If it was medically necessary and he was on Medicaid, yes.
After the deductible, of course, assuming he was on share-of-cost, which he probably would have been if he was on it at all, since he apparently worked.
If not, the surgery would have been performed and he would have been billed afterwards, perhaps having to declare bankruptcy from it. Do I feel bad for the guy? Sure I do. Do I think we should force a private company to become a charity because of it? Hell no.
This is exactly what I'm doing. I don't get a tax refund anyway, so they can shove their little penalty up their ass.
Under any circumstance but catastrophe I wouldn't reach my deductible in a given year anyway, so I just made my own little HSA (aka separate bank account) and pay out of pocket for checkups and whatnot.
I wonder how many people have really analyzed their shiny new ACA plans.
So cwolff things ACA is a success story because a guy who refused to have insurance, ends up getting insurance to pay for a critical surgery.
Silly cwolff. ACA would not be getting credit if this exact same story happened 5 years ago, but instead it would be a story about how a guy avoided having to pay for insurance for years and then ends up getting 'a free ride' on the premiums of others.
The question is why is the story not about the later?
I'm sure some conservative rags will vilify the subject of this story. Probably not the mainstream ones like Fox but the fringes will. One thing that should scare is that he's a poor white republican and he's having a positive experience with ACA. Kind of like all those Kentuckians. If the right loses the poor whites they're really in trouble.
I still don't understand why people like cwolff can't understand the concept of insurance vs. charity.
Like when you're playing Blackjack -- Dealer deals himself an Ace up. When this happens, you get offered insurance that you can pay for, to where you don't lose your bet if the dealer turns out to have blackjack, since there's about a 1/3 chance that his down card is a 10 value.
If the dealer doesn't have blackjack, you lose your insurance money, but the hand continues as normal.
Long version of the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack#Insurance
In the Obamacare world, if the dealer deals himself an Ace up, and once it's revealed that he has blackjack, then you're given the option to buy insurance and not lose anything.
I know cwolff will never answer this because he never answers anything, but how does this make sense in any insurance industry?