The honor system may be fine in situations much smaller in scale and with less at stake. In instances where circumstances have placed people in the same position and role - at least on the surface as a statistic - as the intentionally dishonest, it is left to number crunchers to declare those who would appear as cheaters to be invalid. It is the dishonest who are more responsible for innocent parties being dubiously removed from the pool, thereby taking away their coverage. Assuming these cases could be resolved by a caring arbitrator to discern the difference between the unfortunate and the dishonest, maybe this factor could be cleared up.

Instead of playing the Communist-style class warfare card and ginning up hate toward "evil" big-Insurance and manipulating the minds of the people into confusion and misdirecting their anxieties, would it not be better all around to approach the issue with just as much honesty as we should expect from every individual who wants to play at the health insurance model?
(Or maybe honesty isn't high on our list of priorities. Is faded concern for moral behavior part of the root of this and most of our dilemmas?)

Thanks to the speaking-up of the American people, we have kept this from becoming the icon of socialist evil it might have become had we not spoken up. They would have just run up the bill, taxed with reckless abandon in a futile attempt to pay off the already endless debt, and taken over the whole function of health care. Fortunately we averted the socialism in large degree.
It appears that some of the additions and add-ons may just be the things that do most to restore some degree of honest behavior and function to the market of health providing. Much of what has perpetrated the mess it has become has been the previous government interventions.