Shocker! Republicans Lied About Covering Pre-Existing Conditions

Yeah, this isn’t really a surprise.

For one thing, coverage lapses of more than two months would be pretty common under the GOP bill, because lower-income consumers who struggle to pay premiums would be getting less financial assistance than they do today. More important, the CBO pointed out, allowing insurance companies to vary premiums based on medical conditions even in some cases would inevitably create a bifurcated insurance market.

Insurers would end up setting up two sets of plans ― one with medical underwriting and one without. Healthy people would flock to the underwriting plans, since they’d be eligible for cheaper coverage there. The older plans would be left with a relatively sicker population, forcing them to raise premiums for everybody still enrolled in them and thereby encouraging more healthy people to leave ― until, eventually, those plans had shrunk to small groups of people with big medical problems.

Premiums in these plans would be much more expensive, and in many cases downright unaffordable, making access to them for people who had maintained continuous coverage essentially meaningless. As a result, the CBO concluded, “People who are less healthy … would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive non-group health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all.” [emphasis mine]

It’s a feature of the Republican plan, not a bug. Just like 23 million people losing their health insurance. Just like their only reason to gut Medicaid is so they can cut taxes for the wealthy. They can talk all they want, but the GOP’s health care plan, just like their proposed budget, tells you all you need to know about them.

39 comments on “Shocker! Republicans Lied About Covering Pre-Existing Conditions

  1. The Republicans would see you dead for a tax cut for a rich man and this is a prefect example, as noted making coverage unaffordable for the sick is a feature, not a “bug”. Their real goal remains a tax cut for their owners the rich, and just like usual they could care less if it screws the rest of us. “Proud Americans”, one and all.

    • Stephen

      CBO concluded, and Pandora emphasized, “People who are less healthy … would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive non-group health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all.”

      The last part of that sentence – (“if they could purchase it at all”) – is certainly NOT TRUE.

      I’ve read the bill. I know, I’m a total kook.

      It’s 132 pages. Which makes it all the more disgusting that Democrats like Elijah Cummings and Republicans like Chris Collins said they couldn’t read it. Haha. They can’t read 132 pages!?

      Rep Chris Collins said, after voting on the bill, “I can probably tell you that I read every word, and I wouldn’t be telling you the truth, nor would any other member.” Haha, what an idiot!

      Rep Elijah Cummings was asked if he read the bill he had just voted on. He said, “No. Of course I had to have staff do that.” Of course! What a doofus. Did we elect staff or representatives to do this job?

      Sorry for the sidetracking. I just get angry at our Congress.

      Anyway, here’s a link to the bill that passed the House:

      Check out the bottom of page 91, Sec.137, Paragraph B. It states:

      “(b) No Limiting Access To Coverage For Individuals With Preexisting Conditions.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”

      EVERYONE, IN ANY CONDITION, WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE IT, even though CBO and Pandora partake in fear-mongering by saying, “if they could purchase it at all.”

      Read the bill! Do your reporting on the bill! Reporting on previous reporting is so lame.

      And just to be super clear – because I’m learning that you guys tend to put words in my mouth – I DON’T LIKE THIS BILL EITHER! We can agree on that, maybe? Haha. I just want accurate debate. Using lies as part of your argument is whack.

      • States are allowed to get a waiver to do just that. That piece you pulled out is part of the entire framework to get waivers to do just that. You can’t pull out one bit and pretend it stands for all of the bill.

        So if you are looking for “accurate debate” you need to go back to the drawing board.

        • Stephen

          So the bill/ Act says, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”

          But Cassandra says, — well she said something. I can’t fully figure out what she was trying to say. And she didn’t reference anything.

          Who do we trust when it comes to what’s in the bill? The clear language in the bill or Cassandra’s jabbering?

          Cassandra, show me where it says “they can do just that.” Haha. Or just clarify your remarks.

          Again, the bill says, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.” What part of that don’t you understand?

          The bill says “Nothing” is allowed to be construed the way you have construed it! Duh!

          • DUH is right. What you are doing here is demonstrating why you are a conservative. Educating yourself is simply not in your skillset. The entire section that the sentence you pulled out applies to how states may apply for waivers to limit what is covered in insurance. The piece you pulled out ends that section by saying that health insurance companies may not make these restrictions on their own. But if they read the section above (and they will even if you won’t), they will know how to get this waiver from the states they do business in.

            • Stephen

              So the bill says, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”…

              but Cassandra says, without reference, that “the section above” says that you’re allowed to construe it that way. Good one! Haha.

              “Nothing in the bill shall be construed” but Cassandra says there is allegedly a part in the bill that you’re allowed to construe that way. Ha.

              Cassandra, it’s in black and white. Just read it again. It’s an easy sentence. And I read the bill. I’m not saying I’m an expert on the bill or all things legal, but I did read it. I don’t just trust HuffPost or Politifact or somebody else to tell me what’s in it.

              And I’m not a conservative. Do you want me to just start labelling you however I please?

              You’re referencing an article from Politifact to argue against the actual language of the bill? That is dumb!

