It provides a way for insurers to price out people with pre-existing conditions again, which is bad for a lot of people, especially disabled people and/or people with mental illnesses.
Technically true, in a yes-I-might-flip-a-coin-ten-times-and-get-all-tails kind of way.
The chances of anyone being impacted by this change? Not zero, but close to it. And even if they ARE impacted, it’s only for one year. They can still get coverage, just at a 30% premium to the cost they would otherwise pay.
Rich Lowry: Health debate exposes pre-existing lie
If you've only followed coverage of the Republican health-care bill loosely in the media, you might believe that House…
Here’s what happened. The GOP needed a couple of votes. In order to get those votes, they inserted a “waiver” provision, wherein a state could apply for an exception from the pre-existing condition clause.
However, the only way a state can get that waiver is if they show HHS that they’ve come up with a better way to cover the people with pre-existing conditions.
It takes all of five minutes to understand the basic architecture of the House bill on pre-existing conditions, yet it has been subject to wildly ill-informed and deceptive attacks. Nancy Pelosi called the provisions on pre-existing conditions “deadly.” Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey said the bill would hurt 129 million people with pre-existing conditions, starting from an exaggerated figure and then assuming every single one of them would be harmed by the House bill.
Such is the hysteria around this issue that using the phrase “pre-existing condition” has become a license for making any charge whatsoever. Feminists have spread word that the bill treats rape as a pre-existing condition, a stupid lie that has been treated seriously in cable TV debate. As The Washington Post Fact Checker noted, not only does the bill not classify rape or sexual assault as a pre-existing condition, almost all states have their own protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.
Hope that helps.