Still the issue is question is if you want to help out 115,000 people, why not provide those individuals with a subsidy rather than changing health insurance for everyone?Think about it. Even a subsidy of $20,000 a year per person for 115,000 people would only cost $2.3 billion per year, and not have screwed up the rest of the health care system.
UPDATE: A reader indicates that the 115,000 people with pre-existing conditions is grossly too low. He (like probably many others in that situation) found full-time employment specifically to make sure that he would have health insurance.
The pre-existing condition problem is definitely one of the difficulties with the system before the Unaffordable Care Act. I won't claim that this was the result of a free market insurance system. (There are many things to call the old system, but "free market" is not one of them.) Nonetheless, insurers do have a history of refusing to renew what they decide are high risk insureds. Short of the government requiring renewal of policies regardless of loss record (which is definitely not free market), what to do? Any contract built around a free market with a fixed policy duration has to either allow the insured to not renew, or allow the insurer not to renew. Both are serious concerns.
I have sometimes wondered about writing a science fiction story set in an alternative universe where people without health insurance become debt slaves to the doctors and hospitals that save their lives. How many years of labor would it take to pay off an aortic valve transplant, or a double bypass, or cancer treatment? That's a scary world. Some people might start leaving instructions that say, "I don't want to spend the last fifteen years of my life mopping floors in a hospital. Let me die." And administrators would work studiously to see that such instructions were found and destroyed -- because they need the laborers.