Experts slam Trump's claim of protecting people with preexisting conditions as blatantly false.
There is no question in the minds of health care experts where Trump comes down on the issue of preexisting conditions: He does "exactly the opposite" of protecting them.
In an analysis published Thursday, Politifact gave Trump a "False" rating for this claim from early May: "We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, very importantly."
The analysis relied on interviews with four experts who cited Trump's desire to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as contradicting the his claim.
In March, Trump's Justice Department asked federal courts to completely eliminate the ACA, part of which protects people with preexisting conditions from paying higher health care costs or being denied health insurance all-together. The administration reiterated their goal in May, writing that the entire ACA "must be struck down."
Given Trump's stance, "there is real cause for skepticism" about Trump's claim, Wendy Netter Epstein, a DePaul University law professor, told Politifact.
Further, the Trump administration is allowing states to sell junk health insurance plans that are not required to protect people with preexisting conditions, something Democrats are trying to stop.
In the end, the "White House's policy trajectory does exactly the opposite" of protecting people with preexisting conditions, concludes Politifact.
"The DOJ's stance, which reflects a policy in place at the same moment the president made this claim, would eliminate the only law guaranteeing that people with preexisting conditions both receive health coverage and do not have to pay more for it." Further, "the administration has not put forth any plan that might keep those guarantees in place."
The analysis goes on to say that Trump's team has "taken further steps that could make it harder for people with preexisting conditions to get affordable coverage."
Rather than being honest about what he is fighting for, Trump's statement "is not accurate and makes a claim in direct opposition of what's actually happening."
Published with permission of The American Independent.