Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) on Friday exposed Democrats' dubious legislative tactics meant to trick Americans into believing that Republicans are against providing health insurance protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

What did Crenshaw say?

In a video posted to Twitter, which has now amassed hundreds of thousands of views, Crenshaw revealed the dubious motive behind the "Protecting Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions Act of 2019."

While walking through the halls of the Cannon House Office Building, where his Washington, D.C., office is located, Crenshaw explained the bill, in actuality, is not about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Let's read the text, it's not that long: "Beginning April 1, 2019, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury may not take any action to implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the guidance entitled 'State Relief and Empowerment Waivers,' and the Secretaries may not promulgate any substantially similar guidance or rule."



OK, from the text you can tell that has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. So what does this have to do with? What they're referring to are 1332 waivers. What are 1332 waivers? These are basically innovation waivers allowed under the ACA. A lot of states have used them so far...they use them for reinsurance programs because what we found out was that reinsurance programs are a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions.



Obamacare requires that you protect pre-existing conditions via the exchanges. OK, when you do that, premiums rise for everybody. That's why all of these states have actually changed their programs that they've innovated. The Trump administration saw this and they said, "Why don't we make it even more flexible for states? Why don't we give states even more flexibility to both protect people with pre-existing conditions, but do it in a way that doesn't raise everybody's premiums?"

According to Crenshaw, Democrats titled the bill to give the false impression it is about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions when, in reality, the bill is about protecting Obamacare.

"This is the height of political cynicism. Democrats are trying to get people to think that we, as Republicans, are voting against this because they're trying to get people to think that we're against protection for pre-existing conditions. That's not true at all," Crenshaw explained. "We're against bad policy. And this is both bad policy and political cynicism."



"It's a lie, it's dishonest, and it's really sad to see," he continued. "We are not voting against protecting pre-existing conditions."

Anything else?

Prior to voting, several Republican lawmakers mockingly submitted legislative amendments to highlight the fact that the bill's title does not accurately reflect its contents.

Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) suggested titling the bill:

"Insert Politically Punchy Title That Doesn't Reflect the Bill Substance Act"

Nothing in This Bill Would Protect Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions Act"

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) suggested titling the bill: