Republicans Won't Stop Lying About Protecting Your Healthcare - Here's What You Can Do About It

What happens when Republicans running for re-election are confronted with their lies about how they voted to protect people with pre-existing conditions? They lie more. For example, these are the seven Republicans who are twisting a Washington Post fact check to lie about their opponents lying about their voting history.


The Post's Glenn Kessler has been following this one for the past week, since it's his work they're messing with. Thus far he's found that Reps. Peter Rosksam (IL-06), Rodney David (IL-13), Mike Kelly (PA-16), Erik Paulsen (MN-03), John Faso (NY-19), Jeff Denham (CA-10), and David Brat (VA-07) are using his work to lie about their records. The first problem is that they all say the fact check did something it didn't. The article: "a) focused on how many people had preexisting conditions, not whether the [AHCA, the House "replacement"] bill harmed them; b) was published before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a critical report about the possible impact on people with preexisting conditions if the bill they supported had become law."

But what these guys (yes, all guys) are saying is unrelated to what Kessler actually covered in that article. Here's the best example because it's the most stupid, from Kelly: "The other thing, listen, that is unbelievable when you talk about preexisting disease or conditions. The New York Post [sic] gave that a Four Pinocchio that it was absolutely false. We have always kept preexisting conditions in there." Which, by the way, the bill didn't do. The bill gave lip-service to the idea that pre-existing conditions by weakly asserting "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions." And nothing in the act prevented insurers from charging a million dollars for that "access" to coverage. What's too often forgotten is that this part of the AHCA was so weak that Trump himself called it "mean," and insisted that the Senate had to do better.

Until this moment, when the issue of these protections became a paramount concern for voters, all these Republicans didn't care, they just wanted repeal. Without any thought to the consequences. They still don't care about the consequences, except for the consequences to the continuation of their cushy positions in Congress, where they have three day work weeks maybe 40 weeks out of the year.

What it all boils down to is that yes, these guys all voted to gut those protections and that they're compounding their lies about that votes. What's more, the Post "asked these lawmakers whether they would be willing to withdraw the citation of the Pinocchios. None agreed to do so." Because of course they didn't.

Understand the importance of honest news ?

So do we.

The past year has been the most arduous of our lives. The Covid-19 pandemic continues to be catastrophic not only to our health - mental and physical - but also to the stability of millions of people. For all of us independent news organizations, it’s no exception.

We’ve covered everything thrown at us this past year and will continue to do so with your support. We’ve always understood the importance of calling out corruption, regardless of political affiliation.

We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, no matter the amount, makes a difference in allowing our newsroom to bring you the stories that matter, at a time when being informed is more important than ever. Invest with us.

Make a one-time contribution to Alternet All Access, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

Click to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card
Donate by Paypal

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.