ACA opponent Walker wants us to believe he'll protect the uninsured and lower insurance rates?

Scott Walker wants us to forget about "the devil in the details," like how he would end up covering pre-existing conditions...if at all.

Republicans hate "ObamaCare" because it does just that, creating a large pool that spread the cost to everyone. Is this another "good cop" Scott Walker vs "bad cop" legislature? And don't think for one minute Walker isn't aware of public opinion?

The Democrats' strategy to focus on health care in the midterm elections has helped crack open opportunities in states they wouldn't have dreamed of winning two years ago.

Doing this would be costly for taxpayers and raise premiums for the insured, just so insurance companies could make money instead of spending it;

Would the Wisconsin Legislature be willing to adopt many of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act? That would have to happen ... The Trump administration is asking the court to strike down the protections for people with pre-existing conditions...

Insurers would have multiple ways to avoid covering people with pre-existing health conditions, even if required to sell them insurance.

If a health insurer didn’t want to attract people with high medical costs it could exclude expensive specialty drugs from its benefits or not cover drugs at all ... Impose limits on annual and lifetime out-of-pocket expenses.

Like Walker, Republicans on a national level are repeating the same lie. WaPo:

The Pinocchio Test: In many ways, the GOP pledge on preexisting conditions is the equivalent of Obama’s infamous pledge that under Obamacare, “if you like your plan you can keep it.” It may look great on paper, but the reality is that it is not a sustainable pledge. That was apparent with Obama’s promise when the ACA was being debated — as The Washington Post highlighted three times in 2009and 2010 — and that’s also the case here. The problems inherent in the structure are well documented in the CBO report.

Thus Cramer goes too far to claim that in the AHCA, there are “safeguards to make sure that there’s not price discrimination as a result of preexisting conditions.” In a state that did not seek a waiver, that might have been correct. But the proposed law gave states the option to seek waivers that would in effect nullify those promises, and it is quite possible North Dakota would have been one of those states. He earns Three Pinocchios

And funding those high-risk pools?

HIRSP also had a cost. It was funded by a tax on health insurance sold in Wisconsin. And health systems, physicians and other health care providers were paid rates slightly above those for Medicare but much lower than those paid by commercial insurers.