I know that&#x27;s the argument, but I disagree with the premise -- you&#x27;re essentially saying that it&#x27;s valid for the government to enforce healthy decisions when it wants to limit the chances of a future payout.  This would mean that the government can use its status as the &quot;insurer&quot; (in the sense that it operates the safety net) and the &quot;enforcer&quot; (in the sense that it alone can use force to compel you against your will) in complementary ways.  Why not make a law that I can&#x27;t have junk food?  Or that I must exercise?  Obesity has a cost on society as well, no?