I agree that some kind of adjustment needs to be made.
However, The whole idea of insurance is that you are purchasing protection for a future illness. A group of people purchase this protection and only a smaller number of them actually will need to use it.
It's sort of like the lotto. A large number of people each put a small amount of money in the pot and the few people that get sick are able to draw on the money to cover the bills. If people are able to draw money out of the pot after they get sick, what would be the incentive to put money in advance?
Just a thought, but couldn’t the insurance plan a person was on, when the condition was determined continue to pay for treatment of the realized risk, even if the subject leaves the plan? It may change pricing and add some complexity when conditions overlap, but this is one possible way insurance can work without forcing insurance companies to take on new policyholders and their pre existing conditions.
To make it easier, once an individual is in a plan, they should be able to stay with the plan, even if they terminate employment, however they must pay full premiums(non employer subsidised premium), if the terminate. Subsequent employers can give an allowance equivalent to their new term of employment health care subsidy to help subsidise the premiums of the previous plan.
Exactly. Forcing insurance companies to cover existing illnesses is telling them to go against their business model.