people with pre-existing conditions should pay more -- i think the majority of those people with pre-existingonditions have made some poor diet,s in terms of their how they are taking care of themselves, whether they have .moked or drink alcohol the majority of those people with pre-existing conditions, they kind of made some poor choices. they should pay a little more. >> do you think people with pre-existing conditions should be gearing teed some form of coverage? teedr: they should begin some sort of coverage -- they should be guaranteed some sort of coverage. otherwise, it is not going to be popular. host: let's go to our lines for -- our line for democrats. caller: good morning. we are not going to have existing conditions in the plan. we'll be going back to the same insurance where they could charge whatever they want to. this has something to do with the plan which president trump has where the billionaires and billionaires set the price. these people are going to be extremely more wealthy. none of it is designed to help people. it is designed to say they have did something. i cannot u

pre-existing condition, pre-existing condition. that is something that is -- can be so devastating and depriving people of access to insurance but also the cost of it alling into, as congressman scott mentioned, what happens in washington and the rest. this is a very important moment of truth. they are not legitimate. they have made it, put this forth to make it look like, oh, we've improved the bill. no. it doesn't improve the bill. and don't let the -- this is an insult to the intelligence of the american people. but worse than that, it is an assault on the good health of the american people. with that, we'd be pleased to take a couple of questions if anybody has any. i know who you are, but they want to know who you are. reporter: [inaudible] the whip count that everybody's keeping, that the republicans -- [inaudible] -- it's still unclear if they're going to bring this to the floor, but there was a meeting at the white house this morning and mr. upton is now -- [inaudible] -- are you hearing anything new about whether or not th

and i told him that i was a no because of the provision on pre-existing illnesses. and he said he wanted it covered. the guy that sealed the deal, billy long. billy long said, let us come down and explain to you what we are going to do to protect those folks and in fact that's what this amendment does. i got to get moving. my team has left me.

especially for people with pre-existing conditions. quite frankly, george, that's what we're achieving. >> a lot of people think it will be worse. i want to get to another point, though. this bill does cut taxes by about $900 billion. cuts medicaid and other subsidies by about $1 trillion. i want to show a chart. the chart shows the distribut n distributions of the benefits. under $50,000 is going to be cut back. small benefits for the middle class above that. but a huge, huge benefit for those making over $200,000 a year. warren buffett said he'll get a 17% tax cut. critics say this is a huge transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. how do you respond? >> a couple of things. we're keeping our word. which is we're repealing and replacing the entirety of this law. all the obamacare taxes. the obamacare taxes are job-killing taxes that hurt economic growth and make health insurance more expensive. these taxes, most of them are aimed at the health care system, which makes the premiums higher. it pushes medical dev

and now as we look to fix the problems that existed. with that i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, how did we get to that point? the affordable care act is simply not working for the american people. it is limiting choices. it is rising costs. it is leaving millions without access to care. and unfortunately these are not just talking points but very real issues affecting very real americans. the affordable care act has left the individual market in shambles and driven insurers away from offering coverage. now we're seeing 1/3, 1/3 of all counties in the united states of america with only a single insurer. and among the plans that have chosen to remain in these markets there have been widespread double-digit premium increases. in texas, premiums have jumped 29% a year on average from 2014 to 2017. the markets are in difficulty. they

we need to define what a pre-existing condition is. i wrote a column on this this week where i mentioned that i --e a homeowner should insurance policy and one year i lapse and paying my homeowner insurance. sure enough that is when the tree fell on my house and i had $50,000 with the damages. i was not covered because i've not paid my premiums and either pay that out-of-pocket. the reason i tell that story is that i cannot go to the homeowner insurance company and say i have a pre-existing condition that this tree fell on my house. can i have insurance? we have to think about people acting responsibly and paying the premiums and so on. one of the point that the lady mentioned is really important. premiums are going way up under obamacare and bankrupting middle-class families. obamacare has not made health care more affordable. it has made it less affordable. the other thing happening that this woman was mentioning is that even as the premiums are going up, so are the deductibles going up. come undergentlemen obamacare, you're paying m

