuse me, you said a couple of ideas that Mackey had. One idea was market-based deregulation. The other idea was medical best practices boards, which even now you deny are a liberal idea.

If you weren't claiming the medical best practice boards were in the op-ed, then where is the other idea? You've continually insisted that there were ideas in there other than HSAs, tort reform, and deregulation. But all you're giving me now was deregulation.

I thought before you were giving me medical best practices boards. That would be the plain meaning of your text, and it would answer the challenge I've repeatedly given you. But apparently you've given me nothing but deregulation.

So either I'm right about your post and the op-ed, or I'm just right about the op-ed and your post is just indecipherable.

Either way.

So, everyone, look at both those, and find me something other than deregulations, HSAs, and tort reform--other than medical best practices, which jason would like to retcon.

user-pic

His ideas needing liberal modification to be effective and industry support for the medical best practices boards are two different thoughts. Reading comprehension isn't your thing, huh?

user-pic

So you just never finished your first thought, and never offered me anything other than deregulation in his op-ed?

I admit, my ability to follow illogical utterances is limited.

user-pic

You are incapable of following anything, so I am done explaining it to you. Check out my next blog and we can discuss it further there.

user-pic

I will not be checking out your blog. This is all the proof we need that you're an idiot. You repeatedly claimed the op-ed was more than deregulation. But you haven't offered anything but that in its defense. Ever. In ALL these posts you've made. Not once.

You're a troll and I'm sorry I fed you.

user-pic

I actually never claimed that. You have yet to provide a quote where I have said the things you seem to have read.

I explained that some of the deregulation he talks about might actually work in a positive fashion if combined with more liberal countermeasures such as the ones currently under consideration. I said if liberals explained some the actual legislation better it might provide answers to moderates who might agree with his sentiments.

It was a nuanced and complex argument that you are still trying to simplify beyond recognition.

user-pic

The proof is to walk into Whole Foods, and look at the prices. That's all you have to do to see jason is wrong.

I'm not sure why one should even bother argue this, because even those who shop at Whole Foods say it's expensive.

You've repeatedly proven that you don't care about facts.

user-pic

Again, the actual proof is the shop at Safeway today and then go to a Whole Foods in the same town and get as close to the same shopping list as possible. I say as close as possible because it is impossible to get most of the items at Whole Foods anywhere else but specialty stores which are often more expensive.

user-pic

yes, please do this to see who is lying.

user-pic

Lying? More combative language. You are calling me a liar for discovering that our food dollar went just about as far at "Whole Paycheck" as it does at Safeway.

Is my super-duper liberal wife a liar as well because she was the one who pointed it out to me. I wouldn't have a clue as I don't touch our checkbook. I just contribute as much as possible and keep the deductions to a minimum.

You continue to use tactics that in direct opposition to your stated goals. Sad.

user-pic

Anyone can do the experiment and see you're a liar.

You're already lying about the op-ed.

user-pic

Word.

user-pic

My family has shopped at Whole Foods on a weekly basis for years here in the San Fernando Valley. We have also shopped regularly at Trader Joe's and Ralph's. I can state unequivocally, having comparison shopped specific products, that Whole Foods is significantly more expensive on everyday items like butter, bread, and milk. They have very nice quality products, and their produce is often the best of the bunch, but they are definitely more expensive than your average chain supermarket, and a LOT more expensive than Trader Joe's. In any case, my family will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods until Mackey is no longer CEO. Why pay more to enrich someone who publicly states there's no right to health care?

user-pic

Trader Joe's is NOT any less expensive that Whole Foods, though Safeway fn Ralph's obviously are.

I will agree that some of the "basics" are more expensive, but there is simply no comparison between milk from grass-fed cows and that from the factory farms.

