We're seeing a lot of Republicans try to make the case that any coverage losses from mandate repeal are "voluntary" - and so the impact isn't harmful. That's just not true. 1/
To start, some people lose coverage do so because premiums spike as a result of the worsened risk pool. These people lose health care because they simply can't afford it any more. 2/
Second, the mandate served an outreach function. People didn't know they could get subsidies and Medicaid -- mandate helped them find out. No one would say they are better off if they lost that coverage 3/
(And if you think the Trump administration is going to do more aggressive outreach to help people figure out they can get affordable ACA/Medicaid coverage, well ... ) 4/
Moreover, fewer people covered means fewer people covered. Less preventive care, more bankruptcy + uncompensated costs paid by everyone else when they get sick. 5/
There's a reason mandate repeal saves money. It's because it shifts costs back to actual people, people whose lives will be worse off -- all to help pay for a permanent corporate tax cut 6/
And that doesn't even account for the fact that millions of people who are still insured will pay higher premiums -- see @EmilyG_DC + @SamBerger_DC for state-by-state impacts 7/ americanprogress.org/issues/healthc…
Want fewer insured people to pay for corporate tax cuts, with higher premiums to boot? Fine. But own it. And read @AvivaAronDine, who articulated all this better than me: cbpp.org/research/healt…
Now @AvivaAronDine did a great standalone piece covering many of this points, and more
