In Sunday's paper, there was a comment in this forum about Obamacare that I disagree with ("Freedom and health care," May 7). It said, "Individuals and families will now be required to have adequate health care coverage (meaning most will have to acquire coverage they don't need) or pay a penalty … " I would like to know who doesn't need health care coverage. Can anyone guarantee they'll never have any serious medical issues?
Though I don't agree with many parts of Obamacare, under the current system if you choose not to have coverage and you have a serious issue, hospitals are required to treat you whether you can pay or not, which makes the cost higher for those of us who pay for coverage. By this reasoning, I should cancel my home and car insurance, because I don't currently need it. Then when my cars gets wrecked and my home burns down, someone else will be responsible for replacing them even if I can't pay, right? So my question is, if you think you don't need health coverage, does that mean you won't need treatment when you get sick or injured?
- In our opinion: Trouble on tap? Colleges...
- Drew Clark: Religious freedom is more than a...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: How Utah...
- In our opinion: Par for the president
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet
- Letter: Legalizing drugs
- Gabriel Roth: Get the government out of the...
- School fees: Is Utah really family... 49
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 45
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to... 36
- Drew Clark: Religious freedom is more... 36
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 35
- Letter: Society puzzles 33
- Join the discussion: Is Common Core... 32