Either you are unaware of context or are ignoring it.
I exercised no logic (none was called for, there was merely observation, not evaluation) and never discussed "should." In fact, my comment was merely a factual observation on the absence of "should:" The question was, "should" the insurance plan cover non-prescription birth control pllls, and Ms Fluke's only proffered answer was "because the are expensive."
I suggested that rationale alone was insufficient, and even stated that there are several good reasons a person could advance as to why they "should" be covered.
Of course insurance plans "should" cover unexpected, unplanned, illnesses and injuries, that is the essence of what insurance is for. There is a very compelling "should" attached: "if this were to happen to you or your child, would you want it covered?"
See, you are now providing a "should" upon which people can have a conversation. If I understand your reasoning, a healthy sexual appetite is just as important to human well-being as food and water, and so the insurance plan should cover non-prescription birth controls to reduce potential future claims costs that otherwise might occur as a result of this sexual activity. That's reasonable.
in there.
