I'm pressured to undertake risks every day just for financial gain - I drive to work. FAR more people die in car accidents than in your experiments example. So, merely driving to work to earn a paycheck is a risk. And the higher the wages, the more I am "pressured" into taking those risks. So, by your logic, should the Government put a wage-cap in effect to stop tantalizing people out onto the roads, where they are injured ands killed in droves each day?
there is a difference between working- which is nessacary. and exposing yourself to the high risks of surgery and the risk of only having one kidney left. there is a big difference between going to work and living your day-today life, including all the dangers involved in just merely existing, and being put in a position where you endanger yourself for extra money
Learn the difference between temptation and pressure. If the risks were as great as you say, they're still
voluntary risks. There is no pressure. Poor and rich alike would have the option of saying "yes", "no", or "maybe". If the poor are tempted to take risks to earn money, that is their own fault.
you've never been poor before have you?
In fact, your mentality of "the poor are too stupid to be trusted with their own decisions" is the very reason why such a program would fail. Some rich corporate mouthpiece (i.e. Congressman) would convince those like
yourself that the poor are too stupid to understand what they're doing, so they need representation...an agent, of sorts...which would become a broker, who has to earn his cut, which would drive prices artificially high. Then, seeing that the broker's cut was taking profits away from the stupid poor people, then people like yourself would be swayed to agree that ALL people should have to use a brokerage, and no independent sales would be allowed. Then the market would be locked into the hands of the greedy and the governing...exactly where it is right now, but in a different fashion.
Why is it such a common notion that the poor are too stupid to say "yes" or "no" with the same foreknowledge as a rich person? How does economic status make one more or less acountable for their own decisions?
desperation and stupidity are very different. generally you aren't very logical when you are desperate, but even the most intellegent get desperate at times. intellect doesn't make you immune to desperation. or to the fact that people can use your desperation to put you in danger and use you
Much to the amazement of people like you, I've been both poor and moderately wealthy...and my IQ never changed! In both cases, I was fully capable of weighing risks, assessing rewards, and making my own choices like a big boy without liberal crusaders telling me every step to take, every form to fill out, and every decision to make.
you have no idea how much money I have. I come froma blue collar family. my mother now has a good white collar- but upper blue collar pay- job. but since she's a single parent it doesn't matter very much.
On another note: why is it you're ok with poor people PAYING to take health risks (driving, prescription meds, roller coasters, alcohol, greasy food, prostitution [I assume most people are ok with whores...only ugly wives are against them
], skydiving, blowfish, etc.), but you are against poor people PROFITING from taking medical risks on the grounds that they might be tempted to actually do it? Are only business owners allowed to profit from selling risks? How is it you're defending the poor here? Looks more like you're just against poor people making their own decisions. I assume you prefer the system where if you're poor, you simply must be incompetent, so let Uncle Sam do everything for you.