I tried to do a comparison of my traditional plan vs. HSA (which I described in a previous post) can came up with the following result.
It assumes I have the same pool of money to invest no matter which plan I choose. Money left over from this pool after medical expenses goes into VTI (in either a post-tax account, the HSA account, or both) and grows for 27 years (my timeline for retirement). Plots shows money left over after liquidating the entire account at retirement and paying all state and federal taxes due (plots show doing this for both qualified expenses and unqualified expenses). California taxes over the 27 years are taken into account. I show three cases: a theoretical best case of no medical expenses at all, a theoretical worst case of maxing out your out of pocket expenses, and a case in the middle. The spreadsheet that performs these calculations can be viewed here.

For the assumptions shown here, the middle case nets about $80K to $120K more than using the traditional plan, as the inconvenience of paying California taxes. The spreadsheet allows one to select treasuries instead of a stock investment, but I haven't been able to figure out the proper growth vs. dividend assumptions, so I didn't show those plots here.
Any thoughts?