Women Could Pay More Than Men For Health Care Under Trump

Nov 29, 2016

By Michelle Andrews

Some women have been worried that they will lose insurance coverage for contraception under the Trump administration, but coverage for other women’s health benefits could also be at risk.

At or near the top of the list is guaranteed coverage of maternity services on the individual insurance market. Before the health law, it was unusual for plans purchased by individuals to cover prenatal care and childbirth. But the Affordable Care Act requires that maternity care be included as one of 10 essential health benefits.

In 2009, the year before the health law passed, just 13 percent of individual plans available to a 30-year-old woman living in a state capital offered maternity benefits, according to an analysis by the National Women’s Law Center.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

29 comments on “Women Could Pay More Than Men For Health Care Under Trump

  • I am always staunchly against insurance companies. I feel that they have undermined America. Their “power” lies in veiled threats and fear (like, “nice husband, it would be a SHAME if something happened to him”). They garner their profit by purchasing politicians who subsequently pass legislation that permits the companies to actively run out on their commitments.

    Case in point, Hurricane Katrina. Shouldn’t one or more of the insurance companies who backed thousands and even millions of people’s flood policies have gone bankrupt as an outcome of the catastrophe? They used asshole tactics to shirk their responsibilities to their policy holders by claiming “it wasn’t a flood, it was WIND driven water”. And then did not pay and the corrupt government allowed it.

    They (insurance companies) are responsible for the decisions to close thousands of mental health facilities across the country and leave people who need help alone and disenfranchised. If you look at construction projects and business expansion through the duration of the “great repression” of the US economy, insurance companies (banks, hospitals and universities) didn’t hit a speed bump at all even though the rest of the nation was mired in the worst financial crisis sine the great depression.

    Having said this and openly admitting that I am as biased as you can be and would approve steps to make sure that insurance companies not have shareholders and not be openly traded commodities, I’d like to know why my 17 year old son pays double in insurance as my daughter did when she was 17. Neither have a ticket, an accident, both are honors students etc… Two totally commiserate human beings that reside in the same address and share a car are charged differently simply because of their genders?

    BTW, I fully understand the reasons why and have zero problem with it. Just wondering what every one else thinks. Should the insurance companies be allowed to discriminate based solely upon their actuarial tables and calculations?



    Report abuse

  • “Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., whom President-elect Donald Trump chose Tuesday for secretary of Health and Human Services, in the past has introduced legislation to repeal and replace the ACA.” —OP

    Not just about the ACA. That monster wants to privatize medicare, tried over sixty times in the past. Now he has a real shot!



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #1
    Nov 29, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    BTW, I fully understand the reasons why and have zero problem with it. Just wondering what every one else thinks. Should the insurance companies be allowed to discriminate based solely upon their actuarial tables and calculations?

    In the UK the National health Service provides medical services on the basis of need although the present Tory government is trying to alter the terms. Also European nations provide visiting EU member citizens, with health care on a par with their own citizens.
    Private supplementary insurance, extra medical holiday insurance etc. varies in price, and may exclude pre-existing conditions.

    Other insurance such as motor insurance, varies according to driver risk, driver mileage, and type of vehicle.
    Rates are sky-high for young inexperienced drivers, those with records of accidents, those with convictions for motoring offences, and for high performance vehicles.
    Lowest rates are for experienced drivers with long accident free and claim-free records.

    I think this is a reasonable (if approximate) basis, for putting a price on the risks. – so careless people pay for the risks they pose.
    There are also technical innovations in the offing to record driving styles and driving records, which would provide insurers (and employers of commercial vehicle drivers), with further feed-back.

    Similarly on house and property insurance, area related levels of criminal activity, valuations of property, records of claims, and levels of security measures, are taken into account.



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #1
    Nov 29, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    Case in point, Hurricane Katrina. Shouldn’t one or more of the insurance companies who backed thousands and even millions of people’s flood policies have gone bankrupt as an outcome of the catastrophe? They used asshole tactics to shirk their responsibilities to their policy holders by claiming “it wasn’t a flood, it was WIND driven water”. And then did not pay and the corrupt government allowed it.

    If insurance companies have provided cover against flooding then refusing to pay is simply a scam!

