Chris Jacobs

First of all, @ebruenig said she's uninsured because she switched jobs from @washingtonpost to @nytimes -- but she didn't say exactly why. It's possible that both @washingtonpost and @nytimes don't offer health coverage to their employees, but I doubt it... 2/

If she had Exchange coverage while at @washingtonpost, she could potentially qualify for a special enrollment period, if her income dropped to such an extent that she now qualifies for #Obamacare subsidies... 3/

But the likelier scenario is that @ebruenig faces a waiting period between the time her @washingtonpost employer coverage ends and her @nytimes coverage begins... 4/

In the meantime, @ebruenig can elect COBRA from @washingtonpost, for the three-month or so gap until her @nytimes coverage takes effect... 6/

COBRA IS expensive, but for three months, it would cost a few grand at most. Do I have sympathy for a @nytimes columnist who says she can't afford a bill amounting to a few thousand bucks? Absolutely not. 7/

.@nytimes writers make decent income, for one. For two, how does @ebruenig think business owners like me manage OUR budgets with irregular cash flow? Pro tip: If you can't manage YOUR budget, maybe stop calling for government to "manage" peoples' budgets for them...? 8/

But even beyond that, @ebruenig could minimize her COBRA/insurance expenses in other ways. You can ELECT COBRA when leaving a job, but NOT PAY FOR IT if you don't incur medical expenses... 9/

Because billing for COBRA policies is by definition retrospective, you can see whether paying for the policy is "worth it," particularly when talking about a short-term gap in coverage... 10/

For instance, if you incur $100 in medical expenses in a given month, but your COBRA premium is $1,000, you should go bare, decline to pay the COBRA premium (after you elected it), and become uninsured retroactively... 11/

This only works in short-term situations, of course -- i.e., before the COBRA billing catches up with a recently departed employee. But it DOES work -- and it likely would have worked in @ebruenig's case, because she's likely talking about a coverage gap of only 90 days. 12/

Moreover, @ebruenig could have explored short-term coverage (that is, if her state of residence hasn't abolished/prohibited it). It might not have been an option here, given a newborn child, but another option to explore... 13/

Then there are also options like @MinuteClinic for well-baby visits, or a local health department for vaccines. Such options could have been cheaper for her than paying COBRA premiums for a short period of time... 14/

In sum: @ebruenig likely faces "uninsurance" for no more than 90 days (she conveniently didn't mention the duration, just that she was uninsured). Her worst-case scenario amounted to a couple grand in expenses -- and there are MANY ways to avoid even that... 15/

I don't believe a @nytimes writer's few grand in medical expenses gives @ebruenig any legitimate argument to justify government's theft (via taxation) of $30 trillion or so for #SinglePayer... 16/

@ebruenig's tweet was #FakeNews, pure and simple. And her new @nytimes colleagues like @ReedAbelson @sangerkatz should give her the actual facts about health care... 17/

But, seeing as how @nytimes now thinks reporters' tweets are subjects for columns, I'm going to submit an op-ed to the Times about @ebruenig's ill-informed tweet... 18/

Given that @nytimes wanted to lionize @feliciasonmez after one of her tweets got her raked over the coals by woke mobs, we'll see whether they'll run an op-ed exposing the way @ebruenig used distortions and lack of facts in HER tweet. I won't hold my breath. 19/

In conclusion: @ebruenig's tweet lacked both facts and a compelling case. If that's the best case she and @BernieSanders can make to justify #SinglePayer, I can't see the American people signing off on this $30 trillion health experiment. END

Going back to this thread from last week to clear up one thing: People thought my comments saying COBRA would cost “a few grand” insensitive towards the real struggles of working-class Americans. But let’s face it: A @nytimes writer isn’t working class.

@ebruenig and @MattBruenig both have comparatively well-paying jobs that place them in the upper echelons economically… 2/

Per the most recent @IRS data, households making over $97,870 are in the top 20% nationally, while those making over $145,135 rank in the top 10%. The folks in question almost certainly qualify for the top 20%, and quite possibly the top 10%. 3/ https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/17in01etr.xls …

I don’t think Washington should spend money subsidizing routine health costs for people in the top 10-20% of income. I say that as someone 1) in the top 20% (but not the top 10%) of income and 2) who pays my insurance premiums every month, without an employer contribution... 4/

Would I have used a similarly blunt tone in the thread above towards a mother making minimum wage, or a worker on the graveyard shift in a manufacturing firm? Of course not. But that’s not what we’re talking about in this instance. 6/