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?
- Which states are best for tax payers?
- In our opinion: Western land standoff aside,...
- Jay Evensen: No more rent for inmates —...
- Doug Robinson: Horrific crimes show the thin...
- Letter: Right and wrong
- In our opinion: Utah is not a swing state and...
- Letter: Plenty of danger in e-cigarettes
- My view: Utah's agriculture industry needs...
- Letter: Right and wrong 95
- My view: Anti-science ruins the climate... 68
- Robert Bennett: Immigration reform... 64
- Letter: Science consensus is slow,... 51
- In our opinion: Confronted by power,... 40
- In our opinion: Western land standoff... 36
- John Hoffmire: Why shouldn’t... 29
- Letter: Republican empathy too rare 28