Thread by @charles_gaba

📣 This morning, @Sam_Baker of @Axios posted a disturbingly misleading analysis of the #ACA premium expansion provision of the #AmRescuePlan. I contacted him immediately but have yet to hear a response, so yeah, I'm gonna call it out again. 1/

acasignups.net/21/02/17/cbo-r…

SHORT VERSION:

@Axios headline: "OMG! Dems gonna spend $50B to cover <2M people! That's $25K apiece!!"

REALITY: $14B spread across ~11M people, or around $1,300 apiece. 2/

The confusion is because Dems are mixing together 3 provisions which are SPECIFICALLY short-term pandemic-related (COBRA subsidies, waiving APTC clawback, max subsidies for those on unemployment) w/2 provisions which are BOTH COVID-related AND should be made permanent as well. 3/

Only ~$22B of the ~$50B referred to in the @Axios story is intended to expand coverage, and that's spread out over a 4-year period. Only $14B of it would apply to a full 12-month period (2022) during which the other provisions wouldn't apply. 4/

Even then, MOST of that $14B is intended to cut costs for CURRENTLY insured individuals; the rest is indeed intended to *expand* coverage to the uninsured (which the CBO suggests will be ~1.3M people, + another 600K via the COBRA subsidies this year). 5/

Personally, I think the CBO is underestimating the net increase in coverage anyway, but even if you take their numbers as absolute, the "$50B for 2M!" framing is breathtakingly misleading. /END

In case you think I'm exagerating, here's how @Axios is framing it as well as @Sam_Baker's headline.