Letters: Health coverage needed

Published: Friday, May 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

FILE - In this April 12, 2013 file photo, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. State officials say thousands of people with medical problems are in danger of losing coverage as the Obama administration winds down one of the earliest programs in the federal health care overhaul. At risk is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, a transition program that has turned into a lifeline for the so-called ?uninsurables? _ people with serious medical conditions who can't get coverage elsewhere. The health care law capped spending on the program, and now money is running out. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Associated Press

Enlarge photo»

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?

Terra Costin

Elk Ridge

Get The Deseret News Everywhere

Subscribe

Mobile

RSS