Obamacare cost...

[All-American]

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.

So you are saying Obamacare did NOT caused the rate of spending to slow? If so, I agree.

[Topper]

So you are saying Obamacare did NOT caused the rate of spending to slow? If so, I agree.

Whatever he is arguing is unclear. Cali thinks Obamacare is wonderful, even if there is no undisputed demonstrable evidence to show it has any net positive economic effects.

[The_Douger]

In clinic, I just keep seeing people who are now only getting 29 hours and their company is not offering benefits. I hope the exchanges are done well. It's not like they get higher compensation for the slashed benefits either. Now they get to buy their own thing and get another job to scrap by.

[calicoug]

So you are saying Obamacare did NOT caused the rate of spending to slow? If so, I agree.

Nope. The rate of spending is slowing. Over time, that is caused by many different issues and factors. We have identified those factors historically. Since 2007, the rate has been explained through the recession. Today, the recession is not sufficient to provide an explanation any further. Instead, it appears that it is actually due to a bending of the cost curve downward. It also appears that Obamacare may be at least somewhat to thank for that bending.

I truly cannot explain it any simpler than this.

[Goatnapper'96]

Nope. The rate of spending is slowing. Over time, that is caused by many different issues and factors. We have identified those factors historically. Since 2007, the rate has been explained through the recession. Today, the recession is not sufficient to provide an explanation any further. Instead, it appears that it is actually due to a bending of the cost curve downward. It also appears that Obamacare may be at least somewhat to thank for that bending.

I truly cannot explain it any simpler than this.

I think it is probably a great deal of factors. It would not be fair to instantly dismiss any impact of Obamacare but it is likely too early to give it a great deal of credit. I think the likely most responsible independent variable has been the systematic placing more and more of the burden of both insurance and health care costs on employees. That likely has led to a more discriminant consumer.

In any case this is a development we all should like. Conservatives like it now because it supports the free market argument that our form of insurance has distorted the market and removed the consumer from the cost of health care and if we can move the consumer closer to the actual cost it will bend the curve down. Liberals can like it because today it gives them something about Obamacare that they can talk positively about without having to lie. In the future when people are no more healthier it can then be an argument that we must remove this cost to the consumer because they are obviously not getting healthcare they need because greedy corporate oligarchs have them convinced to spend their few disposable sheckels on I-tunes or McCafe's instead of immunizations for their kids and thus we need socialized medicine so the nanny state can give SoonerCoug his "god."

[calicoug]

I think it is probably a great deal of factors. It would not be fair to instantly dismiss any impact of Obamacare but it is likely too early to give it a great deal of credit. I think the likely most responsible independent variable has been the systematic placing more and more of the burden of both insurance and health care costs on employees. That likely has led to a more discriminant consumer.

In any case this is a development we all should like. Conservatives like it now because it supports the free market argument that our form of insurance has distorted the market and removed the consumer from the cost of health care and if we can move the consumer closer to the actual cost it will bend the curve down. Liberals can like it because today it gives them something about Obamacare that they can talk positively about without having to lie. In the future when people are no more healthier it can then be an argument that we must remove this cost to the consumer because they are obviously not getting healthcare they need because greedy corporate oligarchs have them convinced to spend their few disposable sheckels on I-tunes or McCafe's instead of immunizations for their kids and thus we need socialized medicine so the nanny state can give SoonerCoug his "god."

I have no problem with this.

[All-American]

Nope. The rate of spending is slowing. Over time, that is caused by many different issues and factors. We have identified those factors historically. Since 2007, the rate has been explained through the recession. Today, the recession is not sufficient to provide an explanation any further. Instead, it appears that it is actually due to a bending of the cost curve downward. It also appears that Obamacare may be at least somewhat to thank for that bending.

I truly cannot explain it any simpler than this.

