Whole Foods CEO John Mackey ruffled more than a few feathers when he published an op-ed piece, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," in the Wall Street Journal last week. Loyal, insanely liberal Whole Foods shoppers were outraged to discover the company's CEO advocating for everything from the creation of health savings accounts to tort reform to lower doctors' medical malpractice costs. But I don't see the problem.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm not the "typical" Whole Foods shopper, as much as I fetishistically shop there. Unlike most of the people I encounter at my local Whole Foods, for instance, I vociferously oppose the so-called "public option" for healthcare that President Obama has pushed so hard to make reality. I'm also not a big fan of wearing flip flops, for what it's worth.

Nevertheless, I applaud many of the company's practices that endeared Whole Foods to the liberal élite. They offer all employees healthcare, pay reasonable wages, source many of their delicious products from small, local suppliers, and donate boatloads of money to local and national charities, just for starters. (Granted, I also applaud their excellent selection of French cheeses and wide variety of imported chocolate.)

But the CEO's personal opinions with regard to healthcare have absolutely no bearing on such corporate initiatives. Even if Mr. Mackey had come out in favor of an indisputably repugnant policy, like denying healthcare to the poor, I doubt whether Whole Foods would have abandoned its programs to funnel money to local charities that promote community gardening. No person could possibly claim with any conviction that limits on medical malpractice damages would somehow alter the way community gardens function.

What really baffles me, though, is that many of Mr. Mackey's proposals both make sense and should resonate with those on the "extreme left," for want of a better term. Even people who campaign for tree suffrage cannot possibly think it reasonable that a patient whose rhinoplasty left one nostril slightly larger than the other deserves hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in medical malpractice damages. The only people who lose if that proposal — one of several in Mr. Mackey's piece — are medical malpractice attorneys, whose welfare I doubt political activists care much about.

Further, Mr. Mackey concludes his piece with a statement about the importance of eating well. (He is the CEO of a grocery store chain, after all.) This, at least as far as I can tell, meshes quite well with the whole "prevention" angle that the Democrats love to trumpet. What's not to love?

Some took particular issue with Mr. Mackey's statement regarding the "healthcare-as-intrinsic-right" issue. Unlike his supposedly left-leaning shoppers, Mr. Mackey does not buy the idea that healthcare ought to be a right. It seems clear to me, though, that none of these people actually read Mr. Mackey's piece in the Wall Street Journal. Or if they did, they should also be claiming that Mr. Mackey — who runs a grocery store chain — also opposes providing people food and shelter. He presents a more nuanced view of the matter.

In his own words, "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?" Not exactly cold hearted.

Mr. Mackey made an important, substantive contribution to the debate over healthcare reform. I can't see why so many people find his piece so objectionable. His opinions might not mesh perfectly with those of his shoppers, but neither do all of President Obama's views mesh perfectly with my own. That didn't stop me from voting for him in November. Now excuse me while I pour myself a glass of that delicious sparkling blood orange soda I bought at Whole Foods over the weekend.