The reason such programs are becoming more common is because they are becoming cheaper. Given that, how can you be certain that the cost is exceeding the benefits (as you claim)? How low would the costs/how high the benefits before you changed your position on this?

To me treating wealthy people's skiing injuries should be at least as controversial as treating poor people's smoking-related problems.

The former is paid for by the wealthy person, the latter by society. The poor person is directly harming me by smoking. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the poor person in this case. Similarly, one might criticize a polluter (who harms us all), but not criticize people who have gay sex in the privacy of their own home (harming no one).

Think of it as shared responsibility - the rich are responsible for paying, the poor can reasonably be held responsible for other things.