Arugula-Eating Obama Upset at Whole Foods' CEO

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. -- John Mackey, CEO, Whole Foods

One of my favorite Obama anecdotes from the 2008 Presidential campaign, which perfectly encapsulates his Ivy League elitist, condescending progressive paternalism, was his awkward attempt in Iowa to connect with the average joe: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Personally, I never knew that the leading topic of discussion for all the brothers in the hood was the high cost of aromatic salad greens. and never mind the fact that at the time Obama made the statement, there were no yuppie-friendly Whole Foods outlets in Iowa.

For the uninitiated, Whole Foods is the market leader in the premium natural/minimally processed/organic food supermarket niche. [I will save detailed discussions of purported benefits for my new nutrition blog, but basically I am skeptical of commensurate nutritional benefit of these foods relative to their higher costs.] There is a Whole Foods store within walking distance of the Metro King Street station in Alexandria, VA; I usually brown-bagged my lunch on my last assignment in the area, but on those other occasions I could always count on the company of work colleagues (especially this one Java developer) if I was going to Whole Foods. They have a hot food bar (pay by the pound), or alternatively I might try one of their poultry or tuna wraps. It was pricier than the standard fast foot fare (even without a drink, my bill started at about $7), but I preferred the selection, quality, and reasonably quick checkout.

So when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey gingerly ventured forth in an August 11 Wall Street Journal column  his constructive criticism of ObamaCare, based on concerns over a $1.8T projected deficit and trillions more for the foreseeable future, I immediately thought to myself, "Uh, oh!" I remembered the experience of Thomas Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza. After firmly establishing the pizza chain, which established its market-leading niche on prompt delivery service, Monaghan, a former Catholic seminarian, left active company leadership in the 1980's to pursue Catholic philanthropic interests, including a prominent role in the pro-life movement. When Monaghan returned to the struggling company in the early 1990's, an incensed National Organization of Women, with its Angry Left allies, organized a boycott of Domino's Pizza. [Knowing that universities are dominated by so-called progressives (liberals) and delivered pizza being a staple of many college students partying or pulling all-nighters, the Angry Left felt that they could use their buying power to intimidate businesses whose owners or managers, on their own time and not in their official capacity, dared voice contrary political opinions.] So I was not surprised that the leftists, many of them upper-income yuppies attracted by Whole Foods' environmentally-friendly and related policies (e.g., seafood sustainability and non-genetically modified foods) and hard-to-find healthy products, felt betrayed and responded with a boycott; labor unions (e.g., SEIU and UFCW), which have a history of clashing with companies like WalMart and Whole Foods, have joined in the boycott. I'm amused to see that the anti-big government Tea Party coalition has countered with a buycott of Whole Foods; save me a Mediterranean tuna wrap or sandwich, guys...

I wonder if President Obama read about the Mackey kerfuffle over  a mouthful of arugula; I suspect that the White House chefs are now looking for alternative suppliers. I guess we conservatives should be grateful that Obama hasn't responded by imposing price controls over arugula or arguing that that the reason arugula prices are so high is the result of inadequate private-sector competition, the answer to which is to create government-owned produce farms...

And what were the ideas that Mackey expressed that have the leftists so up in arms?  The ideas are consistent  with my own posts on health care reform:

