Trump Wants to Ditch Preexisting Condition Protections. Here Are the Times He Promised Not To.

The president turns his back on years of promises.

Michael Candelori/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Trump administration declared Obamacare’s protections for people with preexisting conditions unconstitutional on Thursday—thanks to the tax bill passed by congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Donald Trump in December.

The announcement came in a letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a filing in a federal court in Texas. While it won’t cause any immediate changes in health laws, it represents a major break from repeated promises from Trump and congressional Republicans to preserve the protections for preexisting conditions. 

Sessions’ announcement involves some complicated legal reasoning. Republicans slipped a provision into their tax-cut bill that effectively eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance. Due to Senate rules, the GOP couldn’t technically erase the mandate without triggering a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster, so instead it just reduced the penalty for failing to buy insurance to zero dollars.

But now, Sessions argues, a 2012 Supreme Court ruling comes into play. The court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because it could be considered a tax. But when the penalty is zero dollars, it’s no longer a tax, Sessions claims, so now it’s unconstitutional. And, Sessions says, you can’t separate the mandate from the law’s various consumer protections. So if the mandate is unconstitutional, he argues, the courts need to toss out the law’s regulations on preexisting conditions as well, since Congress determined that the individual mandate was “essential” to the preexisting conditions protections. (Conveniently, the legal filing asks the court to wait until 2019 to strike down these provisions—delaying the full consequences until after vulnerable GOP politicians face midterm elections.)

While Trump and his fellow Republicans have always been eager to describe Obamacare as a horrendous law, they made sure to reassure voters that they intended to keep the Affordable Care Act’s protections that barred insurance companies from charging higher rates to people who have a current or past medical condition. That has always been one of the most popular provisions of the law.

But if the courts side with Sessions and Trump, insurance companies will once again be able to deny people coverage for preexisting medical conditions, charge higher rates to sicker people, and make older Americans pay sky-high premiums. That directly undercuts promises made by Trump and other Republicans over the last two years.

During a presidential debate in the 2016 campaign, Trump was unambiguous. “I want to keep preexisting conditions,” he said. “I think we need it. I think it’s a modern age. And I think we have to have it.” At a campaign event alongside Trump a week before the 2016 election, his running mate, Mike Pence, reaffirmed that the GOP ticket would “protect Americans with preexisting conditions.”

Shortly after he was elected in November 2016, Trump sat down for an interview with 60 Minutes, where he was asked if he would protect people with preexisting conditions. “Yes,” Trump responded, “because it happens to be one of the strongest assets.” (He told the Wall Street Journal the same thing around that time.)

A few days before his inauguration, Trump said in an interview with the Washington Post that he would support health care legislation to provide “insurance for everybody.”

During his first speech to a joint session of Congress in February 2017, Trump explained his goals for a bill to repeal Obamacare. The very first point he made was unequivocal: “First, we should ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions have access to coverage and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health care exchanges.” (This section of his remarks starts at about the 37-minute mark in the video below.)

Last April, while Congress was debating various measures to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Trump reaffirmed that he didn’t want to sign any bill that ditched Obamacare’s consumer protections. While the versions of the bill at the time did weaken the preexisting conditions ban, Trump declared that he wouldn’t sign a bill that got rid of those provisions. “Preexisting conditions are in the bill,” he insisted. “I mandated it, I said it has to be.”

When Congress took one last stab at a standalone repeal bill of Obamacare last fall, Trump tweeted that he wouldn’t sign it if it got rid of preexisting condition protections.

Trump is far from alone in promising to protect people with preexisting conditions. In January 2017, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was confronted about his opposition to the health care law by a cancer survivor during a CNN town hall. He went out of his way to say that he didn’t want to ditch Obamacare without finding an alternative way to protect people with preexisting conditions. (State high-risk pools were his preferred route.)

When Republicans introduced their bill to repeal Obamacare last year, Ryan touted that it would protect “patients with preexisting conditions.” Maybe it should have been a tell when the tax bill rollout didn’t include that same promise.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate