Now I don’t know if you’re just deliberately misreading my comments. At no point do I say “people don’t engage in dangerous behaviour,” I merely point out such behaviour is UNRELATED to the cost of healthcare. You’ve yet to show me any data that shows a link between affordable healthcare and moral hazard.

On the contrary, your only examples come from within a system famed for being the opposite.

I never claimed that there is a link between affordable healthcare and moral hazard. I argued only with two of your assertions which I have found to be unfortunately untrue, in my experience with the U.S. healthcare industry.

> I was similarly convinced that moral hazard in healthcare was not a problem because consumers don't get more healthcare than they need. I know now that this is not the case.

Except for… you know, right here.

I did not claim that the moral hazard problem is linked to affordability. You seem to want to argue with things I have not said.

That’s the “moral hazard” in healthcare that’s used against affordable healthcare. It’s the only context it’s used in.

Obesity and opioid addiction aren’t “moral hazards” in healthcare, they’re literally things healthcare and society need to deal with. We’re far off the topic of insurance and I don’t even understand what you took issue with apart from nitpicking a sentence at this point.

Your assumption about context is not relevant to my argument.

You’re right, it was my mistake for assuming words mean what they’re commonly used to refer to /s

Moral hazard has a well understood meaning outside of affordability. I would very much like to see the system in the U.S. make more sense. Any time spent in an emergency room or waiting room in the U.S. makes the moral hazard obvious.