This assertion appears to be accurate.  The bill creates "Association Health Plans" which are not subject to the regulations of the state in which the policy holder lives (although they are subject of course to federal regulation as well as to regulation within the "primary state" in which the AHP is incorporated).  

I'll include a number of links, but for starters here's a Roll Call article ("Association Health Plans: Not So Simple," August 20, 2005) that is by subscription only:

The National Governors Association has questioned just how solvent these national schemes would be and how AHP legislation would shift oversight from the state level, where insurance regulation is well established, to the Labor Department, which may not have the manpower to root out malfeasance.

"Primarily, what AHPs do is exempt huge populations from state consumer protections and other regulations," said Matt Salo, director of the health and human services committee at the National Governors Association. The proposed legislation includes "solvency standards, but if there is no one there to enforce them, how useful are they?" Salo asked.

The insurance industry maintains that the proposed legislation will create an unequal playing field by creating new breeds of insurance carriers that are not required to adhere to state insurance requirements and mandates.

Here's the American Diabetes Association's critique of the bill:

ALEXANDRIA, Va., July 26 PRNewswire -- The American Diabetes Association today reiterated its strong opposition to federal legislation to create Association Health Plans (AHPs) that would be exempt from state regulation and oversight and would negatively impact millions of Americans with diabetes. By enabling AHPs to circumvent state regulation and oversight, the "Small Business Health Fairness Act" (H.R. 525, S. 406) would result in the loss of critical health coverage for millions of people with diabetes.

And here's a piece opposing it in the American Journal of Nursing along the same lines.    

Even groups that supported the bill note that:

Others have observed that AHPs would create a "second-class" type of heal insurance, "cherry pick" the best risks from the pool of individuals currently insured by individual policies, and leave the individual market with only the worst risks.

The Kuhl campaign (see the letter after the fold) claims that:

The bill referenced in the ad, H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, expressly prohibits association health plans (AHPs) from charging higher rates for sicker individuals or groups within the plan.

That simply does not address the issue of whether or not individuals can be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.  

The Kuhl campaign also writes of a follow-up bill that:

H.R. 4460 would require insurance companies to be regulated by the state law of each company's primary state.  See Attached.  The actual text of the bill states:  "[t]he covered laws of the primary State shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the primary State and in any secondary State."

And therein lies the problem.  Just as all credit card companies move to South Dakota or Delaware because of their weak credit card laws, all AHPs would likely make their "primary state" a state with very weak health care laws.  It is surprising that the Kuhl campaign included these details in their "rebuttal" since it actually illustrates the problem with the legislation perfectly.  

So there are three key points here:

1. The bill does allow for the creation of AHPs which are not subject to state law.

2. While these AHPs are subject to federal regulation, the Kuhl campaign does not conclusively demonstrate that said regulation is as strong as New York State regulation (as pertains to preexisting conditions), nor that it actually does prevent insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.  

3. AHPs are only subject to the laws in their primary state, not in secondary states where policy holder might live.  Thus, a New York resident would not be protected by New York State laws

4. Health Care For America Now is certainly not alone in suggesting that the law will weaken protections for people with preexisting conditions.  

Thus, one must conclude that the Kuhl campaign has no leg to stand on here.  If the stations refuse to run the ads, it will be out of sheer cowardice or pro-Republican bias.

It's that simple.  

I believe that I've been completely accurate and fair in my summary here, but I am neither a health care nor legislative expert, and if I have made any errors, please let me know in the comments.  

The Kuhl campaign letter is after the fold.
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:36:13 -0400
To: justin@kuhlforcongress.com
Subject: Kuhl Demands Deceptive Health Care Ad Be Pulled Immediately

For Immediate Release

Contact: Justin Stokes / 607-776-9999

Kuhl Demands Deceptive Health Care Ad Be Pulled Immediately

October 10 - Today, Kuhl for Congress Campaign Manager Justin Stokes
distributed the following letter demanding the false and deliberately
deceptive television ad from Health Care for America Now be pulled
from stations immediately.

The bill referenced in the ad, H.R. 525, the Small Business Health
Fairness Act of 2005, expressly prohibits association health plans
(AHPs) from charging higher rates for sicker individuals or groups
within the plan. It says it in the language of the bill that AHPs must
comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA), which prohibits group health plans from excluding high-risk
individuals with high claims experience. Thus, it will not be possible
for AHPs to "cherry pick" because sick or high-risk groups or
individuals cannot be denied coverage.

The truth is that this legislation (H.R. 525) significantly expands
access to health coverage for many of the 45 million Americans who are
currently uninsured.  The bill allows small businesses to band
together through AHPs and provides quality health care to their
workers at a lower cost.

A copy of the letter is pasted below.

****

October 10, 2008

          ATTENTION: STATION MANAGER

Dear Station Manager:

          I am writing to request that your station stop airing the
false and defamatory advertisement Health Care for America Now running
against Randy Kuhl, the Congressman from 29th Congressional District
of New York.  The advertisement contains false and deliberately
deceptive information intended to defame, and should not be allowed to
air.

DEFAMATORY AND DECEPTIVE CLAIM

          The ad depicts a woman walking outside with a woman's
voiceover that states the woman has had cancer.  The woman goes on to
state "[n]ow I find out that Congressman Randy Kuhl voted to weaken a
New York law that prohibits an insurance company from denying coverage
for pre-existing conditions, like cancer."

          Remarkably, the ad does not cite a single source for those
two statements.  There is no source cited on the screen or in the
audio of the ad to support the claim that he "would let insurance
companies make the rules" so that the companies could "deny coverage
for pre-existing conditions, like cancer".  Health Care for America
Now has fabricated this assertion out of whole cloth.  This
advertisement is totally devoid of any truth and is legally
actionable.

          The ad also states that Congressman Kuhl wants cancer
patients to "fight cancer and the insurance companies".  Health Care
for America Now cites no support for this egregious and absurd
statement.

          The back-up provided by Health Care for America Now cites
to the Congressman's co-sponsorship of H.R. 4460 (not his sponsorship
as the voiceover in the ad states).  See Attached.  However, H.R. 4460
would not allow insurance companies to make the rules.  H.R. 4460
would require insurance companies to be regulated by the state law of
each company's primary state.  See Attached.  The actual text of the
bill states:  "[t]he covered laws of the primary State shall apply to
individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance
issuer in the primary State and in any secondary State."  See
Attached.  Furthermore, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
noted that this bill would allow insurance carriers and other issuers
of health insurance to designate a "primary" state in which it would
be licensed and qualified to sell health insurance, and the laws of
the primary state would govern the sale of individual health insurance
policies in that state as well as in any other "secondary" state.  See
Attached.

It is clear from the legislation itself that the bill does not allow
for insurance companies to make the rules.  Matter-of-fact, the bill
specifically states that the insurance companies will be governed by
the laws of their primary states, respectively.

          This advertisement is false, inflammatory and
intentionally misleads your station's viewers.  Health Care for
America Now has driven the political discourse on the health care
issue into the ground with baseless, false and misleading statements.

          Health Care for America Now's advertisement does not
constitute a "candidate use," and your station is under no obligation
to keep it on the air.  To the contrary, as a Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") licensee, your station has the affirmative
obligation to the public to ensure that advertising aired by your
station is accurate and does not contain false statements.

          For your station to knowingly air such falsehoods not only
runs counter to an FCC licensee's duty to the public, it is actionable
as a matter of law, and could expose you to possible legal liability.
See Felix v. Westinghouse Radio Stations, Inc., 186 F.2d 1 (3d Cir.
1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 909 (1951)(holding that broadcasters can
be sued by a candidate for defamation over content of advertisement);
Farmers Educ. & Coop. Union, North Dakota Div. v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S.
25 (1959)(holding that broadcasters are protected from suit only in
the case of candidate use).

Your station should not broadcast such a blatantly false
advertisement.  The Health Care for America Now ad against Congressman
Randy Kuhl is deliberately misleading your station's viewers.
Accordingly, we again ask you to refuse to air the advertisement.

Sincerely,

Justin Stokes

Campaign Manager

Kuhl for Congress