Comment

Comment by roymurdock

Their explanation of moral hazard [1] is incorrect. A moral hazard occurs when someone who is insured subsequently pays less attention to preventing the deterioration/damage of the ensured object, in this case one's own body, than would otherwise be the case if they did not have insurance.

People do not pay less attention to their health because they know they are insured. Nobody wants to be sick or obese, and it is an absurd, academic, and out-of-touch to argument. It makes sense to apply the moral hazard concept to something like a car (driving recklessly if insured) but not something so integral as personal health.

Health care costs exploded because people (myself included) are weak-willed and uneducated, and will satiate their cravings for sweet/salty/mind-altering without a strong government to provide adequate health education, curb the bombardment of junk food/tobacco/alcohol/drug advertising, subsidize healthy lunches in school, and keep pharma regulatory capture in check.

Does anyone think: "I'll eat McDonalds twice a week, smoke a pack a day, and drink all I want because I'm insured." Come on...

[1] "the tendency for insured persons to utilize medical services more than they would if they did not have insurance"

parent roymurdock 10 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton