the insurance consequence of being on blood thinners

Not a question, but a topic for discussion. In my opinion, patients, and doctors, should not take or prescribe blood thinners so casually for blood clots. The consequence is: being on blood thinners signals a "chronic health condition", and raises a red flag in medical insurance underwriting.
I am enrolling in Medicare for the first time. Yes, I can enroll in Medicare Advantage regardless of my health status. Yes, I can get into a Medigap (Medicare Supplement) plan during my "guaranteed issue" period, regardless of my health status. But my new "policy" or "plan" or "block" of business will eventually be closed to new enrollees (within 1 to 8 years). Everyone in my closed block will age, incur more medical costs, and our premiums will rise even faster than medical inflation. At some point, healthier people will start exit the plan for a less expensive plan, making the premium increases even worse for those left behind, like me - I will be stuck. I'm on blood thinners - I will not pass underwriting and will not be able to change policies.
My first blood clot happened while sleeping. Genetic tests were done for predisposition; all negative. Warfarin was prescribed. In retrospect, there was an alternate treatment available. First, preventing sleep positions that can affect circulation. Second - drinking more water during the day. Third - doing some kind of exercise before going to bed. Fourth: taking a baby aspirin occasionally. Fifth: by eating more of the blood-thinning foods they tell you not to eat if you are on Warfarin.
Of course a second blood clot, or any mini-stroke-like occurrences, changes the situation. But there are things that can be done to lower the probability of getting a second blood clot, without resorting to blood thinners. I hope doctors are open to them, and don't always settle for the easy and safe route of putting their patients on blood thinners and leaving them there. There is a consequence to that.