I think you make several excellent points on the nature of insurance and how it drives (or crashes) health care delivery for both providers and consumers. Would you agree that HSAs are the best alternative to the pvt/public turd party payer schemes (excluding the indigent population)? And would a transitional period would be in order for the vast majority without one, so that people could fund their own care? It certainly redraws the model not only for the industry but of personal responsiblity. But as you point out people are far more likely to take better care of themselves, which will sharply drive down utilization. Perhaps in cases of prolonged or catastrophic illness insurance could be maintained in some way, and not necessarily publicly funded/administered, or people could be fast tracked into a safety net program.
Of course, none of this is feasible until the economy turns around, and that won't manifest until the Marxist is returned to Illinois or Hawaii or Indonesia or Kenya... whatever.
Your approach is a major improvement on the current system. The key to an HSA-type of arrangement is that the HSA is owned by the individual and he/she therefore has some measure of control over it. The purpose of an HSA is to ultimately establish a pool of funds so that a person is “self-insured” to a large degree. That’s why it has no appeal to people (in both major political parties) who have vested interest in expanding government power in the medical and insurance industries.