The Healthcare Debate Is Essentially A Moral Debate

A healthcare economist explains the moral problems that many people have about insurance.  All forms of insurance are bets that one makes about future outcomes. Healthy young people might believe that they would be better off if they did not pay premiums for health insurance because they are at low risk.  They might also believe that they would not be left to suffer if they were to have an accident or if they became ill.  Someone else would pay for their bad bet.  These are the rugged individualists who care little about how their decisions affect others.  Sometimes they call themselves libertarians.  Others might prefer to pay premiums because they want protection against unknown risks, and they do not want to be a burden to others. They believe more in social solidarity than in rugged individualism or fake libertarianism. Perhaps we should let young people make a decision at age 25, or so, that reflects their moral position.  The rugged individualists could choose not to purchase insurance, and they would not be permitted to get free healthcare if their bet turns out to be wrong. This eliminates the moral hazard problem of rugged individualists who believe that they will receive healthcare without insurance.  I don't think that many parents would agree with their children who profess to be libertarians.  They believe in solidarity when it comes to their family.