WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney says he supports some health care reforms, such as helping people with pre-existing conditions. But there’s a huge catch to the GOP candidate’s plan: You’d basically have to be covered already to be protected.

If you had a significant break in your coverage, an insurer still could delve into your medical history, looking for anything – from a bad back to high blood pressure – that could foreshadow future claims. They’d be able to turn you down.

Additional Photos

In this June 28, 2012, photo, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks about the Supreme Court ruling on health care in Washington. Romney says he has a plan to help people with pre-existing medical conditions get health insurance. But there�s a huge catch: You basically have to be covered in the first place. If you had a significant break in health insurance coverage, an insurer still could delve into your medical history. Common conditions _ from a bad back to high blood pressure _ could lead to denial. Compared to Romney�s approach, President Barack Obama�s health care law guarantees that people in poor health can get coverage at the same rates everybody else pays, and it provides financial help for low- to middle-income households. The law says that, starting Jan. 1, 2014, an insurer �may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) AP

That’s a contrast to President Barack Obama’s health care law, which guarantees that people in poor health can get comprehensive coverage at the same rates everybody else pays, and provides government subsidies to help low- to middle-income households pay premiums.

Starting Jan. 1, 2014, an insurer “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion,” the law says.

Romney mentioned his pre-existing conditions plan during last week’s presidential debate. “I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions,” he said.

His campaign has not spelled out details other than it would help people who have maintained continuous coverage. That would involve making incremental changes to insurance laws and regulations, and may or may not whittle down the number of uninsured, 49 million nationally.

“It will solve some of the problems,” said health economist Gail Wilensky, a longtime adviser to Republicans. “It won’t solve the problem of people having gone for a long time without health insurance.”

That’s because many people aren’t able to keep up continuous coverage. Losing health insurance is often connected to major life upheavals like job loss or divorce that drain household budgets. More than 70 percent of the uninsured have been without coverage for a year or longer, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Obama’s answer — it’s the law of the land unless repealed — is more like hitting the reset button. About 30 million uninsured people would gain coverage as the U.S. moves closer to other economically advanced countries that provide health care for all citizens.

The differences between Obama and Romney reflect a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in dealing with the nation’s health care woes: high costs, uneven quality, widespread waste and millions uninsured.

Republicans are looking to individual initiative and private-sector solutions that government can encourage. Under Obama, government has taken the lead, framing a grand bargain in which insurance companies will have to accept all applicants in exchange for a requirement that virtually all Americans carry coverage.

Currently about 13 percent of people age 64 and younger who apply for an individual policy are turned away for medical reasons, according to insurance industry statistics. In 2008, that amounted to more than 220,000 individuals. The denial rate rises to nearly 25 percent for people age 50 to 64.

While Republicans are united in their desire to repeal Obama’s law, there is no consensus within the party on how or whether to replace it.

Romney has been stressing his pre-existing conditions plan as he works to soften his public image in the homestretch of a campaign that has tightened since last week’s debate with Obama. Yet his campaign has only provided a bare-bones set of talking points.

Romney himself addressed the issue in a recent column for The New England Journal of Medicine. “Regulation must prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage.”

Most Americans already enjoy such protection under a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton. It works fairly seamlessly for people who switch from one job-based plan to another.

It’s harder for people switching from job-based coverage to an individual plan. They first have to exhaust a coverage option known as COBRA, which allows people with job-based insurance to keep their health plan for up to 18 months after leaving the company, provided they pay the full premium. Many can’t afford that.

And there’s no federal protection against being turned down for a pre-existing condition if you are trying to switch from one individual plan to another.

Romney could plug those two gaps, making it easier for people to switch from job-based to individual coverage and among individual plans. His campaign has not specified how.

In his journal article, Romney also proposed to allow all consumers who purchase coverage individually to deduct the cost from their income taxes, and he expressed support for purchasing pools and for allowing insurers to sell across state lines. His campaign says states will have the flexibility and resources to design programs for residents who cannot afford coverage on their own.

Individual insurance market expert Karen Pollitz, who served in the Obama administration as a consumer protection regulator, says the components of Romney’s plan are unlikely to provide as comprehensive a guarantee as the president’s Affordable Care Act.

“The ACA just says insurance companies can’t discriminate against you, period,” said Pollitz, now with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “If you’ve been uninsured, you can come into this market on Jan. 1, 2014, no questions asked.”