Socialists love to make a big deal about how taxpayers should be forced to pay the medical bills of people with pre-existing conditions. One of the supposedly strongest arguments in favor of Obamacare is that it does not allow evil profit seeking health insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical treatment related to a condition that existed prior to the patient's application for health insurance. In many ways the argument is like it was in the old days with pregnancy insurance. No woman ever purchased pregnancy insurance if she had no intention of getting pregnant. Then, when the decision was made to get pregnant, women would flock to their health insurance companies and purchase a policy so as to avoid having to pay all of the bill themselves. The premiums were outrageously high because nobody bought the insurance with the intention of never using it. Under Obamacare things are even worse. A person can go his entire life without ever owning a health insurance policy and then once he gets sick he can force the taxpayers to pay the entirely of his medical bills. That is a sweet deal for the socialists and an act of armed robbery against the taxpayers.
Socialists love to wax eloquent about how "we," whoever that is (it is not me), should never allow anyone to be denied medical care simply because they can't afford it. We are told that no citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should ever be denied his civil right to force the taxpayers to pay his medical bills. They become especially strident when it comes to people with medical conditions that existed prior to their application for health insurance coverage. As a taxpayer I am told that it is immoral for me to be angry with the person who made the voluntary decision to go his entire life without any health insurance and then sticks me with the bill the moment he actually gets sick. I have always had a hard time understanding why I am the immoral person in this scenario but the socialists insist that I am. Who am I to argue with a socialist?
The rather obvious solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions, although nobody ever speaks or writes about it, is for the citizens of this land to adopt a long term perspective to their health care coverage. Of course that will never happen because not one in a hundred people has the moral character and discipline to live with a long term perspective on life. It is far too easy to be an irresponsible jerk and let the government bail you out when bad things happen. But a long term perspective is still what is required to solve the problem of pre-existing conditions. The moment a child is emancipated he should purchase a health insurance policy. Prior to his emancipation he would have been covered under his parent's policy. If the emancipated child is healthy and does not want to spend a lot of money on a policy he will likely not use he should buy the cheapest policy available. The key thing here is not the coverage in the cheap policy. The key thing here is getting coverage for the future. By purchasing health insurance at the moment of emancipation and keeping health insurance policies in force throughout his entire life he will never find himself in the position of having a medical condition that excludes him from coverage. In other words, he will never fall into the dreaded category of having a pre-existing condition.
The reason so many people love socialized medicine is because it allows them to shift the risk of their future illness to the taxpayers, thus freeing up more money for them to spend on tattoos, marijuana and fancy vacations today. In a moral world the taxpayers would never be required to bear the burden of medical health risks for someone else who simply wanted to spend his money on something he deemed to be more fun than health insurance coverage. Any person who makes the decision, generally at a young age, to go uninsured is making the decision to take the risk of potentially becoming a future "pre-existing condition" patient upon himself. If life's circumstances are such that some day later he finds himself uninsurable because of that earlier decision to not purchase health insurance then that is his tough luck. Or, more accurately, it is the logical outcome of his bad decision to not purchase health insurance when he was young. Either way I feel no compassion for that person and neither should you. He can either pay cash for his health care or go untreated. Yes, that may mean some people would be dying in the streets but that is far preferable to having the federal government engage in a perpetual program of grand larceny against the personally and financially responsible citizens of this immoral land.