You are comparing oranges and orangutans.

user-pic
Trader Joe's is NOT any less expensive tha[n] Whole Foods,
Not entirely true.
user-pic

Saving a dollar ninety on a hundred dollar grocery bill does not qualify as "less expensive" in my book.

user-pic

I'll bet JEM hearts Joe Lieberman too. Davis is neocon scum. Mackey bought himself a mouthpiece with no compunctions whatsoever. Disgusting.

user-pic

Yes, your comments are disgusting.

user-pic

If you have any friends they may want to check this out:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2081553_rescue-friend-from-religious-cult.html

Either that or let us in on how to get on the Whole Paycheck welfare gravy train.

user-pic

Yeah, shopping for food that doesn't kill me is exactly like joing a cult. Are you guys serious with this shit or is it your intention to make moderate liberals look bad?

user-pic

You are self identifying Republican which, if you haven't checked lately, is filled with ignorant reactionaries. You defend WF like many Apple fanatics claim allegiance to a corporation. You don't present yourself as intellectually independant or thoughtful.

user-pic

Hmmm, so you read my party affiliation and the fact that I have had good experience at WF that are counter to ever other single comment on this blog (except for the ones that are from other Whole Foods shoppers) and I am the one in a cult?

Perhaps you might take a look in the mirror sometime, because the feeding frenzy that liberals get over the slightest provocation is exactly what we have been seeing from the Rapture Right all these years.

You have become that which you hate and it will cause you guys to fail at all the very important things we have to accomplish over Obama's terms. Why don't you read even one or two of my blogs before casting "aspersions" about being some sort of typical republican. It just makes you look ignorant and uninformed.

user-pic

Compromise? The problem with Mackey's suggestions is that they amount to less than nothing. He might have some good ideas for how large corporations could potentially take care of their employees, but his column is about public policy and his suggestions don't simply ignore the fundamental problems driving health care reform – if enacted they would actually exacerbate these problems.

user-pic

Even for all that, the guy is still entitled to have an opinion that has nothing to do with his day job. The reaction to his opinions have been much more extreme than the ideas themselves which are fairly pedestrian but hardly fanatical.

user-pic

I'm entitled to make purchases according to my opinion. Is not the whole point of Whole Foods to affect change by our purchasing decisions, to vote with our dollars, so to speak?

user-pic

I never said didn't have that right, but since you don't shop there anyway, I have the right to think your opinion is immaterial.

user-pic

I'm glad you've changed your mind and decided that I have the right to make my own purchasing decisions without being labeled an extremist. This, of course, contradicts about 2/3 of your posts in this thread.

Thank you.

user-pic

Provide a single link to a single quote where I said you didn't have a right to your opinion.

I objected to many misleading comments about Whole Foods stores themselves but never once implied you didn't have the right to do whatever fool thing you want to do. Eat all the commercial poison you want.

Again, you clearly have some sort of an agenda or woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

user-pic

That would be this one, and many others

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/lanny-davis-whole-foods-dust-up-an-example-of-extremes-on-both-left-and-right.php#comment-3562887

"nothing to do with his day job". Well I'm entitled to make it have something to do with his day job, since he made his day job a focus of his propaganda.

user-pic

You seem really have a problem with words. Even the small ones.

I never said [you] didn't have that right, but since you don't shop there anyway, I have the right to think your opinion is immaterial.
Saying I think your opinion is immaterial and saying you don't have a right to that opinion are two totally different things. I am actually becoming more stunned with each additional comment you make.

user-pic

The post I linked to was one the one two posts above that one.

user-pic

OK. Let's check that one then.

Even for all that, the guy is still entitled to have an opinion that has nothing to do with his day job. The reaction to his opinions have been much more extreme than the ideas themselves which are fairly pedestrian but hardly fanatical.
Still not seeing where I said you don't have a right to voice extreme opinions about predictable op-ed pieces from the right.

user-pic

How am I supposed to make a boycott if my boycott isn't allowed to affect his day job? That's kind of the point, no?

You several times denied me the right to make a boycott, or claimed that boycotts were extremist.

user-pic

No, I said a boycott is an extreme reaction to a fairly pedestrian op-ed. At any rate, you don't even shop there so a boycott is meaningless.

user-pic

Well, everyone can read the op-ed themselves and see how radical and incoherent it was, so I guess that's that.

user-pic

I just want to thank you again for admitting that it's perfectly right and proper to boycott according to my own opinions. This, of course, negates every claim that Mackey has some right to have his business insulated from boycotts, or that people boycotting are extremists.

user-pic

Again, never said you didn't have that right. See the comment up above this one. Partisan blinders keep all kinds of things out of proper focus.

user-pic

Again, thank you for disowning the majority of your posts.

user-pic

Again, supply a single link.

user-pic

Already did.

