It seems to me a lot of this is about responsibility to society, but that only goes one way. If it's my responsibility to pay into social Healthcare, why is it not their responsibility to not be a heavy smoker, or morbidly obese, or a heavy drinker? It seems to me that the moral tables are turned around in this argument, where I'm a bad person for not wanting to pay, but they arnt bad people for doing things that virtually garuntee they will need payouts.
Then, to quantify the people in that gray zone, it becomes a question of which variables to we include? Sure, alcohol is bad, and junk food is bad. But what is junk food precisely? And if you run ultra-marathons, it surely doesn't matter as much. If you live in a city with higher pollution, if you drive a cheaper older car with a worse safety rating, if you work two jobs and thus have higher stress levels, on and on.
And if we're talking about social healthcare, do you really want a faceless bureaucracy to be tasked with calculating those risks and putting a price on all your life choices?
What about people that are not as well educated as you are, and thus don't know that too much sugar is bad for them ? Should they pay more ? What about overweight people that are from a genetic pool of people that are more subject to this issue ?
Sometimes it's hard to know if a disease comes from lifestyle or other factors.
