A person with health insurance is more likely to become ill and visit a doctor than is someone without health insurance.?

Non of the above. Because in most insurance contracts including medical & health insurance . such insured's negligence is excluded from the insurance cover and the insurance policy conditions clearly states and refers to this point . and say that the insured should take all necessary precautions to minimize the probability of loss events as far as he can . hence behaves as if he is uninsured . besides that the insured may behaves carelessly in all classes of insurance except in medical & health insurance because it is very close to his health and I think all people are very careful about their health. Therefore my answer is non of the above.

Thanking you . and my very best wishes.   

I beg to differ! If one is conscious about something, the tendency to work on that thing increases. Today consciousness about health is majorly driven by insurance as it induces a person to plan for health. Hence propinquity and futures contract does play a role. Across the world, the threshold to visit a doctor reduces when you have financial freedom as well as enhanced consciousness. By the way, insurance raises consiousness about health risk.... an emotional trigger to seek care. 

Not negating other options but my point is it is not overtly biased towards moral hazard where people expoloiting opportunities due to financial freedom. People are averse to unnecessary medication and surgeries (especially ectomies) too!

Basically I take it to the option (D), Moral Hazard. The question is perfect and it is true with people being diverted particularly to their earnings rather than their health with passage of times. Earnings can buy a better health insurance plans, but there may be people who are exception to the pool though. But most importantly people need to realize that taking insurance plans and falling ill is a different part of course. Insurance particularly is for the future assurance of the expenses that will be supported financially, but falling ill is a consequence of negligence. But moral hazard is only the circumstance that leads to negligence in this case. Thank you sir for your wonderful question. 

>d. moral hazard.>>>>>>>>>>

I agree with the answer, as it is correct. That’s statistics....

Similar:

Smoking causes cancer, Stats proves it.80% or something that have cancer are smokers.... but not80% of smokers have cancer...

A fact: Causes for cancer are unknown, if we're able to determine a root cause and say this is why you get this horrible disease and this is how and why it has developed …. We will find a cure (And hopefully soon)...

Don’t get me wrong I am not defending the statement above and I am not a pessimist but we are humans for a reason, we have a brain to use, and we conduct the surveys, we steer the wheel, we created the software ;)

I guess all what I am trying to say, have an opinion or justify the answer like our friend Elke Woofter, don’t just google…

Thank you Mr Emad for creating a vibe

Regards,

Anas

The answer is : Option ( D )

I go with moral hazard as well, since Dr. (especially in the US) push drugs for personal gain... to make the patients dependable on the drug ... pharmaceuticals hide the fact that there drugs have more side effects .. just mask the symptoms, do not cure and try to hide the cure, since they can not patented it .... There are many herbs in your kitchen which help to heal you ...

Natural Practitioners/healers or Homeopathic Dr. are not covered by insurance and are all out of your pocket expenses... not many can afford it .....     

Moral hazard is the correct anwer

Agree with the given answers

----------------------------------------

Yes (d) Moral Hazard is the correct option sir.