Not true.
A young person can rely on Dad, Loans, Churches, selling the car, etc.
And why should an older wealthy person have to show proof of self-insurability to anyone? Whose business is it that proof of my financial health is a required to avoid a government mandate?
Y'all just slid partway down the slippery slope. I'd rather stay off of it.
"Massachusetts in 2002 was spending an enormous amount of public money on health care--and yet leaving almost one 10th of its population uncovered. Romney became more and more interested in this problem and demanded a detailed survey of the uninsured population."
"The big surprise revealed by Romney's investigation: The uninsured were not as poor as everybody had assumed they were. A majority of them could have bought health insurance if they wanted to--they chose not to buy, because they regarded health insurance as a bad deal. It cost too much--especially for the self-employed, for whom health insurance is not tax deductible. It covered too much. And everybody knew that even if you did not buy it, hospitals would care for you all the same." (Could This Man Be the Next U.S. President?, David Frum, January 10, 2007)
Under federal law, nearly all hospitals are required to provide a certain level of treatment to all patients who visit their emergency rooms, regardless of those patients’ ability to pay. Governor Romney sought a way to prevent the free-rider problem: those who take advantage of emergency services and then skip out on the charges, leaving taxpayers to cover the bill. In a very real sense, we already have “universal healthcare” in the U.S., but many are not paying their share of the cost for the services they receive.