Alternative to government healthcare plan

Cancel 2016.2

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

Given this is from the journal, many times they ask for people to register... so I am posting the whole thing here. Would love to hear peoples opinions on this....



The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

By JOHN MACKEY

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

^exactly^
 
Hopefully more people will read that article from Mackey and spread the message. This is the type thinking we need in DC. Forward it along to your Rep and Senators.
 
we also need easially transportable health insurance and do away with the pre-existing conditions restrictions.

With a $2500 deductable I wonder how much health care those employees miss out on?
Dental?
 
Alternative to government healthcare plan:

Tombstone_e9.jpg
 
we also need easially transportable health insurance and do away with the pre-existing conditions restrictions.

With a $2500 deductable I wonder how much health care those employees miss out on?
Dental?

here is my problem with that:

it sucks to have pre existing conditions and currently it is difficult to get reasonable ins with pre existing conditions, even when those conditions are medically minor. why should the government force private carriers to ins pre existing conditions at a set price? all this is going to do is raise the price for EVERYONE....
 
we also need easially transportable health insurance and do away with the pre-existing conditions restrictions.

With a $2500 deductable I wonder how much health care those employees miss out on?
Dental?

None. I have an HSA account with the $2500 deductible as well. Preventative care is covered 100% without using deductible. After preventative, everything comes out of my deductible until I hit the $2500. After that, I am covered 100% by the insurance.

The beauty of the HSA account is that I can put up to my deductible into it each year tax free. If I don't use it, it simply keeps growing for me. Because I invest the HSA account, I currently have about 7-8 years worth of deductibles sitting in there. It grows tax free provided the money is used for healthcare expenses.

The overall plan is far far cheaper than others for the point he raised. When people know they are going to be using their money FIRST... they tend to be more prudent with how it is spent.
 
Hopefully more people will read that article from Mackey and spread the message. This is the type thinking we need in DC. Forward it along to your Rep and Senators.


I think the op-ed is largely nonsense. There isn't a single new idea in there and the ideas that are in there are mostly bad ones.

The first proposal is a good idea as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. High deductable health insurance is a good thing for young, healthy people but is not good at all for people that require regular heath treatments, prescriptions and the like. It doesn't do much of anything for the people for whom the current system does not work. It's a good idea but it doesn't solve any problems.

The second proposal (although it is unclear how the author intends to equalize - by taxing employer-sponsored insurance or by giving tax credits in individual purchased plans) appears to be what John McCain offered up but without the transfer payments McCain included. If you tax employer-sponsored plans you will end up with less employer sponsored plans and more people in the individual insurance market. If you do that in conjunction with some of the other proposals it would lead to disaster for (again) the types of people for whom the current system does not work. Moreover, if the proposal is to provide tax credits to individuals then the author's goal of not increasing the deficit is out the window. That would be quite expensive.

The third proposal is OK on its own provided there are minimal coverage standards but is a disaster in conjunction with the fourth proposal. It would lead to a race to the bottom where states would enact laws that left insurance virtually unregulated in an effort to create jobs by attract insurers (basically what Delaware did with banking and credit cards). It would be a disaster.

The fourth proposal, see above.

The fifth, again, is the same tired shit we've heard forever. I generally support the idea of physician review board to pass on claims of medical malpractice before lots of money gets spent on legal fees and the like, but those don't do much to lower costs. Damage caps are nonsense and would only serve to prevent people that are really injured from being compensated for their injuries and would do nothing to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.

Items six through eight look like they were thrown is because a five part list didn't seem long enough. Reform Medicare. How? In what way? Make costs transparent. OK. Is that really going to resolve the issues in heath care? And the last is my favorite. It's a great idea but it isn't anywhere close to a solution for the problem of uninsured children.
 
here is my problem with that:

it sucks to have pre existing conditions and currently it is difficult to get reasonable ins with pre existing conditions, even when those conditions are medically minor. why should the government force private carriers to ins pre existing conditions at a set price? all this is going to do is raise the price for EVERYONE....

what is yoru opinion on that dungheap
 
"I think the op-ed is largely nonsense. There isn't a single new idea in there and the ideas that are in there are mostly bad ones. "

I did not say they were new ideas, but they are alternatives to this potential mess Obama is creating. I think you simply lack an understanding of the difference in pricing.

"The first proposal is a good idea as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. High deductable health insurance is a good thing for young, healthy people but is not good at all for people that require regular heath treatments, prescriptions and the like. It doesn't do much of anything for the people for whom the current system does not work. It's a good idea but it doesn't solve any problems."

While it certainly will be MORE beneficial for younger people who do not need more comprehensive care, it is beneficial over normal healthcare for just about everyone. The exception would be those who have persistent needs year in, year out. They would need a different package. The point is, the bulk of our population could use this type of plan. The same coverage without the deductible would cost roughly $180 more per month. (for me) So I would essentially be coughing up the deductible anyway each year without getting any type of carry over. It is similar for families.


"The second proposal (although it is unclear how the author intends to equalize - by taxing employer-sponsored insurance or by giving tax credits in individual purchased plans) appears to be what John McCain offered up but without the transfer payments McCain included. If you tax employer-sponsored plans you will end up with less employer sponsored plans and more people in the individual insurance market. If you do that in conjunction with some of the other proposals it would lead to disaster for (again) the types of people for whom the current system does not work. Moreover, if the proposal is to provide tax credits to individuals then the author's goal of not increasing the deficit is out the window. That would be quite expensive."

Not necessarily correct, though I understand your point. If for example, I was to use my employers insurance options rather than continue with my HSA, my contributions to the health insurance would be tax exempt. Many employees choose to stay with employer plans for this reason. If you allow them to deduct contributions to non-employer plans and they shift from employer, you are not raising the deficit. It would actually be more likely to lower it given the monthly premiums are LOWER under the individual plans than they are under the employer.

"The third proposal is OK on its own provided there are minimal coverage standards but is a disaster in conjunction with the fourth proposal. It would lead to a race to the bottom where states would enact laws that left insurance virtually unregulated in an effort to create jobs by attract insurers (basically what Delaware did with banking and credit cards). It would be a disaster."

This is incorrect. No one is suggesting ending insurance regulations. They are suggesting that we allow competition across state lines. Right now if there is a plan in Virginia that I like, I cannot buy it unless that same plan exists in CO. That is absurd. The fourth point is similar to this. It allows individuals to select what coverage they need. Essentially we would each go to the insurance company and select the riders we wanted and not pay for those we do not need. How would this be disastrous?

The fourth proposal, see above.

"The fifth, again, is the same tired shit we've heard forever. I generally support the idea of physician review board to pass on claims of medical malpractice before lots of money gets spent on legal fees and the like, but those don't do much to lower costs. Damage caps are nonsense and would only serve to prevent people that are really injured from being compensated for their injuries and would do nothing to eliminate frivolous lawsuits."

Again, this is why we need to break down costs as point six illustrates. When you understand the amount that goes into each bill due to malpractice insurance and tests that are run for CYA purposes you would understand why tort reform is needed. Tort reform is not intended to eliminate all frivoulous suits. It is designed to reduce the costs. This doesn't mean people can't be compensated for injuries/death due to malpractice. It simply means we aren't going to be seeing situations where a jury goes 'well that insurance company has deep pockets so we are going to give up $20 million'. This concept is prevalent in society today. What those people fail to comprehend is that the insurance company simply passes along those costs to the doctors in terms of higher malpractice insurance, which translates into higher doctors bills for individuals, which translates into higher individual insurance premiums for individuals to cover the higher doctors bills.


Items six through eight look like they were thrown is because a five part list didn't seem long enough. Reform Medicare. How? In what way? Make costs transparent. OK. Is that really going to resolve the issues in heath care? And the last is my favorite. It's a great idea but it isn't anywhere close to a solution for the problem of uninsured children.

Point six covers the transparancy of costs. you ask will that help? Seriously? How the hell are we supposed to find ways to control costs of healthcare if no one really knows where the cost increases keep coming from?
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Given this is from the journal, many times they ask for people to register... so I am posting the whole thing here. Would love to hear peoples opinions on this....



The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

By JOHN MACKEY

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

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.

No.

It's the plan Friedman proposed. And it would be an economic catastrophe.
 
• 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.

So an insurance company in completely unregulated states would be able to compete with insurers in California and other places that care about their citizens? Wow! Sounds completely fair!
 
• 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.

You mean like covering pre-existing conditiosn? Gee! Only young, working people covered, while the rest of us die in the street. Insurance industries therefore get to put ALL of their efforts into refusing to treat people treatment, instead of just 30% or so. 100% profit! And profit = good. What a Utopic vision of society.
 
• 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.

Here's your 2% or so "much higher" cost deduction, honey. You know you deserve it.
 
• 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.

Which will mean that nearly every employer dumps health insurance over time. People will be forced to compete on the ultra-shitty single-person health market. One thing I find fascinating about the single-plan market is that insurance companies go above and beyond denying people treatment at every turn, they're actually known to stop paying for people to be treated in the middle of treatment if they don't like how much it costs. Beautiful. That's a world I want to live in.
 
• 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?

HONEY, THEY'VE GOT GREAT DEALS ON CHEMO OVER AT ST. MARY'S!
 
You mean like covering pre-existing conditiosn? Gee! Only young, working people covered, while the rest of us die in the street. Insurance industries therefore get to put ALL of their efforts into refusing to treat people treatment, instead of just 30% or so. 100% profit! And profit = good. What a Utopic vision of society.

No dear emo...

This has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions.
 
Where in that did you get your 'completely unregulated states'?

What is your interpretation of the following:

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.
 
What is your interpretation of the following:

It means they are not going to force insurance companies to provide all of the current riders that they currently do. Instead, they will let individuals CHOOSE which riders they need.

If you think the riders are the only thing regulated in the insurance industry, then you are sadly mistaken.
 
Back
Top