The first thing EVERYBODY has to acknowledge is that "pre-existing conditions", in this context , means WELFARE. Pure and simple. You can't buy insurance on your house after it burns down are on your car after you wreck it. I don't blame anybody for wanting somebody else to pay for their problems and taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. It is the right thing to do, but disguising welfare as insurance is insidious.
No. No, not even close.
There was a case, before O'care ever was a twinkle in it's daddy's eye, of a woman who was denied coverage for breast cancer due to an undisclosed pre-existing condition.
What was the pre-existing condition? Chronic acne as a teenager, and she failed to disclose it on her enrollment forms.
Coverage of a pre-existing condition has always been subject to continuous coverage. If you came down with something chronic requiring long term doctoring, as long as you continued to pay your premiums, you could not be booted. In SOME states, insurance companies could not refuse you, or rate you higher, as long as you had uninterrupted coverage.
The huge (economic) problem with that patchwork system is that you can't move between states (can't find insurance), and in some places, you can't change jobs. Since employers knew darn well who was expensive to insure and who wasn't, guess who got the crap assignments and no raises, ever?
As long as someone pays to be covered starting in adulthood, if that person develops a chronic condition while covered, you can't get any further from welfare. It is EXACTLY why insurance exists: to cover things you cannot foresee, and you cannot afford.
