[corrral]

> It's not obvious to me that a system that raises the experience for mean, or even the bottom end, of the distribution would be a good thing for me in many respects

Ah—I usually assume the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" POV when it comes public policy issues, personally, as I think is fairly common. Sure, if that's your perspective, literally nothing matters except how a policy affects you, personally, right now, so my analysis may not hold—but that's not an especially useful perspective from which to consider public policy when discussing it with strangers, and I'm not really sure why you'd even engage on this in public if the only thing you care about is whether a policy is good for you, right this second (circumstances are subject to change, after all)

At least you're up-front about it, rather than hiding it. I don't mind that when it's made explicit—I just also, again, don't get why you'd engage, and wonder whether you might have guessed in advance the sort of more-typical POV I was taking, so really could have understood what I meant by "good effect" without my needing to explain it. What were you trying to accomplish here?

[paisawalla]

Do you have anything other than unearned moral condescension? It is not my experience that clicking your tongue at people and badgering them to prioritize the collective over their own individual health outcomes in a healthcare policy is compelling.

So why would I engage? Because you seem to be advocating policies that would directly (and potentially negatively) affect my health outcomes, and your justification is "but you're just a statistic".

[corrral]

I was about to explain, but from my selfish POV it's actually better if you keep posting like this. So... carry on.