scott talked about, for example, pre-existing conditions and astronomical costs of allowing for pre-existing conditions, that's what existed before the affordable care act. and that's why people didn't have it, because it was too expensive. t was endlessly expensive. and you know what else? who decides what is a pre-existing condition? they were deciding that if you were a woman subjected to domestic violence you had a pre-existing medical condition and had to pay more. who decides what that is and that has been eliminated. a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition. and sure you could have coverage, but you could never afford it, you could never afford because it would be endless especially if your ondition worsened. as you heard congresswoman sanchez about the person with the pre-existing condition and another one and another one, i thank you for that story and joe crowley had to catch a train so he could not be here to respond to this. steny, did you want to say something? mr. hoyer: i wanted to make a comment. i don't think the senate is going to pass this bill in its present form. th

trumpcare guts pre-existing conditions, yes, it does.uts essential health benefits such as maternity care, prenatal, prescription drug and emergency coverage. the list goes on and on. and they will find out that they're between 50 and 64, that their congress person voted to make them pay a premium five times higher than others pay for health coverage no matter how healthy they are. and they will find out in addition to that crushing age tax that it steals from medicare. you know, moss of americans will say, don't mess with my medicare. they're messing with the medicare. that's what they're doing today. all of this for what purpose? all of this to give a $6 00 billion transfer of money from working families to the richest corporations and people in our country. that's why they're timing it this way. it's been timed to get that money to give a tax cut. it's really -- it's really stunning. that's why i'm so pleased that so many organizations have made their voices heard on this. i just want to spend half a moment, really, on the on this bil

exist in name only. repeal of the essential health benefits would drive a race to the bottom with insurers dropping coverage for everything from chemotherapy to high cost drugs. it would precipitate a proliferation of junk policies that historically plague unsuspecting low income communities for years. people with pre-existing conditions will have their costs -- would not be able to find coverage they need at any price, much less affordable. we took a giant step away from this with the a.c.a. but this republican bill takes us back to that era where people with pre-existing conditions are left in the cold. add in money to a state's slush fund -- adding money to a state's slush fund is in the a solution. repealing the ample c.a. would once again institutionalize inhumanity and egregiousness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: i'm prepared to close, i reserve the balance of manufacture -- of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlem

exist in name only. repeal of the essential health benefits would drive a race to the bottom with insurers dropping coverage for everything from chemotherapy to high cost drugs. it would precipitate a proliferation of junk policies that historically plague unsuspecting low income communities for years. people with pre-existing conditions will have their costs -- would not be able to find coverage they need at any price, much less affordable. we took a giant step away from this with the a.c.a. but this republican bill takes us back to that era where people with pre-existing conditions are left in the cold. add in money to a state's slush fund -- adding money to a state's slush fund is in the a solution. repealing the ample c.a. would once again institutionalize inhumanity and egregiousness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: i'm prepared to close, i reserve the balance of manufacture -- of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlem

the latest republican plan to gut essential health benefits and protections for pre-existing conditions will make it impossible for millions of americans to afford the health coverage they desperately need. this is deadly. this is deadly. trumpcare means heart stopping premium increases for americans in anything from asthma to cancer and the list goes on on the alphabet. no band-aid amendment will fix it. if republicans have their way, americans with pre-existing conditions will be pushed off their insurance and segregated into high risk pools where they face soaring costs, worse coverage, and restricted care. costs, soaring kansases -- soaring costs, worse coverage, restricted care. it's a frightening future for families who need affordable, dependable health care the most. the fight against trumpcare is a fight for children. you've heard me, many of you, talk frequently about see woe madison lin, born with a congenital heart defect in 2010. she faced her first of three heart surgeries at age 15 hours. by six months old, she was halfway to lifetime limits her insurer placed on her care

starting with the pre-existing conditions.articularly after the monologue from jimmy kimmel. >> if your baby is and it doesn't ha v to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. that's something whether you're a republican or democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right? i mean, we do. [ cheers and applause ] >> now, we know what happened with the house bill. they were basically giving the states the option to waive the requirements so people could be charged higher premiums who had pre-existing conditions. they added some money to pay for that. the president says the coverage will be the same now as it was under obamacare. your response? >> it's hard to watch that jimmy kimmel clip. my own son, who is 20, he had a similar condition. when he turns 27, he goes out on the market. he's like 1 in 4 americans that are, with histories of cancerses, diabetes, heart conditions. my worry as father, a cancer surgeon, we say we're going to put people into high-risk pools, we have seen what that high-risk pools are separate

mission,pre-existing my seven old has a pre-existing condition and it is such a mess. so worried that if this passes. i've seen on tv someone with uphma their price will go $4000. and someone with cancer is $100,000 will increase. the bill does not make sense. host: you are worried about yourself as well? caller: of course, because under the affordable care act, i was withouthave surgeries that i would not have been able to get my six surgeries on my shoulder. it is very scary. host: have heard or ask your insurance companies when changes ?ight be made have you looked at anything from the governor? caller: i have emailed and called the office, called my local riffs trying to do everything i can, but i have not really heard anything back, but i keep trying, but this is definitely scary times for all of america. here's more reaction from governors from what house republicans did. all americans need access to quality, affordable health care. shuman said how stupid members pass a reckless, dangerous a hca. casual reminder many of their constituents depends on provisions of

this will not cover pre-existing conditions and 133 million americans with those pre-existing conditions will suffer. kids like james, an -year-old in my district who has -- 8-year-old in my district who has a brain tumor and literally stands to die if this bill passes. mr. speaker, hundreds across this country are calling our offices and weeping, we should all weep that this bill is coming to the floor. we should vote no. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. mr. burgess: i yield 20 seconds. mr. walden: i have to say the information we are being told even "new york times" has characterized as it being misleading when you say the people of oregon are going to be thrown off and that is not true. there is not a waiver request. you are making that stuff up. and i dispute it. it is misleading, it is wrong and i'm sorry it's happening on this floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i want to remind my chairman that he represents more people on medicaid expansion than any republican in the country and this bill ends medicaid expansion. at this t

starting with the pre-existing conditions.ot so much attention this week, particularly after that monologue from jimmy kimmel. want to show a bit of that. >> if your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. i think that's something whether you're a republican or democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right? i mean, we do. [ cheers and applause ] >> now, we know what happened with the house bill. they were basically giving the states the option to waive the requirements so people could be charged higher premiums who had pre-existing conditions. they also added some money to pay for that. the president says the coverage for pre-existing conditions will be the same now as it was under obamacare. your response? >> it's hard to watch that jimmy kimmel clip. my own son who is in his 20s, and has almost the same heart condition. when he turns 27, he goes out on the market. most of the jobs he has had are freelance jobs with no benefits. he's like 1 in 4 americans that are, w

why even monkey around with pre-existing conditions?t's the most popular thing in obamacare. why are you guys spinning your wheels messing around with pre-existing conditions? >> i wouldn't call it mess pentagon around or however you phrased it. i think the president wants to do -- >> right now people with pre-existing conditions are covered and not discriminated with. >> hang on. the president has made it clear pre-existing conditions are covered in the bill under every scenario. i don't know how much cleary we can state it the. >> everyone with a pre-existing condition under trump care will be fine. >> democrats aren't buyinging it. >> they think they can dupe the american people by saying, well, we were going to eliminate pre-existing conditions. it's a joke. it's a very sad, deadly joke. >> it's a great honor to have the president with us. >> reporter: on foreign policy the president is taking on another big challenge, middle east peace as he met with palestinian president mahmoud abbas. the president insisted that decades of violen

now, in this bill, there's a provision that if you already have pre-existing coverage for a pre-existing condition, you will be grandfathered in. there's a protection right there. your plan will be carried over into the next iteration into health care, trumpcare, whatever you want to call it. those with preexisting coverage, a large percentage turn off and on plans. if you get off of your plan or if you move to another state, you lose that grandfathered status and, therefore, lose the ability to have your premiums stay at that lower level that it would have been based on a community rating system. now, what the amendment would do is spend $8 billion to address the small population to help drive those premiums down. the big question here is nobody, whether it's critics of the law or health professionals believes that $8 billion will be enough to actually address this. >> that's what i'm asking. it's worth unpacking specifically what this is doing and why it's their defense and the crux of the attacks that they are going to be facing and have been facing up to this point and why they are h

