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?
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- In our opinion: Airport expansion reflects...
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious...
- The complicated political views of...
- In our opinion: History will remember our...
- 3 modern Utah heroes who exemplify pioneer...
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and the...
- Letter: Breeding hate
- In our opinion: U.S. Supreme Court... 104
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 59
- Letter: Gun control 57
- My view: Amnesty towards border... 55
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 50
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Letter: Society values 45
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 39