Michelle - Thanks for the back up. You make some great points.

Aml- I do appreciate how HSA work. But let's crank it up a notch. What if, God forbid, you and a member of your family are in a car crash? You both are in intensive care. That sucking sound is the account being drained to zero overnight. You both need a series of expensive operations. Are you really covered? If your hospitalization runs $250,000 - $500,000 for both you and your loved-one will your insurance cover you? Or will they find an out? You will require rehab - is that covered? Are you only covered for inpatient or both inpatient and outpatient? Suppose you have a pelvis fracture which your doctor said that you can't get up and walk for 6 - 12 weeks. You could benefit from home health and in home rehab, are you covered? I doubt it. The problem is that there are so many scenarios that could happen. We have no idea if we are or are not covered because none of us have read all of the fine print. We have no idea if our insurance company will stick with us or drop us for some pre-existing condition we may or may not have had. Thanks for your comment!

I second ecthompson's notions on health insurance and the lack of thorough knowledge on all the fine print for most folks out there. I have been with a company for a little over three years and in that time, our health insurance provider has changed three times which means the list of prescriptions that are covered have changed and the list of doctors you can see in-network have changed, along with premium amounts and deductible amounts. I am told they have changed each year because the company is looking for the best deal for its employees and that healthcare costs have skyrocketed in the last ten - 15 years. I know that my $ contribution out of my own check have increased thrice by 10% or more yet I can assure you that my pay increase have barely been 3%. There are many theories for the skyrocketing costs but I know well enough that there is no single one reason. Costs must be contained somehow and I am not going to even touch the hows as I freely admit it is not my area of expertise. Regarding the "freedom" comment, yeah, I want freedom from confusion when it comes to my health insurance's basic coverage and I want freedom from having to switch doctors because my "new" employer health insurance does not use my current doctor. I want freedom from my % of increase on insurance premium's cost not exceeding the % of salary increase I receive (or better yet, standard of living increase).

I have a small business and a hsa health plan i pay for my own health insurance and the employees pay for their own insurance. This plan has saved me quite a bit of money. Luckily I am healthy and therefore do not go to the doctor often. With the HSA my premiums were cut in half, the money I save goes into my HSA which I use to pay the doctors or get prescriptins rather than pay the insurance companies. God forbid I have any major health issues and require hospitalization I do not have to worry it will be covered. Any money not spent within the year stays in my account and when I reach retirement age can be used in the same manner as a IRA. This is a great option and more attention should be paid to it rather than just looking for free health care. If it is not worth paying for it is probably not worth anything.

Erri, Mackey is "being allowed to pen" an article because as an employer, health insurance is a basic service that he provides to his employees -- and I could not agree with him more. These aren't "talking points"; these are legitimate benefits to health care as it's delivered today. The WSJ wouldn't "accept" a grocery article from you because you have no experience at running a grocery store (I don't think!). And you are dead wrong about choice: people DO want choice. This whole debate is that people don't want govt BS rammed down their throats. They absolutely want choice; since when do Americans not want choices in their lives regarding almost everything? That's also called FREEDOM! Employers are in the healthcare business because that's how it's evolved since WWII, and it's part of the package that employers offer to attract and retain employees -- which are the market forces (there's that dreaded word again for liberals: market) at work (no pun intended). And you describe how you want "whatever" covered when you go to the hospital or doctor; well your insurance premiums need to reflect the cost of "whatever." If "whatever" is covered in a universal plan, then what's to stop people from going to the hospital for paper cuts? Nothing! And talk about costs going through the roof! Most people seem to be able to get through their insurance plans OK; and that's why most people are, at the end of the day, OK with the insurance they have. And regarding tort reform; the "polarized" environment simply is another way of saying "Democratic-controlled Congress and Presidency." And since the Dems bow at the feet of the tort lawyers, there absolutely won't be tort reform on their watch. But tort reform sure has worked nice in Texas for the last few years since it was enacted here! Amazing how those mean old Republicans got that to go through! And @ "libhomo": How is Whole Foods keeping people from getting healthcare? They have an excellent employee benefits plan -- what are they not getting? And you also have no idea how HSAs work, because they have accomplished a great deal. Health insurance should be more like car insurance; car insurance doesn't pay for an oil change, so health insurance shouldn't pay for a sore throat. Car insurance does pay for a major accident, so health insurance should pay for open heart surgery. That's what HSAs try to accomplish; let people pay for the small things with tax-deferred money, and then insurance kicks in on the major stuff. Wal-Mart has had a plan like that for years, and guess who protests against it? The liberals, of course.

John: "Health Savings Accounts" are a scam intended to let employers off the hook for providing their employees care. What we really need is single payer, not a sleazy ripoff like HSAs.

Errington, As usual, your comments are thought-provoking, you have a point about employer-provided health insurance. Why am I, as an employer of 24 persons, getting involved with their healthcare? I know...that is the system we have, but it has institutionalized parties that, IMO, have so insulated the end-user (patient) from the provider about cost, quality, etc. How many times have people changed their physicians due to network changes - totally beyond the control of the patient? The HSA is a viable option for those who want more control with their healthcare dollar. I plan for my HSA to cover my LTC premiums when/if I retire.

We desperately need single payer. One thing I don't need is Whole Paycheck, especially after their nutty CEO is so bent on keeping people from having healthcare.