Obamacare cost...

[calicoug]

After Obamacare was passed -- not after Obamacare. Are you seriously claiming that the substantive parts of Obamacare were implemented in 2011? Do you think we're all oblivious to the fact that it really isn't coming into being until next year? What possible effect could legislation that is not being implemented for another three years have on the growth in health care spending in 2011?

Of course it's having an effect. Are you aware most of Obamacare isn't actually implemented until 2014? Do you think the law isn't having an effect as a result? If so, all of your complaining about the impacts the law is having sure are strange. Are you aware the cadillac tax doesn't fully go into effect until 2018? And yet behavior is already changing....

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You're arguing that the rate of increase in healthcare spending in 2011 was because of Obamacare. Obamacare was passed in March of 2010 and very few of its provisions actually went into effect in 2011. So, are you arguing that putting 25 year-old college students on their parents health insurance, which insurance companies were obligated to offer to customers starting in 2011, had this wondrous effect of the increase in healthcare spending falling fractionally below GDP growth? Especially since the declining rate of increase had already begun taking place years before 2011?

Do you really think behaviors changed over the course of the last of nine months to produce this effect because of the passing of Obamacare? If so, what behaviors changed and why? You're missing dozens of cars on this logic train and obviously you have never heard or bothered to understand the most simplistic of statistical principles -- "Correlation does not imply causation."

You need to step back for a minute and understand how stupid your argument is and stop making it -- Obamacare caused the decline in the rate of increase in health care spending in 2011 despite the fact the rate of increase had already slowed down in previous years and despite Obamacare not being implemented until 2014.

[Indy Coug]

IMO, the slowing in healthcare spending growth is due in large part to the continued proliferation of HDHPs, putting an increased burden on the insureds to manage their utilization of the healthcare system. The proliferation of HDHPs has nothing to do with Obamacare.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Of course it's having an effect. Are you aware most of Obamacare isn't actually implemented until 2014? Do you think the law isn't having an effect as a result? If so, all of your complaining about the impacts the law is having sure are strange. Are you aware the cadillac tax doesn't fully go into effect until 2018? And yet behavior is already changing....

"Are you aware most of Obamacare isn't actually implemented until 2014?" Seriously, WTF? Surfah's the smartest guy here -- he wondered why any of us even bother with you.

[All-American]

Again it's clear you aren't bothering to read. Economists will tell you why it started slowing- the recession. "

The one in 2003?

[All-American]

By the way- health care didn't grow more slowly than GDP until 2011- after Obamacare.

Which says more about GDP than about health care, of course, but don't let a little thing like that get in the way of your story.

[calicoug]

Which says more about GDP than about health care, of course, but don't let a little thing like that get in the way of your story.

Right... because GDP grew more slowly in 2011 than prior years like 2008 and 2009 and 2010.

Or something.

[calicoug]

The one in 2003?

No. National health care spending always has peaks and valleys, and there are always many explanations for why it is happening. But in the context of the recession and the recovery of the economy, what is happening right now with health care spending is unusual. Read more than one guy from Forbes and you will see what I mean.

[calicoug]

IMO, the slowing in healthcare spending growth is due in large part to the continued proliferation of HDHPs, putting an increased burden on the insureds to manage their utilization of the healthcare system. The proliferation of HDHPs has nothing to do with Obamacare.

It could be. You aren't alone in that sentiment, and there is some supporting circumstantial data. That said, you could just as easily point to the law's impact in changing how providers charge for care.

[All-American]

No. National health care spending always has peaks and valleys, and there are always many explanations for why it is happening. But in the context of the recession and the recovery of the economy, what is happening right now with health care spending is unusual.

And it's been happening since 2003.

[calicoug]

You're arguing that the rate of increase in healthcare spending in 2011 was because of Obamacare. Obamacare was passed in March of 2010 and very few of its provisions actually went into effect in 2011. So, are you arguing that putting 25 year-old college students on their parents health insurance, which insurance companies were obligated to offer to customers starting in 2011, had this wondrous effect of the increase in healthcare spending falling fractionally below GDP growth? Especially since the declining rate of increase had already begun taking place years before 2011?

Do you really think behaviors changed over the course of the last of nine months to produce this effect because of the passing of Obamacare? If so, what behaviors changed and why? You're missing dozens of cars on this logic train and obviously you have never heard or bothered to understand the most simplistic of statistical principles -- "Correlation does not imply causation."

You need to step back for a minute and understand how stupid your argument is and stop making it -- Obamacare caused the decline in the rate of increase in health care spending in 2011 despite the fact the rate of increase had already slowed down in previous years and despite Obamacare not being implemented until 2014.

Solely because of Obamacare? No. I have never said that. I am saying it has and s contributing.

And you can't take the position that Obamacare has been negatively affecting healthcare for years while simultaneously suggesting Obamacare can't possibly have a positive effect because it isn't implemented.

[All-American]

Solely because of Obamacare? No. I have never said that. I am saying it has and s contributing.

And you can't take the position that Obamacare has been negatively affecting healthcare for years while simultaneously suggesting Obamacare can't possibly have a positive effect because it isn't implemented.

Go tell that to employees who work 29 hours a week.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Solely because of Obamacare? No. I have never said that. I am saying it has and s contributing.

And you can't take the position that Obamacare has been negatively affecting healthcare for years while simultaneously suggesting Obamacare can't possibly have a positive effect because it isn't implemented.

It contributed to the trend that started in 2003? We have a sample size of 10 years of a declining increase -- 7-8 years with no Obamacare passed or implemented and 2 years of Obamacare passed but not implemented and you're trying to argue that Obamacare bears responsibility? And you have given no reason as how Obamacare had any effect on this and just point to the correlation of dates.

"Just trust me" isn't an argument.

And what does the bolded part even mean? I've pointed out a couple times how low income workers are getting their hours cut, in fact, I think it has been one of my two main arguments. Yet you continue to ignore it.

[calicoug]

Go tell that to employees who work 29 hours a week.

Tell the employees who are feeling the effects of a provision that doesn't take effect until 2014 that the law can have an effect even before it is implemented?

Which side of the debate are you on?

[calicoug]

It contributed to the trend that started in 2003? We have a sample size of 10 years of a declining increase -- 7-8 years with no Obamacare passed or implemented and 2 years of Obamacare passed but not implemented and you're trying to argue that Obamacare bears responsibility? And you have given no reason as how Obamacare had any effect on this and just point to the correlation of dates.

"Just trust me" isn't an argument.

And what does the bolded part even mean? I've pointed out a couple times how low income workers are getting their hours cut, in fact, I think it has been one of my two main arguments. Yet you continue to ignore it.

I should refer you to a post above where AA noted that you learn in Econ 101 that spending is not the same as cost. We are talking about cost reductions. That hasn't been going on since 2003. Spending may be decreasing since 2003, but not as a result of cost decreases (until recently). Somewhere between that post by AA and the most recent post by you, both you and AA forgot about the contents of that post.

There is significant evidence that costs are decreasing now. The decline in spending was initially attributed to the recession and not to cost decreases. As I have noted over and over, however, economists are now concluding the recession cannot continue to explain the slowdown whereas cost decreases can. The fact that spending has decreased in other periods also does not mean costs have decreased. For a group of people who have spent years on this and other boards proclaiming that rising costs will kill our economy, this shouldn't be necessary to explain to you. Spending decreases are really important to note and then to study to help understand the reason for the decrease. We have many reasons identified by economists for increases in spending between 2000-2002 (including inflation and rising costs). If you are interested in reading about that period, there is a lot out there and I'm sure you will find enough to keep you occupied. But it's not particularly relevant to this discussion.