I don't think the government belongs in the
healthcare industry: ideally, the individual finds doctors willing to
provide the unique services she requires (or desires). As long as you are
not hiring your doctor to carry out mafia hits against other patients,
it's none of the government's business (or the church's) what you buy
from him (or her). No employer has the right to tell me how to spend my
wages (unless I am using them to hire people to carry out hits against
company people I don't like).
In the stupid healthcare system we have right now--in which government
privatizes gains (to the healthcare industry, especially the insurance
mafia) and socializes losses (when your plan doesn't cover real needs
and you don't have a cool million bucks lying around waiting to be spent
on procedures or medicines much cheaper outside the US)--offering
universal coverage of contraception is just a reasonable attempt to
level the playing field for women (who should not have to get pregnant
merely because someone gets inside them).
I am in the ironic position of agreeing with both sides here. I don't
think our government's healthcare policy is worth anything (a bone for
Republicans enraged at violations of religious freedom, please). I
don't think women should have any problem accessing contraception (a
bone for Democrats). I think the solution is for government to get out
of healthcare: people will go to and/or create the services that they
want. Liberals can fund hospitals that offer contraception (which is
really cheap). Conservatives can get their care from dour nuns. The
government can worry about other things, like the fact that it is
technically bankrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment