1) Allow insurance companies to require a check up every 2 years to maintain coverage. A person's overall health is easy to determine, and it doesn't matter what they were doing to maintain their health if they're healthy.

2) While being wealthier gives you some benefits to maintaining a healthy lifestyle, a person can lead a very active and healthy lifetyle with a healthy diet on any budget.

3) Socialism is essentially the belief that you should punish the people who have made wise decisions in order to compensate for those who have made foolish decisions. How many people would think that it was appropriate to eliminate failing grades in school and to give everyone a "pass" regardless of how well the students performed because it was never appropriate to leave someone behind? Often it is the act of failing and hitting "Rock Bottom" that convinces someone who is making foolish decisions to pull their life together and make better decisions ...

I agree with your sentaments Mafoo and I disagree to a point:

Ethicly you're into some pretty murky territory where there are a whole bunch of factors to consider.

Healthcare is one topic where the word 'fair' can mean a lot of different things. For example:

Do you simply run your healthcare insurance program on the choices people make? The smoking, the drinking the lack of exercise, the poor oral hygene etc? Some of these can easily be measured and some of these cannot.

For example: Is it fair that a person who has a genetic predisposition to high blood pressure, heart disease etc be lumped into the same category as people who have these things due to the choices they make? What about a person who has a genetic predisposition to cancer but you can't measure it in your standardised health tests. Should the person whose condition is unmeasurable pay less than the person whos condition is manifested easily on a standard health checkup? So without going into peoples lives, where do you draw the line?

1) That is so, so much worse than the original idea. Now its not punishing people for living a poor lifestyle, its punishing people for being in poor health. You're essentially pricing out of the market the people who need healthcare most - the unhealthy.

2) What about people who, for example, have to work two jobs in order to make ends meet. These people are living an unhealthy lifestyle and its not by choice. Its because they can't afford to live a healthy lifestyle.

3) I'm not entirely socialist, I just like a nice solid mix of socialism and capitalism - essentially what we have in New Zealand. The problem with letting people hit rockbottom is that they often stay at rock bottom, I think society needs a safety net so that as few people as possible are allowed to be left entirely behind by society.

As for eliminating failing grades, I think its stupid obviously. That really is a misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

Yeah,  a diet of Potatoes milk and lentils actually has no holes in it even if your just sticking with "staple" foods.

I eat healthy outside of fast food, and i end up spending way more per meal on the fast food.

Actually though this would qualify as a response to your first question.  The best private healthcares already do this to some degree.

The difference instead of being "penalized" for being unhealthy.  Your "rewarded" for being healthy.

Your given a checklist of "Healthy activities" you need to do, you pick how many you want to do and then you check em off the list and get your reward of money back.

For example you can sign up for a gym membership.  Or go see a insurance company paid dietician who can give you advice or go to a certified gym once a month... etc.

@Kasz. Wow thats actually a really cool idea (If I read it right).

Essentially the healthcare company pays for you to visit a dietitian or a gym or something thereby making you healthier and saving them money? As far as I can see its win-win =D.

When will people stop flogging the old "unhealthy instant food/fast food" is cheaper and quicker line. Its simply wrong.

Maybe its different in America but in Australia buying and cooking the food yourself is cheaper and quicker (not to mention healthier). When you stop being lazy, you'll stop being fat.

It's the same here.  It's just people in the US are used to.... well honestly, processed foods, and like... already half made stuff etc.

That and after working an 8+ hour day a lot of people just don't want to have to cook too.

That's why it's always smart to cook up some meals on every sunday, and freeze em for later.

I was about to suggest that ;)

Yeah, a lot of companies do that.  Often the buisnesses themselves rather then the healthcare company.

Sometimes they make you pay but they negogtiate a discounted rate at the places they choose.

A similar government plan (which would be very helpful for countries with socialized medicine) could be done by having forms that could be printed off and sent in by gyms and doctors to get tax credits on your healthcare spending.  People would have to pay themselves, but if they end up paying less in taxes it's win, win.  Things like yearly checkups would do wonders for healthcare costs.

There would be some cheating but there is cheating on everything government run.  It's a good way to keep people healthy, cut down costs and also stimulate jobs in the health sector... and in general protect against healthcare shortages... since it keeps more doctors employed so if an epidemic or something hits your suddenly not at a loss for personel.