rescission is such a loathsome practice, i have no idea why the pro-reformers aren't highlighting it more. if you do the math, it means that if you're insured, you have roughly a 50% chance of losing your insurance if you're ever diagnosed with a massively expensive medical condition. it's insane. it means that half of us with insurance aren't really insured against something really bad happening. there's really no way to defend the practice.
but putting that aside, the retroactive cancellation of health insurance policies raises an interesting issue: why doesn't the insurance company return all of the premiums ever paid for the individual whose policy it cancels? the logic behind rescission is that there was some flaw with the initial application and that the insurance company would not have issued the policy if it was aware of that flaw. but in the meantime, the company has received years, sometimes decades, of premiums in exchange for coverage. if the company decides it granting the policy mistake and retroactively removes coverage, shouldn't it also pay back those years of premium payments? if insurance companies make it like the coverage never happened, then a lot of premiums were paid in error.
