Chris Jacobs
@chrisjacobsHC
Followers
3K
Following
0
Media
840
Statuses
17K
Alex Trebek once said I "should be a politician." Usual disclaimers apply.
Joined January 2011
My @foxandfriends segment with @ainsleyearhardt and @kilmeade talked about my @WSJopinion piece exposing the radical nature of @TheDemocrats' health plans, and my forthcoming book on #SinglePayer:
foxnews.com
'Medicare for America' is far from a moderate health care alternative, Juniper Research Group founder and CEO Chris Jacobs warns.
31
21
54
How Leftist Think Tanks Twist Facts To Manipulate Congress On Obamacare https://t.co/mXd4iAZcC8 via @chrisjacobsHC @FDRLST
thefederalist.com
Groups on the left know full well that allowing the enhanced subsidies to expire as scheduled wouldn’t cause a catastrophe for most families.
0
1
0
How Leftist Think Tanks Twist Facts To Manipulate Congress On Obamacare via @chrisjacobsHC Groups on the left know full well that allowing the enhanced subsidies to expire as scheduled wouldn’t cause a catastrophe for most families. @FDRLST
thefederalist.com
Groups on the left know full well that allowing the enhanced subsidies to expire as scheduled wouldn’t cause a catastrophe for most families.
0
3
1
Policy analyst @chrisjacobsHC, founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, joined @DanProft to debunk Democratic claims that millions of Americans will face unaffordable premiums if enhanced Obamacare subsidies expire at the end of the year.
0
2
2
Taxpayers footing the bill for Obamacare subsidies shouldn’t be fooled by the scaremongering of the welfare-industrial complex, writes @chrisjacobsHC
https://t.co/KXiIb0cO6F
wsj.com
The Democrats’ latest scare is based on a misleading study.
0
4
4
This. 👇 If the law is so “Affordable,” why do we need to bail it out???
2
1
2
1) It’s technically the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But @TheDemocrats dropped the first part, apparently because they don’t care about protecting patients. 2) If the law is so affordable, why do we need to spend $400B or so bailing it out…?
@Darmicbr @WSJ @WSJopinion @chrisjacobsHC Ok. We’ll call it the Affordable Care Act every chance we get - which will prompt howls of laughter (and outrage) at the “affordable” part that apparently requires a ridiculous amount of additional subsidies to keep it on lifesupport. Better?
0
1
0
If it’s so reasonable, then why am I seeing articles by reporters saying that “premiums will double?” Because either @KFF is misleading people, or your colleagues can’t write accurate stories. Or both, frankly, but at least one has to be true…
@chrisjacobsHC @KFF Because -- to repeat what I said in other post -- most people distinguish between premiums (monthly) and out-of-pocket payments (when you go to doctor, pharmacy etc) Your phrasing would mislead people about the thing that matters to them KFF phrasing is reasonable
1
1
1
Also: Focusing on percentages obscures the modest impact in absolute dollars. Nearly half of all enrollees qualify for zero-premium plans. Requiring these individuals to pay ANY premium, no matter the size, is an infinite increase in percentage terms…
@chrisjacobsHC @KFF I think the issue on most people’s minds is what they pay — level of subsidy matters less, though I understand it matters more to some Maybe you are one of them, which is fine, but hardly makes KFF deceptive Also… this is all about one title on a graphic yes?
0
1
4
It absolutely is not just about one title on one graphic. If people care most about what they pay, then why won’t @KFF come out and just call it “out-of-pocket payments?” The only reason I can see to use the term “premium payments” is to mislead…
@chrisjacobsHC @KFF I think the issue on most people’s minds is what they pay — level of subsidy matters less, though I understand it matters more to some Maybe you are one of them, which is fine, but hardly makes KFF deceptive Also… this is all about one title on a graphic yes?
2
0
2
I would also note that @KFF didn’t publicly disclose the fact that they edited the graphic. Because they don’t want to admit publicly that the “premiums will double” narrative is false…
@chrisjacobsHC @WSJopinion @KFF "Exposes" what exactly? Shorthand in a graphic title? You acknowledge KFF figures are solid Can certainly argue significance of the increase and merits of overall issue -- worthwhile debates both -- but this feels like a gratuitous swipe at an organization that deserves better
0
1
1
If @KFF would just say “out-of-pocket payments will double,” I got no beef with that. But they won’t - because they’re deliberately trying to confuse people. And the number of reporters who have written - falsely - that “premiums will double” is evidence of that…
@chrisjacobsHC @WSJopinion @KFF "Exposes" what exactly? Shorthand in a graphic title? You acknowledge KFF figures are solid Can certainly argue significance of the increase and merits of overall issue -- worthwhile debates both -- but this feels like a gratuitous swipe at an organization that deserves better
1
0
0
It is by no means gratuitous. @KFF knows most people don’t understand the semantic distinction between “premiums” and “premium payments.” It’s trying to hide the fact that federal subsidies will still pay an AVERAGE 75-80% of enrollees’ premiums - it’s deliberately misleading…
@chrisjacobsHC @WSJopinion @KFF "Exposes" what exactly? Shorthand in a graphic title? You acknowledge KFF figures are solid Can certainly argue significance of the increase and merits of overall issue -- worthwhile debates both -- but this feels like a gratuitous swipe at an organization that deserves better
1
0
2
🗞️Excellent piece by @chrisjacobsHC walking through the intentional misinformation behind the "premiums are doubling" fearmongering.
Taxpayers footing the bill for Obamacare subsidies shouldn’t be fooled by the scaremongering of the welfare-industrial complex, writes @chrisjacobsHC
https://t.co/OwzQCn5Wgq
0
2
1
The left’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the expiration of the enhanced subsidies belies that federal taxpayers will still subsidize three-quarters of enrollees’ premium costs, writes @chrisjacobsHC
https://t.co/UTq8r6Lghg
wsj.com
The Democrats’ latest scare is based on a misleading study.
0
2
3
Once again, @chrisjacobsHC hits the nail on the head. https://t.co/nzPJnVxBsv
wsj.com
The Democrats’ latest scare is based on a misleading study.
0
1
2
Important @WSJopinion piece by @chrisjacobsHC dismantling the claim that Obamacare premiums will double if Biden's COVID credits expire. Most would pay ~$50-$100 more a month if the credits expire. And taxpayers would still pay ~80% of the premium. https://t.co/AYF8uPKdOs
wsj.com
The Democrats’ latest scare is based on a misleading study.
14
40
96
Taxpayers footing the bill for Obamacare subsidies shouldn’t be fooled by the scaremongering of the welfare-industrial complex, writes @chrisjacobsHC
https://t.co/OwzQCn5Wgq
wsj.com
The Democrats’ latest scare is based on a misleading study.
0
4
7
My @WSJopinion op-ed exposes @KFF misleading claims about premiums - complete with stealth edits to a graphic making false claims that “premiums will double…”
wsj.com
The Democrats’ latest scare is based on a misleading study.
2
1
4
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 2025 Budget Review Shows We Can’t Afford To Extend ‘Temporary’ Obamacare Subsidies “Republicans have every reason to reject Democrats’ demands to end the ‘Schumer Shutdown.’” @FDRLST @MZHemingway @seanmdav @chrisjacobsHC
https://t.co/HY30SXU3b3
thefederalist.com
CBO's review of the 2025 fiscal year shows Republicans have every reason to reject Democrats’ demands to end the 'Schumer Shutdown.'
0
2
1