Elimination - no
Restrictive - yes
This is a very Grey area since there are too many variables and difficult to quantify. If you occasionally sip some red wine vs an alcoholic who chainsmokes since they were 12.
I would for example be in favour of not subsidizing accidents related to the person who is found intoxicated. Let them pay out of their own pocket or increasing their insurance.
I would be in support for not paying for Healthcare to type 2 diabetes or morbidly obese individuals. That is 100% lifestyle choice no one is forcing them to drink mountain dew and eat super-sized tub of KFC every day. Let the walruses get naturally selected. I am not giving them my money lol.
i'd be in favour of shifting in a direction where we have accessibility to services influenced by some degree of accountability, and more importantly the level of individual contribution for able bodied individuals via taxes towards propping up said services
depending on how far you go in this direction it'd get quickly unpopular with the people who admittedly are not as well disciplined as others so you'll need to frame it in a way that isn't punitive
rather than try to punish those that aren't as disciplined i'd probably shift distribution of benefits in a direction that rewards better planning, and being more productive in society.. maybe something like getting $x per month for absolutely nothing and it goes up to $y per month based on how much you pay in taxes
think it was called negative income tax last i read into it