Fighting Back Against The GOP's Big Pre-existing Conditions Lie

Bryce will be a congressman for ALL people-- even if they wear suits

There's barely a red district in the country where the Republican incumbent isn't lying about healthcare. Regardless of their multiple votes to nullify protections for people with pre-existing conditions, they all claim the opposite. The Texas Observer noted this week that "a Texas lawsuit has put the ACA’s popular pre-existing conditions provision front and center ahead of midterms, to the chagrin of Republicans who have vehemently opposed the law for years."

“Everyone agrees we’re going to protect pre-existing conditions,” Senator Ted Cruz said in a debate this month. Yes, the same Ted Cruz who forced a federal government shutdown in 2013 to try to defund the Affordable Care Act, including pre-existing condition protections. The same Ted Cruz who has introduced measures weakening those protections and voiced support for a Texas lawsuit to eliminate them.

“I have never been for ending pre-existing conditions,” said Congressman Pete Sessions in September. On his website, Sessions boasts that he has “voted more than 60 times to repeal, dismantle, and defund” the ACA, which ensures that people with pre-existing medical conditions can’t be denied coverage or charged more-- one of the law’s most central and popular provisions.

“All Republicans support people with pre-existing conditions, and if they don’t, they will after I speak to them,” President Donald Trump tweeted earlier this month. “Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not!” he added last week. But Trump’s administration is currently suing to overturn these protections in court and just last week issued guidance that makes it easier for states to opt out of coverage requirements.

Republicans in Texas and around the country are trying to lie their way out of a problem: The ACA’s pre-existing condition protections are extremely popular and remain a dominant campaign issue with one week to go before the midterm elections. But many Republicans now in competitive races have spent years fighting these protections as part of their vendetta against the federal health care law and President Barack Obama. Now, they’re trying to erase that history-- even going so far as to claim to be the crusaders for these protections, while actively suing over or railing against the law that created them.

The conflict is particularly potent in Texas, where Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a lawsuit to overturn the entire ACA, including pre-existing condition protections. The suit, filed by Paxton and 19 other Republican attorneys general in February, has been called “absurd” and “far-fetched” by attorneys and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The issue came to a head this spring when Trump’s Department of Justice sided with Texas in declaring pre-existing condition protections unconstitutional and declining to defend the law. If Team Trump is successful, the consequences would be huge. Texas already has the highest uninsured rate in the country, and about 4.5 million Texans have a condition that could make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.

As a result, Republicans in races across the state are trying to wipe away their records with seemingly empty promises. Houston Republican John Culberson has staunchly opposed the ACA but said in his campaign that he also supports pre-existing condition protections. He quietly deleted mention of the ACA from his website, where he previously boasted about his many repeal votes, according to ThinkProgress.

...Asked how Cruz plans to protect patients with pre-existing conditions and how he squares this alleged support with his votes against the ACA, his office replied with a statement that didn’t mention pre-existing conditions or an alternative to the ACA. “Texans want more healthcare freedom and choice, not skyrocketing premiums, narrowing networks, and a one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare determined by Washington bureaucrats,” a spokesperson wrote.

In response to Observer questions, Sessions, noting that his son has Down syndrome, pointed to a nonbinding resolution he introduced in September saying that any health care plan should preserve pre-existing condition protections. Sessions also pointed to his bill introduced in 2016 and 2017, dubbed the “World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan,” which would preserve some protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, but eliminate the ACA’s individual and employer insurance mandates. It didn’t get a vote.

“Americans deserve a healthcare system where they have choices in insurance, where vulnerable patients are protected, and where tax credits help Americans afford coverage,” Sessions wrote in an email. That system, he said, is definitely not the ACA’s “one-size fits all mandate,” or Medicare for All. “States should have the latitude to tailor their healthcare system to achieve these ends.” Asked if he supports Paxton’s lawsuit, Sessions didn’t respond.

