> we'll immediately be at the point where smokers, alcoholics, obese people etc. should pay more, after all, their way of life statistically causes higher costs.

Wait, do they not? I genuinely assumed they did. I remember when I got private insurance through my work I had to fill in some questionnaire. It was "free", but it was a taxable benefit so you knew how much you were costing the company and me and my friends had different rates.

I wonder what the actual statistics are when it comes to costs with active people that are more likely to be injured vs obese people that are less likely to be injured but more likely to suffer obesity related illnesses.

I don't know about alcoholics, but smokers and obese people actually cost less in medical care because they usually die before age-related diseases takes hold which are the most expensive, they most often die of heart attack and stroke which are the cheapest deaths, and being fat or a smoker disqualifies you from many procedures and operations that they otherwise would do without hesitation.

On top of that for smokers, the amount of sin taxes they pay on cigarettes over their lifetime almost always exceeds their entire life-time medical costs.

Some countries tax tobacco, alcohol and sugar at higher rates to offset the costs incurred to society?

insurance companies already buy up information from data brokers and use that to jack up people's rates according to whatever they happen to find to justify it. They won't tell you when they do it, you'll just be offered a very different price than you would have been given if you didn't buy as much alcohol, spent more time at the gym, only drove your car in the daytime, or lived in a different zip code.

You mean like an additional tax on tobacco, alcohol, and sugar?

You're behind the times lol -- UK

Aren't there already insurance rebates in the US or something for tobacco-free attestation?