The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
• 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.
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• 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?
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.
Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434217007286507...
Anna Sui
great concept, now if only someone would listen to it.
1***************
"I will marshal all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide." - In the Loop
I thought it was a good article, with a few faults. It lost me though when it started talking about UK and other countries with National Health Insurance. One because that is not being proposed in the US so I don't see the point of the comparison and two because the claims that people are waiting for treatment and the government decides whether you get treament or not is false. I will try to find the link, but I heard or read somewhere within the past two weeks that some 80% of people in Canada are happy with their government health care. I don't think 80% of Americans would say that. We have insurance companies who do the same thing that people claim government run health care does, which is decide what treaments you get. It is not just doctor and patient. Your insurance plan dictates what treatments are available and at what cost. I know that we are all in agreement that reform needs to happen, but disagree what that reform should be, but I am tired of the "death panel" arguments that have no basis in reality.
2http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/canadians-are-gasp-happy-wit...
This isn't where I read it, but this is an article with a poll that supports the numbers in my above post of Canadians who are happy with their health care.
3Actually Roar the stat I have heard is that 80% of Americans are happy with their healthcare the way it is too.
4"A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care."
Here's a Rasmussen that says 70% - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/h...
I think an emphasis on people being disappointed in their own quality of care is grossly overstated.
5"Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair."
I agree with the problem here, but I disagree with the solution.
This problem a direct result of the HMO Act of 1973 and one of the reasons that healthcare is so prohibitively expensive. The government is subsidizing healthcare already, and it has been proven to lead to wildly excessive costs. If you can just write-off healthcare benefits, then it doesn't matter how expensive they are. And we know the government doesn't care how much things cost, because it's not even their money.
A better solution would be to get rid of the subsidies for average people altogether, so that the price of healthcare would have to decrease.
6Since nearly 50-million people are under or not covered, we have a serious issue whether people who are insured are happy or not.
Whole Foods brings up scary 'let's kill the expensive old people' images to me. They can afford to be generous with health care - their hourly wages have been in the $8 to $13 range for two decades. The annual employee turnover rate is 25 percent, and most workers stay no more than four years, so the Whole Foods approach might work if we keep Americans single, childless and under 40.
7Well it seems that both Americans and Canadians are being wrongly represented in their feelings towards their health insurance. I think that, at least in this country, the ones who become dissatisfied are the ones who find out when a real illness happens that they aren't covered like they thought they were.
"Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." I agree with this. I have a huge problem with the in network/out of network thing. If I am travelling, and I have insurance, I should be able to see a doctor and not for hundreds over what I would pay in my own state. I am not sure if this would solve that problem, but that is something I would like to see changed.
8There is much debate on how many Americans are actually uninsured. I think this is a number worth finding out for certain before we redsign a whole system.
9There's little debate that we spend more than any other nation yet don't the highest quality care in the world.
10I agree, but change for change sake isn't a solution. We need a solution that won't throw us into massive debt and won't take years to implement. I think we're better off trying to implement smaller solutions that have the ability to make a huge difference and go from there.
11The health care debate's been going on for decades, there's been loads of time to implement smaller solutions. Nothing that was done kept our health care system from swelling beyond control.
12There's no expiration date on solutions or ideas.
13That's true, but there are just so many patches you can use before a system collapses on itself anyway.
14Expanding government involvement caused our healthcare system costs to swell beyond control. And it will only continue to do so, as the CBO explained.
15But solutions and ideas are useless if they are never implemented. Presidents have been calling for health care reform since 1912. Truman, Wilson, Kennedy with Medicare, and even Richard Nixon was going to sign a reform bill before Watergate bogged down his Presidencey. We are looking at almost a century of " solutions and ideas".
16Yes but its better to implement something that looks at all options and makes smaller changes then to implement something that sweeping change to hurl us into debt.