See your other posts in this thread for more.

user-pic

God, this whole thread--and the ones that follow later on--is absolutely hilarious! This jason everett miller guy had me in stitches. I hardly ever post on TPM, but this guy really deserves SOME sort of recognition. Troll of the Month? Troll of the Year?

I'm sort of surprised that the other posters have wasted so much time with him.

user-pic

You have yet to post a single comment or blog except for this one and you call me a troll? You must not understand what the word means as your profile and lack of history at the site actually fits the description much better.

user-pic

Not surprising. This is how DC works - of course Lanny's opinions will always just happen to coincide with his paychecks. His heterogeneous list of clients definitely makes his ideological position unique around Washington. Unfortunately, it doesn't make it any less worthless.

user-pic

"His opinions coincide with his paychecks."

Good point that sums up the entire political drama unfolding before us.

"His opinions coincide with his paychecks."

"His vote coincides with his corporate campaign contributions."

We should have "in the interest of full disclosure" statements made before anyone is interviewed.

Before you read or listen to anyone on any issue, find out who is fattening their wallets.

user-pic

Lanny Davis is an embarrassment and has been since he was pimping for the Clintons. To describe himself as being of the left is an insult to any real progressive! If the media would just ignore this slimeball maybe he will just curl up and disappear.

user-pic

Oh, well that changes everything. If Lanny Davis had a hand in it, and is on the WFMI teat, that totally makes me want to shop there again.

user-pic

Lanny Davis is, was, and always will be an asshat.

user-pic

And an ass-clown as well.

Whatever the heck that means. I can't define it, but I know one when I see one.

user-pic

"WE on the left."

Does Lanny Davis actually think he's fooling someone with his claims of being "on the left"? Sheez. What a douchebag!

user-pic

We on the Left, such as Interim de Facto President of Honduras Roberto Micheletti.

user-pic

The really funny part is how "we on the left" implies that he has a single, solitary principle he wouldn't eagerly pimp out for the change in a non-smoker's ashtray.

user-pic

Uh, Lanny --

High-deductible insurance is not the solution to the problem, it IS a big part of the problem.

Someone who spews this - I'll boycott him if I choose. I could care less whether he attacked Obama or not. That isn't the point at all.

user-pic

My HSA insurance, with a $5,000 deductible, costs just as much as my traditional policy with a $1,000 deductible did 3 years ago. Since my wife and kid easily run through $3-4,000 of the deductible, the HSA is costing me several thousand dollars more per year than the traditional policy did.

On the other hand, the traditional policy would cost that much more this year too. And they both will increase at the same percentage until 3 years out from now, unless the government steps in. An HSA, in other words, while it provides a bit more flexibility and some small tax advantages, does nothing to reduce the health-care budget of a family.

user-pic

My wife's nonprofit looked at whole foods' health plan before constructing their own. I'm not sure if WF does this, but her company contributes $3000 to her HSA, which addresses the main drawback of such a plan, the high deductible. She's playing with their money until she reaches the deductible, and the hospital covers everything beyond that. (Unfortunately we've had to learn all about the plan this year. Fortunately, it's been great and has made an expensive medical year very cheap.) I suspect whole foods does the same.

user-pic

While the non-profit your wife works at may get offset the cost of the high-deductible, Whole Foods does not.

They provide $300 - $1800 in a "personal wellness account."

The amount they contribute depends on years of service, so it could take you quite a while until you make the top level and even then that amount doesn't cover the full amount of the $2500 deductible of their health care plan.

Additionally that money is NOT going into an HSA or Flexible Spending account so would be perfectly taxable.

Do you need vision or dental care? Got to contribute to the cost of coverage.

Got a dependent or two? Got to contribute to the cost of coverage.

So John Mackey's description of Whole Food's healtch care plan is more than a bit disingenous.

