Part of the solution is to end all current government farming subsidies. Taxpayers prop up the cheap production of calorie dense crops like soybeans, corn, rice, & wheat while farmers who raise fruits and vegetables get virtually nothing. The net effect is lower prices for the sort of junk food that can take advantage of the cheap subsidized sugars & cereals from those grains and comparatively higher prices for healthier foods in the produce section.

It is cheaper to eat unhealthy food when eating out. Lets not forget that we make it easier on getting fatter, look at all the drive up windows to get your big 32oz sodas. People would rather wait 10 minutes in line than get out of their car and walk in to get something. And most people use eating as a form of entertainment, because there is nothing else to do. Well there is but you would have to get out of your car first.

lumpy: Under UHC most of the things you listed would lower costs and make it easier to for the government to provide UHC. Smoking, excess drinking, & obesity do all raise costs in the short term but all save money(or in the case of obesity basically come out even) over the long haul.

You might be mixed up because commercial insurers care very much about those activities and raise their rates accordingly. However that is merely because they only have a short-term interest. Long term costs are not considered because the odds are you will only be covered by a particular insurer for a year or two. A smoker for example is much more likely to develop cancer or die within the next year or two sticking the insurance company with an expensive bill. A non smoker might eventually develop an even more expensive long-term illness to treat, but odds are a different insurance company (or more likely the government via Medicare/Medicaid) will be the ones footing that bill.

With UHC the government is stuck paying for everyone for life. Under those circumstances they should be handing out free cigarettes as smokers have far lower lifetime healthcare costs than non-smokers (because they require 5-7 years less of healthcare). Thats only looking at the healthcare costs, which are only a fraction of the overall savings once you account for all the pension benefits & Social Security checks that the government can avoid paying out to smokers who die earlier.

Really the only "dangerous" lifestyle choices that it would make sense to criminalize under UHC would be anything that is killing/injuring lots of good taxpaying 20-50 year olds. But the old folks would be encouraged to partake in those same activities. So maybe UNC will instead lead to subsidized motorcycles and mandatory lack of helmets for riders over 60.