This is perhaps the most bizarre thing I have read in a while: prostitution insurance / health insurance allegory (am I right on the allegory thing here? my 7th-grade lit class is failing me).
Unfortunately, shifting the costs of prostitution insurance to taxpayers was fiscally impossible. Prosticare, the government’s popular insurance program for the elderly, was projected to run into deficits of tens of trillions of dollars in another 50 years. Forestalling such a bankruptcy was going to require drastic cuts in future benefits. Trying to expand Prosticare to cover everyone would have forced such cuts to take place today, and no politician wanted to risk a confrontation with senior citizens. So although politicians talked a lot about universal single-payer prostitution coverage, they never seriously proposed enacting it.
I get the gist here, but, uh, sometimes people really need, like life-or-death need, health care, whereas they don’t life-or-death need sex. Plus, while I suppose the argument could be made for the better “care” you’d get from a prostitute, you can still get that kind of care elsewhere. But you can’t exactly hit up a singles bar all, “Hey baby, I’m really in need of open heart surgery,” and get the same kind of results you would at a hospital, no?