Republicans want to end pre-exisiting conditions (PECS)

Rep. Elissa Slotkin Defends Bill to Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting, just age and male or female.

 

Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) called out Democrats for the dubious naming of the “Protecting Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions Act of 2019.”

The congressman claimed that the legislation actually has nothing to do with protecting the health insurance access of Americans with pre-existing conditions, but was given the name just to harm Republicans who vote against the legislation.

Crenshaw Hits Dems for Using 'Dishonest' Pre-Existing Conditions Bill to Bash Republicans Voting Against It

 

Ending pre-existing conditions would be nothing short of miraculous. How could one oppose it?

If you mean coverage for pre-existing conditions, they don't.

 

well since its not withing their constitutional authority its the right thing to do,,,

 

WATCH: Dan Crenshaw exposes diabolical Dem motive behind bill meant to trick Americans into believing lie

WATCH: Dan Crenshaw exposes diabolical Dem motive behind bill meant to trick Americans into believing lie

Let's read the text, it's not that long: "Beginning April 1, 2019, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury may not take any action to implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the guidance entitled 'State Relief and Empowerment Waivers,' and the Secretaries may not promulgate any substantially similar guidance or rule."

OK, from the text you can tell that has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. So what does this have to do with? What they're referring to are 1332 waivers. What are 1332 waivers? These are basically innovation waivers allowed under the ACA. A lot of states have used them so far...they use them for reinsurance programs because what we found out was that reinsurance programs are a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions.


According to Crenshaw, Democrats titled the bill to give the false impression it is about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions when, in reality, the bill is about protecting Obamacare.

"This is the height of political cynicism. Democrats are trying to get people to think that we, as Republicans, are voting against this because they're trying to get people to think that we're against protection for pre-existing conditions. That's not true at all," Crenshaw explained. "We're against bad policy.And this is both bad policy and political cynicism."

"It's a lie, it's dishonest, and it's really sad to see," he continued. "We are not voting against protecting pre-existing conditions."

 

Another case of falling for the lies that are spewed.

 

Nope. It is restricting the ability of states to underwrite pre-existing conditions. It is about ending coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Creshaw lied and you bought it.

 

OK, so having a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. Got it. Thanks so much.

 

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational. I sincerely hope that Republicans have the courage and leadership ability to explain this to voters - to show them that what they think they want makes no sense and will actually make things worse. I'm not holding my breath.

 

True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes exactly as much sense as privately insuring existing illness, employers offering any such coverage as well. None whatsoever. Problem is you can't just pick and choose the stuff that only helps the rich who, of course, don't really need any of it anyway. They're rich!