 To begin, luck egalitarians would seem to be committed to the view that health inequalities due to voluntarily chosen health behaviors are not unjust. While luck egalitarians hold it is unjust for one person to be worse off than another because of brute luck, inequalities due to option luck—i.e., factors within a person’s control—are just. Applied to health and health care, luck egalitarianism would seem to imply that people should be compensated for inequalities in health due to brute luck—e.g., genetic factors and the social determinants of health—but held responsible for health outcomes due to option luck—e.g., voluntary decisions to drink excessively or eat a poor diet (see, e.g., Le Grand 1987, Segall 2010, and Cavallero 2011).