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?
- Stuart Reid: Despite study results, religion...
- My view: Reducing benefits gradually can make...
- Dan Liljenquist: Utah Retirement System audit...
- Letter: Put people in control
- National debt not just financial issue...
- In Our Opinion: Hatch-Cardin bill to make...
- Richard Davis: The million-dollar question...
- Letter: Beware of barbecued bugs
- Stuart Reid: Despite study results,... 50
- Richard Davis: The million-dollar... 48
- Letter: Solar surcharge 34
- In our opinion: Study cites excessive... 32
- In our opinion: Teacher evaluations a... 30
- Michael Gerson: Republicans should... 30
- My view: Reducing benefits gradually... 28
- Letter: Keep it simple 27