For the same reason that we shouldn’t be taxed to pay alcoholics’ bar tabs.
Look I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to take observably stupid risks, I’m just saying men with guns shouldn’t force the populace to pay for it.
I dislike the idea of refusing treatment for some based on certain criteria for a number of reasons - one of the big ones is that I've witnessed the enormous irrational engine that is medical insurance billing in the US, and I don't really trust ~anyone to decide on whether a treatment should be paid for when they have a fiscal incentive one way or the other.
I'm trying to understand what you're specifically objecting to - it's not researching treatments for these conditions being funded publicly, I think, just giving them to people who were affected by risky behaviors?
I wouldn’t phrase it in the passive voice, but yes I don’t object to research or people spending their own money on the consequences of their own behavior.
And we do that because it's a reasonable thing to do overall. And definitely cheaper than trying to figure out who's fault each health issue was. You got a heart attack? Why didn't you cycle to work? How much processed food did you eat? Are you sure it's not your fault?
What about exercise - You got injured while running? You didn't have to run, that was your decision. You got hit by a car? Why did you leave the house; your decision again.
A public, shared coverage has to ignore responsibility to some extent. Or we'll end up with system where you need too prove every time you're not too blame. I think that would be immoral - even according to a book you mention.