"Solidarity" is a pretty good term for that abstract idea. What would you like to suggest instead?
And yeah, I understand that people that do not buy into the concept of a society pooling together such risk to create a model that works best in the aggregate instead of emphasizing individual choice are going to hate everything about this. If you want to be able to save money in exchange for taking on risk, such a society can't let you easily do that because it'll inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons; such a society would also likely help you anyway if you made the wrong risk trade-offs and become a burden to the state.
Also, let's be clear: this principle is still very popular in Germany. I haven't lived there in a long time so I was curious and gave it 30 seconds. Admittedly the source here is an insurance carrier, but they found in a survey that while 66% of Germans last year were worried about insurance costs and the financial sustainability of the German healthcare system, 73% support the solidarity principle (https://www.aok.de/pp/gg/update/solidaritaet-gkv/)
My notion is, that anything labeled as solidarity has to be an act of free choice. Using Solidarity for a forced "choice" is an example of doublespeak. For context, another example for doublespeak is the "USA Freedom Act" policy that brought mass surveillance.
To answer your question for a word I'd prefer: How about an ontologically expressive word like "collectivity principle" / "Kollektivitätsprinzip". Coincidentally, I just googled it, "Kollektivitätsprinzip" is used in Switzerland instead of the word "Solidaritätsprinzip". Becks the question why Switzerland is honest where Germany uses doublespeak?
To finish, you can see that I am not arguing against the "Solidaritätsprinzip", no, I argue against the dishonesty of using doublespeak. A futile undertaking, but sometimes I cannot help myself.
And there certainly is consent, given voters can choose to elect people who will change the system, or not.