> The other knock on lesson that people should internalize is that you, and only you, are ultimately responsible for your own healthcare and maintenance.

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that it's ultimately you who will get fucked up; you'll be the victim, you're the one punished for the mistakes of others.

And no in the sense that the social contract says different -- otherwise, you'd be responsible for baking your own bread AND manufacturing and fixing your car AND writing your own computer & smartphone programs AND taking care of your health AND educating your children AND cultivating your land and growing your own produce AND so on and on. We have "distribution of work" for a reason; you take the money, you take responsibility. (Except most doctors.)

So, "no", it's not your job, but "yes", you're held accountable for it.

Just because the social contract gets violated left and right, the violations aren't right.

People always emphasize that responsibility and authority should go hand in hand, and this is a prime example where that principle is shown invalid -- it's a human construction and does not hold up in nature. You have no authority to even understand your own health sufficiently, yet you get to bear the consequences.

What you are arguing for is that everyone should judge a professional from a position of lacking education / information. That's precisely what the social contract is not. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying the state of the world is fundamentally wrong; it's way too easy to disclaim responsibility. Someone takes my money, they're on the hook.

People shouldn't trust the social contract, but you can't blame them for trusting it. Most of the time there's no way around trusting it.