No. If you have something and then you go to buy "insurance" to cover that, what you want is not insurance but someone else to pay for what you have. Insurance companies manage risk. If you have it, their risk is 100%.
Life isn’t fair, but I am supportive of this provision because there are some things that SHOULD BE moral.
Forcing someone to pay for your obligations is NOT moral. It's slavery. If you're worried about losing your job and then losing your health insurance, then maybe the idea of having your employer buy your health insurance is the flawed system.
Kicking someone off because they get cancer isn’t moral.
I agree, but is this what people are really concerned about? I think this is a red herring sob story. If this really happens, and you had insurance that was supposed to cover it, you need to sue for breach of contract. If it's legal, or in the contract for them to do it, then you should not have bought that insurance.
Oh, I am definitely not saying those who get insurance after they get sick should be covered.
They shouldn’t.
It’s my understanding they couldn’t with the provisions of this law either.
I am talking about people who have had insurance and only lost it briefly due to job loss or something, or people on individual plans that have exclusions written onto them because of something they got WHILE UNDER insurance in the past. I don’t think its right to punish them.
The only thing I think would be okay is higher rates, but not ridiculously higher. That’s what the car insurance companies do after you wreck.
You bring up a good point about employer-provided health insurance though.
That actually could be a big part of our problem, relying on that system.
The answer certainly isn’t socialized medicine though.