Clear enough for challengers running against incumbents to respond to. That tweet from Mike Siegel above is how keeps hammering how to TX-10 voters that his opponent, Michael McCaul has voted dozens of times to take away their healthcare and to end protections for preexisting conditions. But what do candidates who are running against all those Republican replacements for GOP congressmen who decided to retire this year. Let's take Randy Bryce in Wisconsin who started running against Paul Ryan, scared the hell out of him and saw Ryan announce his retirement and then replaced himself with a goofy copy of himself-- but with no voting record. This is an ad Bryce has up on the air right now. Steil doesn't have a voting record, but he's too weak and too frightened to differentiate himself from Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:



This week, Bryce was endorsed by Milwaukee's biggest weekly newspaper, the Shepherd Express. The editorial board "throughout the campaign, Bryce has fought for the little guy, stood up to the wealthy special interests and shown the spirit of independence and forward thinking that used to set Wisconsin apart as a leader in our nation on civil rights, worker representation and advocating for the middle class. We strongly endorse sending Bryce to Congress to shake up the millionaires’ club that currently has a stranglehold on Congress." Nor are they thrilled with his overly-entitled and spoiled opponent:

With House Speaker Paul Ryan retiring, the First Congressional District has a timely opportunity to reject the divisive, hate-fueled politics of the Republican majority in both Congress and the White House. Time and time again, Ryan has timidly enabled Trump and fought to take health care away from millions of people, embarrassing and betraying Wisconsin. Furthermore, the last thing Congress needs is some like Bryce’s opponent.

Bryan Steil got the Republican nomination because of his father’s connections as a prominent Republican lawyer who served as Tommy Thompson’s personal lawyer and whose law firm benefitted from millions of dollars from a massive tobacco settlement. These connections also got him a position as a staffer for Paul Ryan. Now Steil is running to replace him.

By contrast, iron worker Randy Bryce-- or, as voters have come to know him, “Iron ’Stache”-- is true Wisconsin. Like most of us in the Badger State, he didn’t have a father to open all the important doors for him. Bryce had to do it all on his own and learn from his mistakes-- and he did make mistakes. Having learned and grown, he now offers a new and dramatically under-represented voice of the blue-collar worker in a Congress largely composed of wealthy lawyers such as his opponent.

This morning the NY Times' healthcare expert, Margot Sanger-Katz, laid bare the GOP Big Lie on pre-existing conditions. Needless to say the biggest liar of all turns out to be Trumpanzee. She wrote that "In campaign speeches, advertisements and interviews, Republican politicians are showing a zeal for protecting Americans with pre-existing health conditions" and that the fake president Trumpanzee "has gone the furthest, saying not only that he will ensure protections for the previously ill, but also pledging that his party will do so more effectively than Democrats. There are many reasons to doubt these words." Yes, many. For example, "It is Democrats, by passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, who introduced meaningful protections for Americans with prior illnesses. And Republican officeholders have taken numerous actions that would tend to weaken those protections-- in Congress, in states and in courts. The Trump administration introduced a sweeping new policy just last week that would allow states to sidestep Obamacare’s requirement to cover pre-existing conditions."

Last year, Republicans in Congress led an extended but ultimately unsuccessful effort to, in their words, “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. Although a bill passed through the House of Representatives, Republicans in the Senate were unable to agree on a particular replacement for Obamacare.

The House bill, called the American Health Care Act, had provisions that would have weakened current protections for people with pre-existing illnesses. It would have allowed states to eliminate Obamacare’s rules that health insurance must cover a standard set of benefits, like prescription drugs and mental health care, and its rule that insurance companies must charge the same prices to customers whether they are healthy or sick.

The House bill created a small pool of money for states to help sick customers who might be shut out of such markets. A majority of House Republicans (217 to 20) voted for this bill.

Had this bill become law, the precise results would have depended on the choices by individual states. But the Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived in a state that would have pursued such a waiver from standard benefits. The consequences, the C.B.O. said, would have been coverage that was unaffordable to many with pre-existing illnesses, along with holes in coverage for many serious conditions. For example, someone with a substance-abuse disorder might have lived where plans for people with that condition were very expensive and didn’t include addiction treatment.