17The CBO isn't gospel, tends to take the most conservative approach and considers worst case scenariors and has admitted not all potential, cost saving proposals were factored. So - an important guide, but not Moses.
18So who is Moses then?
19There is no Moses - there'd be no need for discussion if there was someone who could tell us exactly how things should be done.
20As Steph cogently points out, the health care debate, specifically how to fix the long term issues, has been going on for the last 60 years or so. Hence why should we now trust that turning over decisions to the government will make it any better? When the government can fix the insane costs of Medicare, which clearly cannot continue in its present form, then I'll start believing something of what they say when they have alternatives.
21Everyone believes that health care is a problem and issues ought to be addressed, but we might begin by agreeing that Congress hasn't made the significant effort to repair things in the major areas where we have long recognized that there are problems. Let's fix those first.
The proposed changes in health care is not a change in insurance but rather the doing away with insurance and making it a guarantee. I find this a highly questionable tactic, much like guaranteeing the right to drive a car or having a job or even having enough to eat.
Concerning the 50 million, Barack Obama frequently cites last year's Census Bureau number of 46 million people with no health insurance. But some experts argue that figure is off by tens of millions — in one direction or the other. This will be significant for two reasons. if it is lower, it will of course reduce costs but on the other hand lower numbers reduce the urgency. The reverse will have the opposite effect. It will be interesting to see the latest census numbers which are due out in September. We need to know just who these people are and why they are without health insurance or, and these are oftenlost in the cracks, the underinsured. In addition, we have no idea of those who have opted out of insurance because of good health reasons and the expense of insurance for nothing received.
While we all recognize the spiraling health care costs, the present government plan is clearly not the answer. We don't need to have bureaucrats allocate money until it runs out and then have people do without health care. What we need to do is fix the problems we have now, rather than invest money we don't have in a scheme designed on the principles of allocation of money rather than need.
Going along with Eleuthera's statement on how many people are actually uninsured...
I believe approximately 10 million, give or take, are not american citizens, which means that private insurance companies will not cover them.
Also, another 17 million are employed and make $50,000+ and choose not to purchase healthcare for whatever reason.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
22We still pay more than any other country on healthcare, but don't have the highest quality care. And as Eleuthera says in terms of the unemployed "some experts argue that figure is off by tens of millions — in one direction or the other "
--------------------------
23Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
I didn't argue that we don't pay more. But i ask, do you mean as a collective whole Stephley, or on an individual basis? I'm just curious because i pay so little...
And, yes, people will argue in one direction or the other even if the census facts are directly in front of them. I do think though that if this passes the deficit will balloon. I don't know how this is a better solution to what we have. Especially as there are no specifics. No one can tell me how exactly it will effect me. I'm happy with my healthcare as is. I don't want to lose my healthcare, and not to mention I don't want my tax money going to something I wont use such as this government program.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
24and i think we do have the highest quality care, what/who says we dont?
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
25As a collective whole - it's unlikely any one of us would pay more than any other country. And you may be thrilled with your healthcare, but by international health standards/measurements, things like longevity and infant mortality, we don't get our money's worth.
--------------------------
26Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
According to the WHO, we have the best "health responsiveness" in the world. This is a measure of patient satisfaction, expediency of care, and quality of care. That sort of care doesn't come cheap.
27"As a collective whole - it's unlikely any one of us would pay more than any other country."
Why on earth would you assume I meant one person would pay more than a country? I meant person to person. Like a US citizen as compared to a citizen of France, Canada, etc.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
28Brooke, I am pretty sure that is what she means too. Not that a single person would pay more than a whole country. That would be silly.
29"or on an individual basis?" because of the way you asked the question.
30ok cool.
sorry, i'm a wee bit sleepy...
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
31There are some points that I agree with him on (like letting health savings accounts roll over, letting individual plans get tax benefits..but he didn't mention that if they get the tax benefits like group plans then they should conform to the RULES that apply to group plans like no rescission, etc.)
