I'll second all of these positions.

It fits perfectly.  Insurance companies should be able to tailer their policies to the markets they serve. You want to smoke, do drugs, engage in risky hobbies, etc. you pay a higher premium.

David Jahn

I smoke cigarettes, I fully expect to pay more for insurance, as I should.  I feel you though, we should not be footing the bill for others except in our risk category.  If I assume risk it should be pooled with smokers.  Drug users with drug users, etc.  That's the risk management aspect of insurance.  I refuse to have my tax money or insurance funds go to abortion (of which I am morally opposed to) or to pay for another person's drug addiction.  Drug addiction centers can be opened and run by charitable organizations and that's fine.  The government should offer limited run facilities but don't forget people do make the choice to engage in the risky behavior in the first place, again, I know because I smoke, and I should probably quit, but I know and accept the risks involved.  Morally, however, I do not think I should be helping to pay for needles for addicts out of tax money, etc.

That is the essence of personal resonspibilty.  You go to the doctor for any reason, especially if it is self-inflicted, you pay....not me.  Why do we have so many overweight people?  Because they are not charged a premium for being overweight.  (how many overweight amish are there?)   

Ride without a helmet, sorry, your paying up.  Not wearing a seatbelt, same thing.  Sex and have children and aids, sorry...I did the right thing, I work, go to school, pay my bills....why should I pay for your illegitamate child, their welfare and healthcare costs (socialism)? 

Could go on and on.  Smoke, DUI, drugs, sky-diving, solo-aircaft, mountain climing, build a home in flood zone, promiscous sex, porn, gambling......personal responsibily.  You pay when you play.  Don't expect me to say your tail.