Thread by @charles_gaba

⚠️ They were warned.
They were given an explanation.
Nevertheless, they're persisting.
#TexasFoldEm #SaveACA #ProtectOurCare
acasignups.net/20/06/26/they-…

Here's the Republican #TexasFoldEm lawsuit to strike down the #ACA in a nutshell. Here again is the ACA's 3-legged stool:

In December 2017, Republicans changed the #ACA's individual mandate penalty from $695 to $0 (or from 2.5% of income to 0.0%).

The GOP lawsuit claims that because they (the GOP) cut off most of the red leg, that means they get to cut off all of the other two legs as well...along with throwing out the seat of the stool while they're at it.

That's it. That's the lawsuit. That's their entire case.

They want the Supreme Court to strike down *ALL* of the #ACA--"root and branch", as Mitch McConnell used to put it--even the parts which have nothing to do with the individual mandate penalty whatsoever, like Medicaid expansion for 14 million Americans (likely more today).

In short, Donald Trump and the Republican Party are STILL dead set on stripping away healthcare coverage from 23 million Americans...in the middle of a deadly global pandemic which has already killed 125,000 of us and infected 2.5 million others.
americanprogress.org/issues/healthc…

And the most jaw-dropping part of all of this is that THE RED LEG HAS ALREADY BEEN REPLACED ANYWAY, with what I like to call the World's Most Expensive Shim®.

Let me explain:

The whole REASON for having a mandate penalty is to keep the risk pool healthier, thus keeping premiums from increasing. Yes, unsubsidized ACA premiums went up a lot for *other* reasons...but removing the penalty cause them to go up *another* ~$580/person.
nytimes.com/2018/12/27/opi…

If you're an *unsubsidized* #ACA enrollee, the GOP changing the penalty to $0 means that YOU'RE the one paying that extra $580/year.

However, ~85% of #ACA exchange enrollees *are* subsidized...which means most of that extra $580 is being covered by additional APTC subsidies.

~9 million subsidized #ACA exchange enrollees x ~$580 apiece = roughly $5.2 billion/year in add'l federal subsidies being paid to cover premium increases caused by the worsened risk pool as a result of by healthier enrollees dropping coverage due to the mandate being zeroed out.

So, what does this all mean? Well, if the Supreme Court does Trump/the GOP's bidding...

healthinsurance.org/blog/2019/03/2…

Medicaid expansion for ~16 million: GONE.
Financial subsidies for ~9 million: GONE.
Basic Health Plan coverage for ~800,000 in MN/NY: GONE.
Discrimination vs. up to 130 million w/pre-existing conditions: BACK.
Charging women more for the same policy because they’re women? BACK.

Charging older Americans up to 6x as much as younger Americans? BACK.
Policies having to cover at least 60% of medical expenses: GONE.
Policies having to cover maternity care & mental health services: GONE.
Children being able to stay on their parents plans until age 26: GONE.

Annual/lifetime limits on healthcare coverage claims? BACK.
Policies having to cover preventative services at no out-of-pocket cost? GONE.
Tax credits to lower premiums for low- and moderate-income enrollees? GONE.

Financial help to reduce deductibles for low-income enrollees? GONE.
A hard cap on out-of-pocket expenses? GONE.
Medicare Part D “donut hole”? REOPENED.

And much more...

...all because the richest 0.1% of the population want ANOTHER $200,000 tax cut.

cbpp.org/research/healt…

ADDENDUM: On Monday I’ll (once again) be breaking out those 23 million people by Congressional District. Be warned: It will be graphics-intensive.