I can't speak to AIDS vs Diabetes other than to say I noticed when insurance costs began to skyrocket was with the advent of AIDS. But, as a former smoker, I will comment about that:
During the years I smoked, I paid that extra cost without expecting my office mates to do the same - my choice, my cost.
Having said that, It matters not if different conditions should be charged the same, it matters if those who do NOT have a pre-existing condition are expected to chip in for those that do.
Should a non smoker pay the liability of a smoker?
Should a smoker pay for those with AIDS as well?
Those are rhetorical, of course. Insurance costs should not reflect moral judgments:
I've heard the sentiment that Smokers who get lung cancer deserve it, but non-smokers with lung cancer are somehow different - the cost to treat is the same, but the smoker has chipped in more due to a known liability, while the non smoker gets sympathy and skates on cost.
I’m not making moral judgements; just that conditions that are caused by habits or choices, or exacerbated, should be handled differently than conditions that are not.
Congratulations on being an ex-smoker! I am one too.
I have never had health insurance but from what I have read, people are charged a bit less if they do not smoke or have other good health habits; correct me if I am wrong.
Of course, to be really fair (playing by same rules, not meaning same outcome), people should be asked if they are monogamous or not, homosexual or not, etc as these factor in health costs.
But if someone gets lung cancer due to whatever the cause, or unknown cause, the treatment costs should not be different for different people.