What about making the case that since government is footing the bill for medical care, that it is the duty of government to “cure” preventable diseases resulting from bad diet and insufficient exercise?

What about making the case that it should be a crime to disobey the orders of a doctor?

The military already does this. High risk activities by military members must be reported and approved. The logic is much as you suggest. They have a financial stake in you, so they have a right to judge and control your off duty activities.

Only for low earners. I would think that the State would need the income from high earners. i.e. “Yes Mr. Jones, I realize you have made a fortune and paid a significant portion of in into the healthcare of the nation, but we just can’t allow you to fly your own airplane.”

You are a burden in waiting.

I had this same thought. Although the argument could go either way. Maybe we should “encourage” activities that reduce lifespan, and therefore lifetime costs. Or maybe we should “discourage” activities that increase cost, but “encourage” drastic activities likely to severely cut lifespan.

The specific strategic and tactical moves and arguments can get absurd; which points to the essential premise, “Who has the moral domain to make these decisions?”

The answer should always be the individual (and/or those the individual CHOOSES to associate with), and free markets are the best (I didn’t say perfect) mechanism to allow that.

You make the common mistake of believing that the choice is yours to make. You are no longer an individual. The powers that be have declared that you belong to “society” now, and because they claim the right to speak for “society”, they therefore speak for you.