No need to explain anything. The rate has been slowing since 2003, before Obamacare and before the recession. The reason why is actually quite clear: HSAs. Bush has done far more to end the curve than Obama has done. To the extent Obamacare would take any credit, it's because it (mostly) left HSAs alone-- but only after spending a trillion in the process.

But as I said earlier, the bending curve is about spending, and not cost. With premiums on the rise (and Obamacare is only fueling the rise), people have turned to HSAs as a way to save money-- just the sort of reaction you'd expect if you can draw an econ 101 supply and demand graph.

[Uncle Ted]

No need to explain anything. The rate has been slowing since 2003, before Obamacare and before the recession. The reason why is actually quite clear: HSAs. Bush has done far more to end the curve than Obama has done. To the extent Obamacare would take any credit, it's because it (mostly) left HSAs alone-- but only after spending a trillion in the process.

But as I said earlier, the bending curve is about spending, and not cost. With premiums on the rise (and Obamacare is only fueling the rise), people have turned to HSAs as a way to save money-- just the sort of reaction you'd expect if you can draw an econ 101 supply and demand graph.

If anything Obamacare has screwed up HSA's and increased the rate of spending. It use to be I could buy preventive meds like vitamins and other meds over the counter with my HSA debit card. With Obamacare I now have to get a prescription for my vitamins which cost at least 3x for the same thing in order to use my HSA money.

I find it easier to measure the success of Obama in the area of health care costs by using his own metric. He promised to reduce my family's health insurance cost by $2,500 per year before his first term is over. Of course, Cali will argue that given that Obama slowed the health insurance cost growth rate he has saved us at least $2,500 per year already. If this is what Obama meant by saving me and my family by $2,500 in my health insurance costs then "[the punk] might want to suck on one of these..."

[calicoug]

No need to explain anything. The rate has been slowing since 2003, before Obamacare and before the recession. The reason why is actually quite clear: HSAs. Bush has done far more to end the curve than Obama has done. To the extent Obamacare would take any credit, it's because it (mostly) left HSAs alone-- but only after spending a trillion in the process.

But as I said earlier, the bending curve is about spending, and not cost. With premiums on the rise (and Obamacare is only fueling the rise), people have turned to HSAs as a way to save money-- just the sort of reaction you'd expect if you can draw an econ 101 supply and demand graph.

Look- you can stick your head in the sand if you want to- or keep it stuck in the sand given it was likely already there before this chat- but it won't help. It isn't just consumer spending that is down. It is Medicare spending too. And it isn't "clear" that HSA's are responsible for this reduction. In fact, I doubt you had any idea HSA's were even contemplated as having any credit until Indy made a comment. Now you have taken his comment beyond where even he put it. You may want to dial that back because it most certainly is not clear and it doesn't help explain why Medicare spending grew during fiscal year 2012 at just 0.4%. Federal health care spending is now expected to be 15% lower than what had been budgeted for FY 2012.

You should also note that from 2010-2012, about 3.6 million new people enrolled for coverage who didn't have coverage before. Total growth in HSA enrollees only went up by about 3.5 million over that same period. We are insuring more people than ever before, doing it with less money (government and private) and health care utilization remains high. How? Best guess is lower cost.

Regardless, as I said when we started this conversation, you can't argue Obamacare is causing health care costs to skyrocket, which has previously been your position.

[Uncle Ted]

Look- you can stick your head in the sand if you want to- or keep it stuck in the sand given it was likely already there before this chat- but it won't help. It isn't just consumer spending that is down. It is Medicare spending too. And it isn't "clear" that HSA's are responsible for this reduction. In fact, I doubt you had any idea HSA's were even contemplated as having any credit until Indy made a comment. Now you have taken his comment beyond where even he put it. You may want to dial that back because it most certainly is not clear and it doesn't help explain why Medicare spending grew during fiscal year 2012 at just 0.4%. Federal health care spending is now expected to be 15% lower than what had been budgeted for FY 2012.

