Making sure people who have pre-existing health conditions dont get screwed by health insurance companies is very popular. So popular that a bunch of Republican senators who are freaked out about the partys electoral prospects have introduced legislation to guarantee that no Americans may be denied coverage because of their medical history.

At least thats what the senators say it will do. Heres the thing, though: Thats bogus.

The debut of this phony bill Friday is the latest installment in Republicans long-running campaign to make the health care system worse for anyone who has ever been sick while loudly proclaiming they are doing the opposite.

Congressional Republicans spent a good chunk of last year trying to repeal all or most of the Affordable Care Act , for instance, which already dealt with the problems of people with pre-existing conditions being shut out of health coverage or charged exorbitant rates. Against all evidence, these lawmakers constantly denied what they were doing, so weve seen this before.

At first glance, the new legislation mimics the Affordable Care Acts provisions for people with pre-existing conditions. And thats what the bills sponsors GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Bill Cassidy (La.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.) want you to believe.

Right there in the text, it says health insurance companies would not be allowed to deny an individual coverage or charge extra because of health status, medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence), disability, [or] any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services].

But its what the bill doesnt say that makes the above mostly meaningless.

Yes, insurance companies wouldnt be allowed to refuse to offer coverage to someone who, for example, has a history of cancer or is pregnant. But they could sell someone a policy that doesnt cover cancer treatments or the birth of a child.

Sure, premiums wouldnt be allowed to vary based on health status or pre-existing conditions. But prices could dramatically vary based on age, gender, occupation and other factors, including hobbies, in ways that are functionally the same as basing them on medical histories. Insurance companies have a lot of experience figuring out that stuff.

Theres no need to speculate about how insurance companies would respond to this, because this is how the system worked for people who bought individual policies before the Affordable Care Act. Insurers dont make money paying claims; they make money by avoiding claims or refusing the pay them. If theyre allowed to keep the most expensive people and treatments off their books, they will.

Before the Affordable Care Act , it already was illegal for health insurance companies to reject customers with pre-existing conditions or charge them more based on their medical histories if they got coverage through a group plan, like from an employer. And insurers and employers are limited in how much they could refuse to pay for treatments related to a pre-existing condition for group policyholders. The Affordable Care Act extended similar protections to people who buy their health insurance directly or via the exchanges the law created.