    However, when buying or leasing a property, reasonable people would have a survey to check for risks from flooding, mining subsidence, landslides, avalanches, etc.

    We have had such issues in the UK where builders and buyers, have been warned about the flood risks of building on flood plains and have chosen to ignore them.
    Insurers are naturally reluctant to pay for regularly refurbishing houses by coasts or rivers, which flood every few years. They are also reluctant to insure properties on coasts where the sea is actively removing soft cliffs.
    (In some parts of England such as Yorkshire, there are maps from hundreds of years ago, showing villages in places which are now miles out to sea!)

    The reality is that with rising sea levels from global warming, and increasingly more powerful storms, some parts of Louisiana and Florida
    are going to be under water in the future.
    Building on them is foolish and some existing towns and cities may have to be abandoned to the sea in future.

    New Orleans is on the sinking ground of the delta, with human caused dredging of channels, boreholes extracting water, and destruction of Cypress swamps aggravating this. Much of it is 15 feet already below sea-level.

    Case in point, Hurricane Katrina.

    Katrina was an illustration of the US problem with scientific warnings, commercialism and politics.

    The levees were very substandard with shallow foundations on clay silts.
    It is estimated, they collapsed under attack by Katrina at only category 3. The water was supposed to be managed with Electric pumps which were 15 feet below sea-level!! – and fed by overhead power-lines which collapsed during hurricanes. People were ordered to evacuate and ignored the warning – Not to mention – the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE (2004) published an article a year before it happened predicting how deep the water would be if a hurricane struck!!
    Nothing was done in the following 12 months before Katrina struck!

    The predictions of deaths were far too high and the levees were given credit for being better built than they were, but much of the article was predictive.

    Here is a link to the article which was written the year before Katrina hit!

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/
    When did this calamity happen? It hasn’t—yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

    “The killer for Louisiana is a Category Three storm at 72 hours before landfall that becomes a Category Four at 48 hours and a Category Five at 24 hours—coming from the worst direction,” says Joe Suhayda, a retired coastal engineer at Louisiana State University who has spent 30 years studying the coast. Suhayda is sitting in a lakefront restaurant on an actual August afternoon sipping lemonade and talking about the chinks in the city’s hurricane armor. “I don’t think people realize how precarious we are,”Suhayda says, watching sailboats glide by.
    “Our technology is great when it works. But when it fails, it’s going to make things much worse.”

    Political climate change deniers have learned nothing from these previous ignored warnings!



    Report abuse

  • The ACA is a mess anyway. When Trump repeals it, barring anything else in place, these things will happen:

    i) insurance premiums will go down for young, healthy people

    ii) for older / sicker people their premiums will rise if they can even get coverage

    iii) meanwhile millions of poorer Americans who gained health insurance under ACA will lose that cover

    Most people who voted for Trump actually fall into categories ii) and iii). I’ve been listening to a lot of post-analysis interviews and many (most?) say they would have voted for Bernie Sanders if he’d been running. Now I think Bernie would have beaten Trump handily, but, with a Republican majority in Congress, he would have struggled to accomplish anything.

    With luck Trump and Co. will screw things up so royally that in four years time voters will throw the lot of the bums out. With a Democratic house and senate a new president could finally, finally move towards single-payer.



    Report abuse

  • Tom Price is a horror! He wants to defund planned parenthood, is anti-choice, wants to get rid of Medicare as we know it, wants healthcare to be for-profit. It won’t work.

    A war on women, on all of us.

    Price’s selection […] raised concerns among women’s rights groups, who pointed to his past support for defunding Planned Parenthood and scaling back access to birth control. He’s also a strong opponent of abortion.

    “Price could take women back decades,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said. —Politico



    Report abuse

  • 7
    Robert Firth says:

    An interesting article, but not for what it says; rather, for what it does not say.

    Women might have to pay more than men for health care? This raises an
    immediate question: do they consume more health care? If so, then it seems
    only fair that they pay more – but the article ignores that obvious question.

    Fortunately, an article in Time magazine did not, and you can find it here:
    http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/23/women-should-pay-more-for-health-care/

    Yes, they do. Which means, the part of the Obamacare law that requires men to pay the same as women is sex discrimination. As William Blake put it: “One law for the lion and the ox is oppression” We should all pay our way in this world.