You should also note that from 2010-2012, about 3.6 million new people enrolled for coverage who didn't have coverage before. Total growth in HSA enrollees only went up by about 3.5 million over that same period. We are insuring more people than ever before, doing it with less money (government and private) and health care utilization remains high. How? Best guess is lower cost.

Regardless, as I said when we started this conversation, you can't argue Obamacare is causing health care costs to skyrocket, which has previously been your position.

You should also note that the population of the US is 313.9 million with a growth rate around 1.3% or about 4 million per year. If only 3.6 million new people have health insurance coverage over a two year period then the percentage is not growing.

[All-American]

It is Medicare spending too.

Yes-- thanks to the Medicare Modernization act of 2003. Thanks, President Bush!

And it isn't "clear" that HSA's are responsible for this reduction. In fact, I doubt you had any idea HSA's were even contemplated as having any credit until Indy made a comment. Now you have taken his comment beyond where even he put it.

Please see the article I cited in post 305 of this thread, before Indy's comment (post # 333). Indy is exceptionally smart, but this isn't his idea.

We are insuring more people than ever before, doing it with less money (government and private) and health care utilization remains high.

Wrong. Rate of increase of spending is slowing, but we are still spending more each year. You took me to task for being sloppy on this point-- don't you go making the same mistake.

Regardless, as I said when we started this conversation, you can't argue Obamacare is causing health care costs to skyrocket, which has previously been your position.

Premiums are going up. Significantly. They were supposed to go down. Significantly. We spent a trillion dollars on an act that doesn't do what it was supposed to do.

[All-American]

More stuff relevant to the conversation:

http://news.yahoo.com/report-slowdow...040414126.html

A mostly good-sounding article, but with a few hidden issues, as pointed out in this response article:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/19/...ium-increases/

[Topper]

I think it is probably a great deal of factors. It would not be fair to instantly dismiss any impact of Obamacare but it is likely too early to give it a great deal of credit. I think the likely most responsible independent variable has been the systematic placing more and more of the burden of both insurance and health care costs on employees. That likely has led to a more discriminant consumer.

In any case this is a development we all should like. Conservatives like it now because it supports the free market argument that our form of insurance has distorted the market and removed the consumer from the cost of health care and if we can move the consumer closer to the actual cost it will bend the curve down. Liberals can like it because today it gives them something about Obamacare that they can talk positively about without having to lie. In the future when people are no more healthier it can then be an argument that we must remove this cost to the consumer because they are obviously not getting healthcare they need because greedy corporate oligarchs have them convinced to spend their few disposable sheckels on I-tunes or McCafe's instead of immunizations for their kids and thus we need socialized medicine so the nanny state can give SoonerCoug his "god."

There may be truth to this observation. Again the analysis will often lag behind the actual events.

[calicoug]

Yes-- thanks to the Medicare Modernization act of 2003. Thanks, President Bush! Please see the article I cited in post 305 of this thread, before Indy's comment (post # 333). Indy is exceptionally smart, but this isn't his idea.

Wait- you think that law is just now affecting Medicare positively after Medicare spending doubled in the years after it passed??? And now that law is causing spending to decline? You may be alone there. Frankly, you and other conservatives have been saying for a while that Medicare will bankrupt us if not fixed. That is an odd position to take if you think the fix was already implemented in 2003.

Medicare spending is now slowing significantly. Why? Per beneficiary Medicare grew by just 0.4% in 2012.

Fair enough. Although the idea it is "clear"" appears to be solely yours.

. Wrong. Rate of increase of spending is slowing, but we are still spending more each year. You took me to task for being sloppy on this point-- don't you go making the same mistake.

. Fair enough. I could have been clearer.

Premiums are going up. Significantly. They were supposed to go down. Significantly. We spent a trillion dollars on an act that doesn't do what it was supposed to do.

We haven't spent a trillion. Not even close. You are looking at what we are projected to spend over 10 years. And you are neglecting to note the spending is offset.

[Pelado]

Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."

The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.

Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.

Those are "some pretty startling answers," Friedman said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782