I know plenty of people with legitimate conditions that had to change coverage as they aged out of their parents coverage, or they got married and are now covered under their spouses plan, or got new jobs, had to move, whatever.
There are many legitimate reasons to continue coverage for someone with a pre-existant condition.
Not everyone is a dead beat who is too lazy to sign up for insurance until they need it.
So if you want to penalize people with health issues like diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, etc, are you going to offer to help them pay for the care you don't want them to have?
“So if you want to penalize people with health issues like diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, etc, are you going to offer to help them pay for the care you don’t want them to have? “
How is “coverage” for pre-existing conditions NOT charity?
If you say “pre-existing conditions must be covered by insurance” what you are saying (in part) is that you do not want insurance to be available to people who may be able to afford it otherwise.
Pre-existing conditions, to the extent that there is reasonable way to insure them for that specific condition, is charity and/or means-tested government welfare.
Nobody wants sick people to not get care. But just saying “I want someone with a genetic defect to get medical care” does not confer to you a moral high-ground if what you are saying is “I’m pricing health insurance out of your reach (and therefore medical care for you and your family) because someone has a genetic defect”.