They are testing the waters to set up a two-tier system, one for smokers and one for those who don't. Before I retired there were feelers at my job about doing something like that, for insurance purposes. Of course, they didn't call it a "penalty for smokers". It was being billed as a "discount for non-smokers". Yes, blood tests were involved, and signing a pledge.

There is no denying that smoking is a terrible health hazard, and quitting the easiest way to prevent disease and extend life, and that it is not fair to penalize non-smokers for the vices of nicotine addicts. But where do you stop? Junkies? Alcoholics? Fatties? How about diabetics and other pre-existing conditions? Like being old or being female? When do they start requiring DNA profiles and family histories? And of course, THEY get to decide what high-risk behavior is, and how risky.

There are economic pressures to health-insure only athletes in their 20s because they never get sick. And how do you know the insurance companies aren't lying to you, because they have every incentive to do so? Not that they have to actually lie. Even actuarial tables can be cooked not to minimize risks, but to maximize profit. By moving premium cutoff points well away from natural breakpoints in the actuarial data, it is possible to lump in low risk individuals with high risk premiums payers.

Economics and common sense dictate that these kind of decisions need to be made by someone, but I don't trust the insurance companies to be the ones to do it.