The argument for this is that the state has an interest in a healthy work force: If you’re poor and get lung cancer, you’ll fill up hospital rooms at public expense. If that’s true, the state arguably has a greater interest in you continuing to smoke and dying young: The ever-aging population of the Western world will be the biggest single burden on state resources in the coming decades.
More broadly, it might be truer still to say the individual, unlike the state, therefore has an interest in stopping and reversing government annexation of health care — because that argument can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom. In the end, you may not get the government health care anyway.
Under Britain’s National Health Service, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacement. Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, says it’s appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices.” Today, it’s smokers and the obese. But, if a homosexual guy has condom-less sex with multiple partners, why should his “lifestyle choices” get a pass? Health-care costs can be used to justify anything.
(Source: Warming to a depraved new world, Mark Steyn in the Washington Times ~ From the Commentary Pages, A14 )
Because lifestyle choices involving sex are considered untouchable. It’s a human right.