Yes, I think we should expect people to act with integrity. When they don't we should call them out. I'm all for social programs to help people in need, but I end up opposing most of the proposed social programs. Why is this? Because people game them. If people acted with integrity, and only people that truly needed assistance utilized social programs, then I think you'd find far less people oppose them.

Why is it not integrity to use the system to maximize the benefit to myself? Insurance carriers and the medical-industrial complex are notoriously byzantine, and so if anyone can navigate those waters and improve their outcomes, and extract the maximum value of care for themselves, then I think that is exactly what one should be expected to do within the bounds of the system they are given. There is nothing dishonest or "gaming" about it.

When you lie about medical conditions, that is not acting with integrity. If you believe that lying to achieve maximum personal outcomes is, in fact, acting with integrity, then our definition of integrity is vastly different.

It was termed "gaming" and not "lying". Where are you seeing lies?

You acknowledge the need for social programs and back the concept of them, but in practice vote against them because people game the system?

Why not design a system that isn’t susceptible to gaming and doesn’t rely on all people acting with integrity and instead embraces that people will act in their own best interest even if it results in long term worse outcomes overall?

Things like universal health care and universal basic income provide a flat benefit to all, so gaming the system doesn’t give an unfair advantage to some.

“Gaming” is not always equal to fraud though. We should expect legal gaming not outright fraud.

When IBM employees play games with Generic Company the damage to me is marginal. There's - potentially - one less competitor when I go shopping.

When someone plays games with the Federal Government it hurts me directly. Doubly so because public organizations are notoriously unable for a raft of reasons to deal with abuse like that.

If the argument is that it's no less likely to happen I wouldn't disagree. If it's that I shouldn't be any more annoyed - I don't think so.