Thread by @charles_gaba

Ok, someone with a WSJ account has GOT to send me a non-paywalled version of this article. (Cracking knuckles)

https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1702311871796162584

OK, first, thank you to @ItWasACoup for the gift link!

I'm working on a full blog post, but just for starters, let's take a look at this paragraph:

@ItWasACoup The Op-Ed uses a "middle-aged" couple w/2 children; I'm assuming "middle-aged" to be ~45 yrs old. Let's say the children are 12 and 15.

The family earns $70,000/year, which is 233% of the Federal Poverty Level, and lives in Dallas County.

@ItWasACoup It then says that this family would opt for a $0-premium Bronze plan with a "$9,100 deductible for each child."

First of all, the deductible is $18,200 for the entire family, not "each child" (which makes it sound like it'd be $36,400 for all 4 of them, which isn't the case).

@ItWasACoup However, that's not the main problem. The main problem is that this family qualifies for $1,336/month in federal tax credits, but if they choose the Bronze plan, they'd be pissing away $178/month.

Instead, they'd be FAR more likely to go for the GOLD Blue Cross Blue Shield plan.

@ItWasACoup The GOLD BCBS plan would cost them $68/month, but would only have a $3,300 *FAMILY* deductible.

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself:

@ItWasACoup OK, but what about that $18,200 "total out-of-pocket exposure?" That sounds bad, doesn't it?

Yeah, that's a lot...except that prior to the #ACA, the "total out-of-pocket exposure" for an individual market healthcare policy was...

INFINITY.

That's right: There was no limit.

Next, they look at the same family with a $60,000/year income (200% FPL). They correctly note that the *children* would then be eligible for CHIP or Medicaid, which is awesome.

I guess this Op-Ed is suggesting Texas should expand Medicaid? Imagine that!

They go on to make some other questionable claims about the "best plans available" under various circumstances which I won't go into here, but their big ace in the hole is always the same: A mind-bogglingly high "maximum medical cost" or "out of pocket exposure."

Once again, while both $14,200 and $18,200 are indeed high "out-of-pocket exposure" amounts, they still pale in comparison to the pre-#ACA "maximum medical costs" which were generally...INFINITE.

There often wasn't ANY cap on how much you might have to pay.

You know what there WAS a cap on, however?

How much the INSURANCE carrier would pay in claims, aka "maximum BENEFIT limit."

Here's an example of pre-ACA plan which originally capped maximum benefits at just $40,000 (I'm not even sure if that was per year or lifetime).

I'll leave it at that, but this is what the #ACA's "3-Legged Stool" looked like in its original form.

There have been changes to the Red and Green legs over the years (both good and bad), but the Blue Leg protections are all still in place...and almost none existed pre-ACA.

Stay tuned for a full blog post tomorrow.

In the meantime, watch my 3-Legged Stool explainer. It’s a few years out of date but the bulk of it is still valid:

Oh yeah…in my haste to post this thread last night I completely forgot the most obvious flaw in the Op-Ed’s logic!!

https://twitter.com/1strongblack1/status/1702530059368820769