The original claim was that all uninsured Americans would have free or inexpensive healthcare by way of HSA. This should be obviously false since HSAs have been around since 2003 (and people have been shopping for their own healthcare) and all uninsured Americans don’t have free nor inexpensive healthcare. Now the claim has been amended to a subsidized HSA. The key point here is that it is the subsidy that is making healthcare affordable for the uninsured and not the HSA. Also note that HSA and single payer are not mutually exclusive programs for addressing affordability (and that I could care less about single payer).
“ Which, of course, is utter bullshit for you to say, since HSA policies do not have annual out of pocket costs anywhere near 100K…”
Re-read the original post. The aforementioned comment was that a $2,000 savings account would do nothing to prevent an individual from going into bankruptcy when they incur $100k in hospital bills. There was no mention of HSA account costs, expense ratios, etc.
“If I was young and healthy, I’d keep about 500 bucks in mine and take my chances; I have a 401K and I don’t need another place to store up dinero. So, I’m not young at all (but I am healthy) and I only keep about $1500 in mine.”
This exemplifies some troubles with HSAs. Most people don’t realize that their HSA can be used as investment accounts where the growth is also tax-free. Most people also don’t realize that the majority of healthcare costs are incurred by a relative few number of people. People shouldn’t be balancing their healthcare costs from an annual perspective — they ought to budgeting them for a lifetime perspective.