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?
- John Florez: The key to El Paso is understanding
- Robert J. Samuelson: Why tax reform is doomed
- Letter: Constitutional republic
- In our opinion: Utah proud to be cutting edge...
- My view: New labor rule may harm Utah's...
- Kathleen Parker: Karma tastes rich in new,...
- My view: Convention equality for those in...
- In our opinion: Troops in Syria makes sense
- In our opinion: People desire fair,... 49
- In our opinion: The public health... 39
- Letter: Constitutional republic 29
- Letter: Utah GOP divided 28
- Richard Davis: Medical marijuana issue... 24
- My view: New labor rule may harm Utah's... 23
- Letter: Respect the governor 21
- Robert J. Samuelson: Why tax reform is... 19