As the parent of a daughter with cystic fibrosis, I’m learning a thing or two about pre-existing conditions. That’s why I find many of the attacks from the Left on the issue so disturbing. House Democrats will use this week’s healthcare vote to claim they are “protecting” individuals with pre-existing conditions — but here’s what they aren’t telling you.

Obamacare’s pre-existing conditions “protections” have priced millions of people out of their health coverage. From the first quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2018, approximately 2.5 million people (more than the population of all but three of America’s cities) dropped their Obamacare coverage. During that time, enrollment among people who do not qualify for federal insurance subsidies dropped by nearly 40 percent.

In the fall of 2016, when former President Bill Clinton called Obamacare “ the craziest thing in the world ,” he was referring in large part to its pre-existing condition provisions. Those provisions represent the main reason premiums on insurance exchanges more than doubled from 2013-2017. Federal subsidies offset the higher premiums for low-income families, but for those making too much money to qualify for subsidies, the costly pre-existing condition provisions meant “their premiums doubled and their coverage [was] cut in half” — the “crazy” dynamic Clinton described.

Democrats have deliberately priced millions of people out of the marketplace (people Clinton said are “out there bustin’ it, sometimes 60 hours a week”) because they want to make health coverage more affordable for people after they develop a pre-existing condition.

As a conservative, I disagree with this approach. I would much rather see that more people have access to quality, affordable health coverage before they develop a pre-existing condition.

That’s why a proposed rule issued by the Trump administration late last year could provide such an important step forward for millions of families. The proposal would make coverage more portable, allowing individuals to purchase their own insurance and receive a subsidy from their employer for that coverage.

If individuals owned their own insurance policy, rather than getting coverage from their employer, they wouldn’t have to worry about losing their insurance when they switch jobs — or, worst of all, becoming uninsured if they become too sick to work. They could also benefit from lower premiums by buying a plan when young and healthy that they can keep with them for years, or even decades.

I recognize that this proposal wouldn’t help people such as my daughter and other individuals born with pre-existing conditions. But other solutions, such as state-based high-risk pools, could help people born with genetic defects or who acquired costly diseases in childhood.

Make no mistake: I want to make sure that individuals with pre-existing conditions maintain access to care. I’m grateful for the quality coverage my daughter receives, which helps make her very costly treatments more affordable.

But, as with many liberal causes, solving the pre-existing condition problem didn’t require a massive and costly government program like Obamacare. Many individuals whose premiums have skyrocketed over the past five years would agree. So would the 2.5 million individuals who dropped coverage, likely because they couldn’t afford it, and now have no coverage whatsoever if they develop a pre-existing condition.

I’m glad that the Trump administration has issued its proposed rule and is moving forward with innovative ways to make coverage more portable and affordable, both for people with pre-existing conditions and for the millions of people who cannot afford Obamacare plans now. I hope that Democrats will work with the Trump administration to accomplish these important goals.

Mary Vought (@MaryVought) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a communications strategist who resides in Arlington, Va. Previously she was press secretary to the House Republican Conference under then-Chairman Mike Pence.