Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (106043)	3/12/2009 7:41:39 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541906

Thanks for your thoughts on moral hazard. I doubt that it would add significantly to medical costs. As you have confirmed, as an insured person you overuse the system and increase the total cost to the system. The moral hazard would therefore arise from those currently uninsured. As for pressure to increase coverage for additional treatments, this surely occurs now in collective bargaining and in competition for employees. I doubt that there is much of a desire to consume additional medical procedures because they are free. Most procedures aren't pleasurable as is extra food at a buffet or obtaining free music. I can see that there could be a problem deciding on what procedures would be included in universal coverage as different jurisdictions and different companies have varying coverage. In my opinion additional moral hazard would be a relatively small problem. On the other hand, seeking medical advice early (which one might avoid if uninsured) often results in longer term savings if certain conditions are diagnosed at an early stage.