The baby "you" needed health insurance the moment it took it's first breath and let out a shriek of terror due to its suddenly change in circumstances. I know from experience: Until my wife gave birth, all the claims were for here. Once born, hospital bills were partitioned into those for my wife and those for my newborn.
I think you are stretching things beyond what is reasonable here. Claiming that healthcare is a choice on these grounds is not reasonable: most home deliveries are accompanied by a midwife who knows how to treat the mother and provide immediate care for the child. Absent that, you're looking at increase mortality rates for mother and child, and when death is the alternative the idea of "choice" in healthcare loses all sense in which it is an accessible option to people. It's the choice of a gun to your head.
To go on: After birth it would also be considered child abuse to avoid taking a severely sick child to the doctor, which practically makes "choosing" to avoid healthcare illegal. For those who may never get sick? Healthcare is not a choice if it relies on extreme fortune to avoid it. People mostly end up needing doctors for things beyond their control. Relying on unassisted home birth followed by odds defying luck in never getting severely sick up and until the moment you die of a massive instantly fatal heart attack or something similar? That is not a choice.
This makes it hard to determine if you are hairsplitting for the sake of it or genuinely arguing for healthcare as a choice people can make. If it's the later, you're making a spurious argument from the potential for statistical anomalies.
I don't think it's a choice. But I think "everyone will require medical attention at some point" is unconvincing to the people you would need to convince, and the fact that it's not actually true doesn't help.