              Look, I’ll go easy on you. The last sentence of that Politifact article says, “Overall, the latest proposal seems to weaken existing protections for people with pre-existing conditions, not strengthen them.”

              If that was your argument it would be more accurate than saying that it flat-out doesn’t cover preexisting conditions. That Politifact sentence even admits they’re just talking about a “proposal” not the bill. The Politifact sentence also admits that THE PROTECTIONS FOR PREEXISTING CONDITIONS WILL STILL BE THERE, but they will be weakened. This Politifact article you referenced does not support your claim that preexisting conditions won’t be covered! Haha.

              The headline to this article is inaccurate, according to Cassandra’s reference materials! I don’t know, but Cassandra might even want the headline changed, Pandora!

              Because the truth of the bill is that it does cover preexisting conditions. Maybe it won’t cover them in a great way, but it states it will cover them. You’re lying by saying the bill doesn’t cover preexisting conditions.

          • <a href=”>Mostly False

          • If you read the bill, including the MacArthur amendments, then you’d see how the waivers are designed to work.

            • Stephen

              I did! The bill includes the MacArthur amendments, as you say.

              The bill also includes the line, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”

              So we agree that the waivers cannot be construed that way!

              Unless you can enlighten us…

              • Apparently Stephen here does not know that this is the Grown Up table.

                • Stephen

                  Powerful argument, Cassandra. Very powerful!

                  This is why Donald J. Trump is President.

              • Cassandra, myself and others are citing the waivers and how they work. You disagree. Perhaps you could explain how they work?

                • Stephen

                  “Citing”? Are we talking about CITING? Haha.

                  You aren’t citing anything except weak HuffPo fluff!

                  Definition of cite:
                  Cite: quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

                  Cite something from the bill then!

                  You’re citing… smh… unbelievable.

                  • I already have. You are the only one in this conversation who has no idea how to read in context. When you get out of 7th grade, let us know.

  2. They lied about the whole enterprise. And then they voted on it before there was a GAO score and before they read it in order to be able to declare victory and go home. Expect another round when the Senate Gang of 13 is done. No hearings, no expert input, just a committed group of Senators trying to get a tax cut for their funders. And everyone who needs the support of medical insurance can go fuck themselves.

  3. If this Trumpcare disaster passes, I think we’d all be better off to start voluntary insurance pools among friends and neighbors — everyone pitches in a predetermined amount per month, hire an actuary to periodically recalculate the percentage of costs per person the pool can cover and do occasional gofundme drives for emergencies. Better yet, random groups of people across the state (to get a good spread on healthy, wealthy, low-income, not-so-healthy, and downright sick people), keep it anonymous. In other words, let’s start over with non-profit cooperatives.

  4. Stephen


    Pre-existing conditions are covered even though Pandora says they’re not.

    Here’s a link to the bill:

    Read page 92, Sec.137, Paragraph B. It states:

    “(b) No Limiting Access To Coverage For Individuals With Preexisting Conditions.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”

    Pandora, and, are fake headline writers! Haha. Wow. Please change the headline!

    • The key word you’re ignoring is “access”. Everyone has access to a Rolex, but not everyone can afford one.

      • Stephen

        Yes! Now you’re onto something! “Everyone has access…” Yes!

        Are you admitting that people with preexisting conditions do have access?

        So you are admitting that your headline is inaccurate then?

        I had access to Obamacare, but, like it was designed to do, I could not afford it!

        • Nope. Trump and Republicans are (and have been) saying that: Everyone with pre-existing conditions will have affordable health coverage. That’s not remotely true. Gotta read the fine print.

          • Stephen

            Show me what fine print to read and I’ll read it!

            Your headline states, “Republicans Lied About Covering Pre-Existing Conditions.” That is not true. The bill does cover preexisting conditions.

            So you switch your argument… (and you begin with a smug, “Nope.” Haha.)

            Your brand new argument, which is different than your headline, is that Trump has said, “Everyone with preexisting conditions will have AFFORDABLE health coverage.” And you say, “that’s not remotely true.”

            Yes! I agree with this brand new argument of yours. Trump is crazy to say that it would affordable coverage for preexisting conditions. But your headline is not about affordability. Your headline is about coverage. Thus your headline is inaccurate. That’s all.

            I’m quite agreeable when it comes to things in the real world! Just try me! Trump can be totally insane sometimes.


            • Trump and the GOP lied, and their base is about to find out. My headline is accurate, but you should stick with your claims and get ready to explain them to those who lose their coverage. You can tell them about the asterisk that exists after the GOP’s claim about pre-existing conditions.

            • You know, when people pointed out the problems the AHCA (pre-existing conditions, allowing insurance companies to no longer cover basic medical expenses like hospitalization, etc.), Trump and the GOP said their plan was better than the ACA, more affordable than the ACA, would cover more people than the ACA and that people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, shouldn’t worry about a thing. That’s a lot of lies.

          • Oh, like we got affordable healthcare from the Affordable Care Act?

