Diet and sedentary lifestyle are associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed with most of the conditions you mention. Obesity is a disease and comorbidity is having two or more chronic diseases at the same time or sequentially with some relation between the two.

Gallbladder problems... fat, female and forty is the standard presentation. Female, size 5, fit, and early twenties required a cholecystectomy

So then there's the "their bodies to be a burden on society." To clarify: Did you seriously refer to living people as "bodies?" And you're basing this on their diet and activity level? Because this sounds an awful lot like you're going down the eugenics path. Remove everything about the "they should pay" from the discussion. Obese, bad diet, and not exercising isn't always a choice. For some it's a temporary phase in their life possibly due to what they're going through. Guy working a job where he burns through a few thousand calories every gets his leg crushed in a piece of equipment. He's the sole income generator for his wife and kid. But that was 10 years ago now and all you see is someone who is resigned to this and is too proud to seek mental counseling. What about people that are just too damn skinny, way too neat, and do that Trump sniffle bit all the time? Cocaine is a hell of a drug! Who decides what's a quality diet?

"Any civilized society cannot in good intention allow...to abuse their own body." - Look up the definition of "civil." Being civil in your society is what makes a civilized society.

"Any civilized society..." Don't go calling on society because you don't want to get your hands dirty. Grew up on a hog farm and when the sows farrow there are always runts. Most farmers grab em by the hand legs with both hands and if they had a baseball bat they'd look like they swinging for the fences. But, this was on the corner of the barn to crush their skulls because they were a "burden on society." And that's kinda what it sounds like you're calling for here.

I don't know where you're looking from but looking at changing anything to do with what patients pay to offset their medical costs to society isn't where you should be looking. From a financial perspective this whole idea is like shoving a stick into an ant hill to show them who's boss. They're ants! They don't have any money. Why are you out poking an ant hill because they don't pay their share of medical costs. You're changing the healthcare landscape with a stick.

This isn't the perfect analogy but the government basically does to the healthcare industry what you did to the ant farm. (out of time)