So, yeah, Rand Paul…why SHOULD you pay for my pregnancy coverage?

Those Libertarians. They get me every time with their “small government” thinking. They say things that seem to sort of, kind of, make sense.

For example, a lot of people who are leaning Libertarian are asking, “If I’m a single man, why should I have to buy health insurance that covers pregnancy and childbirth?”

Seems like a good question at first glance, right? I mean, why in the world should old single Uncle Gus have to pay into the fund that covers these services he will never, ever use?

What if we had an insurance plan that let people like old Uncle Gus opt out of paying for those baby things? Would that be good?


Well. See, it occurs to me that I will never, under any circumstances, ever get prostate cancer. Can I opt out of paying for that coverage?

Also, I don’t smoke. I’ve never smoked. I want a plan that allows me to not pay for lung cancer coverage.

I’m not into drugs. I refuse to pay for rehab for people addicted to opioids. OK, sure. So I have had more than one close relative and many friends who have had to deal with this. Still. I don’t use. My kids don’t use. Why should I have to pay for that treatment?

Oh, and did I mention that there is no diabetes in my family? I am a careful eater. I have low blood sugar. Why should I have to pay for people with diabetes?

And let’s just for a moment step away from health care, and look at other taxes. Shall we, Rand Paul?

If I don’t own a car, should I really have to pay the taxes that keep the roads paved and plowed? I say, no.

I also live in a town with well water. Why should I pay for clean water for other people in my state? Why should I pay to clean up EPA superfund sites, if I am not sitting on one?


So. I’ll tell you why. I’ll tell you why my tax dollars should pay to support my local schools even though my kids are all grown up. I’ll tell you why some of my tax money should go to pay for meal on wheels for my elderly neighbors. And why I should pay for prostate cancer and why you should pay for pregnancy, childbirth and early education.

Because we are a society. We are not hundreds of millions of isolated individuals.

I almost never take the train, but I don’t object to supporting Amtrak. Maybe one day I’ll want to take the train to San Francisco.

Or maybe I won’t but YOU will. You are part of my community. And I want to live in a healthy community. I deserve to live in a community that meets the needs of its members.

And, honey, that means that we ALL chip in to provide the best life for ALL of us.


I will never, ever, ever have testicular cancer. But I don’t mind paying for your treatment, if it helps to keep you alive.


24 thoughts on “So, yeah, Rand Paul…why SHOULD you pay for my pregnancy coverage?

  1. Pingback: Health care comment reblog | lucindalines

  2. Bang on sister! This is the core of so many of our problems in society, the “what’s in it for me” kind of philosophy. Sometimes the only thing in if for you is because in doing so, it makes us & our communities stronger & safer & oh did I mention, because that’s what good human beings do? We take care of one another, it is the right thing to do!


    • It’s funny, Lynn; I deliberately left out that whole thing about how decent human beings behave. Even leaving altruism out of it, we all support each other because otherwise everyone is completely alone.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Rand Paul never misses a chance to go for the sound bite. He knows damn good and well what insurance is and how it works. All of them do. They’re just trying to keep people divided and hating each other. That’s how they get re-elected.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Reblogged this on BLOGGYWOCKY and commented:
    Yes, why should I, as a woman, pay for men’s prostate cancer, or men’s erectile disfunction drugs?
    I am willing to do this, however, because I think that we are all in this together.
    I believe in the common good. Things that I may not need myself, but are good for society.
    But apparently, there are way too many selfish- okay, what can I call them but @ssholes.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I think you mischaracterize Rand’s argument on why he doesn’t like the ACA. The problem with the current way the insurance is handled is that it is compulsory. Most of us libertarians that object to these government programs is the fact that these interactions are not voluntary. We are told, pay for health insurance, or pay a fine, and if you don’t pay for either, you get locked in a cage. The current system prevents the market from doing anything to make health insurance more affordable, and if you look at the history over the past few years, the ACA has made costs increase, put further burden on small business owners, and increased the burden of the poorest among us by making cheap plans that covered the bare minimum obsolete. Econ 101 teaches that artificially increasing demand will always raise prices and cause resources to be used inefficiently.
    To your first point, as a single man, I don’t have an issue purchasing health insurance that also covers pregnancy and other expenses that may never affect me, the entire point of insurance is to voluntarily put my money in a fund to be accessed by any other contributors to the fund if they have a medical situation arise. Just by having insurance, I am helping society. But that must be a person’s choice!
    Altruism is excellent, but when you are dictating altruism, you aren’t actually doing any good yourself. Its well and good to say: people ought to be willing to help others that are in a medical emergency. But government oversteps its bounds when it forces a person to do this. Characterizing libertarians as soulless jerks that don’t give a darn about the rest of the world is easy until you consider that what you are advocating for, is forcing another person to give up their money to somebody else, without getting the concent of the person who earned the money.
    And the last point I will make since you mention Rand Paul, who is staunchly against the ACA, is that Rand is a physician, as was his father, Ron Paul. Personally, I would trust actual doctors on how a medical system ought to be organized, rather than a bunch of politicians. Eliminate the ACA, and let the market of doctors and other caregivers organize freely to provide care, and we will see costs plummet as a result of innovation and government stepping out of the way.


