It's always seemed to me like accurate risk profiling is a positive thing. We don't mind that smokers pay higher rates, for example. After all their projected m

It's always seemed to me like accurate risk profiling is a positive thing. We don't mind that smokers pay higher rates, for example. After all their projected medical costs are more than double. Otherwise, nonsmokers would be forced to subsidize the choices of smokers. Things like congenital issues should be protected (not a choice), but if someone leads an unhealthy lifestyle and actuaries can work out a good expected cost, why not? Is that so different from a risky driver?