John Mackey, the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, and a libertarian, writes:
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.
Read the whole thing here. This has generated quite an uproar, as many of Whole Foods’ left-leaning customers have called for a boycott of the chain, apparently insulted that a leader of the organic food trend might dare to speak his mind. (Hat tip: Chris)
Hmm, The Economist characterized what Mr Mackey wrote as follows:
“Mr Mackey set out some right-wing ideas for reforming health care strikingly at odds with those currently being pushed by the Obama administration.” and opines
“Perhaps a few right-wingers will now start shopping at Whole Foods as a gesture of support for Mr Mackey, but the odds are against it.”
http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/businessview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14254349&fsrc=nwl
Oh boy, the labels only serve to create a smoke screen and prevent free and open discussion in the market of ideas. I think that Mr Mackey’s quote from Thatcher (“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”) and references to the UK’s NHS are creating a defensive reaction across the pond.
I agree that people have a tendency to use labels, rather than just address the ideas. At best, it is irrelevant; at worst, it is an ad hominem.
I have never understood why The Economist, which generally supports markets, doesn’t trust markets when it comes to healthcare. I understand that they tend to think that healthcare is a right. But even if you think that healthcare is a right (which I do not), the writers at The Economist ought to know better than to think that government can successfully provide it.
The Economist makes a good point, that although shareholders should want their executives to stay quiet on controversial issues, if that rule were always followed, then the public would lose out on some valuable ideas that business leaders, with their experience and authority, can offer.
haircuts…
Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely helpful information particularly the last part
I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this certain info for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck….