"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).