    • Oh, stop. No one will be put in a “cage” for God’s sake. The rest of the civilized world realizes that we all need to pay into a pool to support us all. If you want to rely on actual doctors to judge this, look up Aaron Carroll. I think libertarians are slightly on the right track, but completely lacking in what it takes to make a healthy society.


      • If I don’t buy into Obamacare, and then also chose to not pay the penalty, what happens to me? This is a tax, and if I don’t pay my taxes, I would get locked in a cage. That’s how the government maintains its power, it is the only organization that the majority of the public believes to have the right to lock people up.
        And just because the rest of the “civilized world” has a socialist health care system, that doesn’t mean it is the way the entire world should function. Civilized would be not having to put the threat of imprisonment forward in order to steal funds to take care of our sick. If you need government in place controlling our spending to form a civilized society, that society is not civilized.


      • Sorry, I don’t think I understand your point. Not trying to be difficult, I promise. Are you saying that insurance should just be voluntary? I know that a lot of people agree. But then what do you do about people who have chosen not to be insured, but are then hurt in an accident, or shot, or get cancer? Who pays for that?
        And the ACA had no provisions for “throwing people in jail”. It was just a monetary fine. If people didn’t pay it, they didn’t pay it. The rest of us would have to suck up the cost of treatment for those people. That’s actually one of the big reasons the ACA ran into so much trouble; the young and healthy often chose to take the risk of not having insurance. That skewed the costs and made insurance companies pull out of it.
        “Civilized would be not having to put the threat of imprisonment forward in order to steal funds to take care of our sick.” I absolutely agree. I believe that civilized societies willingly pay for the cost of things that help us all. Like roads, fire engines, schools, armies and medical care.


      • Sorry for the delayed response! Yes, insurance should be voluntary. The people that choose not to get insurance are making a choice to have that question when something unfortunate happens to them. But doctors and hospitals aren’t turning people in need away, we are advanced enough to find a way to make this work. If it just goes unpaid, great! every business on the planet has money built in to their budget for shrink and lost product. And our nation is the most charitable nation on the planet, those that believe in providing medical assistance to the poor would have a right to do so. But forcing everyone to buy into insurance doenst help the unfortunate, it just helps the insurance company, and requires the poorest among us to purchase a health care plan with money that might have been better served to another purpose.

        I know there was not a provision for throwing in jail, but it is a fine, and if you don’t pay a fine, you do get thrown in jail eventually if you don’t comply. And as a young and healthy person, I don’t believe it is fair to force me to buy into a system that gives me an extra expense that gives me no benefit. I make less than one trip to the doctor a year right now, why should I pay health insurance at an inflated cost? Putting the burden on the young to finance programs for the old and poor are not recipees for sustainability of a program.
        At the end of the day, the biggest cost skew will always be the government artificially inflating demand, not a few thousand young people opting to not buy a useless product.

        To your last comment, yes, to an extent. I don’t want to get too off topic haha, but I think it goes back to voluntary funding, not compulsory.


      • So interesting to look at this from your viewpoint. Truthfully, my husband and I didn’t have any health insurance until we had kids. But things were less expensive back then, so a broken ankle wouldn’t have bankrupted us. But I’ll give you an example of why everyone needs insurance. My 25 year old super healthy son hopped down off a wall (something he’d done 100 times before in the same spot), landed on a rock and broke his ankle to bits. Roughly 7,000 dollars later, he’d has surgery, an ambulance ride, and physical therapy. He never even spent a night in the hospital. The one thing you said that I completely, 100% agree with is compulsory insurance doesn’t help anyone except the insurance companies! I believe that we need a non-profit health care system. Single payer. Paid by all of our taxes, based on income.That way older folks (like me!) who need the coverage more will also pay more. Cut the damn loopholes, and we could have rich people paying more than poor people. Make sense? Thanks, by the way, for this interesting and civil conversation!!


      • I think keeping it civil is the only way to ever make any progress towards improving the way things are. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the solution for health care at this time, single payer goes too far in the direction of making health care a government power, even further than the current system. The market is the only way to maximize efficiency and reduce costs for all, while still advancing medical technology.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s