This isn't a "slippery slope" argument, the specific law we are discussing is already an example of stepping too far.

I already have personal experience facing strong arm measures under the pretext of "protecting the kids". Last time I returned to my home country of Australia, the policy forcibly did a digital search of my phone, on the pretext of looking for child porn. I have my banks details and pics of my girlfriend on that thing. In no first world country should I have to surrender it to authorities without a warrant. No one would tolerate this bullshit for any other reason then the moral panic around children.

I'm anti-pedophilia, but the legislation the article is talking about is incredibly stupid. We don't accept invasive police-state tactics to combat any other crime, we shouldn't accept them here.

In general I don't like legislation that tries to criminalize abstract depictions of something that would otherwise be a crime. It's too intangible, and opens the opportunity for abusing the legal system to persecute undesirables. We have to be really careful about what spiders we swallow to catch small (or sometimes imaginary) flies.

Does having one vice deny a person for life from having coverage for any disease which my potentially be caused by that vice? How long must a person partake in this vice to be denied coverage for life (i.e. is it okay to smoke for a few years then quit?)

Your example also has the problem of measuring the "lifestyle questions" being presented. How would you prove a person isn't exercising enough? If I know it will get me denied I'm not going to self report. We would need some sort of invasive "health audit" industry to insure compliance with insurance requirements. A physical exam at the start of insurance doesn't solve this, because like I said, the existing issues could have been caused by any number of problems.

Your dismissal of my specific example is silly - I don't want to sue a doctor for misdiagnosing a relatively common issue. Connective tissue disorders are not that rare, and I'm far from unique. Do you want to live in a society where we have to fight tooth and nail to get basic care for problems on the basis that we might have caused them ourselves?

I've personally had postural issues that were for many years simply attributed to poor discipline. It later turned out that I have a connective tissue disorder that was destroying the joints in my body.

All you I can see your proposition doing is giving insurures another reason to decline potentially legitimate claims. Your case would be more rational if you were arguing for no insurance at all.