• Promote high-deductible health insurance and health savings accounts. The idea is for insurance to be insurance and deal with the big, unexpected bills, just like in auto insurance. We don't demand that auto insurers cover the owner's operational or maintenance costs, which we normally cover out of pocket. Part of the problem is many policyholders have come to expect more of an all-bills-paid approach and have no vested interest in saving money, e.g., by using equally effective, less expensive (generic) drugs or services. A health savings account provides a mechanism for taxpayers to shelter expected expenses (without a use-it-or-lose-it provision often related to flexible accounts); since the costs are initially coming out of the taxpayer's pocket, the taxpayer has a natural incentive to minimize costs. I should note, however, that Bush and McCain have pushed similar proposals, and there's a lack of enthusiasm from voters with all-inclusive health plans to sign on. Liberals/progressives still haven't caught on that it's difficult to control costs when individual policyholders are not vested in lowering health costs.
• Provide Equal Protection for Taxpayers Purchasing Health Insurance on Their Own. It is morally indefensible to provide tax subsidies to taxpayers whom work at an employer offering a health plan but the same type of subsidy is not available to taxpayers paying for their own insurance using after-tax dollars.  The liberal/progressive opposition to this idea should be familiar to anyone whom has thought that parents should have the right to apply their prorated school-expense tax payments towards alternative private schools: liberals see it as a zero-sum game; they argue that being fair to all taxpayers would create a hole in the federal budget. (Of course, the response to that is to provide everyone with an equal, smaller exemption, not allow a windfall full share for the selected many or few lucking into tax-subsidized health insurance plans from businesses.) 
• Deregulate the Marketing of Health Insurance Across State Lines. The current system is inefficient; why, for instance, does it make sense to worry whether you'll have to change insurers simply by moving across state lines or have to pay more for coverage because the new (or your current) state requires expensive benefits or regulations you don't want or need?
• Get Government Out of the Business of Setting Mandates. Mackey's point is consistent with Jeffersonian fears of the inherent corruption of government lobbyists (including progressive activists) unduly interfering with the concepts of economic liberty. (Obama was fond during the campaign of arguing that legislation under the Republican Congress or Bush Administration was written by lobbyists, i.e., big business; but his own capitulation to union interests, manifestly obviously in his administration's handling of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, ignoring the higher-standing bondholder claims on company assets, makes the hypocrisy obvious: he believes that his own special-interest allies are "more equal".) Gold-plated mandates and policies constitute barriers to competition. Insurers not offering necessary coverages will be uncompetitive and lose market share and/or go out of business--but ill-considered public policies, such as allowing "hit-and-run" policyholders, essentially forcing companies and policyholders in good faith to subsidize the health costs of other people, and gold-plated, cost-prohibitive mandates are counterproductive. (Only the biggest, most deeply-pocketed competitors can compete in a rigged market--which is precisely the case predicted for the ill-conceived government-run insurance exchange including the public option.)
• Enact Medical Malpractice Tort Reform. Abusive lawsuits drive up costs for everybody in the system, thanks to parasitic trial lawyers. The Obamaian fantasy of controlling sector costs specifically exempts one of the prime factors driving up insurance costs and directly affecting the supply of available physicians. The idea that you can dump millions of more patients in a public option plan on already overextended physicians while at the same time doing nothing about a key factor affecting the supply of doctors and the high cost of defensive medicine is patently absurd.
• Make Costs More Transparent to the Consumer. I have written articles on the usability of information, and what I've seen in terms of piecemeal and restated invoices, various convoluted discounts in products and services, etc., violates almost every practical guidelines, even simply in validating charges, never mind provide actionable information for policyholders to hold down costs. 
• Fix Medicare First. Whereas Medicare is  mostly funded from payroll taxes and so some level of benefits is guaranteed on an ongoing basis, we are rapidly coming to the point (if not already), that the existing reserve will draw down to maintain benefits. This means at some point (if and when the reserve goes to zero), either we'll need to make up the difference from general revenues or raise payroll taxes. The peak issue of Medicare reserves is a far more tangible issue than the dubious necessity of addressing uninsured Americans in the middle of a severe recession. It is also probably a prerequisite to any ObamaCare reform, because Medicare services are largely subsidized by the private sector and any loss of private-sector market share may affect Medicare participants (and costs to the American taxpayer).
• Find a Voluntary Mechanism for Americans to Share Uncovered Health Care Costs for the Needy. This is a worthy philanthropic ambition, but if Mackey thinks that the quarter of Americans whom consider themselves liberal or progressive will pay their fair share, he is sadly mistaken. It is curious, especially given his opening quote from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Obama and his fellow progressives are good when it comes to spreading other people's wealth around, but less generous when it comes to giving using their own resources. On multiple occasions, I have cited Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares, which points out that conservatives have been generally more generous than progressives in terms of charitable donations. Another example is the following chart which conservative blogger and author Michelle Malkin composed in 2004 using 2002 charity data and recoding the results in traditional red (Republican/conservative)/blue (Democratic/progressive) states. I realize that the data and cited election are somewhat dated, and last November's results flipped some red states under circumstances favoring a Democratic challenger, but most of the red states in the top 22 below were also carried by McCain.

CatalogueForPhilanthropy.org 2002 Data

Table Courtesy Michelle Malkin 2004