> the benefits provided by either system should be at parity with each other You say they 'should be' but do not justify it. In order to claim something 'ought

> the benefits provided by either system should be at parity with each other You say they 'should be' but do not justify it. In order to claim something 'ought' to be some way, you need to justify it. Not that it really affects your non-existent argument, but the government of the United States does not agree with you. For example, closely held corporations are not required to pay for drugs they morally disagree with, whereas the government can't make these distinctions, as long as the drug is legal.