Original Purpose and Reality

Some members criticize me for forgetting my original purpose: the Commune was founded because a family member died of cancer, to help people solve certain problems—so why, they ask, can it now not help older people? Let me explain.

First, the money with which Anti-Cancer Commune helps others all comes from other members' cost-sharing. I myself cannot afford to help others, so we need those who pay to feel it is fair. This is the foundation of the Commune's operation; if this foundation does not exist, the Commune cannot stand and we cannot help a single person.

(Age is not the only factor affecting critical-illness risk; it is merely easier to measure and more representative, so the discussion below uses age as the example.)

Suppose our Commune, without distinguishing rights and obligations, provided help equally to everyone. Then people over 40 would inevitably be more willing to join, because their risk of illness is higher and their chance of being helped is greater.

If the Commune's main body were people over 40, younger people would be unwilling to join, since their cost-sharing burden would be very heavy. (We cannot force young people to join the way national social insurance can.)

If the Commune were entirely people over 40, it might run for two or three years, and then everyone would find their cost-sharing burden very heavy, and so would be unwilling to stay. And when the Commune has few people left, how many can we still help?

So there are only three ways we can help older people:

1. With equal benefits, older people must share a bit more because their probability of illness rises.

2. With equal cost-sharing, older people must have somewhat smaller benefits;

3. With both benefits and cost-sharing equal, the proportion of older people must be small enough that younger people can overlook and tolerate their presence.

The Commune's job is to make the above principles work. If it cannot, the Commune is doomed: the Century Commune cannot be guaranteed, and even ten years would be hard to sustain. That is reality. Judging by the calls our customer service receives, most people care about how many benefits they get and how much they pay—that, too, is part of reality.

Between the original purpose and reality, as the person in charge I must be realistic. The original purpose is my responsibility to myself; reality is my responsibility to everyone. This is not a matter of my forgetting the original purpose, but of considering how much you are willing to pay for my original purpose. When I have hundreds of billions, trillions, or tens of trillions in assets, I might dare to announce that all older people can join the Commune for free, and I would cover the unfairness. But basically no one can do this—even Bill Gates could not afford it.