aside Republicans’ Lies About ACA High Deductibles

We’ve all been hearing similar republican talking points like, we have to save Obamacare because it’s a failure; the premiums and deductibles are too high; if the deductibles are so high, then lower income wage earners really do not have access to a doctor.

The White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has been telling his story whenever he gets in front of camera and microphone. Here is about how his narrative goes:

“I was on Obamacare. I was on the exchanges as a member of the House. I had the same plan that somebody who makes a lot less than I did at the time would have. I had a $12,000 or $15,000 a year annual deductible. I could afford it. How could the person who makes one-fifth of what I was making ever afford to go to the doctor?”

Image result for photos of mick mulvaneyFortunately, Mr. Mulvaney’s claim was fact checked by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post bill on 3/15/17.

Here are excerpts from his report,Mulvaney’s suggestion that a person making one-fifth his pay couldn’t afford a doctor:”

“How does a member of Congress end up with a $12,000-$15,000 deductible when lawmakers are supposed to select low-deductible Gold plans?”

“And would a person making one-fifth of the congressional salary actually have to pay such a high deductible under the “Affordable Care Act?”

The Facts

“A member of the House makes $174,000 a year. So one-fifth of that would be $34,800.

“First, let’s understand Mulvaney’s deductible from when he was a Republican congressman from South Carolina.”

“Under the provisions of the ACA, members of Congress and their direct staffs must obtain insurance from the small-business (SHOP) exchange of the District of Columbia. Moreover, to receive a 72 percent contribution from the federal government for the premiums, members and staff must purchase plans offered in the Gold tier.”Image result for photos of mick mulvaney

“But when we looked on the SHOP exchange at the Gold plans, many had no deductibles. At most, we could find a deductible of $3,500. So how did Mulvaney’s deductible get so high?”

“Mick’s family has health-care needs that could not be met with any single policy on the D.C. exchange,” an aide said in an email. “With his triplets living at home in S.C. (with mom), and Mick splitting time between D.C. and S.C., there was no single provider that met their specific needs. (i.e. a plan that included the children’s existing doctors, Pam’s doctors, and care if it was needed by any of them in D.C.). As a result, like many other families, they needed two plans. Those plans together resulted in deductibles in the range he has described.”

Image result for photos of mick mulvaney
Mulvaney (Center)

“Oh. Well, that’s not necessarily a typical situation. Mulvaney certainly left the impression he was talking about a single plan.”

“Now let’s look at that worker making $34,800. As with Mulvaney, we assumed he was married and had three children and lived in Lancaster, S.C. With the help of Cynthia Cox, associate director for the Program for the Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance at the Kaiser Family Foundation, we calculated the premiums and out-of-pocket costs for this worker and his family, both under Obamacare and under the House Republican plan.”

Image result for photos of mick mulvaney“It turns out that a person making one-fifth of Mulvaney’s salary would actually be able to afford to go to a doctor. In 2017, he would only have to pay $57 a month for his premiums on a Silver plan because Obamacare would provide $1,620 a month in premium support (tax credits). The total premium would be $19,439, but under the ACA, he would only have to pay 2.04 percent of his income on health-insurance premiums.”

“South Carolina is one of the states that refused to expand Medicaid, or else our worker and his family would have qualified for Medicaid. It’s also likely his children would have qualified for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but to keep it simple we will assume a five-person family on the plan.”

“Essentially, the Silver plan would pay for 94 percent of expenses in total for covered benefits, meaning the deductibles are probably a few hundred dollars, and certainly less than $1,000. Total out-of-pocket costs would be capped at $4,700 a year.”

“To compare with the House bill, Cox ran the numbers for 2020. Under the Affordable Care Act, the base premium is projected to be about $22,040, while the tax credit would be about $21,300. That results in a yearly cost of $740, or $62 a month. The Silver plan would also have reduced cost sharing, again bringing their deductible below $1,000 and possibly as low as zero, depending on which plan the family picked.”

“Under the proposed House bill, Cox said the premiums would be more or less the same, as the adults would have higher premiums but the children lower premiums. But the family would only receive a tax credit of about $12,000, so the monthly premium would jump to $837. That’s 13 times higher than under Obamacare. Moreover, the family would no longer receive cost sharing, so their deductible would be much higher.”

The Pinocchio Test

“Mulvaney’s anecdote suggests he does not understand how the Affordable Care Act works. He questioned how someone making one-fifth his pay could afford a doctor.”

“But it turns out that for people making below the median household income in the United States, the ACA is often a good deal. There is certainly no premium support for someone making Mulvaney’s salary, and his particular deductible situation does seem rather high. But he was talking about the combined cost of two plans, not just a plan purchased as a member of Congress (who already receives a substantial reduction in premiums).”

“Moreover, the House Republican plan would substantially boost the price of health insurance for the proverbial South Carolina worker making one-fifth of his pay. That’s presumably not the message he wanted to send.”


  1. Gronda, I have observed over the last five years three standardized talking points that members of legislature and the White House must use. Back in the Romney campaign, the memo must have read that each time you reference the stimulus bill call it the “failed stimulus” bill. Each time you mention the ACA call it “job-killing Obamacare.” I heard these words over and over. The truth per six econometric firms, including the CBO, is the stimulus did not fail. It was accretive to the economy. And, per the CBO Obamacare did not kill jobs. McConnell likes to misuse one of its findings that Obamacare led people to exit the workforce because they now had coverage. The stat was based on voluntary decision.

    Now, we hear “failed Obamacare” or the more demonstrative “Obamacare is a disaster.” The ACA needs improvements and could have been even better if the GOP did not do its best to strangle it by stiffing insurers, but it is not a disaster or failing. I write my blog because the disenfranchised does not have a voice. The GOP bill would be harmful to so many Americans and would be retrenching to our economy. That is the larger truth.


    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Keith,

      You are right on point.

      Obamacare needs fixing but it is not failing despite the republicans best efforts to kill it. The fact that record number of peoples signed up for ACA coverage in 2017 is a great indicator of this.

      It is true that in about 1/3 of all counties, there is only one ACA insurance option for consumers. But this is where the “public option” plays a role. What do you bet that if DT mentions these two words that some of the insurance companies which withdrew from the ACA marketplace, all of a sudden get religion?

      Ciao, Gronda


Comments are closed.