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?
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama...
- In our opinion: Let FAA, not Utah...
- My view: Don't make women optional in marriage
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code
- My view: Don't make women optional in... 103
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 91
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 66
- In our opinion: Religion in public life... 53
- Letter: Lateralist logic 40
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 40
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 40
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 36