I think that the people arguing that Americans like their health care need to recognize that a good portion of those people are on Medicare...(quo scary monster music)...a "government run" health care program! Gasp! Why is it that so many people on Medicare don't want others to have the same opportunity?
(From fivethirtyeight)
32About 60 percent of people participating in Medicare rate their coverage as a 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale (versus 36-40 percent for private insurance), and 84 percent rate it as a 7 out of 10 or higher. In the most recent Kaiser Foundation tracking poll, moreover, 77 percent of Americans would like to see Medicare expanded to people aged 55 and older.
I'm ahead of the game with this knowing the costs thing. Last doctor's visit cost $107 for the checkup and $90 for a shot AFTER they gave me a discount for it not being covered. I know this because I went to the doctor yesterday
The thing is, even
if I had known the cost I would have still needed these things.
Oh and good news as a side note: my new insurance kicks in next week! It's reactionary rather than preventive coverage so checkups and shots still won't be covered but better than nothing
If I get into an accident at least I'll be taken care of.
33Yes, jillness, of course they like their govt run medicare program, most aren't paying for it. Plus, the program is not good because it's going bankrupt! If you're going to say a lot of people love something and we should all love it too and be willing to accept it, atleast give an example of something that is working well (i.e., can support itself) It's great that they love it, what are they going to do when it runs out of money?
~~~~~
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
34I used medicare as an example of how the government could run a medical program that gave people care they were satisfied with. However, what is being proposed would be similar to Medicare in benefits, but it would have a different pay in system. With the government option, people would still pay premiums and co-pays. They do not do that with medicare.
Plus, one of the provisions is allowing people to stay on their parent's plan up until they are 26, which is great because that would mean more young and healthy people paying into the system early on. Right now, there is a dead zone where people from the ages of 22-30 stay with out coverage because they are at lower level jobs and they can't afford insurance right away. We NEED these people in the system as a whole to make it solvent.
35But what about a person's right to choose whether they want healthcare or not? If a young 20-something person feels they don't need insurance, should we take away their choice?
36Hit send too soon.
If a person stays on their parent's healthcare plan until they are 26, they are not paying into the system. Their parent's are paying and unless they are the last child or only child, the money going in to the system from their parents will be the same.
37If I could get over the ridiculous prices of "organic" produce, I'd consider shopping at Whole Foods in light of this.
38This should help: The WSJ article has prompted a Boycott Whole Foods call from single payer advocates.
--------------------------
39Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
You'd think they'd have already boycotted it in favor of single-payer-groceries.
40GASP but where will they get their organic produce??
haha!
talk about a useless boycott.
41Farmers markets, co-ops, Trader Joe's, their own gardens...
42somehow i think whole foods will survive
43Probably - but he's cost Whole Foods' credibility with its most likely constituency.
44i don't think it's owner's political views are going to stop people from shopping there. In fact now I am going to make it a point to there for my soy products. Steph you make it sound like WF is running for office.
45***************
"I will marshal all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide." - In the Loop
He's stepped into an important debate in a very high profile way. And response to this editorial highlighted other stands he's taken, particularly on unions. There's a reason Whole Foods presented itself as organic land with happy, well-cared for employees, and it will cost them now that the curtain's been pulled.
46So he can not speak his mind? We used to stand on soapboxes in parks and do the same thing we now do in the press. If no one is allowed to discuss it and disagree with it then we are no longer living in the USA and if their employees wanted a union sooooo badly it would be there. Same as in several foreign auto plants here that do not have unions. Not everyone is a fan of them.
You should be thrilled we still have the ability to write an op-ed or voice an opinion in the press or on a blog. The way things are going you might not have that ability.
Well I am off to whole foods to get yoghurt.
47***************
"I will marshal all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide." - In the Loop
The more I hear about this guy, the more I like him.
48Except for the whole scamming gullible people with irrational fears out of their money. That's not very nice.
49I wonder if they sell
at whole foods.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.