nobody wants folks who have a pre-existing condition not to be covered. we want to do it at a low are price. and see the doctor they want to see, able to go to the hospital they want to go to, the clinic, not that washington forces them to participate n yes, it is a different way. it is a way that we believe to be better and more comprehensivive to get the coverage and care they want. just because we stipulate there is only one insurer or no insurer, that is a major problem, that is what we are trying to fix. >> you say people are not going to lose what they are getting now. >> on the other hand, this plan, they may five five times more. going in the wrong direction ployees. >> it is the health status s important to preciate. >> raising the cost on the sicker people, to pay for the people who are healthy. >> what we are trying to do is make certain that every person has health coverage. 20 million people in this country right now, said to the federal government, said to the previous administration, nonsense, i am not going to participate. i will pay a fin

finally, pre-existing conditions. americans who have insurance for pre-existing conditions continue to have access to them. in almost every case, if you get insurance on-the-job, you have insurance for pre-existing conditions. iner the affordable care act 2010, there had to be insurance for pre-existing conditions. we had to make sure that americans have continued access if they have pre-existing conditions. with theove ahead speed, we are doing that because exchanges are collapsing and people could be without insurance. premiums could go up if we do not act. we want to get it right. there will be no artificial deadlines. carefullyrk together to write our own bill. we will make sure that we know what our bill costs, when we vote on it. by law, we have to do that. we will get it right and then we will vote. and hopefully the end result will be significant improvements for most americans, giving them more choices of health insurance at a lower cost. and to do that by gradually transferring more decisions from washington

conditions issue. >> why change pre-existing conditions? >> we're not. we're strengthening. we have done everything to strengthen. >> sure you can but the fundamental point that seems to be getting lost is that if you have obamacare right now in case of case you're losing it. if you have a pre-existing condition then you don't have coverage. >> we are guarenteeing it. but i don't know how much. >> why not just keep that -- >> the president has made it very clear that pre-existing conditions are covered in the bill under every scenario. >> so you heard mr. spicer there saying that some people with obamacare coverage are losing it. he is talking about more insurance companies pulling out of obamacare marketplaces. just yesterday they announced they're with drawing from virginia saying it's on track to lose $200 million this year alone and the biggest remaining insurer in iowa says it also may leave the program leaving most counts in iowa without a single insurance option on balm care in 2018. >> despite what gop lawmakers claim, experts say p

coverage for pre-existing conditions. freelance journalist jennifer davis, pre-existing conditions are not simply about policy. they are personal. this is her family's story. jennifer: this is the face of a pre-existing condition. my sweet daughter, bella. through no fault of her own, or anybody else's, she was born with a rare and life-threatening liver disease. my husband and i became parents through the miracle of adoption. our joyful daughter was born in 2010, the same year that protections for pre-existing conditions went into effect through the affordable care act. we didn't realize at the time that would soon apply to her. we didn't even know bella had a pre-existing condition when we brought her home. but two weeks later, we noticed the whites of her eyes were yellow. she was diagnosed shortly after that. we were told the disease would take her life before her first birthday if she didn't get a new liver. there are no words for the gripping fear and absolute terror you feel, standing in a children's hospital, hold

this does not affect pre-existing conditions for those people. number two, it doesn't affect pre-existing conditions for medicare recipients. it doesn't affect pre-existing conditions for medicaid recipients. now you're down to about 9.5 million people, and it doesn't affect anyone with continuous coverage. even if a governor takes the waiver option, it wouldn't affect anyone with continuous coverage. let's assume there are some people that might not have continuous cover, might not have employer-based -- chris: there are millions of people -- >> we've put billions, not millions -- [inaudible conversations] into high risk pools to buy down any premium that they would have, that they would have to pay for. and that's just in the house bill. what this tells you is that when president trump brought billy long, fred upton -- chris: two members of congress. >> and dr. burgess into his office last week and said, fellas, let's work it out, let's make sure this pre-existing condition taken care of, president trump made it happen which should show every a

