Firstly, it's pretty hard to measure the choices people have made. Any attempt at measurement is going to add extra costs for little or no benefit.
Secondly, we're judging people on things where we don't know the complete story. If a single parent is eating unhealthily and not exercising because they are short on both money and time, that's hardly something to make them pay for. If someone's been addicted to cigarettes for 20 years, they have probably tried and failed to give them up. To me treating wealthy people's skiing injuries should be at least as controversial as treating poor people's smoking-related problems. Personally I like to run to keep fit, but I view that as good fortune - I'm lucky that I'm healthy enough to run and that I enjoy it, and that I have time to do it.
Finally if someone gets diabetes after drinking 20 cokes a day, they're definitely paying for that decision even without a financial penalty.
In summary I guess that I feel that good health is a very fortunate thing to have, and I certainly don't feel entitled to extra cash for my good luck.
The question here is as to whether this $1000 bonus/penalty changes behaviour or just rewards those who are naturally healthy/enjoy sport/like healthy food.
Being "healthy" is the realization of two interacting random processes: things that are in your control and things that are not. The tricky part is that the division between these categories is really fuzzy and markedly different for everyone.
The link between cause and effect is also likely less simple than wellness models predict. Started running? You might feel good now but not realize that you're exacerbating the arthritis your genetics predisposes you to in 20 years. Stopped smoking? Awesome! But why did your employer put you in a state of constant chronic stress for 10 years resulting in elevated cortisol that resulted in a stroke?
The path between cause and effect is very difficult if not practically impossible to trace out for populations. So although wellness programs are not as sinister as some believe, they definitely are not as nice or positive as they present themselves, either.
To me treating wealthy people's skiing injuries should be at least as controversial as treating poor people's smoking-related problems.
The former is paid for by the wealthy person, the latter by society. The poor person is directly harming me by smoking. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the poor person in this case. Similarly, one might criticize a polluter (who harms us all), but not criticize people who have gay sex in the privacy of their own home (harming no one).
Think of it as shared responsibility - the rich are responsible for paying, the poor can reasonably be held responsible for other things.
How so? Both are paid for by an insurance pool. Unless the skier is paying a higher insurance premium for the extra risk that they are incurring by skiing, they are not paying for their skiing injuries.
If insurance companies start to charge skiiers their actuarial cost, I have no problem with this. If they don't I suspect it's simply because there aren't very many.
good analogy
We give a tax cut to people with kids to encourage families in the US. How would people react if we changed it to a no-kid penalty paid by all people without children? Same thing right? But we would react very different to it.
There is an entire subreddit dedicated to eating cheap and healthy: https://www.reddit.com/r/EatCheapAndHealthy/
You don't need a gym, even to get into seriously good shape https://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/
There is no fixed pie here, there only question is if you want it or not.
However, please remember that some people are not as privileged. Free time is not always available. Good food - and sufficient time to prepare it - isn't always available either. Life is complicated and work, kids, and other important obligations take priority for many people.
> Eating less costs less.
Eating less doesn't always lead to better health. Nutrition is complicated.
> there only question is if you want it or not.
Do you also tell people with a broken leg that they could walk if the wanted to? Staying healthy is not a matter of willpower and/or education. Staying healthy isn't even deterministic, because our knowledge of medicine, nutrition, etc is still imperfect.
/r/bodyweightfitness is actually pretty hostile to low/no-equipment approaches. It should tell you something that the top comment on a "Jail for 3 years - training with no equipment" post leads with "you might have access to a gym".
A little voice inside me keeps repeating that it will not be like that in the long run. They will start saying it's a bonus, but years after years, it will transform into a malus in the calculations, like they always do.
> But it gets even harder, because who defines healthy?
+10. And the more you dig into health, the more you realize health professionals don't always have the best informations as you though they would. It's worth to take time to try many things on your own in parallel of traditional advices otherwise you can miss so many good practices, or engage in so bad ones.
Person's health depends not only on their choices. Some people are born more healthy and some are less. So does it mean that if somebody has errors in their DNA they should get less salary?
It would be more fair just to make a tax for alcohol and cigarettes.
Well if they're buying the food and drink and providing it to their employees then it's literally part of their business operations.
They're still providing a service to their employees as part of their business operations. People are talking about this like having cans of drinks is some kind of human right that they're entitled to. I'm arguing that it's a business decision and totally up to the employer. There aren't any laws, or I'm arguing any moral imperatives, that means they have to offer you any particular drinks.
But I wouldn't say it was regulating. Can you see a difference between being allowed to eat and drink whatever you want, and requiring that your employer provide whatever you want to eat and drink?
If your local shop doesn't happen to sell your favourite drink they aren't regulating you are they? That's just not what that word means.
Disclaimer: makes good choices and am health nut.
Other Americans do not make the same good choices I make.
But if you're fat, smoke and don't do anything, and then you have a heart attack its kind of easy to link things together.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488...
It sounds a lot less sinister if you rephrase it:
And those who reach targets in three categories get an extra $1,000 on their paycheck, that comes from the discount on their health insurance.
This kind of data should not be known/tracked by your employer ever, for reasons of privacy. That's totally different from your health plan knowing, however.
The deep question here, regarding all health insurance (including national schemes), is -- to what extent should you be expected to subsidize other people's intentionally unhealthy life choices? To what extent should people who make these unhealthy choices be forced to pay more for them? If I get diabetes because I drank 20 cokes a day...
But it gets even harder, because who defines healthy? The long-term effects of so many activities is so unclear, or under so much debate -- just like sugar, for example.