HappySquirrel has said so many times "The problem with Americas healthcare costs, is we are very unhealthy."

Safe-way has implemented a program, that rewards healthy behavior. In doing so, they have been able to stay flat over the last 4 years, while everyone else has gone up 40% in costs.

The reason they can't cut costs any more, is government won't let them. There are restrictions on how much you can alter a premium based on unhealthy voluntary lifestyles (mainly smoking in this case). If Safe-way was allowed to better adjust premiums based on risk, they could lower the costs even more.

So, just one question. Why is Washington not looking at this model for improved healthcare?

Oh yea, this makes people accountable for there own actions, and washington doesn't want any of that.

http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/08/04/safeway-insurance-incentives/

how exactly?

what criteria would you use to decide who does or doesnt deserve healthcare? 

The criteria is to say what it costs, not who gets it.

I would say anything you do voluntary, that effects the cost of taking care of you (unhealthy eating to the point of high blood pressure, smoking, excessive drinking, skydiving, whatever), should be allowed to be taken into account.

I mean if you chose to do something that means it cost more to keep you healthy, shouldn't you be required to pay more for it? 

well, if its legal to do it, i dont think you can then say, but if you stay within the law and do this, you must pay more for your healthcare,

also, what isnt harmful?

technically, drinking too much milk can be bad for your health, how would you know a random person who comes to the hospital is not living a "healthy" lifestyle, with a smoker or drug addict, you may not even be able to tell they do thoose things, same with someone who chooses to have to much of a medicine or food or drink that could make them ill. 

Why should someone not be rewarded for a healthy lifestyle, which lowers the cost of healthcare, with lower cost healthcare?

define healthy

also, why not address my point, which is that you have no way of knowing without some sort of all passive legal system and CCTV everywhere. 

There are lots of ways of doing it. Where I work, they track how long we are in the gym at work, and pay us certificates we can use for workout gear based on how many times we work out. You can weigh people, or check there blood pressure over time. There are ways to know.

But are you against the principle of it, or just that it's hard to track?

both

in principle, if what you do to yourself is within the law, you shouldnt be punished for it. 

So let me build this scenario, and ask you what you would do.

Lets say you employ 100 people, and each cost $4,000 a year to insure, and you pay half. So they pay $2,000, and you pay $2,000. Every employee is overweight and smokes.

You realize, that if each person was healthier, the cost would really be $2000 each. So, you tell your employees that if they get into a healthy weight, don't smoke, the cost will go down to half.

Let's say half your employees take you up on that offer, and start working out every day, and go the the hard work of giving up smoking, and in the end, for those 50 employees, the cost drops in half.

What do you then do? 

Do you charge the people who didn't do anything the same ($2000 them/$2000 you), and then the people who now cost half to cover less ($1000 them/$1000 you)?

or

Do you average it out to $3,000 each, and them charge all $1,500 and pay $1,500?