I love when I am arguing with someone who I secretly agree with. I appreciate your response.
> A doctor doesnt put your individual wellbeing above their own
I think an example we could both agree on, would be something like...let's say you have several indicators that you might have a type of cancer. But the doctor will say, well let's not do a whole biopsy, because it's expensive and it's not covered by your insurance, and there's a low chance you have this cancer anyway. That might seem like a sensible conclusion to draw, but actually if we were simply caring for every person in a real way, like we would wish to be taken care of individually, we would do that biopsy anyway, because the alternative is death.
Now to draw a parallel to ancient tribes as I was doing earlier, the resources of the tribe dictates the care each tribe member can have. Okay. But we live in one of the most abundant eras in the history of the world. And, strikingly, we also have insane wealth inequality. So what I am positing here is that the default resource allocation for you is much lower than you might assume. People are going to make cost-cutting decisions that impact you greatly. And the only resort is for you is to manage your own health. Not that you SHOULDN'T manage your own health anyway, but this cost cutting resource allocation acts as a kind of betrayal. Things being "held together by duct-tape" is not the vision that children are raised with. We don't assume we are still in a period of being "left behind by the herd" because of how great everything is. But in fact, you will realize, when you see someone deny treatment for their advanced cancer due to finances and "the odds of survival" that in fact, you can be left behind by the herd. And the more you look into the way the healthcare system is structured, you realize that there really is no herd at all. At every step you are paying for help from someone who, in many instances, could care less.
What I am also saying is blatantly that these people make mistakes and sometimes do not care. And there is little recourse for that. Which isn't a point that you addressed, but anyway.
> Instead, they were conditional on good standing and mutual consent.
And this good standing has been converted to currency. Which is a much more isolated and cut throat version of good standing. In many ways it is more unfair. And what you don't realize as a kid is also how EXPENSIVE this "good standing" actually is. To receive the benefits of the technological state we purport to be in you usually have to be upper-class. The poor are often much closer to being completely alone. As if no society exists for them at all.
> Im saying their existence should not be taken for granted.
I, on the other hand, think that they don't go far enough. They aren't good enough. I'm actually not so sure what is being "taken for granted" in a for profit system, I pay every fucking dime of it. I am not impressed with its state.