I propose the introduction of different levels of compulsory and/or supplementary health insurance. A split according to income or salary is already in use (more or less), but I also propose a split according to the insured person's habits or renounced state of health, which is linked solely to his/her behaviour, attitude and concern for maintaining his/her health, which is measurable and demonstrable. An example of a very similar, if not identical, practice has been in use for decades in motor insurance, not only in this country but also elsewhere in the world. The same is true for other insurances (property, etc.).
For example: if someone is a regular smoker and thus statistically and medically proven to be prone to additional diseases through this habit, he should pay a higher level of health insurance. Body weight or body mass index is even easier to check. These two examples are easily demonstrable and are not of a momentary nature, or cannot be changed in a few days. But there are probably other "habits" that have been proven to have a negative impact on our health and are verifiable. The largest proportion of chronic diseases associated with smoking and being overweight are found in diabetes, heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases and more.
Despite all this, at least body mass index and smoking would be defined as clear indicators of an individual's disinterest and disregard for himself, with consequences that affect everyone else, financially and otherwise, and not in a small way. When you cause an accident where you are proven to be at fault, you pay higher car insurance. Just as if you belong to a special group (young driver). This system has evolved over decades of observations by insurance companies of who really causes accidents, or which group of individuals are statistically most prone to do so. Thus, the car insurance system tends to treat the individual as fairly as possible in road traffic, penalising dangerous and bad drivers, rewarding good ones. Fair. Otherwise, indifference, disinterest and worse road safety result.
The current state of the individual should be checked once a year by a qualified and designated institution (health centre), just as a car undergoes a roadworthiness test (car workshop). In addition to the basic purpose of checking the current state of health, prevention in other areas (high blood pressure, haemogram) would be carried out at the same time at the same cost. The cost of the check may or may not (debate) be covered by the insurance company.
Why is health insurance unfair? Because it does not distinguish the smoker and the obese (anorexic) from the rest. Solidarity, yes, but at what cost, for whom and when? Where is the limit? Should only compulsory health insurance be income-based and should supplementary insurance companies adjust the price? Or should compulsory health insurance also be valued by the state?
Should the money from insurance be earmarked for really unpredictable events (accidents), for specific chronic diseases (where we don't yet know the cause), for people and children who are born already affected.... Why do we support people who have created disability by their own choices and actions during their lives, fully aware of the possible consequences that await them?
It is through the regulation of the state that a nation is partially and continuously educated (guided). If public health care is really for everyone and managed by the state for a better tomorrow for all of us, then it should not support decay and decay in the very basics, such as smoking and obesity. Do we want a sick nation of fat people and smokers? That future has been unfolding across the pond for decades... proven!
It's a simple enough thing, but certainly worth at least considering and in need of a wider debate.