[gnaritas]

> But not everyone is (or becomes) healthy or unhealthy to the same degree.

Incorrect, everyone gets sick to the same eventual degree: death. You will require medical care.

> or I simply want to take a chance that I'll remain healthy

No one remains healthy, period, everyone gets sick, everyone.

[subverter]

Even if you consider death a state of health – which is odd, who says "yeah, they're really unhealthy: they're dead" – the path to that state differs. Some people get sick very quickly right before death, while others are sick their whole life before death. Their required medical care vastly differs.

[gnaritas]

This is true, but it's not predictable which one you'll be. This line of reasoning is akin to claiming your car insurance should be cheaper because you'll never get into an accident. It's simply not logical. You cannot know if you're going to be someone who doesn't put a drain on the medical system or not, the future is not knowable.

You could be the healthiest person in the world and get punched by someone who gives you an expensive disease through blood contact; you could randomly get cancer at any age no matter how healthy you think you are. So this notion that you think you should pay less is based on a naive understanding of how health actually works; you cannot predict the future. You could be disabled tomorrow through no fault of your own. As such, the system must be designed to consider that everyone will be sick at some point and most people will be healthy most of the time, everyone pays and the sick are covered, problem solved for everyone. Social medicine works better than any other approach, this is a fact proven around the world. Those objecting to it are doing so on ideological grounds, not on rational ones.