    Report abuse

  • Which means, the part of the Obamacare law that requires men to pay the same as women is sex discrimination. As William Blake put it: “One law for the lion and the ox is oppression” We should all pay our way in this world.

    The endemic selfishness of the USA, unwilling to share fortune and misfortune, nets it an insufficiently regulated insurance company dominated healthcare system, the shame of the OECD. Next up the cost for those whose genetic heritage is really a burden, Trisomy 21 etc. Make ’em pay, I say.



    Report abuse

  • Robert Firth #7
    Nov 30, 2016 at 2:31 am

    Which means, the part of the Obamacare law that requires men to pay the same as women is sex discrimination.

    Nope! It is anti-discrimination.

    We should all pay our way in this world.

    That is of course a negation of a healthcare system!
    The point of a healthcare system, is that people who are healthy, while they are healthy, pay into the system, and when they are sick or injured (and stop earning?), they benefit – when they NEED the service.
    In this way children, the elderly, and accident victims, are provided with healthcare when needed, and contribute(d) when they are/ were working!

    Individuals buying healthcare piecemeal wastes resources arguing about prices, while it leaves the ordinary citizen open to exploitation by big commercial interests.

    That is why, prior to Obamacare, Americans were paying twice as much ($7290) as the average OECD country ($2986) for a poorer service!

    https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/

    However, it seems that American voters keep reading the deceptive nonsense fed to them in the US stooge media, and shouting for the “right” of big pharma, big medicine, and big insurance, to rip them off one at a time!

    The issue of if men or women pay a little more than the other sex in the USA, is dwarfed by the the amount the corporations charge both sexes more than in most OECD countries!
    Corporate America divides and rules!! – and never gives a sucker an even break!!! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • @OP – Some women have been worried that they will lose insurance coverage for contraception under the Trump administration, but coverage for other women’s health benefits could also be at risk.

    Next they will be telling us that women need health care during pregnancy, during childbirth, and help while caring for medical needs of babies! –

    Perhaps someone needs to tell them that babies have fathers! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • We could always build a wall and put women on one side of it!

    I was glad of high premiums for young drivers though. The problem of the young men dieing on our streets had to be tackled and I read about it less in my local paper. One thing that went up though was deaths on low powered motor cycles as these young men still wanted to be mobile. The thought that they will not be able to afford their insurance if they had an accident is always on my sons minds and can only hope it stays with them at all times.



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #11
    Nov 30, 2016 at 9:24 am

    We could always build a wall and put women on one side of it!

    You came up with that idea too late!
    The Saudis already have walled family enclosures from which women are taken out for escorted walks – strictly under wraps!
    (Not sure if they are kept on a lead or not!?) 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Olgun

    We could always build a wall and put women on one side of it!

    I read a spec. fiction novel based on this idea. The women walled themselves off in a town voluntarily. Men existed outside of the walled town. A few old codgers were allowed to remain in the town. Adolescent males got kicked out at some point. Life was wonderful in the peaceful cooperative town. Life on the outside was a terrifying hell zone. Life not worth a nickel.

    Be careful what you wish for Olgun! 😀



    Report abuse

  • I have often said (tongue in cheek) that we could globally drop 95% of the males on the planet to the bottom of the ocean and we wouldn’t miss a damn thing. (I sincerely hope I’d be in the 5% deemed “worthy” — but, surely, no promises.) And, before the ladies think i am letting them off the hook, a full 60% of you could go, too!!!!

    @Alan4,
    I currently have a small bluetooth device implanted under the dashboard of my car(s). It tabulates my driving habits (and those of the other drivers in my house). We have had them in our cars for 9 months. 9 MONTHS!!! They tabulate hard accelerations, hard braking events, and areas you drive, as well as hours (like night time hours etc…)… Anyway, my household has qualified for a literal 32% discount on our car insurance. That’s a little under 2 THOUSAND dollars a year!! We are very conservative drivers and are never out late etc…. So, I see it as intrusive, but for the discount, we’ve tolerated it.



    Report abuse

  • Olgun just a reminder for all, not really you or Crooked. Insurance to be morally decent, needs to be fair over things like health and genetic inheritance and the random harms and disadvantages that any might reasonably suffer in life. A choice to ride a motorbike when a teen of go hang gliding in the Himalyas are personal and exceptional choices, unlike simply choosing to be born or to live.



