Judge Barrett says she'd base rulings about health insurance on how "the founders" might have intended. This might make sense if health insurance companies actually existed then. As a former insurance exec, here's why her approach is laughable when it comes to healthcare: (1/10)

A huge part of the ACA is the rule that bars insurance companies from dumping Americans with "preexisting conditions." Well, in 1787, our founders were not thinking about this. Why? The term didn't exist yet, and neither did the insurance companies to refuse to cover them. (2/10)

My old company, Cigna, started in 1792, but wouldn't get into health insurance until the 1900s. Ben Franklin was one of the founders - but Ben knew little about health insurance. Why? In his day, the company insured ships & later got into the fire insurance business.  (3/10)

Another insurer, Aetna, dates back to 1853. But not as a health insurer. Among its 1st customers were slaveowners. Yes, Aetna INSURED SLAVES in its early days. And like Cigna, didn't get into health insurance until the late 20th century. The founders were long gone, then. (4/10)

Even the idea of hospitals was new in the 18th century. And chances are slim that a founder went to one. The 1st was built in 1751 "to care for the sick, poor & insane who were wandering the streets of Philadelphia." Unlike us, the founders were not dealing with copays. (5/10)

Health insurance wasn't even a thing when my parents were born in the Tennessee hills. The first health plan dates back to the Great Depression when a hospital administrator in Dallas came up with the idea. It caught on & spread across the nation under the name Blue Cross. (6/10)

Unbeknownst to the founders, health insurance would become a huge industry & discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. It'd become common practice after for-profit life, property & casualty insurers (eg Cigna, Aetna) got into the business in the 1980s & 90s. (7/10)

It literally took an act of Congress - the Affordable Care Act - to ban that practice. If the Supreme Court strikes the ACA down, those practices would come back in a hurry. And coverage for children and young adults would be lost, as well as Rx drug discounts for seniors. (8/10)

The Affordable Care Act didn't solve every problem. Much more needs to be done. But we're far better off with it, than without it. And to strike it down because of the writings of someone in the 1700s (when health insurance didn't even exist) boggles the mind. (9/10)

As you vote, keep in mind that senators like @SenThomTillis, @LindseyGrahamSC, @JohnCornyn and @joniernst support cutting these basic protections. Like Judge Barrett, their position might make more sense in 1787.

Unfortunately for us (& them), they're running in 2020. (/END.)