between partial and full role. It was you trying to blur that distinction. It is not black and white, and you are trying to make it black and white.

I addressed your argument of abortion coverage already. I have given examples how it can be problematic if everyone demand not paying for something they object, gay couple, non-smokers, non-drinkers, the list is endless. everyone object to something. Still this can be worked out within the constrictions of regulation.

As someone already pointed out your example of abortion coverage is more political. Those whose want Freedom to have a choice not paying for someone else's abortion are exactly the same people trying other people's "freedom of choice" to abort.

None of your facts is showing that no government involvement is the way to go. All your facts are extremes where government takes over everything. I never said i approve this. But, Those are not the only way government can be involved. your argument is social security doesn't so we should get rid of government involvement. This is another example of false dichotomy. Instead of getting rid of the government, there is another option of getting rid of current social security and design something else. Do you think privatize social security is gonna work better?