I have a individual (not group, not employer offered) HSA plan with a very low premium and a high deductible. Every month I put some money (about the difference between this plan's premium and a average premium plan) into my HSA account. Although the deductible is high, I save enough on the premium to basically put away twice the yearly deductible every year. The plan gives 100% coverage after deductible on everything covered (no coinsurance), and many things (annual checkups) are totally free even before the deductible.

In other words, in years when I have high medical expenses, my total costs work out about the same as a high premium, low deductible plan. However, in years when my medical expenses are low, I get to KEEP the money that I would have spent on premiums. The insurance company loves it because any expenses I incur come partially out of my savings, so there is a definite motivation for me to keep my costs as low as possible (which keeps their costs low as well, unlike other plans where there is no incentive for the insured to keep costs low).

And the best part is that everything I deposit in the HSA account is TAX DEDUCTIBLE and earns interest TAX FREE. When I retire I can withdraw from it TAX FREE as well. It is like the best parts of a Traditional IRA plus a Roth IRA, but I can use it to cover any health expenses I have at any time and with no penalties.

Bottom line is that I'm paying about 1/2 of what the equivalent coverage would cost from a regular plan, and in the best case I get to save a lot of money that would have been wasted on premiums and earn interest on it tax free, and in the worst case if I use up the whole deductible, I still get good coverage, lower my taxes, and earn some interest on the money. The only time I wouldn't recommend the HSA is if you get really sick a lot and have high expenses all the time, especially prescription drugs which aren't discounted as much in this plan.

I don't get what you're all rattling on about.

The problem has to do with the intricacies of variable bit rate (VBR) codecs and the way that audio and video are interleaved.

AVI and MOV only support very limited types of VBR and limited ways of interleaving audio with video. The result is that trying to put both H.264 video and AC3 or DTS audio in an AVI/MOV just doesn't work.

Most professional, standardized formats like DVD/Bluray/broadcast/etc. use MPEG-2 transport streams to tie together multiple streams like this. M2T works great when it works, but it is a really difficult format to work with, with a lot of conflicting specs you have to pay to get access to and various patents you have to worry about. M2T have really poor cross-compatibility even if you follow the specs precisely, and there are a number of $1000+ software packages which are made just for the purpose of twiddling a few bits in your M2T file to be just right for your intended hardware/software player.

MKV was invented as an open source solution to these kinds of problems. It is a kind of transport stream, but with loose specs and an open format which is much easier to use. That's why you see a lot of H.264/AC3 video files using the MKV container rather than M2T or AVI/MOV.