Nothing wrong with that

People have different temperaments, different psycho-graphic profiles, Different tolerance of risk and uncertainty.

That is why it is important to have a conversation and a society that is a mix of these different people for one group of people makes the super conservative people take chances when the risk to reward profile looks good while the opposite also occurs where the more conservative people help tighten up accountability, dependability, reliability, etc.

Aka it is the principle of the diffusion of innovation curve first stated by Everrt Rogers (1962), which is just a standard bell curve and different categories around standard deviation gradients lines with the curve.

https://img.deusm.com/informationweek/2013/11/898950/adoptioncurve.jpg

https://chrismaloney.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/accelerating-diffusion-of-innovation-maloneys-16-rule.jpg

Now Rogers who coined the term early adopter and others first talked about this curve with technology and marketing and how your marketing message needs to change when you are targeting different people. Furthermore a new idea in an existing market needs to have a meaning-shift / strategy-shift of how you sell the idea when the market has gained market-share in order to keep on gaining market-share for the people who bought into an idea is different than the people who still haven't bought into the idea or technology.

Well the skepticism of the "pragmatists" in the diffusion of the innovation curve between the early adopters <---the chasm--->and the early majority and the skepticism of late majority <---another chasm--->laggards are both legimiate form of skepticism.

What is the difference between these two forms of skepticism? Both find something unbearable, one finds the possibility of gain and the inadequacies of the now to be unbearable so they will take calculated risks to improve the status quo. The other group fears the possibility of loss and is grateful / has gratitude to all the gains accrued so far.

What I am saying here is I think we are already living in the worse case scenario, maybe not the "worse of the worse" but I have lived many years of my life uninsured, I have lived many years of my life insured but unable to utilize my insurance due to deductibles, I have had insurance I bough myself, I have insurance I bought through work, I had my parents insurance, I have a pre-existing condition, I have lost family members to suicide and with one of them they saw little options of getting help due to financial costs, yadda yadda yadda.

I know my lived experience and I know intellectually it does not have to be this way. Other countries have better systems than the US based off the empirical literature on dozens of metrics and costs. Hell even other states that are not Texas have better insurance systems that Texas my current status quo.

Now I also can also make the argument the other direction not just in a theory matter but also from lived experience how much more expensive insurance is if you live in a rural county vs a city. My city of Houston has much cheaper health insurance than rural places for there are more hospitals competing with more hospitals and this in turn affects health care prices if you are buying on an individual market.

Life is complicated, and in my mind being too skeptical makes you a prisoner of your fate, it is a form of learned helplessness.

-----

But hey Mookie this is my opinion and it is my subjective experience, I understand if you have dozens of years of very different experiences with the life you lived Liked I said in my subject line, Nothing Wrong With That.