it covers people with pre-existing conditions, number one. it does everything to ensure if a state seek as waiver that they are still covered. it looks at every single possibility to ensure that people get the care that they need. >> you criticized president obama rushing through his health care plan. is this not being rushed through, the legislation hasn't been put up for public debate, this latest piece of legislation? >> every piece of legislation evolves. we had a piece that makes it a stronger bill. the underlying principles are something that republicans have been talking about and have the contours of for the last seven years. this is something that's part of the process for a very long time. >> do you expect to see a vote -- >> the president expects to see a vote when the speaker and leader and whip call a vote because they believe they have the votes to go on. john? >> the omnibus spending bill, senator lindsey graham said republicans got their clocks cleaned on this bill. looks like as many as 100 house republicans will vote against

is there a hard guarantee for coverage for pre-existing conditions? >> so if you take that they will have a high risk pool and that in the high risk pool you would take care of those with pre-existing conditions, i suspect the advocates for the bill would say that is their guarantee. the president as he said might want something stronger than that and he's been remarkably consistent throughout the campaign and his presidency. he wants those with pre-existing conditions cared for as a physician and somebody who's advocating that through the cassidy collins bill, i'm all for that. >> but as you know, this revised house bill gives states the option of making some significant changes including opting out of the pre-existing conditions that have been mandated. >> well, i think the president just said that he expects the final bill to take care of those pre-existing conditions. the house bill is still a work in progress. i've spoken in the last several days both to a member of the freedom caucus and a member of the tuesday group and they both recognize it i

the other thing with the idea that sexual assault is a pre-existing condition, sexual assault is a pre-existing explicitly banned with, outlawed in 44 states and it has -- even before aca was not routinely practiced in any sort of way so i also want to be clear about that and not have the sky falling on us when in fact -- >> the only reason i'm even bringing it up is because a friend of one of my producers was raped and was denied health insurance in 2010 i think because she was raped and insurance companies said they considered that a pre-existing condition. >> all things associated with rape, if you have ptsd and that kind of thing, those are pre-existing conditions. >> don't conflate with the actual numbers on the ground but as a political matter, the way americans perceive it does matter, and for those americans who might fall through the cracks. >> which is why i want to tell the truth about it. >> here's the question though. all these people, all these americans with pre-existing conditions, who have severe health problems or need insurance and can't be discriminated on with a $50,000 a y

they have a family member with pre-existing conditions. because of the problems of obamacare, they're paying double digit increases. this is the real story for families with pre-existing conditions that are truly being hurt by obamacare. one of the untold stories are the dramatic increases in deductibles. so there are a lot of families that over 10,000 deductibles. for most people that means they can't even use the obamacare. not only when we go to the doctor do we have to pay so much for the premium but almost everything is out of pocket because we have such a large deductible. so i'm paying a lot of money for a health care plan that doesn't work for me. please provide relief for my family. we hear these stories over and over. and what has been so encouraging about this debate, from the very beginning, every member of congress that has been involved in trying to get this bill passed has been focus told on too many things. the first is lowering premiums for families who are struggling. the second is making sure sxashs doctors make their ov

the real issue is pre-existing economic conditions. but pre-existing medical condition poles better. republicans seem 12 bought into it. tom macarthur from new jersey, a lot of states already have guarantees about pre-existing conditions that have have been for decades. even if they got a waiver from obamacare, it wouldn't affect anybody with pre-existing conditions. it's a weird poll testing complaint of convenience rather than dealing with the actual issues about getting more people insured. >> bret: here is raul labrador on that issue. >> you in the media have been reporting that were not taking care of people with pre-existing conditions, and that's not absolutely -- that's absolutely false. our bill creates what's called an invincible risk pool where everyone's premiums are going to be going down and some people's premiums are going to be subsidized by the government, and those people are going to be people with pre-existing conditions. >> the question of polling is interesting because people actually don't support having these bi

we take care of people with pre-existing conditions. we do it by expanding the risk pool so that those who are sicker, if you will, are in a pool of those who are younger and healthier. it works. we have a plan on how to address that. i personally will be working on that plan. >> let's go down that road. you have a proposed a bill along with susan collins. i went to her website of some of the promises that are made. she said it keeps essential protections, prohibition of pre-existing conditions, exclusions. again, just so we understand where we're headed in your mind, do you think allowing states to get waivers from the community rating, does that achieve your promise of protecting people with pre-existing conditions? >> if you have a big pool, think about exxon mobile which probably has about 50,000 em moi yees and they are all in this plan with their families and spouse and children. if 20 people get liver transplants or other expensive illnesses it doesn't matter. within that big 50,000 risk pool, the expense that is associated with