However working at Whole Foods in Canada & the U.K. might not be so bad. Looking at their benefits packages it's clear that the governments of those countries not only provide a lot of basic coverage (thereby saving John Mackey the trouble and dollars of doing so), they seem to require companies that provide supplemental plans to meet some pretty basic standards.

user-pic

The HSA and High-Deductible plans are not the only part of the plan Mackey outlined and most of his suggestions are unlikely to be what the final bill looks like.

I still don't think that means that someone who has a difference of opinion on how to fix the problem should be castigate and run out of the village for having a different opinion than the liberal left.

I also think this is the biggest mistake they continue to make with regards to health care reform. All or Nothing ultimatums in America tend to lead to nothing.

user-pic

The sum total of Mackey's proposals were HSAs, tort reform, and deregulation.

user-pic

Not true. Did you actually read the piece or stop when he said something you didn't agree with?

user-pic

Or course, I read it. You don't appear to have or else you are unable to view opinions that are contrary to your own with an objective eye. I don't agree with most of what he wrote, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to do so. The reactions to his words are far more extreme than anything he actually wrote.

user-pic

If you actually read it, then some time in the last 180 posts or so you would have offered something from the op-ed that contradicts my characterization of it.

I think you better read it now.

user-pic

Your "characterization" of it is precisely my point. Different people will see it different ways. I don't agree with a single thing the guy wrote, but he has a right to say it without derision and belittlement as the response. Suppose there are others here who thought he made good points?

Do you think calling him a fanatic and extreme right is the best way to change those minds?

Liberals will have to offer counter solutions to get those votes. In fact, there is much in the current legislation that would be perfect to do just that. But instead you think ridicule and lecturing will garner moderate support instead of pissing most of them off to the point that they tune out because we all have insurance.

user-pic

Oh, so now you no longer claim that I'm factually wrong about anything he said, only that my "characterization" was flawed.

I don't ridicule everyone on the other side, but I'm not going to give them money.

I DO ridicule you, because you're exceptionally obtuse, whatever your faction happens to be.

user-pic

Word.

user-pic

I love how "Word" means "I admit my previous post was wrong", because that's the only thing you could mean by linking to posts that I've refuted.

user-pic

Actually, it is my last word on the subject for the allusion challenged.

user-pic

Oh, well.

Still waiting for you to point out something to negate this: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/lanny-davis-whole-foods-dust-up-an-example-of-extremes-on-both-left-and-right.php#comment-3562655


"The sum total of Mackey's proposals were HSAs, tort reform, and deregulation."

You said

"Not true"

then later I said

"You repeatedly claimed the op-ed was more than deregulation."

You immediately replied

"I actually never claimed that. You have yet to provide a quote where I have said the things you seem to have read. "

I'm not sure how any challenge can be better met.


user-pic

I said it wasn't true that was the sum total of his suggestions. He spoke of perhaps three or four other points besides the ones you mentioned. You should really check into a basic skills class on reading comprehension.

user-pic

You either claimed he made points other than deregulation, or you didn't.

In fact, all of his points were expansions on HSAs, tort reform, and deregulation.

Of the eight proposed reforms, the first two were targeted at HSAs, the second two were deregulations, then one on tort reform, another on HSAs, and a vague hint that Medicare should be more HSA-ish.

A tax cut for charitable donations was the closest he came to not being standard boiler-plate right-wing-ism.

user-pic

One is different than none.

user-pic

A tax cut is still deregulation.

So you're right, one is different from none and he offered none.

But I'm glad you admit that that's all he offered. It's incredible how much you posted without mentioning anything from the original op-ed. You've got issues. Reading would solve them.

user-pic

He offered one you thought might be worthy of discussion. That is not the same as none. Do you even read this shit before you post.

user-pic

I never said he offered nothing worthy of discussion (scattered here and there amongst a pile of misinformation and propaganda).

But YOU claimed he offered something other than deregulation.

Do you even read your own posts as you type them?

user-pic
user-pic
user-pic

This just points out that Lanny is an idiot. What consultant in his right mind would let a client whose lively hood depends on the good will of his somewhat liberal customer base to wade into this debate no matter what his position. I didn't think much Lanny's smarts before think less of them now.

user-pic

"lively hood"

Um......

So you're talking abut a busy part of South central L.A.?

Pretty sure you meant 'livelihood'.

Best to not question other people's intelligence after falling a wee bit short in displaying your own.

