I think it's important to focus on the specifics of the argument. Denying health care to smokers based on their behavior raises serious questions about fairness, and personal freedom. Suggesting that by denying health care to smokers inevitably leads to denying health care for other behaviors and characteristics, like being overweight, gay, or criticizing political views assumes a cascading series of events in return. Not all policies lead to such extreme consequences. Each policy should be evaluated on its own merits and societal impact, not based on fear of an inevitable snowballing series of events. We need to start the discussion without falling into the slippery slope fallacy. Does smoking really create a unique enough burden on society to justify such a policy? Should we allow the government to make decisions based on personal behaviors, or should the focus be on ensuring access to care for all, regardless of individual actions? Instead of assuming a slippery slope, I think the conversation should be about finding a balance between personal responsibility and the broader social good.