    Report abuse

  • Phil #17

    I agree Phil but also think it morally correct to protect our young and help them curtail the excessive parts of their need to take chances in the right areas.



    Report abuse

  • Ollie,

    I have forbidden my two to ride a motorbike….ever. Screw the insurance, and morality. This is me being selfish. They got bikes but were also forbidden to take them on the road in London. I’ve lost two cyclist friends that way in horridly banal, slow motion squashings. Being next to hundreds of acres of forest and nature reserves and cycle ways from the Thames to Hertford made this seem less draconian.



    Report abuse

  • Phil

    I wouldn’t let mine have motor bikes either. I had one for a few months when I could not afford a car or public transport to get to work. Hated every minute of it. The car came because I had to keep my promise that if they worked hard, I would make sure they played hard. High premiums meant we were limited on cars and they had to pay the insurance (with a little help). It kept it all very real and I suppose we were glad that we had some control over it with our contributions.



    Report abuse

  • Phil,
    My 19 y/o daughter approached me about getting a tattoo when she was 17 or so. I do not parent by forbidding or punishing (unless you consider a discussion with me punishing — which it absolutely could be classified!) . We discuss and decide and sometimes make deals. Anyway, we discussed the implications of the decision and I negotiated a deal. She got her ONE tattoo and i got her word that she’d never be on a motorcycle. Huge win for dad.

    Also, I do not think that the two genders SHOULD pay the same for auto insurance and if males are more prone to accident, then they pay more and I get it. I also am happy with the under dash piece that has lowered my responsible and cautious son’s rates. Individualized is, IMO a good thing in this arena.

    As for health care, I do not think it should follow the same paradigm. I agree with you on the health care issue vs. the auto insurance.

    And, I have to take a swipe at the shitty US politicos. Auto insurance is mandated by law and health insurance is not. This is solely because of pay offs and corruption. It firmly expresses the idea that life is not worth as much as property. It is a huge embarrassment to me that i live in the “greatest country in history” and the social ills that i see are so preventable and fixable until these fucking greedy assholes get into the act. They are pigs and thats really the only word to use. PIGS.

    One social issue that pains me more than most is our “wounded warrior” program where we are solicited to pay “just 19 dollars a month” to support our soldiers who come home wounded or with PTSD. Are you kidding me? My taxes can;t have that 19 dollars earmarked? the same assholes that can raise 5 million dollars for a futile “recount”, the same assholes who can spend a BILLION dollars on a single election, the same assholes who can spend 250 million dollars for 22 night hawk helicopters can’t take care of the men and women that they send to the wars that they declare?

    Nope, they are too busy doing the cash grab and ensuring that their own kids are secure in private schools and insured to the max on my fucking dime. It’s a shameful disgrace.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    rocket888 says:

    @Alan4discussion

    The point of a healthcare system, is that people who are healthy, while they are healthy, pay into the system, and when they are sick or injured (and stop earning?), they benefit – when they NEED the service.

    Hmmm, only in a socialist Orwellian newspeak does healthcare and insurance become one and the same. Once there’s a single system mandated to cover everyone, then there has to be losers and winners – unlike in a free enterprise system where each party to a transaction agrees only if he/she believes they are benefiting from a trade.

    Funny how not believing in a god is what this site is all about – yet it is populated by those who believe just as strongly in the gods of government.

    Well, freedom does not mean that everything is supposed to be free. So let the battle begin about who else should pay for my healthcare.



    Report abuse

  • Once there’s a single system mandated to cover everyone, then there has to be losers and winners – unlike in a free enterprise system where each party to a transaction agrees only if he/she believes they are benefiting from a trade.

    Everyone in Europe is covered comprehensively one way or another at half and below half the cost of the patchy US system. The Netherlands is a private company scheme with carefully mandated standards and consistency, Though at the upper end of European costs it is still half that of the US. The US under-performs most and is shamefully iniquitous.

    Libertarian economics is simple minded and dogmatic and in satisfying the selfish delivers the least in value for money for a universally needed and identical service. Small tweaks to the market place can make huge differences once you’ve ditched the dogma.

