I found my colleague's reaction interesting, especially after I read or "perused" Mackey's article published in the Wall Street Journal.
I understand that my colleague has freewill, and he can certainly frequent any store or establishment he chooses. I am not arguing here that boycotting Whole Foods is wrong. (Personally, I find Whole Foods' prices to be too high.)
Nonetheless, do you think my colleague's reaction to the above article is fair? What are your thoughts on Mackey's editorial?
John Mackey later responded to the public outcry against his ideas on healthcare reform. Here is his blog response: The CEO’s Blog » Blog Archive » Health Care Reform – Full Article
Has your position on John Mackey's healthcare proposal changed any after reading his blog response?
I agree with Mackey's opinion that many of our health issues are self-inflicted and that we should have the freedom to make certain decisions, like which doctors we choose to visit and which health-care services fit our needs. However, some of the health issues he mentions involve risk factors that cannot be changed (such as those that pertain to genes, family history, age, ethnicity, and gender). Also, Mackey thinks that government mandates that explain what insurance companies must cover should be repealed and I do not exactly agree with this. I think there has to be a sort of foundation or basis for what insurance companies should cover. The government should set some minimum requirements for what should be insured and, then, leave room for other requirements that should be set forth by individual customers. Some of Mackey's suggestions seem to be biased, especially since he is the CEO of his company. Why wouldn't he want less government intervention in health-care reform if such action would affect him? But, my opinions are biased too since I think that the government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of all this, I think Mr. Lisenbee's colleague's reaction (deciding to boycott Whole Foods) is rather dramatic. But, however, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and to do what he/she pleases.
After reading John Mackey's later blog response, I still felt the same way about his proposal. Mackey says:
"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 moves us much closer to a complete governmental takeover of our health care system."
Well, after hearing Obama's speech (in ragards to health care), Mackey should be somewhat satisfied since Obama specifically said that he was not attempting to create an entirely new health care program. Instead, he said that he will build upon what we already have and that he will change the aspects of the system that are clearly not useful and/or beneficial to the American people. Obama said:
"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch" (from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html).
After reading Mackey's blog my point of view changed quite bit, I do not agree completely with his ideas, but I do realize he has some good points, like nicky above me says, the fact that some of our health issues are self-inflicted and that it should be up to us to decide how to go about them, but then again there are so many issues that are just way beyond our control. I think Mr. Lisenbee's colleague is taking this a bit far by boycotting whole foods, I mean, we all have the right to express our own points of view and that is exactly what Mackey did. I do not think the company as a whole should be affected by what one of its people thinks about a certain topic, even if that person is the Founder and CEO.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with Mackey from the beginning so his blog response didn’t really have any effect on me. I do think that it would help his case against those that were offended with the first article. I don’t think that anything in the first article was so bad or offensive to cause people to boycott Whole Foods, sure he said that a whole new health care system isn’t the solution but clearly he has reasons to support that claim and he didn’t offend anyone in saying so in the first place. The title is the only thing I see that can be offensive and would cause the problem, because its true that no where in the article does Mackey even mention the president and if it had been printed with his title most people wouldn’t even have read it. I think people who were offended with the first article and then read his blog should have seen that he didn’t mean harm with the article and was just sharing his opinion and giving suggestions as to what he thinks is best. Besides I don’t think his stores should be boycotted because he voiced his opinion on an issue, it would be alright if he was really doing something wrong like violating someone’s right or even directly attacking someone but not because he shared his opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei had some knowledge on the health care issue mentioned by mackey but reading his article made me understand it with more detail. i think one of mackey's biggest concerns with the government taking over health care is simply the fact that we are going to go in a deeper debt than the one we are in right now. even though our governments health care plan is being conducted all in an effort to provide health care to those people who dont have any, it is not the right solution. mackey proposes some alternatives to the issue, like taking off those guidelines of what a health care company can offer its members etc. also, when i heard about your colleague boycotting whole foods i thought it didnt make any sense. mackey being the CEO of whole foods doesn't mean that his opinion reflects that of whole foods, its just simply his. i thought about this attack from your colleague's part and it reminded me of the fallacies we went over; this type of reasoning must fall under one of them.