. >> why even monkey around with pre-existing conditions? that's the most popular they know in obamacare. why are you guys spinning your wheels messing around with pre-existing conditions? >> i wouldn't call it messing around or however you phrased it. i think the president wants to do everything -- >> right now people with pre-existing conditions are covered and not discriminated against. your change to a system where who the hell knows what will happen? it depends on what state they're in. if they live in this state, that governor may seek waiver. they're thrown into a system where hopefully fund will cover their pre-existing conditions. it is a big change for people who live with those kinds of illnesses. is it not? >> the big change, i guess we have very different view of this. my view, the president's view, if you have a pre-existing condition, and you no longer have a health care provider, or your premiums, your deductibles are going through roof, then you don't have coverage. what i'm saying to you -- >> it is not the same. why change

under trumpcare if you have a pre-existing condition or your costsor health insurance could go up so high you can't afford it at all. the nonpartisan scorekeepers have spoken loudly and clearly. costs andmeans higher less care for the american people. for the good of the country, republicans in the senate should reject this path and work with democrats to fix our health care system instead of only plug on it. senator murray. >> thank you, senator schumer. i have had to say this far too often recently, the people are really scared right now. i have heard from so many of them in my home state of washington and across the country about how trumpcare threatens their health, their families health and their ability to make ends meet. , cbo score tells us what we already knew about trumpcare. and it confirms the worst fears of families across the country. , if you are one of the hundreds of millions of people in the united states who has a pre-existing condition or if you are a woman, your health care costs go up dramatically. if you are an medicaid you can lose that coverage along with ten

really are basing this on what an insurance company has stated was a pre-existing condition. so they think about 22% of americans have a problem right this minute. this is from the national institute of health. over 56% of adult americans, over 120 million adult americans have one chronic illness and about 80% of them have at least two. so these numbers that people throw out -- >> we're putting up a list of some of these pre-existing conditions and the bottom line is insurance companies get to decide what constitutes a pre-existing condition which i understand is one of the reasons people like yourself are so concerned about what this bill does even though people who have pre-existing conditions may have access to health insurance. the question is can they afford it once this obamacare mandate were repealed. >> i'm very lucky. i and maybe 2% of americans can afford whatever health care we need to have, but the rest of americans can't. when you're talking about people -- i hear from people who suffer from m.s. all over the country who can't even get medication. m.s. is one of

>> i think that there is an excellent piece out today that addresses the pre-existing component. it was done my kathy mcmorris rogers who personalizes this issue with her and i would encourage the viewers to look it up. >> republican congresswoman in house leadership we should mention. >> that's exactly right. and i encourage them to read that. you also have the mcarthur and upton amendments that address this. brianna, i think it's important when you look at the history of how pre-existing conditions became an issue, you go back to 2006 and it was a republican bill that first brought forward those accountabilities that were necessary to put on the insurance industry to make certain that individuals with pre-existing conditions be covered. what we're trying to do is to refine that process and to make certain that everyone has access to affordable health care. >> you're talking -- you talk about these amendments. some of them would, if you had, for instance, a state that decided to use waivers so that there were folks who had pre-existing conditions, they could be moved into high r

when you look at pre-existing conditions, those folks are covered. they will continue to be covered. and again, this is an exaggeration that is not based on any reality that i'm living in. first of all, anyone who has insuranceill continue to have insurance. >> cgressman -- >> so those who may have a pre-existing condition under obamacare continue to have that coverage. >> i have yet to see a single piece of analysis that says the $8 billion upton amendment is enough to make sure those with pre-existing conditions in states that do choose to get a waiver and are amoved for a waiver, that that is enough to cover all the patients might have pre-existing conditions. have you seen different analysis than i have? >> certainly do. let's talk about what it is. these are not people that are currently insured who have catastrophic health conditions like cancer or health insurance. what are we talking about? the individual and challenge which is only 7% of america. it would have to be a state thatment onned into the waiver. we're not sure any states willment o

i am a concern with pre-existing conditions as well., it's about the issue at hand, millions of americans have pre-existing conditions and they are the most vulnerable. >> a high-risk pool, if they only are under the strictest of conditions this can work in a more effective way. >> it just seems to harken back, the lack of women in that photo, in decision making, it just harkens back to a time that i kind of thought we were beyond. >> i think two things, one, that picture says it all and what it says is they don't really care. they don't care what women think, they don't care what mothers think, what men think about how women should be treated. but i just want to pick up on what kelly said about state's rights and state's participations in this. it's important to know that the action taken in the house trump care bill will very well likely make it impossible for states like new york and california that have inquired that women in the state have abortion coverage. it will practically make it impossible for them to have a higher standard

to keep theium system going for the pre-existing. had a client eight months ago diagnosed with cancer. hundreds of thousands of dollars. .e grabbed a policy, obamacare applied for it, received it, covered.g is he has passed away and his family was not left with $100,000 worth of cancer bills for the treatments. does that make sense to you? host: from baltimore, maryland, who opposes the effort. taking myank you for call. i think the trumpcare bill is being pushed through out of spite. i'm sorry, i am receiving a phone call. to -- r willingness lost him.ink we let's go to nathan who is not sure. morning, c-span. generally, i supported obamacare . it had a lot of good stuff. it had stupid stuff, too. that i like about the gop pushing through their repeal and replace plan is i am thinking things might get so bad for a lot of people that eventually it would be a good push for the single-payer idea. if its why i am not sure is good or bad. i hope it will be good. think if democrats come back to power they will make that effort? exactly. t

it's an impossible quest often when each other say they exist.thorns like jerusalem and on and on. how likely is that? >> unfortunately it's not very likely. i agree with the proposition. every president think it's worth a try. this is the president that wrote the book "the art of the deal". i don't think anybody should take it as anything other than his good faith that he can do it. there's some issues that are close to insoluble and maybe even insoluble that only a passage of a long period of time can change. i think for middle east peace, the israel and palestinian issue is one of them. the president had a long day with mahmoud abbas today. he will be able to evaluate what he saw and put it together. we'll see what happens. >> neil: first of all, you're not dealing with a concerted group representing all palestinians. mahmoud abbas with the palestinian authority and you have hamas that is much more violently controlling the west bank and what have you and then the issue of jerusalem, israel has -- talk about that undebatable issue. the preside

>> well, so obamacare had iron clad protections for pre-existing conditions. was before. previously, if you had a problem years before, you could have been rejected for coverage. you could have been charged a lot. you could have gotten coverage. but if you had asthma, you wouldn't get coverage for your respiratory system. high risk pools existed in 35 states in the past. but they had a lot of problems. they charged high premiums. they had waisting lists and they lost a lot of money. >> you have a great write on this. i would push them to cnnmoney.com, but you talk about wisconsin. you talk about paul ryan, the speaker's own state where this was tried and did it succeed? >> you know, i mean, the reviews were mixed. it worked okay. it was a million dollar cap. >> a lot of people had to pay a lot of money. >> yeah. so it was still expensive. they started 200% of the traditional premium. they had a low deductible, but a million dollar lifetime limit. so if you had a major car accident or cancer or some other major problem, you had a million dollars and that was it

we are protecting pre-existing conditions and it will be every bit as good on pre-existing conditionsobamacare. >> senator rubio just said that you support the individual mandates. >> i just want to say i agree with that 100% except pre-existing condition i would absolutely get rid of obamacare. we're going to have something much better. pre-existing conditions when i'm referring to that and i was referring to that strongly on the show, i want to keep pre-existing condition. i think we need it. i think we have to have it. >> so that was what he told you yesterday and what he told me in a debate back during the campaign in february, 2016, about the pre-existing conditions. he wasn't alone. every republican who was crying for a repeal of obamacare said no, no, no, we're not going to touch that. what's your take? >> so now he's asking republican house members to take a vote on something that may very well, if it were implemented, undercut those guarantees. what he seems to be saying is -- not saying it, but what he's implying, this isn't the bill that's going to clear the senate anyway,