I think that a lot of people on this site are unclear as to what a pre-existing condition is really. It is not an illness necessarily and it is not something that is treated the same across the board. If you are diagnosed with acid reflux, or asthma, or cancer, or become pregnant (for example) under a given insurance policy that covers these things, they are not pre-existing conditions. They become pre-existing conditions when the carrier finds a new provider. Under the new policy they are pre-existing conditions. The government has made it so some of these can no longer be considered 'pre-existing' conditions, such as pregnancy, but they are currently being reconsidered by Congress.
It is true that those with pre-existing conditions will likely cost health insurers more money than their healthier recipients. This does not change the fact that millions of people have conditions they have no control over and no way to pay for increased premiums. Those with pre-existing conditions should not have their coverage stripped away simply because they were sick at the time of candidacy. The most common argument in support of higher rates for patients with pre-existing conditions is a financial one: if you cost more, you should pay more. That raises two questions. First, how do we know these patients will cost more? Second, what's the point of insurance if you can't get it?
Health insurers have shown consistent patterns in denying insurance to people born with conditions, or people who have devolved conditions during childhood according to organizations from the American Medical Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation...
The purpose of insurance is to provide financial and medical assistance to all, but most importantly, those who need it. Ensuring that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions pay higher rates entirely contradicts the initial purpose of insurance itself, and to further argue that it would be a "business move" since the healthcare industry is a "money-making industry" is blasphemous. Not all industries are centered around the monetization of the common man, especially not the HEALTH- CARE industry.
This debate raises more ethical questions than ever. How much monetary value should one attach to a life? Should insurance companies capitalize off uncontrollable conditions? Should healthcare even be for profit? These questions don't necessarily have black and white answers. Ethically speaking, those with pre-existing conditions shouldn't have to pay more to live, but also, pragmatically, there may not be a way for those with pre-existing conditions to pay the same rate and get quality care. Before we can remove the rate differences, we must evaluate as a nation if capitalizing off a human being's suffering is ethical.