Ha!  I messaged, too.  No, worries, steviedg.  I've been waiting all day so I could respond.  I had a lot to say this morning.  Let's see if I remember it.  Ugh.  I don't.

What struck me was the tenor of the article.  John Mackey is the CEO of Whole Foods, the "primo hangout of liberal Democratic yuppies" while being a "right wing libertarian" (I don't think the author understands the libertarian party.).  To that end, we should boycott Whole Foods because Mackey questions the health reform proposal.  He might oppose it, but does he oppose health care?  No.  All full-time employees at Whole Foods get their health care picked up, compliments of the store.  It reminds me of Sonya Sotomayar's confirmation hearing.  Some people were calling her an activist judge because of some of her comments, but it's not reflected in her rulings.

I believe in universal health care.  I have lifelong health issues because I got sick during the few years in college when I wasn't covered.  There's no reason for college students to not have health insurance.  I carry that to the rest of the population.  However, I am very concerned about the cost.  I was listening to NPR (like usual) and they were interviewing the ex-health guy from Canada (forgot his name and title).  He said that in British Columbia health care accounts for a third of their budget.  That's a lot.  We need a plan that's sustainable.  The government hasn't handled Social Security.  It hasn't handled Medicare.  What makes me think it can handle a universal health plan?  Nothing.  I think we need to hear from a lot of different viewpoints.

Here's the op ed piece from the Wall Street Journal --> The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

It's not out there like the original article posted suggests.  I think the author of the original article really wants a single payer system and is unwilling to listen to anyone else's ideas.

Good point.  What he said.

So i was all "grr" at people who didn't support Obama's reform, but after reading this whole foods article I think I may have swayed a bit.

I don't agree with him in that I DO think everyone should have access to health care.  I think our society is jacked up in that there is even an issue with that.

But.... I do agree in that i don't want the government telling me what treatments I can have and when i can have them.

"Oh chemo? yeah let's see here.... umm.....sorry. You're not eligible for that. You can try again in....2 years. Thank you!"

That is not a conversation I ever want to have.

I wonder if there's a happy middle ground. 

I don't know that anyone is suggesting that at all. The government cannot tell you what treatment you cannot have under any plan that anyone is proposing. No one is calling for a government monopoly on health care.

As it stands, insurance companies do have the right to deny payment for for pretty much any treatment they want -- I've been there. I have (expensively)  been screwed over by insurance companies twice. Lack of government regulation led them to deny legitimate claims with no legal recourse. Yes, right now (especially in states with lax regulations) insurance fraud on the part of insurance companies is basically legal.

I have also lived through being a poor college student with no health insurance. It sucked. My (now ex) wife was not able to receive much needed surgery, and once waited six hours in the waiting room of a charity hospital ER covered in glass.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get the idea that a public option is going to be somehow worse than the nearly 100% profit driven system we have now.

It bugs me that one of the common objections to a government-sponsored health care plan is that the gov't will be making health care decisions. It's simply not true - the doctor makes the decision. As far as coverage, currently the private insurance decides whether or not they're going to cover the treatment/prevention. I don't see the government as any more or less qualified - neither groups are doctors. There have been stories of insurance companies not covering vital treatment for ill people, and I'm sure with a government-sponsored plan there will probably be like stories.
To me, the importance of having a government-sponsored health plan is less about the middle class as it is about the working class who cannot afford health insurance based on their income. Any plan wins against no insurance. I feel like the two sides of this debate get mixed up on this - one side talks about the feasibility of a government plan versus an insurance plan, as far as quality and price go. Another talks about getting health insurance for every one and making sure no one goes uninsured. It's like bringing up the question of whether government-sponsored housing problems for homeless persons and people in recovery will affect the housing market. Maybe, but it's not like middle class families will start moving into the projects.
/end rant.

I liked your rant. :)

Yeah... I really haven't heard much about the actual reform itself...just people loving it or hating it. Thus I am skeptical.

I'm trying to take a very zen approach to it all  "what will be will be" for better or worse. 
I mean....when was the last time I've accused the government of listening to the people and acting accordingly based on what we need/want....