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?
- Charles Krauthammer: The president's foreign...
- In our opinion: Looking upward, seeking...
- About Utah: All the mac and cheese they can eat
- Benefit Corporations: Why aren't Utah...
- A Hobbesian choice: Religious freedom in the...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Count My...
- Letter: End daylight saving time
- Robert Bennett: Compromise will morph into...
- Letter: Religious freedom 54
- Charles Krauthammer: The president's... 48
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America... 33
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to... 33
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with... 30
- Letter: A 'dying' document 24
- A Hobbesian choice: Religious freedom... 24
- Senate defeats Obama in Justice nod 21