On the reform subject, here's a reasonably clear post on the subject of insurance company "recission" from a liberal-leaning econ blog:

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/07/27/health-insurance-innovation/

Quick analogy: You get insurance on your house. You pay premiums for five years, then it burns down in a fire. The insurance company says, "Oops, we forgot -- or should we say 'forgot' -- to verify your application five years ago. Turns out you misreported the size by 3 square feet. Therefore you application was invalid. Here are your premiums back, good luck". Leaving you of course with a pile of cinders and no insurance to cover it.

You'd of course scream bloody murder and be in court the next day.

Same thing happens with health care, but with no recourse. People buying individual plans get approved w/o their info being scrutinized beyond the basics. They get sick with something really expensive, like cancer. The ins co, years after the fact, then goes back and scrutinizes and finds that the cancer victim forgot to report a trip to the doctor for a sprained ankle five years before they applied. Policy canceled, premiums refunded. Much cheaper than paying for the cancer. And of course the patient has no option since they can't get new insurance at that point.

I'm all for insurers doing all the due dilligence they want for some reasonable period -- 90 days? -- or for being able to cancel retroactively when deliberate fraud is found. But regulators (and the LA Times has done reporting) have found that firms are knowingly not doing much checking up front, knowing that for the majority of the patients who do not get sick, they can pocket the premiums.

I'd hope this is a practice both the liberals and conservatives can agree sucks and should reasonably be prohibited.