...Trump has said he continues to back repeal efforts. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said recently that Congress would consider such legislation if Republicans retained their control after the election.

What I'm Hearing From Candidates-- Preexisting Conditions

Dana Balter, the progressive woman running against Trump enabler John Katko in NY-24 (Syracuse), called yesterday. Although the 538 forecaster only gives her a dismal 2 in 7 chance to win, and the severely flawed NY Times-Siena poll shows Katko leading her 54-39%, we're betting on her winning this D+3 district where Obama won comfortably both times he ran and where even a Democrat as weak and unsuitable for the district as Hillary eked out a 48.9% to 45.3% win over Trump. Bernie won Cayuga County and the Oswego and Wayne County portions of the district and Onondaga County went narrowly for Hillary.

Dana is an avid and well-spoken Medicare-For-All supporter and Katko and allied PACs have been twisting the very meaning of healthcare to attack her for it. The DCCC isn't spending to defend her-- they hate progressives-- but Pelosi's SuperPAC just jumped in with some decent attack ads against Katko, albeit not on the healthcare issue, which is what Balter really needs. By the way, you can contribute to the Get-Out-The-Vote efforts of Dana and the other candidates who fully back Medicare-For-All by clicking on the Blue America healthcare thermometer on the right.

We're hearing minor variations of this story everywhere in the country from Democratic candidates. Since their bullshit Tax Scam is impressing no one except their own partisans, the GOP has started campaigning on healthcare-- or, better put, healthcare lies. They claim they, not the Democrats have been protecting the very popular protection against insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. It's a farce, but not all voters pay attention closely enough, especially when the lies are endlessly repeated on TV and radio. Watch that video CAP did up top. Those are Republican members of Congress you hear over and over hootin' and hollerin' and clapping as Republicans in Congress passed bill after bill after bill to repeal pre-existing conditions.

Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Beltway Democrats are trying to counterattack. They "are seizing on a report-- "Families & Seniors Foot the Bill for GOP Tax Cuts-- detailing a nearly dollar-for-dollar balance between two decades of tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest one percent and proposed GOP spending cuts" to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

It could provide new fuel to Democratic candidates just two weeks before the midterm elections and comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comments last week about the need to overhaul entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit.

Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee issued the study, based on calculations by the non-profit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, late last week. It shows that the estimated $2 trillion cost of the Bush and Trump-era tax cuts through 2025 is the same amount which Republicans have proposed cutting from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Obamacare.

"It is a dollar-for-dollar transfer of benefits to those who need help the least paid for by those who need help the most," said Phil Schiliro, a Democrat who’s served in several government positions including as President Obama’s legislative director... [It] concludes that the average beneficiary from social safety net programs would stand to lose $1,500 a year under proposed cuts. And it comes as President Donald Trump is teasing another potential tax cut ahead of the midterm elections.

The House Budget Committee vote in June proposing $2 trillion in entitlement cuts got little attention, but the new report comes as Democrats are trying to short-circuit a surge in GOP enthusiasm around the midterms that could hinder their attempt to win back control of the House and, especially, the Senate.

...In House races, Democrats are seizing on the issue in affluent areas like the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C. as well as working class Trump strongholds in the north (Maine’s 2nd congressional district); the south (Arkansas’s 2nd district) as well as the industrial Midwest.

For instance, in central Ohio’s 12th district that voted for Trump by 11 points, O’Connor is running an ad attacking incumbent Republican Troy Balderson for protecting "big corporations" by backing "their huge tax giveaway."

"Now the bill is due, and you’re going to pay for it. A two trillion dollar increase in the debt, left to future generations and deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits," the ad says.

At rallies on Saturday and Monday, both Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama pressed the message.

"You guys paid for this. But what’s happening now, not a joke. Mark my words, if we don’t win back the House and Senate, they’re going to drastically cut Social Security," said Biden.



...According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the majority of the TV ads this cycle focusing on Social Security and Medicare cuts make a connection to the tax bill.

