How broccoli IS like health insurance

There has been some talk (and much ridicule) about Justice Scalia's use of the "broccoli defense". Proponents of the Affordable Care Act have used the argument that health insurance is different, because not buying health insurance raises the cost because of the increased average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to those who wish to buy insurance. They argue that not buying broccoli decreases the price because it signals decreased demand. To which, I quote Bastiat, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

Let us say that I am a health enthusiast, exercising, eating healthy foods, working hard to avoid all manner of risk to my life and health. Let us say that you take no greater care than that of the average person for your health. You are slightly overweight, you rarely exercise, in any meaningful sense, your diet is just slightly, but not too far on the unhealthy side. Also, you HATE broccoli.

Assuming the ACA is in effect:

By not taking active care of your health, you are increasing the average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to the other members who are forced to purchase the insurance. This is the same exact argument used to mandate the purchase of the insurance, in the first place. This argument could also be used to justify mandating that you exercise, outlawing activities which might injure you, outlawing (or taxing) certain foods that you enjoy and forcing you to not only buy, but eat, more healthy foods, including your hated, broccoli.