The entire problem with rescissions in health insurance is that they create the entire problem they were enacted to combat. The only reason they exist is to be violated, like overdraft fees or virginity pledges or the return policy at Best Buy.
Rescission policies are health insurance companies' way of saying that they know where you live (even though, ironically, they already do). You get out of line, you get too uppity? Bam - rescission. An insurance company can, at worst, fix the problems that rescission is designed to combat without leaving you with a brain full of cancer simply by posting retroactive increases to your premium, either as a lump sum or prorated over your next X months' worth of premiums. It might suck, but it would allow them to take care of the alleged problem while still ensuring that you don't die. Which would seem to be the whole point of insuring your health and whatnot.
I wonder how much different this debate would have been if it was framed from the beginning as getting rid of contracts which allow someone to call you a liar and take years worth of your money in exchange for letting cancer destroy your body. Oh, well, at least Van Jones isn't around trying to convince our schoolchildren to join in the Soviet agitprop version of The Happening.