In the past few months, the House Majority and Senate Majority PACs, the major outside groups supporting Democratic congressional candidates, have cut numerous ads on health care and the tax cuts.

Due to the demographic pressure of the retirement of the baby boom generation, the nation would have to make changes to federal entitlements regardless of the tax cuts, said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Yet two decades worth of unfunded tax cuts "hastens the timeframe and it increases the size of the (necessary) cuts," he said.

...An internal study commissioned by the Republican National Committee and completed in September found "special attention should be paid to the messaging regarding Social Security and Medicare," and it says "most voters believe that the GOP wants to cut back on these programs in order to provide tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy."



Earlier this month, Trump himself placed an editorial in USA TODAY arguing that Democrats’ plan for "Medicare for All" would "take away benefits" from seniors. The nonpartisan FactCheck.Org found it contains several "false and misleading statements." And the president has been claiming, falsely, in rallies in critical Senate races like Montana that it’s Democrats who want to "destroy" Medicare and Social Security.

A number of Republicans have also tried to preempt the attacks by pointing a finger at Democrats.

For instance, in California, an NRCC ad in southern New Mexico warns the Democratic candidate, Xochitl Torres Small, would support a government-run system "ending Medicare as we know it" and "raiding the trust fund."

Yet, according to polling, Democrats have a decisive advantage on health care. Among those voters who rank health care as a top issue, Democrats have an 18-point advantage, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

McConnell’s comments, say Democrats, just allowed them a final chance to break through with their messaging weeks before the election.

"I’m calling it the full McConnell," Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic consultant who’s been developing ads on the tax cuts and entitlement cuts and says McConnell’s comments are helping Democrats.

"It should be declared an in-kind contribution to Democrats on the Federal Election Commission" reports, he said.

It's ironic that the Republican cuts planned if they win will be most devastating to this half dozen states, hitting the indicated percentage of households. And remember, crooked conservative lawmakers pay more attention to lobbyists than to their own constituents:

West Virginia- 63.3%
New Mexico- 62.2%
Arkansas- 60.7%
Kentucky- 58.6%
Florida- 58.4%
Mississippi- 57.6%

Only one, New Mexico, isn't a red state, but even New Mexico has a Republican governor. If you missed this yesterday, let me reiterate: Mitch McConnell to Bloomberg News October 16: "I think it would be safe to say that the single biggest disappointment of my time in Congress has been our failure to address the entitlement issue [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid], and it's a shame, because now the Democrats are promising Medicare-for-All... There's been a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs. Hopefully at some point here we'll get serious about this. We haven't been yet." McConnell was making the point that cutting these popular programs can only be done in a bipartisan way so both parties share the ire. That's why I oppose Blue Dogs and New Dems so vehemently. They're the ones willing-- eager-- to share the ire.

The Midterms Are All About Two Things: Trump And Healthcare

Will people vote against this? Or to protect healthcare?

Unless the polls are all wrong, the 2 things that will be on the top of most voters' minds when they cast their ballots-- and millions are already doing so in an unprecedented rush to cast ballot early-- are Señor Trumpanzee and on healthcare. Thursday Kaiser released their new poll and yesterday the Associated Press put theirs out. Neither had any good news for the GOP. Both polls indicated that Trump is the top motivator for voters, that Trump's disapproval numbers are sky-high and climbing and that voters want to hand congressional leadership over to the Democrats and plan to vote against their own local Republican candidates. First the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation findings:

• 30% of voters (the highest percentage) said health care was their #1 issue (immigration was half that)
• 83% said which party controls Congress is a motivating factor
• Support for candidates who want to maintain protections for pre-existing conditions is off the charts
• By double-digit numbers, voters trust the Democrats more than Republicans to deal with healthcare-- from improving rural healthcare and dealing with the opioid epidemic to reducing healthcare costs and maintaining Medicaid expansion.
• Trump's approval was 40% and his disapproval 54% (-14%)
• Congressional generic ballot question went for the Democrats by 12%

This was basically about Obamacare in 2 swing states, Florida and Nevada:

And this was about passing Medicare-For-All in the same 2 swing states:

The poll the AP released shows Trump with a similarly devastating disapproval number-- 59% (45% strongly) to just 40% who approve (21% strongly). Far more people disapproval of the whole Kavanaugh scandal-- just 35% approve and 43% disapprove, with 85% of voters saying it is a very important issue for them.

