>Answer this question, and you’re on the journey to the solution to the problem you are talking about. Tell me some BS why the question doesn’t matter or is wrong or whatever, and discover why “Dunning Kruger” is at least part of the answer.

I posit that the people who hold an ideology, moral compass, world view, or whatever else you want to call it, that permits the question to even be framed in this way are a root problem exacerbating many other problems in society, healthcare likely being one.

I don't know what the "solution" is but the fact that ~1:5 dollars in this country is spent on maintenance of the human body is just wild and likely unsustainable or indicative of some gross error in how we measure such things.

I think you're misrepresenting "Dunning Kruger." It only predicts that the subset of your respondents already known to be low ability in the domain of health care economics will end up inflating their assessment of their own ability in the same domain. (Perhaps also inverted for high ability respondents.)

You're claiming to predict that-- for particular branch of response types-- all respondents will be low ability. There are a lot of ways I would characterize that claim, but none of them would be "Dunning Kruger."

In fact, my gut tells me that some significant number of flame wars I've read over the years were due to this confused heuristic.

From experience from my peers getting pregnant it's the cost of a "selective reduction" (which can be 1 to 0). Newly pregnant friends are spending $$$ on tests in utero to weed out children with such things.

You're free to downvote, it won't make it less true. Genetic testing is all the rage in my social circle. No parent want's "dies basically immediately after birth" disease which is a surprising about of genetic conditions and way more people than I expected were silent carriers of at least one.