Subsidising other people's unhealthy choices is clearly going to be a controversial topic, but I've come to the conclusion that the only sensible approach is to ignore the choices and threat the condition.

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.