The first problem then is how the insurance company determines that you&#x27;re a junkie glutton because the sources of information from which they conceivably have access(search engine results, super market discount card, and other aggregated data sources), do not correlate 1 to 1 with behaviour. In addition to this, there is no mechanism of appeal in which one could contest their appraisal.<p>Then there is also the issue that the working poor buy shittier food because it&#x27;s cheaper and more convenient, so their business logic creates a paradox where the assumption that all behaviour’s can be modified and accounted for economically really stops making sense. Trying to hold poor people accountable for their poverty by increase their costs of living can&#x27;t possibly work and a major health crisis currently is diabetes which is directly related to the cheapest and most sugar filled things eaten disproportionally by mostly poor peole (in the US anyway, thanks to cheap corn). This is true in other ways as well, for example commute time is related to housing cost, stress is related to driving time, stress is related to poor health. Increased commute time can lead to less sleep, less sleep leads to poor health. there are probably infinitely more... Live in a trailer? You&#x27;re being exposed constantly to toxins being emitted by the fibre board that everything in your house is made from; by &quot;insurance&quot; logic people that live in trailers make bad health decisions and should be charged more so that the cost of living in trailers is the same as the cost of living some where non toxic. So then should we subsidize housing instead? or let that person become homeless.<p>tldr; being poor = &#x27;bad health behaviour&#x27; and so poor people will be disproportionately punished for their existing poverty with additional poverty.