"poor health choice" from an insurance companies perspective. If they define a "poor health choice" as any choice that one concisely makes to ones care that subsequently leads to higher health care costs down the road, then the following could be considered: Being of reproductive age but not currently using a long acting contraceptive (could be verified by medical records). Having a large family (could be predicted by religion, geographic area, family history, birth control subscriptions, or already having had several kids). Choosing to not abort a child who was diagnosed in utero with special needs (this type of person could even be predicted by insurance companies just by assessing medical records for people refusing to get genetic testing at prenatal visits).

I think we may all disagree on where to draw the line on what a poor choice is. I'm personally really happy to pay a higher insurance rate so that someone else can choose to bring a baby with down syndrome into the world without fear of never being able to afford insurance again. I'm also annoyed to have to pay for smokers' medical costs. Others are probably annoyed to pay for my mountain biking injuries (though mountain biking is certainly increasing my cardiovascular fitness and probably my life span). I think it would be hard to draw the line on which choices insurance should penalize or not.