Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: Donald Trump and the Republicans are committed to protecting people who have preexisting medical conditions.

Q1: Did Donald Trump plan to help those with pre existing medical conditions
A1: 522,000 living in Connecticut, could lose their health care coverage if the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are successful.

Q2: Did Donald trump try or succeed introducing bills to help those with pre existing conditions and health insurance?
A2: While lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have been on record objecting to any elimination of protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, the administration’s proposal to extend short-term health insurance plans that are inadequate for someone diagnosed with a serious illness such as cancer would reintroduce discrimination based on health history,

Q3: Did any of trumps proposals offer health insurances to those with pre existing health conditions?
A3: plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions, nor the essential health care benefits. I'm going to offer right now a unanimous consent request to proceed to the immediate consideration of this bill … let me start with a request to bring this legislation that will protect people with pre-existing conditions and the essential health care benefits to the floor.”

Q4: Does the Trump administration want to remove protections for people who have preexisting medical conditions?
A4: Finally, the Trump budget would weaken consumer protections for people with private coverage such as by allowing states to eliminate key protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
user
justification: none of the information in these q and a show that trump and the republicans are committed to protecting people with pre-existing conditions. 

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant