Where do you get your information that HSA's will be eliminated?

You've been here for about 10 years - are you seriously just now realizing that there are some US-centric articles on here?

Democracy is one vote per person, not one vote per dollar, per person. Should Bill Gates' single vote be worth the same as the votes of millions of people?

I don't know much about fox news (not being a resident in the US), so I can't comment much about that but what I don't understand it is people are so against this reform. Yes it is a 'socialist' policy but the lives of so many people will be helped by this policy. I know a number of people who have had there lives saved or dramatically improved due to the intervention of the NHS here in the UK. yes the NHS has problems, but rarely is there anything that doesnt. The bill isn't communism, you don't have to have government run healthcare, go private if it bothers you. Granting cheap/free healthcare to those who can't afford insurance isn't a bad thing it would help the US become a better nation I've used the NHS many a time and never had a problem, In fact I've only used my medical isurance for minor little problems that are more annoying than serious. Don't slam government run healthcare. It's a good thing

Except in a true democracy, you don't have some people with thousands of times more votes than others.

"Dollar votes" is a fine concept when applied only to the participants in particular markets that have no externalities. Otherwise capitalism is a pretty poor metaphor for democracy.

As for nfp insurance, it's probably not around because health care actually is pretty expensive, and a firm that didn't participate in the kind of rampant shenanigans of the insurance companies would be buried under adverse-selection-induced costs within days.

of doctors and researchers who deal with statistics on a regular basis. My aunt and uncle are both oncologists. My grandfather is an orthopedist. Last year, my grandfather discussed this very issue with me: for the majority of his career, he did not understand statistics well enough to truly gain anything from scientific journals. He could understand things like means, standard deviation, median, etc. But when the literature begins to lean toward more esoteric statistics, he can no longer discern the meaning. He then handed me a book titled The Lady Tasting Tea, which he claims made a great difference in his understanding of statistics and their meanings. I graduated with a BS in computer science, and have taken enough statistics courses that the idea of reading one more word about chi square tests would melt my brain. But I digress. The point is that there is accessible literature out there for people who are not versed in statistics.

I hate SUV's but the argument that you see "more suv's then anything else in some certain scenario then another" is probably more along the law of statistics. There are (or were a few years ago) more SUV's on the road then cars/trucks/vans/etc. So law of statistics is going to say that if an equal amount of dumbasses are driving and there are more SUV's on the road, then there will be more SUV's wrecked.

I will admit that security probably also has to do with it, but I feel pretty damn safe in my ((insert 5star crash rating car here))

Blocking PS3 or other "undesirable devices" (like say, macs) also violates Net Neutrality.

Oh, that's quite easy. "Bring me a bag of gold...your reward...a ration". Failing = death, not doing the quest equals finding new work (e.g. being fired and getting a new job, assuming you meet the level requirements aka skillset)

And the counterpoints...
1) Right now America's biggest problem isn't doctors testing too much - it's too LITTLE testing. Americans don't do any preventative medicine choosing to go to the doctor only when the damage done is already severe.
Guess what - early detection and preventative care is not only better for saving lives, it generally costs a lot less to provide.

The old adage goes that "early detection of cancer means before there are serious symptoms" - how do you equate that with a system where people are afraid to go to a doctor until the symptoms are severe ?

More importantly - I didn't say medicine should always be provided by the government, there are some possible valid concerns there though it's clear to me that your "medicine market" system comes down to saying "the right to life is on the lawbooks but only for rich people". I put "socialized medicine" in quotes on purpose - specifically to point out that I am using the term as it's use by America concervatives - to mean "any medicine not supplied with the intention of maximizing corporate profits.

The point is - I think the vast majority of Americans would get better and more frequent medical care even with the kind of government run single-payer form of universal healthcare found in countries like cuba.

My own country uses multipayer universal healthcare e.g. there are both private medical facilities and public ones. Medical insurance companies (who generally take bulk contracts with employers offering you better rates) that pay for private care, while public is free-for-all.
The catch here is that we're a very poor country - so public means long waits and overworked staff. Despite that, a few years ago I got in a motorcycle crash when I was uninsured, went to a public hospital and got excellent care and thus survived without any lasting injuries.

Brazil is just a little richer than my native South Africa, I used to be a very regular traveler there. They too have multipayer system like we do, but they have a somewhat richer country. On one of my trips I got sick, simple virus infection. Here - I would save my precious medical-savings-account (insurance part only kicks in if you're hospitalized) and just heal up at home.
There I was instantly dragged to a clinic by my hosts. True I had to wait about two hours to be helped (if I went to a private one with an appointment I could skip that, but I'd literally be paying for the convenience - the care is identical).
Once I got to a doctor though, I was fully examined. I was then prescribed a course of immune-boosting vitamins, given 3 hours of pure oxygen (another immune booster) and a series of shots to prevent secondary infections... basically 5 hours of care (suddenly waiting 2 hours isn't so bad by comparison).
Whereas normally a flu virus knocks me out for up to two weeks, I was back on my feet in 3 days.

For 86 out of 100 patients - this care won't save their lives, just get them back to work a bit quicker (hmmm isn't that GOOD for the economy ?) but now what about that 14% of people in whom influenza is fatal ? This kind of treatment probably drops the fatality rate in that country to 7% or lower (I haven't checked the numbers - but it's obvious that massive preventative care in patients having a disease with a low fatality rate would lower it).

And do you know what I paid for all those shots, the oxygen treatment, the doctor's time and the huge bottle of pills they gave me ? Squat. No bill. Not even one penny. It's free - even to a foreign tourist. The form I was given to fill in had a place for my name and age, the rest of it was valid questions on my medical history. Nobody cared about my billing address.

If Brazil can afford to give high quality medical care to it's citizens for free - America has no excuse.

Do you realize that America is the ONLY industrialized nation on the PLANET with no guaranteed free healthcare option available to all citizens ? There isn't even ONE other industrialized country where poor people HAVE to die from curable diseases because they can't afford the medicine.
I can understand that happening in Sudan where doctors are rare and money even rarer... no amount of rhetoric can excuse it happening in New York City.

I have traveled extensively in my life (18 countries and counting - most of them poor nations) the only one where I really FEARED getting sick... was yours.

Are you sure you are not confusing "internet" with "web browser"?

I hate major labels as much as the next guy, but to be fair supporting the corporation that the artists rely on for profit kinda is helping the artists.

I envy your optimism. It will most likely go the recording industry -- the ones who have to be appeased over the digital equivalent of mixtapes.

I actually greatly prefer watching video in a TV-like environment - somewhat back from the screen, able to sit on something comfy and relaxing, maybe with other people. I spend most of my time on the computer, but I really prefer that it be a somewhat differentiated and more social activity to watch video.

Yes I do, because anything the government does is not done well. However, I also believe that insurance agencies should be forced back into being non-profit entities. I think the fact that the insurance agencies have become more concerned with profit is a large part of the issue.

But then I also think part of it is doctors willing to test everything under the sun when not really necessary to collect fees an issue, as is those that go to the ER for aspirin. Going to socialized medicine really doesn't address those issues now does it?