Jesse Lee at the Center for American Progress released a very different-- but also very devastating page of numbers. as we've been making clear over the last month, Lee points out that "An increasing number of Republican incumbents are running television ads claiming that they support protections for people with pre-existing conditions, despite their votes in Congress being wholly inconsistent with this rhetoric." The worst of the Republicans in strongly contested races voted for legislation that would repeal protections for pre-existing conditions did so NINE times. Some weren't in Congress long enough to vote against healthcare 9 times but still voted against protecting pre-existing conditions whenever Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy gave them the chance to.

I've picked out 3 Republicans-- 2 from the chart and Mike McCaul courtesy from Team Jesse Lee-- who did vote against protecting pre-existing conditions all 9 times-- and are now lying about it-- and are also now being challenged by progressive Democrats who say they will co-sponsor the new Medicare-for-All legislation. The other number next to their name indicates approximately how many people in their districts have pre-existing conditions and need the Affordable Care Act in place to maintain healthcare coverage.

• Duncan Hunter (CA-50)- 320,600 vs Ammar Campa-Najjar
• Steve King (IA-04)- 307,900 vs J.D. Scholten
• Michael McCaul (TX-10)- 346,000 vs Mike Siegel

Other Republicans who voted to end pre-existing conditions and are now trying to deceive the voters in their districts include Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Chris Collins (NY-27), Bruce Poliquin (ME-02), Mimi Walters (CA-45) and Donald Bacon (NE-02). Collins isn't on the list either, but he voted to repeal protections for pre-existing conditions FIVE times, even though his district, NY-27, has 305,600 residents with pre-existing conditions. His opponent, Nate McMurray, is running on Medicare-For-All and is now exactly tied with Collins. You can contribute to the progressive candidates who have told us they will co-sponsor Medicare-For-All after they're sworn in in January, by tapping on the ActBlue thermometer on the right.

This week the Bangor Daily News used Poliquin's lies on the issue to explain why they had, in part, decided to endorse Jared Golden:

"Last year, Rep. Bruce Poliquin voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with an inferior plan with weaker protections for those with pre-existing conditions that would have led to more than 23 million Americans losing their health insurance by 2026. The House bill that he supported would have been especially harmful to rural areas, like Maine’s 2nd Congressional District... The district deserves a representative who better reflects its needs and values. Jared Golden, a Marine Corps veteran and legislative leader, would be that representative. On health care, which voters have identified as their top concern in this election, Golden would be a vote in Congress to protect and improve the Affordable Care Act while working toward a more permanent solution to extend health insurance to more Americans while also reducing costs. He supports allowing people between the ages of 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare as a step toward universal health care. Contrary to Poliquin’s scary claims, this is not radical and it will not end Medicare coverage for senior. It would simply allow more Americans to participate in a health insurance program that works-- more efficiently than most privately run insurance plans."

It’s official: the 2018 midterms are about health care. In the period between September 18 and October 15, nearly half (45.9 percent) of airings in federal races mentioned the topic while nearly a third (30.2 percent) of gubernatorial airings did the same. Although both parties are mentioning health care, the topic is most prominent in ads supporting Democrats, appearing in 54.5 percent of pro-Democratic airings.

As shown in Figure 1, health care appeared in a third (33.9 percent) of all pro-Republican ads aired in federal races in 2010 (following passage of the Affordable Care Act), but the issue declined in prominence in the following election cycles (appearing in 28.4 percent of pro-Republican airings in 2012, in 20.8 percent in 2014 and in 16 percent in 2016). Mentions of health care in pro-Republican ads airing in federal races jumped in 2018, however, appearing in 31.5 percent of ad airings.