ReplyDeleteMateo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading John Mackey’s editorial I understand why your colleague reacted like that and went as far as boycotting Whole Food market chains. This article is not only dealing with the health care reform which is controversial by itself; it also deals with a more profound topic that causes extreme reactions and provokes notorious opinions: political ideologies. Throughout his article, Mackey repeats several times that the solution to this problem is to decrease government control and allow the people to make their own decisions, solely defining one of the basic principles of the conservatives. This takes the article to another level, anybody who is not a conservative or believes that the country needs a strong central government would certainly disagree with Mackey’s opinion and create predisposition to his point of view (that could be the case of your colleague.) In regards to the question of whether his reaction is fair or not, I don’t think I am in the position to determine this. Your colleague’s reaction is driven by personal needs, ideas, and experiences that I am not aware of. If I were to comment on his actions I would be giving a biased opinion driven by my individual beliefs and ideas.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with Mackey’s overall opinion that the health care system should be reformed; however giving more control to the government is not the correct approach . Citizens should have the right to make their own decisions, the country needs to move away from unfunded deficits, and certainly a health care system like the one Canada has is not the one America needs.
Mackey lists some excellent ways to reduce the cost of health care, but in my opinion they seem more idealistic than real. These request reforms in the operational system of the government including the constitution. One of his solutions for example, is to repeal all the state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. This would allow citizens to shop around for the best health care program, but again it is not realistic. For this to happen the constitution itself would have to reformed.
After reading Mackey’s post my opinion about the topic did not change but the overall perception of the article did. The post provided me with background information that explained the intentions of the writer, whereas the editorial was just written by him to present his opinion to the country, not to persuade anybody. Like us, Mackey has his own opinion and has the right to share it with anyone.
Lina Garces
I don’t agree with Mackey ‘s statement “we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment” because I think it is necessary for the government to have control over health care since it is an issue that affects every citizen. Although I don’t agree with Mackey in this aspect he does make several valid points such creating a reform that offers consumers a detailed summary of what it is they are paying for when they visit the doctor. In addition, I also agree with the elimination of lawsuits doctors receive that lead to the high cost in healthcare.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Mackey’s blog and re-reading the article it is obvious that his intentions in the article wasn’t to attack Obama but to provide suggestions as to what factors would contribute to a successful health care reform. In the article he simply mentions the company to set an example of what he believes would be an effective approach towards the health care reform. The article is just a man expressing his thoughts and as he stated on his blog he is not expressing the opinion of the Whole Foods Market. I don’t think people should decide whether or not to shop at the Whole Foods Market based on the opinion of one man that is just a part of the company.
The Wall Street editor was wrong for changing Mackey’s original title. He obviously changed the title of the article in order to grab people’s attention making it seem as an attack towards Obama’s healthcare reform. In fact, like Mackey mentioned in his defense he does not even mention Obama in his article. Reading Mackey’s blog afterword did not change my opinion on the points I agreed and disagreed with him it only changed my perspective as to what the purpose of his article was about. Also, this is only an op-ed article which clearly means that it is meant to be biased.
As i read the article i found a few points in what Mackey said that i did agree with. It is true that the healthcare system in the United States is not doing as well as people would have hoped it would be. This issue is causing a whole mess of turmoil in the businesses. This problem could in fact be prevented. Does the boycotting need to be done? Is it absoloutely necessary? I don't think so. Boycotting one food market chain is not going to change what has already been done or what is going to be done. Yes it could make a difference but how much of a dent could it really make? I think that with Mackey's blog and the article, the U.S received news flash they did not see coming.
ReplyDelete-Mariela Cano
The truth is that I didn’t find Mackey’s article offensive or insulting as I thought I would after knowing your colleague’s reaction. I think that your colleague’s reaction is fair in the sense that he has that right to boycott whatever he or she wants, but personally I wouldn’t react the same way. May be I don’t find it as insulting as your colleague because we are in different healthcare situations or may be because he sees something deeper I don’t, but the truth is that I wouldn’t react the same way because of my personality. I believe that everyone has the right to write their own opinion, and boycotting something would not stop that person from writing it. Definitely there are some ideas I do not agree with, however Mackey do has some good thoughts and he does express them in a very educated manner.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Mackey response to the public and finding out that his article was edited, including the title where it was changed from “health care reform” to “Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare,” I strengthened my opinion on the matter.
Ramon
I agreed with Mackey's article. I believe that everything that he said sounds great but, is impossible to do right now and too good to be true. I think that we are in too deep of a hole anyways. The boycotting of Whole Foods is a bit on the extreme side. I don't think anything is going to come out of it. After the blog response, I didn't feel any differently about Mackey's opinion. He should be able to say his opinion without the editing and the bad image.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Mackey's article I did not understand was the commotion was all about. Even with the "Obamacare" title I felt that people were just making a gross exaggeration about the article. Boycotting the company for the CEO's expressed opinion on an article is a bit much. However, I felt that he did make some valid points, the majority though idealistic at most but suggestions nonetheless. Just because he decided to write his opinion on the interenet does not mean that they are set in stone and become law. Changing the title of the writer was a bit underhanded and was wrong of the journalist, but I feel that even the title isn't offensive enough to boycott the company.
ReplyDelete-Kat
Personally, I think that Mr. Lisenbee's colleague's reaction to the article was a little extreme and unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAll he did was give his opinion about a topic of concern, which we all have the right to do. I did not find this article to be offensive or harmful to anyone in particular. He was not trying to offend anyone, just give a possible alternative or option that could make everyone happy. Boycotting Whole Foods, in my opinion, is a little dramatic and extreme. This could eventually affect his company and business in a negative way. I believe that we all have the right to exercise our freedom of speech and expression rights as Americans, especially if it is a harmless opinion or different perspective.
After reading the second article, it did not change my opinion on the first. Although I disagree with some points made by Mr. Mackey in the article, I find his statements and arguments to be sustainable and relevant.
One of the points I find interesting is when he says that we should "repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines," because it would be more efficient and cheaper for people who constantly migrate around the country to be able to have portable healthcare insurance that is effective in all states.
Another intriguing point he makes is when he says that we should "repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover." What is covered and not covered by a healthcare insurance policy should be solely decided by the individual customer who is paying for the policy; it only makes sense.
One point in which I disagree, though, is when he claims that we can prevent most of the illnesses and diseases that we receive by all having better lifestyles. Although this is true to a certain degree in regards to certain diseases like obesity and heart disease which can be prevented by eating healthy, exercise, and not smoking, there are many diseases in which we have no control over. For example, diabetes is a disease that is hereditary and needs constant medical care.
Healthcare reform is very important in beginning to rebuild our economy from the bottom up. I think that we must look at each perspective and take into account bits and pieces to create something greater that will benefit all of America in the near future.
--Sheryl Stanley
I agree with Mackey’s article because much of what he says is true. Employer provided health insurance and individual health insurance should have the same tax benefits. It is not fair that one benefits are fully tax deductible and the other not. And YES, health insurance should be portable! We should also make cost transparent because sometimes we do not even know how much it costs us. His point in the article is not to bash Obama but just give his own opinions of what he thinks should be done. He also states that he is not speaking for the company, it is his own opinion. I do not think your colleagues reaction was fair because the article does not represent whole foods as a company. And the title was even changed to make it seem like he was against Obama, he does not even mention Obama. But everyone is allowed to have their own opinions about the article and do as they please. After reading his blog response, I felt the same toward both articles because I agree with both.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Health care reforms in the eyes of a CEO who undoubtedly seems to sponsor his company in his argument. Although i do not like where it is coming from, i have to agree with John Mackey, he has a very good point. America needs to take healthcare into their own hands. What he is proposing is for Americans to have a larger participative role in their healthcare, as Whole Foods does for their employees(depositing money in a "wellness account" in which the money will be spent to their health but at their liking.)
