Pay the proletariat a dollar, then ask: 'Would you care to buy a Big Mac or health care?' When they refuse the latter because they cannot buy it with a dollar, the 'free market' then decides that 'all poor people want is hamburgers'! Yum yum!
Want? What is effectively demanded you mean. Also 'want' comes with a price tag. What if said fellow 'wanted' option B that much more - so much he was willing to gamble the dollar in the hopes of getting a high return - risk it if you will. How much want is want?
'Effectively demanded'? Working people can 'effectively demand' only according to what capital pays them. 'Risk it if you will'? Working people don't invest their wages, they return them to the capitalists for another capitalist production cycle. 'Option B' is starvation. Who are you trying to fool?
What I am saying is that given the above scenario option B costs the gamble. Hence one would choose option A. The rest is your interpretation.
'Costs the gamble.' What, pray tell, is 'costs the gamble' supposed to mean? Obviously the proletariat must 'choose' option A (the hamburger), he or she only has a dollar (and needs to eat as a first priority). Now, how about some health care to repair the damage inflicted by that hamburger? What does 'effective demand' tell the proletariat then? Get screwed, right?