  5. Wondering

    This is a pretty ambiguous statement that can be interpreted however one chooses IMO . . . “(b) No Limiting Access To Coverage For Individuals With Preexisting Conditions.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”

    IMO this is a generic statement which means they could not be refused coverage but insurers could impose high enough premiums that coverage would be unaffordable to those with a pre-existing condition because they could be put in high risk pools. Or, poor people, are middle class people who lose their jobs may have a lapse and that voids their coverage. The devils in the details . . . once again smoke and mirrors and the poor and middle class will be the losers with Trump as President.

    • Exactly, Wondering.

    • Stephen

      Yes! Good points, Wondering. I agree that the insurers, according to their histories, will probably charge a boatload for coverage. And poor people, middle class people, disabled people, will all be screwed.

      It reminds me of my own story with Obamacare. Before Obamacare I could afford individual insurance. After Obamacare, I was priced out of health insurance. My monthly price more than tripled, and the deductible exactly quadrupled! Insane! Thanks, Obama! Thanks, insurance companies!

      Bottom line is the insurers, who are really just big banks, are raking us all over the coals. We need to unite and fight the insurance companies and the sick (pardon the pun) elements of our government, not each other!

      The devil is in the details, indeed! It doesn’t matter if it’s Trump or Obama as long as the insurance companies are writing the bills.

      Has Congress exempted themselves from this insurance scam yet? Like they did with Obamacare? Congress is gross!

  6. Wondering

    IMO the Affordable Care Act was always a starting point. Does/Did it need work? Absolutely? However, changes need to be made that will make it better – – changing the parts that will help people like you while still helping others. Speaking for myself, I would rather pay more so that someone who really needs healthcare but cannot afford it can live without worrying about whether they can afford coverage for themselves or their child or having to make a choice about living or dying because they cannot afford a doctor. The impetus about changing the Affordable Care Act under Trump is not about making it better . . . it is about the INSURANCE companies and the wealthy and their bottom line. The argument we are having is about the same thing . . . Insurance Companies . . . not about the Affordable Care Act itself. Trump is not making it better for you or me!!

    • Stephen

      Trump is making it better for me because I won’t have to pay a stupid penalty for not having bought insurance. But I catch your drift!

      I agree it’s about insurance companies. The insurance companies probably have people on Rep Elijah Cummings’ staff and Rep Chris Collins’ staff (see my first comment), who just tell those idiotic, possibly illiterate (haha) jabronis what to think and say. Yuck!

      • Trump and Republicans are bringing back junk insurance. Good luck trying to use that new cheap insurance.

        • Stephen

          I say, “I won’t have to pay a stupid penalty FOR NOT HAVING bought insurance.”

          So Pandora replies, “Good luck trying to use that new cheap insurance.”

          Uh… what?

          Pandora The Imprecise strikes again!

          • It’s not imprecise if you know what junk insurance and “essential health benefits” are.

            • Stephen

              It’s imprecise because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

              It’s like me saying, “I have never had children. I’ve never even babysat a child before.” ….

              … And you replying, “Good luck with helping your kid do his math problems tonight.”

              Uh… what?


              • It’s like you celebrating not having to pay a penalty but then finding out the “inexpensive” insurance you purchased doesn’t cover essential health benefits like hospitalization. Those “up front” savings will cost you, unless you add them to your plan – which will cost you.

                • Stephen

                  Pandora, I’m talking about NOT having insurance. NOT having insurance. Not having insurance.

                  If I DON’T have insurance under this bill, I will not have to pay a penalty. That’s all.

                  You jump a bunch of steps ahead and say talk about junk insurance and inexpensive insurance.

                  I’m talking about NOT purchasing insurance. That’s all.

                  I agree with you that the cheap insurance will most likely suck!

                  But please, let’s read each other’s words and go from there. Geez.

                  • Wait… this discussion about the AHCA is about you personally? That’s what Tumblr is for. 🙂

                    • Stephen

                      Haha! 🙂

                      No it’s not about me, I was just replying to Wondering’s comment. Wondering had said, “Trump is not making it better for you or me!!”….

                      … So I was just pointing out that there is a possible way that this new bill would help me compared to the Obama bill… That being that I wouldn’t have to pay a penalty for not having insurance.

                    • I doubt it will help you. Sure, you can buy cheaper insurance, but if you want hospitalization coverage the price goes up. You want prescription drug coverage the price goes up. You want colonoscopies covered the price goes up. Cancer screenings? The price goes up. Pregnancy, maternity and newborn care? The price goes up. Emergency room care? The price goes up. Out-patient care? The price goes up.

                      So yeah, junk insurance (that won’t cover any of the things I’ve listed above, plus many more) will be really affordable. The penalty will look like a bargain.

    • delacrat

      “IMO the Affordable Care Act was always a starting point. “ – Wondering

      The real starting point was the “Health Insurance for the Aged Act Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Amendments of 1965”, otherwise known as “Medicare”.

      The ACA and it’s latest GOP version were/are schemes to prevent the expansion of Medicare to the rest of the citizenry.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: