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?
- Why one Mormon man left Hollywood to be a...
- Doug Robinson: We are in the midst of an era...
- Matthew Sanders: Nelson Mandela's goodness...
- Michael Gerson: The gospel according to JC...
- President should not act without...
- My view: Non-discrimination laws have a problem
- Can Mandela's legacy revive the GOP?
- In our opinion: No more 'Government Motors'
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum... 64
- My view: Fix Obamacare, don't replace it 59
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before... 43
- Letter: Doctors unite 40
- Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not... 38
- Can Mandela's legacy revive the GOP? 24
- Michael E. Kraft: Yes, Congress should... 22
- President should not act without... 21