ReplyDeleteI dont think boycotting wholefoods is the way to go. Even if your friend does disagree, he is taking a small step towards the further detriment of the american health system. The most valid point Mackey has is that the huge healthcare problems we face are due to our poor decisions. Obesity in America is a huge problem, and Whole Foods (although pricey) offer a way for Americans to eat healthier, and hopefully maintain a stable diet that will be beneficial to their health. By boycotting whole foods, not only is he taking the wrong plan of action(because boycotting whole foods will do nothing against whole foods.. statistically speaking) but he is setting a bad example. Whole foods sponsors a healthy america and the boycotting of wholefoods is a step against healthcare because whole foods helps americans loose weight.(when they put their mind to it anyways) If your friend disagrees with Mackey, i would advice he write an angry letter. Or if not take some sort of more active role and present an active solution. Most health problems today are due to human choice, people love to eat unhealthy, it is at times cheaper and more convenient. But those choices lead us to where we are today. You want better healthcare? Then stay healthy and avoid getting sick. That would be the best choice for all of us.
I think everyone has the right to express their own opinions. However, with the government taking control of health care, the country will be facing more economic issues. I do not think that boycotting is the solution. Boycotting one area of the food market is not going to make a whole lot of a difference. I do not this this will be effective in the overall picture. What I do like about Mackey, however, is the form in which he expresses himself. I think he is going about this in a very educated and professional manner and I do admire him for that. I was not offended by Mackey's article because I believe everyone should voice their opinion .
ReplyDeleteMackey's article is logical. I believe his method presents a fresh new way to handle a dilemma that has plagued many developed nations. Mr. Lisenbee colleague's opinion is a bit irrational I feel. Mackey is just presenting his own view and is not in anyway slandering Obama, in fact if anyone deserves his resentment it is the editor that twisted the title in the first place. After reading the second article my opinion was not changed. One point that I strongly agree with Mr. Mackey on is how proper heals practices can prevent many of the disease that plague glutinous American's who turn to western medicine like infant to a bottle to fix their problems. The health care issue is a testy one Indeed, how this crisis is resolved will surely have great impacts on generations to come.
ReplyDeleteI actually agreed with Mackey's article. I do believe that it should be portable and that the majority of the time the consequences of our health is self inflicted. I think that it was a bit exaggerating to boycott Whole Foods and pointless. Then afterwards when I read the blog, I realized that there was no harm done, he never mentioned the president as he states. The change of title grasped attention because it seemed as if he would be criticizing Obama's choices when he was not, I considered his opinion, something everyone is entitled to as suggestions.
ReplyDelete-Marilyn Robleto
I agree with John Mackeys article on Health care. He has valid points and he expresses HIS opinion in a civil way. I agree with Ramon, based on your colleagues reaction i was expecting something something bad. quite the oposited. Mackey was simply expressing himself and his veiws. not to be mistaken and misinterpreted as his companies views. Whole Foods has nothing to do with mackeys view on health care. the company name was only used as an example. to each his own, and if your colleague wishes to boycott a company because its CEO has a different view , he is intitle to do so. now personally i think hes being irrational and childish but thats just me.after reading both the article and Mackeys response i side with mackey that mush more. His article was simply on health care. his intent wasnt to bash Obamas health care plans or anything of the sort. He merely exercied his right of free speech and expersed himself on a subject. infact as he noted in his blog...he never mentioned Obama in his article. that title was added to attract attention, and it suceeded at doing so. i believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and power to those who publicly express them. It is a shame that Whole Foods will become collateral damage and lose some ignorant customers because of a silly article.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Mackey's article I think that he did nothing wrong in expressing an opinion. He simply suggested a few things that can better healthcare. I agreed with a few points that he stated and I think that to boycott Whole Foods is useless and won't change anything. In his response he stated that he nowhere mentioned Obama, and I found it to be wrong of those who published his article to change the title. I found it quite as a way to instigate.
