Republicans afraid of debating health-care law?

I want to emphasize something that Nancy-Ann DeParle pointed out in our interview: The GOP isn’t banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. They just want you to think they are.

When I first read over the GOP’s “repeal-and-replace” language, I figured it wouldn’t work: You can’t ban preexisting conditions without also passing an individual mandate and subsidies for people who can’t afford care. Premiums will skyrocket as the sick rush into the system and the healthy rush out. This is partially what happened in Massachusetts, and it led a Republican governor named Mitt Romney to sign a bill that looked a lot like the Affordable Care Act. And you don’t have to believe me on this one. Just ask the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru.

But bad policy is one thing. Deceitful policy is another. And it looks like the GOP’s language was intentionally misleading. Under the heading “we will ensure access for people with pre-existing conditions,” the document mentions high-risk pools and reinsurance programs, and then says, “We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent your insurer from dropping your coverage just because you got sick.”

On first read, that seems like they lifted the language direct from the Affordable Care Act. And Republicans have been using it all day to protect against charges that they’ll repeal the bill’s many popular parts. But notice: “to someone with prior coverage.” So it’s not the case that an insurer can’t turn me away for a long history of allergies. They just can’t turn me away if I already had their insurance. Which is both unimportant and already written into federal law.

Now, you might say the language is clear enough and it’s not their job to make sure everyone reads it closely. But when Norah O’Donnell interviewed Rep. William Thornberry, he either intentionally or unintentionally blurred the difference. Asked whether the GOP would repeal the Affordable Care Act’s protection for children with preexisting conditions, he waved the question away. “It says when we repeal Obamacare, part of the replacement is protection for people with pre-existing conditions,” he replied.

That’s just not true. But it shows the difficulty the GOP is going to have when they try to move the conversation from “should we pass Obama’s health-care bill?” to “should we repeal, replace, or stop funding Obama’s health-care law?” The bill is unpopular. But the component parts are popular. And even now, when Republicans have as much momentum as they’re likely to get, they’re afraid to say that they actually oppose what the bill does and they’re just going to get rid of all of it. But though these sorts of word games might work when people are skimming your campaign pamphlet, they don’t when you’re actually writing legislation.