Godlewski off-base with claim on Johnson’s view on coverage for those with pre-existing conditions

It’s no secret that U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson isn’t a fan of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration’s signature health care law, passed in 2010. 

A hallmark of the law was its rule that health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover people or charge them more if they have a pre-existing condition — a health problem they had before the insurance coverage started. 

Wisconsin State Treasurer Sarah Godlewski, a Democrat who’s vying to unseat Johnson this fall, targeted Johnson this way in a April 1 tweet: 

"Ron Johnson is trying to let insurance companies deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions like cancer, depression, pregnancy, diabetes — or even COVID." 

That coverage, of course, is a key provision in the Affordable Care Act.

But does that mean Godlewski is right?

When asked to provide evidence of her claim, Godlewski’s office sent a list of votes Johnson has cast in favor of repealing or scaling back the health care law. 

Soon after he took office, Johnson cosponsored a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, saying in a Jan. 26, 2011, news release that it was "the single greatest assault on our freedom in my lifetime." He voted multiple times to drop the law’s individual mandate, which required most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty, and voted for a series of attempted repeals during the summer of 2017. 

But just because he wanted to get rid of the law doesn’t necessarily mean he wanted people with pre-existing conditions to go without protections. After all, many Republicans have said they support that provision, and it is widely popular with voters. 

Godlewski’s strongest evidence stems from a vote Johnson cast for the Better Care Reconciliation Act, an amendment to the GOP plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The final version of the amendment — which failed — would have allowed insurance companies to offer plans that could deny coverage to sick people as long as they carried at least one comprehensive plan that followed the Affordable Care Act’s rules. 

Insurance companies and patient groups decried the amendment, saying it would make those comprehensive plans more costly and create two systems of insurance, one for healthy and one for sick people. 

Featured Fact-check

Derrick Van Orden

stated on April 1, 2024 in X, formerly Twitter

You can vote in-person absentee at your clerk’s office on Monday before Election Day.

In that specific instance, then, Johnson did vote for legislation that could have allowed insurance companies to have plans that denied people with pre-existing conditions coverage. 

But — to get technical — all of those companies would also have had to have at least one plan that did cover people with pre-existing conditions, even if it was likely to end up being expensive.

Johnson’s office said the senator has committed to protections for people with pre-existing conditions. They pointed to his introduction of the Protect Act in February 2021, which would prohibit health insurers from imposing exclusions on plans based on pre-existing conditions. (The bill has not moved from committee.)      

They also cited a response Johnson gave to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel inquiry about his views on health care on March 17: "The first step in any health care reform would assure everyone that people with preexisting conditions would be protected by having their insurance rates subsidized so that they pay the same rates as those without preexisting conditions."  

In a June 26, 2017, New York Times opinion piece criticizing the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act, Johnson wrote that he was in part dissatisfied with the bill because it "leaves in place the pre-existing condition rules that drive up the cost of insurance for everyone." 

But he followed that by writing that the country "should look to improve successful models for protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions, models underway prior to Obamacare." 

His statements are just that — statements. Skeptics may question whether the views are sincere, or if political roadblocks would prevent it from happening.

But given current facts as they’re known, Godlewski’s claim doesn’t quite hold up. 

Godlewski claimed Johnson is trying to let insurance companies deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. 

The senator did cast a vote in 2017 that would have opened the door for insurance companies to offer such plans, but still would have required them to offer other plans that did provide that coverage. 

And he’s said consistently that he aims to protect coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. 

Our definition of Mostly False is a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That fits here.