A Look at the Record: Republicans Repeatedly Voted to Kill Protections for Pre-Existing Conditions

Demonstrators gathered at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday June 24, 2017 to protest a proposed Senate healthcare bill.Jeff Malet/ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

I would like to reacquaint you with the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Trumpcare, aka the American Health Care Act of 2017. This is what they said about its effect on people with pre-existing conditions:

CBO and JCT expect that, as a consequence, the waivers in those states would have another effect: Community-rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all—despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs. That instability would cause some people who would have been insured in the nongroup market under current law to be uninsured.

In simple English, AHCA would have allowed states to request waivers from the requirement that everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, be charged the same rate. In time, this would have made insurance so expensive that nobody with a pre-existing condition could afford it. On May 4th, nearly every Republican in the House voted to pass this bill.

Later, the Senate tried and failed to pass several variations on this bill. The whole process was pretty confusing, but all of their proposals eliminated protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Some of them did it directly and some of them did it only on a close look, but they all did it. All but three Republicans voted for the final bill.

In other words, forget what Republicans say. Practically every Republican in Congress is on record as actually voting for legislation that eliminates protections for pre-existing conditions and doing it repeatedly. President Trump also supported all these bills.

This is the record Democrats have to work with. They actually passed Obamacare, which manadates that insurance companies cover everyone at the same rate, even those with expensive pre-existing conditions. Republicans, by contrast, almost unanimously voted to repeal those protections.

That’s the record. That’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend