I agree partly with your comment, but I want to add this perspective:
The dot-com era treatened and killed many jobs in banking (bank tellers and such). AI is now doing the same, but now it is threatening the jobs of consultants.
So the author tried to fix a non-issue of somebody else's dog with human-grade probiotics.
I think that actually there was no issue at all and he just wanted to YOLO it.
And then he only goes to discuss if it was ethical as he didn't ask the dog? What about just not medicating a dog when there is no medical problem? What about consent from the owner? So much more issues with this than what the author discusses.
There was a debate here in the comments a few months ago about whether it's actually forbidden by their ToS. Lots of people said they don't care if you use it for personal streaming and aren't pumping a hundred gigs per day.
Health insurance should be rooted in solidarity. It is supposed to be a collective mechanism designed to prevent individuals from financial ruin due to unpredictable medical crises. It is not about hedging individual risk, but about sharing it across society, because health problems can strike anyone regardless of preparation or behavior.
Maybe so - in any case a public option wouldn’t inherently indirectly be decided by the public via voting so we will see if people accept the higher taxes or lower spending make it happen.