IMO, while the numbers that are used for people without health insurance may be correct, it is not always that those people have no access to coverage. There are people who just don’t want to pay for coverage because they would rather use their money for other things. I know people who don’t have health coverage because they would rather use that money for travel, clothing, entertainment, ect. When they do end up needing health care, they will go to a county/state-run emergency room, so that they don’t have to pay for that care.
Of course, the government will continue to use their numbers to make the case that there are SO many people/children without health care. If one of my children were sick and I didn’t have health care, you can be sure that I would pay to take them to a doctor, and not the emergency room, unless that was warranted. Of course, the health of my children is more important to me than entertainment. I can’t say the same for everyone who does not have health insurance.
I just wonder, at which point do we stop subsidizing those who don’t want to work, or who prefer to have good, quality entertainment over health coverage for themselves and their children? The government, of course, will use the number of children who don’t have health coverage, and say that they shouldn’t have to suffer because their parents don’t provide for them. So, maybe at some point, if we’re subsidizing those people, we should have a say in their reproduction in order to reduce the number of children without health care.
