I am most fascinated by the arguments against this proposal of those who claim they shouldn't have to support the "lifestyle" of those they disapprove of.  Using that same logic:

1)  People like me, who do not ski or participate in other active sports, should not have to subsidize the "lifestyle" of those who do; thus, sports injuries should be excluded from state health insurance policies.

2)  People like me, who disapprove of excessive reproduction in a world suffering from massive overpopulation, should not have to subsidize the "lifestyle" of those who fail to practice birth control; thus, state-sponsored family health insurance coverage should be limited to parents and a maximum of 2 children.

3) People who do not consume alcohol shouldn't have to subsidize the "lifestyle" of those who do; therefore, any alcohol-related illness should be excluded from state-sponsored health insurance coverage.

4) People who do not smoke shouldn't have to subsidize the "lifestyle" of those who do; therefore, any tobacco-related illness should be excluded from state-sponsored health insurance coverage.

My point is this:  insurance, by its very definition, means people are "sharing risks" with others with whom they disagree and who are making different life choices.  It takes a lot of gall (and hypocrisy) for people to argue against making insurance available to those of whose "lifestyles" they "disapprove" -- but insist that all the unique health risks based on their own "lifestyle" be covered.