Obamacare cost...

[Surfah]

"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.

Yes I am.

[All-American]

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?

Not the one that says that Obamacare has been curbing health care spending since 2003.

[CardiacCoug]

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.

Yep, I agree -- it's becoming very common for patients to flat out tell me they have a high deductible health plan and they aren't going to do any testing unless it's "absolutely necessary.' And in fact Obamacare will probably stop the momentum of HDHPs. Right now employers are really trying to push their employees into HDHPs to save money. Now you have companies like Arches in Utah using $85 million in federal money to temporarily keep their rates low while going around telling employers "Obamacare is great news for you. Don't worry about giving your employees health insurance -- you can save a ton of money by getting all your people into an Arches co-op health plan." Bye bye HDHPs. As usual, the more the federal government gets involved the more adverse unintended consequences you will see.

http://www.archeshealth.org/

[All-American]

Yep, I agree -- it's becoming very common for patients to flat out tell me they have a high deductible health plan and they aren't going to do any testing unless it's "absolutely necessary.' And in fact Obamacare will probably stop the momentum of HDHPs. Right now employers are really trying to push their employees into HDHPs to save money. Now you have companies like Arches in Utah using $85 million in federal money to temporarily keep their rates low while going around telling employers "Obamacare is great news for you. Don't worry about giving your employees health insurance -- you can save a ton of money by getting all your people into an Arches co-op health plan." Bye bye HDHPs. As usual, the more the federal government gets involved the more adverse unintended consequences you will see.

http://www.archeshealth.org/

Yup. Health Savings Accounts being made possible in-- that's right, Cali-- 2003.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...vings-accounts

Thanks, President Bush!

[calicoug]

Yup. Health Savings Accounts being made possible in-- that's right, Cali-- 2003.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...vings-accounts

Thanks, President Bush!

And to think you previously were arguing that costs were not going down. At least you have now conceded the point. Now it seems it is just a question as to the cause. You are coming along nicely, grasshopper.

[calicoug]

Yep, I agree -- it's becoming very common for patients to flat out tell me they have a high deductible health plan and they aren't going to do any testing unless it's "absolutely necessary.' And in fact Obamacare will probably stop the momentum of HDHPs. Right now employers are really trying to push their employees into HDHPs to save money. Now you have companies like Arches in Utah using $85 million in federal money to temporarily keep their rates low while going around telling employers "Obamacare is great news for you. Don't worry about giving your employees health insurance -- you can save a ton of money by getting all your people into an Arches co-op health plan." Bye bye HDHPs. As usual, the more the federal government gets involved the more adverse unintended consequences you will see.

http://www.archeshealth.org/

Your one anecdote notwithstanding, there doesn't appear to be much slowing in HDHPs right now.

[CardiacCoug]

Your one anecdote notwithstanding, there doesn't appear to be much slowing in HDHPs right now.

Funny.

If HSA/HDHPs survive it will be because they're the only strategy to offset the huge price increases the ACA is fueling.

So the market has found the solution (HSA/HDHPs) and the government (ACA) is the problem. Nobody should be surprised.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Your one anecdote notwithstanding, there doesn't appear to be much slowing in HDHPs right now.

Obamacare is going to disallow a lot of HDHP plans. And his one anecdote along with his considerable experience equal more more than the other guy conjecturing out of his ass.

[Indy Coug]

Obamacare is going to disallow a lot of HDHP plans. And his one anecdote along with his considerable experience equal more more than the other guy conjecturing out of his ass.

Why is it going to disallow HDHPs?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Why is it going to disallow HDHPs?

The highest deductible allowed under Obamacare will be $6,300 for an individual, $12,000 for a family. And that's just the bright line rule, in order to come under bronze plan compliance, I wouldn't be surprised to see the deductible lower for all intents and purposes.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news...ges/index.html

[All-American]

And to think you previously were arguing that costs were not going down. At least you have now conceded the point. Now it seems it is just a question as to the cause. You are coming along nicely, grasshopper.

There is no question whatsoever as to whether Obamacare is responsible for a trend that started in 2003.

[Indy Coug]

The highest deductible allowed under Obamacare will be $6,300 for an individual, $12,000 for a family. And that's just the bright line rule, in order to come under bronze plan compliance, I wouldn't be surprised to see the deductible lower for all intents and purposes.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news...ges/index.html

Those limits are pre-Obamacare limits though.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-...le_health_plan

[calicoug]

There is no question whatsoever as to whether Obamacare is responsible for a trend that started in 2003.

Spending v cost. Always one step forward two back with you.

[All-American]

Spending v cost. Always one step forward two back with you.

You should take a few steps back yourself. You've been insisting that the credit for the slowdown of the rate of spending increases should (or at least could) go to Obamacare in the face of data showing that the slowdown has been going on since 2003.

[calicoug]

You should take a few steps back yourself. You've been insisting that the credit for the slowdown of the rate of spending increases should (or at least could) go to Obamacare in the face of data showing that the slowdown has been going on since 2003.

No. Not what I have been arguing. But given that you have already abandoned every other argument you have made on here it isn't surprising that the only thing you have left is distortion.