ReplyDelete-Joseph
ReplyDeletePrettyrandomme -- Stephanie Hurtado
ReplyDeleteI don't find the article to be very controversial, aside from the title (which wasn't even a decision made by the author, John Mackey).
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult subject because we're talking about peoples lives, no matter how you choose to dress it up. No one is going to flat out say, "I don't care if your grandmother has cancer and her insurance won't cover the surgery to remove it". John brings up some valid points and interesting suggestions/criticisms of Obama's plan and the state of health care currently.I'm no stranger to boycotting company's: I haven't bought any Kimberly-Clark products since researching their destruction of the Boreal forests in my junior year of high-school. That being said, I absolutely agree your friend has every right to boycott whole foods so he choose, but personally i think its ridiculous.
I also seldom get the opportunity to shop there due to their prices, but i absolutely respect the quality and ideals behind the food and company: organic and often locally grown and packaged groceries. Does your friend have a problem with those ideals? That would seem like a more reasonable excuse to boycott Whole Foods.
-Krista Lopez
I personally think that boycotting the company is a little overexaggerating his personal issues concerning the healthcare topic. Although John controls much of Whole Foods, the company shouldnt perish for one man's opinion. We're all entitled to our own beliefs and views. He had many good arguments and counterattacks while proving his overall point. Although many aren't for universal healthcare, no one in the end wants any one person to perish when they cant control it.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe in universal healthcare. I think everytone should have the right to be taken care of. No matter what walk of life they take.
I really dont know what to think about the health care reform. I agree with the opinions that say that America needs better health care, while I too agree with the people who think that the Obama so-called health care reform is not viable in these economical times. I think that, while people do need their health care to improve, I don't think that right now this should be the focus.
ReplyDeleteBeing in the worst recession in the last 20 years, America cannot afford to go into a huge deficit, like Mr. Mackey mentions. Right now, I believe, the money that will be spent in the reform could be put to better use. Namely, economical stimuli. The billions of dollars that would take to have people on free health care for everyone would take this country into a huge deficit gap in the GDP.
Since GDP is composed of four main things (Consumption, Investment, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and net exports), the money that will be just given to health care could go into government spending projects, like constructing new infrastructures around the country or investing directly into the economy. Something worth noting is that health care or social security is NOT a part of government spending. Therefore, free health care is not a stimulus for this broken economy
Now, I think that a health care reform is not what the government is doing. They are assuring better health coverage plans for the people. A REAL health care reform would mean a change in the way health is managed in America. It would mean that the health system undergoes a complete change. It would mean that the doctors stop gambling with their patient's health. It would mean to steer the system more towards prevention that treating what could be avoided. A real reform would be to make the doctors swear the Hypocratic Oath (an ancestral moral of conduct to be used by physicians)
Whereas I know that my opinions are rather extreme and are coming from an outsider's view, I believe that the so-called health care reform is just a social move that the government is pulling to have a highest approval rate among the American people. This, as I've already stated, WILL have a huge economical impact on the already shaken American economy.
--Emily
I feel that John Mackey has a valid point to his argument. It's true that the healthcare system in the US isn't doing as well as people would've hoped it would be. I agree with offensivejoe68 and Ramon in that Mackey has valid points and he expresses his opinion in a civil way, and based on your colleague's reaction I was expecting something bad. I do not feel that his opinion is "bad", and I feel like your colleague's decision is a little much. However, I do agree that they certainly has the right to see things their way, and shop wherever he or she pleases, for whatever reason.
ReplyDelete