    Everyone pays for this. Nothing in any sense is free. We’re clever enough to club together and bulk buy our services. Choice? I want experts to get me the best in my price range.

    Want to top up? Throw in some private too. If I spent your money I definitely could.



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #21
    Nov 30, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    One social issue that pains me more than most is our “wounded warrior” program where we are solicited to pay “just 19 dollars a month” to support our soldiers who come home wounded or with PTSD . . . the same assholes who can spend a BILLION dollars on a single election, the same assholes who can spend 250 million dollars for 22 night hawk helicopters can’t take care of the men and women that they send to the wars that they declare?

    Not to mention the Harvard estimate of $4 to $6 trillion Bush (mostly borrowed and ) spent on “chasing Bin Laden around Afghanistan” – when he was actually in Pakistan, and attacking Iraq over fictitious “weapons of mass destruction” and imaginary involvement in 9/11 – to create on-going civil wars, refugee crises, and the casualties and disabilities among US troops and many others!



    Report abuse

  • rocket888 #22
    Nov 30, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    @Alan4discussionThe point of a healthcare system, is that people who are healthy, while they are healthy, pay into the system, and when they are sick or injured (and stop earning?), they benefit – when they NEED the service.

    Well, freedom does not mean that everything is supposed to be free. So let the battle begin about who else should pay for my healthcare.

    I think my earlier comment and Phil have spelled this out. Universal health cover is not “free” – but there is no additional charge beyond the standard contributions for the basic service.

    Your question should be: “who else are you paying for your healthcare, to justify paying more than twice what I do for a poorer service? (see link @#9)

    Let me see:
    There are corporate hospital executives, insurance company executives, plush offices for such people, insurance salesmen, insurance company lawyers and doctor defence lawyers, then there are all those hotel service type hospital extras, which really don’t have much to do with medical treatment, – and of course profits distributed to shareholders of big pharma, big medical corporations, and big insurance!

    The real question is: “Why would Americans want to pay twice the going rate, while complaining about others having access to the service in more efficient models of healthcare systems?”



    Report abuse

  • rocket888 #22
    Nov 30, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    @Alan4discussion

    Hmmm, only in a socialist Orwellian newspeak does healthcare and insurance become one and the same. Once there’s a single system mandated to cover everyone, then there has to be losers and winners – unlike in a free enterprise system where each party to a transaction agrees only if he/she believes they are benefiting from a trade.

    Ah yes!
    I see how that works in the USA with the individual citizen pitted against corporate monopolies.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38153254

    US executive Martin Shkreli became a symbol of greed when he raised the price of a tablet of Daraprim from $13.50 (£11) to $750.

    The Sydney Grammar boys, all 17, synthesised the active ingredient, pyrimethamine, in their school science laboratory.

    “It wasn’t terribly hard but that’s really the point, I think, because we’re high school students,” one boy, Charles Jameson, told the BBC.

    The students produced 3.7 grams of pyrimethamine for $20.
    In the US, the same quantity would cost up to $110,000
    .

    In most countries, including Australia and Britain, the drug retails for less than $1.50 per pill.

    Once there’s a single system mandated to cover everyone, then there has to be losers and winners – unlike in a free enterprise system where each party to a transaction agrees only if he/she believes they are benefiting from a trade

    Did Faux News tell you that on behalf of the corporate profiteers?????



    Report abuse

  • @22 rocket

    Once there’s a single system mandated to cover everyone, then there has to be losers and winners

    US citizen living and working in Canada here. I think you have it backwards. It is free enterprise that produces winners and losers – I think that’s basically the point. Now I have no problem with “winners and losers” if it means the winners get to have a shiny new car, or live in a big fancy house. Good luck to them say I. They earned it. But healthcare is different. Canada, (along with all other rich nations, and indeed many poorer nations, but noticeably excluding the US), has decided that when people get sick we’re not going to let them die on the street. Here in Canada everyone wins as far as healthcare is concerned, (by “win” I mean “has access to a good standard of healthcare without having to take out a second mortgage”).

    Health Canada’s Mission Statement is:

    “Health Canada is committed to improving the lives of all of Canada’s people and to making this country’s population among the healthiest in the world as measured by longevity, lifestyle and effective use of the public health care system”. Note the word “all”.

