In a recent WSJ opinion piece, Wholes Foods CEO, John Mackey outlined Whole Food’s approach to healthcare and recommended some sensible steps that could be taken to greatly improve the existing system with minimum disruption. It is not a total solution, but would be one heck of a start.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...072865070.html

BBQMan

Thanks for posting these brilliant suggestions by the Whole Foods executive. It takes a private sector professional to come up with a solution to problems created by the government.

For example the government is destroying social security and medicare by including millions of beneficiaries who were not originally intended to be included.

Whole Foods is well-known for it's commitment to employee wellness and is used as an example for other companies to emulate. It's been chosen as one of the best 100 companies to work for in the U.S.

I'm not sure that all the ideas listed by their CEO can be credited only to the private sector, and maybe at least one of his proposals is a bit self-serving for his own company and employees (who have a very young average age). But those differences are not worth debating here. Overall, they are great ideas. It's been proven that an active wellness program can reduce the healthcare costs of groups of people enrolled in them. A lot of the conversation regarding HR 3200 is about shifting the paradigm to preventive medicine, including such wellness programs.

One major weakness that I see in the Whole Foods proposals is how businesses smaller than Whole Foods can institute similar wellness programs without some financial assistance. Whole Foods employs almost 42,000 employees in almost 300 stores and other facilities in the U.S. and U.K. They have the scale to implement a wellness program. Many smaller companies do not. In that the majority of employers in the U.S. fall into the "small business" category, how do they implement a program like this without some financial assistance. Maybe from the government? If not the government, who?

Originally Posted by cashman

BBQMan

Thanks for posting these brilliant suggestions by the Whole Foods executive. It takes a private sector professional to come up with a solution to problems created by the government.

For example the government is destroying social security and medicare by including millions of beneficiaries who were not originally intended to be included.

Seems like the far left does not want to face the facts. They would rathe talk about Bush or Sarah.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Whole Foods is well-known for it's commitment to employee wellness and is used as an example for other companies to emulate. It's been chosen as one of the best 100 companies to work for in the U.S.

I'm not sure that all the ideas listed by their CEO can be credited only to the private sector, and maybe at least one of his proposals is a bit self-serving for his own company and employees (who have a very young average age). But those differences are not worth debating here. Overall, they are great ideas. It's been proven that an active wellness program can reduce the healthcare costs of groups of people enrolled in them. A lot of the conversation regarding HR 3200 is about shifting the paradigm to preventive medicine, including such wellness programs.

One major weakness that I see in the Whole Foods proposals is how businesses smaller than Whole Foods can institute similar wellness programs without some financial assistance. Whole Foods employs almost 42,000 employees in almost 300 stores and other facilities in the U.S. and U.K. They have the scale to implement a wellness program. Many smaller companies do not. In that the majority of employers in the U.S. fall into the "small business" category, how do they implement a program like this without some financial assistance. Maybe from the government? If not the government, who?

As long as the competitive "playing field" is equal, not a problem. Where it all gets squirrelly is when one employer is forced to incur overhead costs that another employer/competitor doesn't. This is especially true when US employers compete against foreign competition, especially from socialist countries, and the US government gives more protection to the foreign competitor than the US taxpayer-company.

Financial assistance from the government is not necessary, as the private sector can group employers into a cost-and-risk sharing situation (called "insurance"), or subcontract their human resources requirements to a specialist (e.g., Administaff and its competitors). It works!

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...the private sector can group employers into a cost-and-risk sharing situation (called "insurance"), or subcontract their human resources requirements to a specialist (e.g., Administaff and its competitors). It works!

Why didn't I think of that?

The small employers may still choose not to offer health insurance because of the cost, however efficiently it can be provided. I think that's a situation where, if as a nation we really do want everyone to have health insurance, that those employers be "financially incented" to provide insurance. Along with that might have to be a government subsidy in order to keep our small businesses competitive with foreign firms.

Isn't something like that already in HR 3200?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Why didn't I think of that?

The small employers may still choose not to offer health insurance because of the cost, however efficiently it can be provided. I think that's a situation where, if as a nation we really do want everyone to have health insurance, that those employers be "financially incented" to provide insurance. Along with that might have to be a government subsidy in order to keep our small businesses competitive with foreign firms.

Isn't something like that already in HR 3200?

So "we, the people" tax the American public to government-subsidize American businesses so they can compete in the American marketplace against foreign socialist competition given "most favored trade partner" status by the government?

That just shows the problem is not "health care," but an obscene economic situation where the government is screwing American companies under the guise of of a foreign policy built on "peace through prosperity" elsewhere, and we'll just suck it in here.

In the end, "we, the people" just borrow money from China who is making money by flooding the US market with goods made under sweat-shop conditions and slave wages, and these Chinese goods are undercutting American companies in the same business, and then "We, the people" give the borrowed money to US companies as a subsidy for additional government-required business overhead costs which further distance the companies' ability to compete in the domestic market.

Again, we never seem to want to find the root-cause problem and fix that. Instead, we go after the ancillary problems with band-aids (often expensive ones), and things never ever get better, because the root-cause problem coninues to fester.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

So "we, the people" tax the American public to government-subsidize American businesses so they can compete in the American marketplace against foreign socialist competition given "most favored trade partner" status by the government?...

Whoa! How many issues can we address at once, Steve? If we intend to multi-task in our discussion of issues that don't seem to favor Americans, I might add immigration reform and campaign finance reform to the list.

Let's see...can we even effectively discuss healthcare reform, trade policy and immigration and campaign financing all at the same time? We might be able to, but I'm afraid such an agenda would put Congress in a state of apoplectic gridlock.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

In a recent WSJ opinion piece, Wholes Foods CEO, John Mackey outlined Whole Food’s approach to healthcare and recommended some sensible steps that could be taken to greatly improve the existing system with minimum disruption. It is not a total solution, but would be one heck of a start.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...072865070.html

Actually I would question this CEO's business sense. Who do you think makes up a large percentage of the customers shopping at Whole Paycheck? The last time I shopped there I dropped $175.00 for about 1 week of food.

To make matters worse they are organizing on the WF website.

As for me after that last trip I have swore off any further trips.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Whoa! How many issues can we address at once, Steve? If we intend to multi-task in our discussion of issues that don't seem to favor Americans, I might add immigration reform and campaign finance reform to the list.

Let's see...can we even effectively discuss healthcare reform, trade policy and immigration and campaign financing all at the same time? We might be able to, but I'm afraid such an agenda would put Congress in a state of apoplectic gridlock.

My point is that the reasons WHY we have these problem areas are never resolved, and in almost every circumstance the road to root cause of the problem areas seem to take us back to a declining economy tied to lousy international trade policies and agreements. Fix those and the economy booms, workers get better salaries and benefits, tax revenue increases, and we move merrily long.

Health care, immigration, energy et al are diversions, because both parties seem to make political capital out of avoiding the WHYs because they both are at fault.

I rarely agreed with President Clinton, but his revelation that "It's the economy, stupid!" was bluntly accurate. That revelation still stands. Fix that and everything else gets fixed with it.

The methodology of "Change" in this administration and the last has been like saying the car won't run right, so they change the windshield wipers, realign the headlights and empty the ash trays, but never seem to notice that the engine has blown.

...how would they get re-elected by fixing something as mundane as a blown engine?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...how would they get re-elected by fixing something as mundane as a blown engine?

No truer words.....

That's like the latest round-robin on health care. It all shows that what
the "plan"contains or costs really doesn't matter, victory and limelight are the goals.