… so instead they’re spinning lies about what their healthcare repeal bill will do to people with pre-existing conditions
The jury’s out on the disastrous and historically unpopular Republican Repeal and Ripoff bill: it’s bad news for the vast majority of Americans who need health insurance, especially older Americans and those with pre-existing conditions. Nearly as devastating is the political impact on vulnerable House Republicans who voted for the bill.
And Republicans know that they’re best bet is to hide the truth about this legislation. The only way Washington Republicans have even attempted to sell this dumpster fire to voters is by lying repeatedly about what it will do. And at the top of the heap is the biggest lie of all: that the AHCA will protect Americans with pre-existing conditions.
“Washington Republicans have nothing good to say about their repeal and ripoff bill so they’re repeating the same lie: that the AHCA will protect Americans with pre-existing conditions,” said Cole Leiter, DCCC spokesperson. “But voters aren’t buying it, and independent fact checkers have made clear that the Republican bill will allow insurers to increase premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, even pricing those people out of their insurance altogether. Voters deserve to know the truth: Republicans would rather lie than admit that their bill destroys protections for people with preexisting conditions, raises your costs, and slaps an age tax on folks 50 or older.”
Politifact Florida – Ad misleads about pre-existing conditions in GOP health care bill
By Amy Sherman | Miami Herald | May 30, 2017
A political group backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan has come to the aid of fellow Republicans who voted for their party’s Affordable Health Care Act.
The American Action Network has launched two weeks of ads in 21 House districts that could face competitive races in 2018 because members voted for the bill May 4, including U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Miami and U.S. Rep. Brian Mast of the Treasure Coast.
[…]
The legislation permits insurers to set premiums based on the “health status” of an individual by looking at their current and past health status and making a guess as to how they will use medical care in the future.
That means the costs would rise for consumers who are sicker, said Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University School of Law emeritus professor.
“Health status underwriting is literally charging a higher (possibly much, unaffordably, higher) premium to people with pre-existing conditions,” Jost said. “Under the MacArthur amendment, they could not be refused coverage, but insurers could impose high enough premiums that coverage would be unaffordable.”
[…]
An ad by the American Action Network says that under the American Health Care Act “people with pre-existing conditions are protected.”
The only kernel of truth here is that the amendment has language that states insurers can’t limit access to coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions. However, the ad omits that the House GOP health plan would weaken protections for these patients.
The legislation would allow states to give insurers the power to charge people significantly more if they had a pre-existing condition. While Republicans point to the fact that those patients could get help through high-risk pools, experts question their effectiveness.
Current law does not allow states to charge people with pre-existing conditions significantly more.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
By Will Doran | News & Observer | May 4, 2017
[…]
One of the biggest changes in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was a requirement that insurers cannot reject people on the basis of pre-existing conditions or charge them exorbitant rates for their premiums.
“The American Health Care Act absolutely does not eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions,” Pittenger said.
However, that is misleading.
It’s an issue that affects many people, too. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, more than one in four Americans between 18 and 64 has a pre-existing condition – including more than 1.6 million people in Pittenger’s state of North Carolina.
[…]
Pittenger said that the Republican AHCA health care plan “does not eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions.”
While insurers technically would still be required to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, the AHCA would weaken protections for those people.
Insurers would be able to charge people significantly more if they had a pre-existing condition like heart disease, cancer, diabetes or arthritis – possibly requiring people to pay thousands of dollars extra every year to remain insured.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
Fact Checker – Fact-checking a rosy portrait of the American Health Care Act
Glenn Kessler | Washington Post | May 24
[…]
“And people with preexisting conditions are protected.”
“Protected” is an odd word choice here. As we have noted, people with preexisting conditions would not be denied coverage. But if they have a gap in coverage, they still could face higher, unaffordable premiums for a year. (Much would depend on what individual states do.) So this is misleading language. (The updated CBO report on the AHCA offering one scenario, for about one-sixth of the U.S. population, under which the protection would be meaningless. We explored that in this article.)
The Pinocchio Test
The ultimate shape of the Republican replacement for Obamacare is still uncertain, if it even emerges from the Senate. But this ad glosses over many details to paint a rather rosy picture of reality. Jacinto — and readers — should be aware that rising health costs are unlikely to be halted under the law as currently drafted.
Two Pinocchios
###