    I’m stunned that anyone could object to this. Perhaps you are a young, healthy individual with no medical issues. Perhaps you feel that the higher taxes you might pay in order to care for older, sicker individuals are unfair. If so there is something I would like to say to you, but unfortunately the rules of this site forbid swearing. Sufficient then to tell you I’m glad you live in the US – and that I no longer do.



    Report abuse

  • john.wb,
    Swear away. Have at it, good fellow. I am a swear machine and the only time I’ve been taken to task is when my swearing has swerved towards directly insulting someone I am engaged in discussion with. I try to walk a line and don’t always succeed and when I’ve been reprimanded, it has been for good reason. But, if it is in your personality to pepper your speech with profanity, get to it. If not… well, almost everyone here (save for me) leaves the profanity off the screen. BUT, i am certain the words are flying aloud in the room where they are typing!!!!

    Also, Canada’s system sounds like something to emulate, not berate. Good info.



    Report abuse

  • Health care for citizens isn’t about just paying for someone in need, health care is an essential part of a society in order to ensure the maximum number of people who CAN look after themselves. Sick people, people with chronic health care conditions that go untreated are not just suffering from injustice of an uncaring society, they are also a drain on that society.

    In the USA some 60,000 people die every single year because they can’t afford healthcare. Huge numbers of people wind up in emergency with very expensive problems because they couldn’t afford to get treatment while the problem was small and easily treatable. People lose legs and arms to diabetes because they can’t afford medication and health care. Lack of insurance or insurance that doesn’t actually cover costs is the reason why health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcies in the USA.

    Americans pay the highest prices in the world for their prescription drugs. At the same time Americans often pay for the research for those drugs, via taxes into drug research, into universities and research hospitals, and then finally for the products. Americans frequently pay with their taxes for research into new medical technology and drugs, but never get any financial benefit. Instead they pay the highest prices in the world. Yet a constant refrain from critics of single payer is the “everyone should look after themself”. Everyone except the drug companies, hospitals and insurance companies.

    I suggest people look up Remote Area Medical, the organization provides free medical care to remote areas around the world. They realized many Americans require their services as well, and were swamped when they started giving care in the USA. America is about the only developed country in the world that requires such services to provide care for their citizens.

    American critics of Canadian healthcare frequently talk about the few cases of people who fall through the cracks in Canada. They can talk about those because in Canada such instances are publicized and become issues. In the USA it’s a regular occurrence, people dying every single day from lack of health care, and nobody says squat. Patients are dumped onto the street to die in LA. People die untreated all over the USA. You always see parents and schools in the USA having fund raisers for children so they can afford necessary operation to save the child’s life. Parents sell the home and everything they have to get care for their child, and often it still isn’t enough. That simply doesn’t happen in most other developed countries.
    Most other developed countries treat healthcare like other important infrastructure that benefits all citizens. It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s also a benefit to all citizens, just as decent energy and road infrastructure helps a society grow and prosper, a decent health care system allows more citizens to participate in society and prosper, to give everyone the best opportunity to contribute.
    As a Canadian I don’t have a problem with a single cent I pay in taxes that go towards others health care.

    Almost all Americans pay for their healthcare system but only some can actually afford it while many are rationed by insurance companies or their financial straits. Meanwhile the richest citizens get the very best medical care and latest drugs and technology researched and paid for often by the American taxpayer, the same American taxpayer who often can’t afford those drugs or technology.
    The phrase “We should all pay our way in this world.” does not in any way describe any part of the US health care system. It hasn’t for half a century if not more.

    As for our libertarian friends, I’ve never seen a single country that operates on libertarian principles of everyone paying their own way for everything. Probably because it doesn’t work. And every libertarian I’ve ever spoken with has a different idea about what services should be provided by government. Libertarians can’t even agree between themselves. Rather than giving rational explanations of how their system would work they spew talking points like “socialist Orwellian newspeak”. Nor can they come up with a way to pay for services they agree with that doesn’t conflict with their “a tax is oppression” mantra. They always wind up wanting to tax someone (as long as it’s not them), or live in an imaginary world without police, courts, fire departments or military.
    Or they think they can staff their government services entirely with volunteers. It’s just wishful thinking run amok. Exactly like religion, which is why I found it hilarious when Rocket888 pointed that barb at others.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.