:D :D :D

user-pic
"So you're talking abut a busy part of South central L.A.?
"abut"?
... Best to not question other people's intelligence after falling a wee bit short in displaying your own."
That's a good idea.

user-pic

And Lanny who said anything about him attacking Obama. Talk about getting it wrong.

user-pic

When Lanny Davis is quoted talking about "we on the left" I have to do a double take.

Whatever his personal political viewpoints, Davis has long since shown his willingness to sell his soul to any corporate or foreign interest willing to play the price, to mouth off right wing talking points if it serves his clients, and otherwise largely devoid of any credibility.

Someone who is paid to show up with the Honduran coup leader Roberto Micheletti at the failed negotiations to return the elected president to power hardly can be characterized as being on the left.

Representing the government of Pakistan for many years of illegal military rule is not exactly "left".

Going on television and advocating for the corporate sponsored "compromise" position on the Employee Free Choice Act (one of the corporate sponsors being Whole Foods - surprise!) is hardly a "left" position.

People on the "left" don't defend Fox News by claiming of their 2008 election coverage "“Fox, no matter how much you might criticize an ideological bent, in this campaign, they have been religiously middle-of-the-road, point-counterpoint." Any coincidence that Lanny Davis signed on to work as a Fox contributor as soon as Hillary Clinton's primary campaign was over?

Is defending Trent Lott's racist comment about electing Strom Thurmond as President something someone on the "left" would do?

And last I heard, people on the "left" didn't campaign vigorously for Joe Lieberman, even after he lost the primary to a real Democrat and ran as a Republican-backed independent.
When your willingness to advocate whatever viewpoint is up for sale to the highest bidder, you no longer can claim to have any political convictions on the left or right.

Lanny Davis is a lot of things - a bottom-feeder, a whore, a Washington insider defending the K Street elites, an opportunist, and a buffon -- but is is not "on the left."


user-pic

Sorry Lanny, when you write things sometimes you get a bit a backlash. Doesn't this dude know who his constituents are, the folks who shop at Whole Foods are the most liberal! So your buddy can suck it, that is the price you pay when you offer your opinion unsolicited. It still is weird he doesn't seem to know the folks shopping in that market. What a lunkhead.

user-pic

Thank you.

How would the right respond if the president of NASCAR wrote a prochoice op-ed? Or if John Deere came out in favor of gay marriage? Or if a country group criticized Bush and the Iraq war? (Oops, think we might have tried that one already.)

People were threatening to boycott budweiser because it was bought by a European country and that's fine. But a boycott of Whole Foods because Mackey comes out against health care reform is inappropriate? Are the causes of the left too nuanced, is that the problem here?

My question though, why is The Wall Street Journal publishing Mackey's opinions on health care reform? Is there a shortage of medical professionals and economists with an opinion on the subject? It seems to me like the editors picked somebody who they felt would have sway over the left but opposed reform, so he got a spot.

The WSJ should restrict Mackey to writing about organic food and make George Will stick to baseball.

(Oh, Mackey claims to work for a dollar but made $2.7 last year and claims to be vegan but eats eggs. The man seems confused.)

user-pic

What a surprise? Canny Davis has his finger in more black bird pies than anyone since the days of Vernon Jordan!

user-pic

In reading the op-ed in detail, one can see why the Wall Street Journal was happy to publish it. Pretty much the same as (intelligent) Republican talking points: change tax policy, "reform" medicare, voluntary donation checkoff on income tax forms, rein in those evil trial lawyers . . . nothing new, and certainly no support for what most Whole Foods support--a single-payer plan--or what is still (barely) on the table--a public plan.

Lanny can bleat about "distortion" all he wants, but when you spew out a bunch of right-wing talking points--or at least the talking-points they used before they went completely bat-shit insane--your progressive customers are going to skewer you. Welcome to the world.

user-pic

There is nothing progressive about skewering Whole Foods over the opinions of its CEO and hurting local growers and independent food producers, many of whom rely on the chain as the primary method of distribution.

user-pic

many of whom rely on the chain as the primary method of distribution.

Only because, by shopping at the chain, you force them to.

user-pic

Whole Foods is the only national chain that carries their products and advocates for the type of paradigm shift that would see their products on every shelf in America. You really have very little understanding of the food distribution system in this country.

user-pic

A boycott of a company that is trying to change the way America eats as well as their expectations of what they want from their grocery store is liberal opposite of the death panel nonsense and really is biting off your nose to spite your face. It is also further evidence that some on the left would rather have a brawl rather than have a substantive debate.

A boycott of a company that is working to deny my health care, as Mackey factually is, is perfectly reasonable. To do otherwise because you really like their granola or whatever is absurd.

Issues matter. People are going to live and die based on the results of this argument. If someone is using their megaphone to spread nonsense, I don't want to support. I'm not going to silence them, but I'm not going to support them.

Nobody said Mackey was extreme right. You're reaching fractal wrongness territory--you're unable to read and understand what Mackey, McCain, the current bill, or commenters on this blog are saying. You go through the motions pretending that you're reading them, but here especially you're demonstrating that you're not really arguing with us, you're arguing with some gun toting, conservative pummeling liberals in your head.

user-pic

I know exactly what you are saying as it is shrill and not in keeping with the actual facts.

Boycott whomever you want. I will continue to support a company that has a much broader vision than this one narrow debate and I will allow their CEO to have a different opinion than my own without stooping to punish their entire supply chain.

I am taking a centrist path and you are following the path of the extremist, that very creature you seek to destroy. Again, the irony would be delicious if it wasn't so tragic.

user-pic

If you think refusing to give money to someone who spending their money to deprive me of health coverage is just as extreme as gun toting and pummeling, then it's not I that has the extremism problem.

user-pic

He isn't spend his money to deprive you of anything. That is more hyperbole.

user-pic

He is using his status as CEO of Whole Foods to deprive me of regulated heath insurance. If this were not the case, there would be no objection to my refusing to shop at Whole Foods.

user-pic

He is using an op-ed to contribute his ideas on what effective health reform would look like and happens to be the CEO of a name-brand company. Your view of his piece isn't the only possible interpretation.

user-pic

Right, he's using his status as a CEO, without which no one would care about his incoherent ideas, to deprive me of health care.

user-pic

How exactly does his op-ed deprive you of health care?

user-pic

Through policy change.

user-pic

Nothing in his proposals is actually under consideration in Congress. The Sphinx has nothing on you.

user-pic

That's right, because why he's trying to stop what's in Congress with his op-ed.

user-pic

He's trying to stop Congress with this op-ed? You really have no idea what you are talking about.

user-pic

Do you WORK for Whole Foods and/or are you part of their PR team, 'cause all you've got to say is how superwonderful they are.

user-pic

Nice to see paranoia is as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. We're sure to get a whole lot accomplished as a result.

user-pic

Well, not that its relevant, but Lanny is also wrong about the Op-Ed not being an attack on Obama--the op-ed's title specifically targets what it calls "Obamacare". How is that not an attack on the President?

user-pic

Exactly right. Also, it was a totally vacuous piece that did nothing by repeat wing-nut talking points while never addressing health-care inflation. In that, it was intellectually dishonest and fiscally idiotic.

user-pic

Ah, but repeatig wing-nut talking points is "centrist".

user-pic

The WSJ put that title on it. It was not Mackey's title.

user-pic

You see, Lanny....

people have been looking for one good reason to stop shopping at Whole Foods...and your pal MacKay just gave it to them.

Thanks. Trader Joes, Costco and Farmer's Markets are cheaper...probably a lot better, and you don't pay fifteen bucks for a can of tahini at the Farmer's Market.

user-pic

Trader Joes cost twice what Whole Foods does and is not a green company and have no policy for following sustainable practices.

They individually wrap fruits and vegetables that never uses local sources, sell nothing in bulk and private label most of their products (from a single location in the northeast) instead of carrying independent producers in many categories such as coffee. At least that has been the paradigm for the three stores I have been to in DC. I can't talk for the rest of the country.

As to the rest of your comment, it is equally salacious.

The fact of the matter is that in most markets, Whole Foods is the most reasonably priced and widest available purveyor of fresh, sustainable and in many case local food. Many times it is the only choice in places as diverse as Minneapolis and Raleigh. We know because are vacationing in southern Virginia and Raleigh has exactly one store. Whole Foods supports a huge ecosystem of smaller related companies, all trying to do the right thing by changing the way we shop and eat.

My wife is as liberal as they come and she thinks this entire line of reasoning by the Looking Glass Left is ridiculous. This sort of reaction by many liberals is damaging to your long-term goals precisely because it takes a discussion of ideas and turns it into a reason to be offended by someone's opinion. Offended by words, essentially, as nothing Mackey has actually done is out-of-line with his stated principles.

Disagree with the man's opinions on health reform all you want, but Whole Foods is still a very progressive company that is worthy of support. At least in the opinion of this loyal customer.

user-pic

I glad that you think WF is still worthy of your support and I respect that. Why can't you just accept and respect that I have a difference of opinion?

user-pic

I respect opinions based in fact rather than fiction whether I agree with them or not.

user-pic

I know what I'm talking about. Speaking as a dual citizen of both Australia (single payer system) and America (get rich insurance companies system), where might I mention, I have had both heart and brain surgery. So yes, I'm qualified to offer an opinion - oh make that a first hand opinion, based on facts. Have you personally experienced any other system outside of what is offered in America? Lived there, worked there,paid taxes there, major surgery there? My sh*t is based in facts. Yours really is just BS...that i was willing to give some leeway, but you gotta go and be rude about it. Lee Atwater must be your idol.

user-pic

An opinion about Whole Foods, because I thought that was what we were debating.

Single payer isn't even a viable option as of the current debate, so I am not sure what that has to do with anything. I have a pretty good grasp of what is currently being discussed and if the final conference bill includes the best of them all, conservatives of Mackey's ilk will have no problem supporting the reforms. Most of them are revenue neutral and would make companies like Whole Foods more competitive.

As to the background that informs my "BS", I have been around the entire world in the US Navy, as you would have seen with even a cursory glance at my bio. I have had occasion to participate in TRICARE and the VA and a private nonprofit plan under Kaiser as well as multiple private plans, having major surgery or emergency hospitalization in all four systems.

I would say I am familiar with the medical system here in the United States on an intimate level. Additionally, I have two parents on Medicare and their experiences will verify the fact that the public plan America currently has is in serious trouble on a number of fronts. In fact, both my parents have nearly been killed by a combination of Medicare idiocy and medical provider ignorance.

I find you entire tone to be derisive for no real reason and combative in a way that is very counterproductive to our larger goals as a nation. Frankly, you sound a lot like the assholes on the far right who I have to argue with around here as well.

Good luck with those tactics.

user-pic

I would say I am familiar with the medical system here in the United States on an intimate level. Additionally, I have two parents on Medicare and their experiences will verify the fact that the public plan America currently has is in serious trouble on a number of fronts. In fact, both my parents have nearly been killed by a combination of Medicare idiocy and medical provider ignorance.

It's funny that most of the attacks on Congress's health proposals has been on "don't touch my Medicare" grounds.

user-pic

Actually, some of the "attacks" have been of that nature, but hardly most and those that were are clearly misinformed. "Most" of the criticism for Medicare has to do with the fact that it is unsustainable and Mackey mentioned the need to fix it as a viable option for those who can't get insurance for whatever reason.

user-pic

And this is clearly false. Almost all attacks on Obama's plan are warning that seniors will have their medicare stolen by government boogiemen.

And of course we're talking about attacks on Obama/Congress's plan, not attacks on Medicare.

user-pic

I am not denying that there have spurious charges leveled by special interest groups, but the grassroots concerns are much less specific and range across a variety of topics and come from democrats and republicans alike.

user-pic

yeah, you can see a lot of those spurious charges here:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

His incoherent confusion over "intrinsic right to care", as though it means every possible procedure, or the idea that his Canadian and UK employees being able to buy additional health care is proves something wrong with Canadian or UK health care is laughable.

user-pic

The lack of coherency of his opinion is not reason enough to abrogate his right to make it.

user-pic

Who the hell is talking about abrogating his right to make it?

Or are you, once again, denying me the right to make my purchases according to my own opinions?

user-pic

Yes, that is exactly what I said.