View Full Version : Smokers cost the taxpayers less than healthy people
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 00:40
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_he_me/obesity_cost;_ylt=AuMfFAtx1cb3vretmXJiMsys0NUE
Very interesting study. Turns out healthy people live longer and thus cost the taxpayers more money. One of the big arguments I've heard against drug legalization is that they shouldn't be legalized because of the health care costs. This argument is clearly refuted here for the drugs that cause gradual health problems. Will this help lead to their legalization?
I doubt it. The prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, much less other drugs, isn't driven by logic. If we were doing the reasonable thing, we certainly wouldn't spend massive sums of money to warehouse and feed first-time non-violent drug users.
It's some sort of ever-present moral panic. I can't claim to understand it. But trust me, if you could conclusively prove that drug users cost our society less than healthy octogenarians, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of policy difference.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_he_me/obesity_cost;_ylt=AuMfFAtx1cb3vretmXJiMsys0NUE
Very interesting study. Turns out healthy people live longer and thus cost the taxpayers more money. One of the big arguments I've heard against drug legalization is that they shouldn't be legalized because of the health care costs. This argument is clearly refuted here for the drugs that cause gradual health problems. Will this help lead to their legalization?
That's a great argument to legalize something.
Hey it will cost us less money, but kill more people in the process!
No I don't think it will help legalization it at all.
Proletariat
02-06-2008, 02:07
I've actually been saying this for ages. Without having read the study yet, I've always known that since I smoke alot, I'm paying alot more in taxes and also taking myself out of the pool who needs healthcare services incredibly quicker than you health freaks.
Just doing my civic duty, no need to thank me
KukriKhan
02-06-2008, 02:30
I've actually been saying this for ages. Without having read the study yet, I've always known that since I smoke alot, I'm paying alot more in taxes and also taking myself out of the pool who needs healthcare services incredibly quicker than you health freaks.
Just doing my civic duty, no need to thank me
^^dit- (cough, cough, wheeze, gasp) to!^^
:)
We shell out an incredible sin-tax burden to pay to prevent new smokers, and to finance kidney transplants for you health freaks who forgot to hydrate whilst jogging between salad-munching venues.
And since (through our sintax-paid no-new-smokers efforts) there'll be fewer smokers paying that sin-tax 15 years from now, I fully expect, and have resolved to accept, that when I finally cough up that second lung, the paramedics won't take me to hospital - they'll just stuff the organ back in, slap me on the back, and leave a bill for $2,000 for the house call.
And I'll pour one final Chivas (taxed 3-times it's honest retail), and fire up one final Marlboro (taxed 5 times it's honest retail), confident that I've done my duty for freedom, the living, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 02:34
That's a great argument to legalize something.
Hey it will cost us less money, but kill more people in the process!
No I don't think it will help legalization it at all.
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
LittleGrizzly
02-06-2008, 03:35
I like to pay lots of tax duty to the goverment so if they could maybe extend thier range of legal products I could pay more tax, and take up lessif i get caught, everyones a winner.
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
I don't like to apply blanket statements.
Crazed Rabbit
02-06-2008, 04:49
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
Ha! Our current society is based on the concept that government is a restrictive parent out to tell us what to do.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 05:13
Ha! Our current society is based on the concept that government is a restrictive parent out to tell us what to do.
CR
If by current society you mean the republican party ~:)
Crazed Rabbit
02-06-2008, 06:04
Oh, you mean the dems don't support seat belt laws or smoking restrictions or sin taxes?
~;p
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 06:09
Sigh. Too true.
Although I'm entirely in favor of seat belt laws. It's no bother to wear a seatbelt.
Although I'm entirely in favor of seat belt laws. It's no bother to wear a seatbelt.
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
Dead people cost taxpayers less than living people ...
Let's commit mass suicide! No more taxes, here I come!
:hanged:
HoreTore
02-06-2008, 10:45
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
Well, I wear a seat belt. If I get into a crash with someone who doesn't, his body will be thrown through the front window and into my car, thus killing me when I would've survived if he wore a seat belt.
No, people shouldn't be allowed to kill others. :clown:
If you smokers are so eager to die, why shouldn't we just shoot all of you and be done with it? I can already see all the new open jobs, less hunger and poor people in the world, sounds good, doesn't it?
"Live fast, die young(preferably very young)."
"The early smoker gets the bullet."
:painting:
Ironside
02-06-2008, 10:50
Dead people cost taxpayers less than living people ...
Let's commit mass suicide! No more taxes, here I come!
:hanged:
Psh, if you're in good health and working then you're not allowed to suecide. That's only allowed if you're sick or going into pension.
Psh, if you're in good health and working then you're not allowed to suecide. That's only allowed if you're sick or going into pension.
Why are you against freedom?
Well, I wear a seat belt. If I get into a crash with someone who doesn't, his body will be thrown through the front window and into my car, thus killing me when I would've survived if he wore a seat belt.
No, people shouldn't be allowed to kill others. :clown:
Is that what you really tell yourself? I want to see some studies to prove that's possible, cough them up.
Ser Clegane
02-06-2008, 12:54
It should be noted that the study only focuses on one aspect of the whole aspect of costs.
The economic effects of higher numbers of sick days were not taken into account.
Fourth, it is important to stress that we have focused solely on health-care costs related to smoking and obesity, ignoring broader cost categories and consequences of these risk factors to society. It is likely, however, that these impacts will be substantial. For instance, reduced morbidity in people of working age may improve productivity and thus result in sizeable productivity gains in society (e.g., [44]). In the case of smoking and obesity, these indirect costs could well be higher than the direct medical costs [8,18]. Moreover, from a societal perspective, other potentially substantial costs and consequences need to be considered, such as those related to informal care, the damage due to fires caused by smoking, or the reduced well-being of family members due to morbidity and premature death. These different cost categories emphasize the influence the perspective taken in economic analyses has on the conclusions. From a welfare economic perspective the societal perspective is, in fact, the most relevant [45], although in practice many evaluations take a narrower perspective, which more closely conforms to the perspective most relevant to the decision-maker they are trying to inform [46].
study (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029&ct=1)
Meneldil
02-06-2008, 13:15
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
Yeah of course.
Should they be allowed to piss the hell out of me because the're drunk or are smoking near me ? Hell no.
Yeah of course.
Should they be allowed to piss the hell out of me because the're drunk or are smoking near me ? Hell no.
Of course the difference of the two seems too hard for several people to understand. :dunce:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 18:55
Yeah of course.
Should they be allowed to piss the hell out of me because the're drunk or are smoking near me ? Hell no.
Your avatar pisses the hell out of me, change it ~;)
Something annoying you is no basis for making it illegal.
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?
I don't think anyone wants to not wear a seatbelt. Do you know anyone who drives around saying "I'd be having a good time if it weren't for this blasted seatbelt!"?
LittleGrizzly
02-06-2008, 19:41
I don't think anyone wants to not wear a seatbelt. Do you know anyone who drives around saying "I'd be having a good time if it weren't for this blasted seatbelt!"?
I used to get pretty car sick as a child and the belt would worsen my car sickness, now if i still had car sickness as bad as i had the last sentence could apply to me, I occasionally don't wear my seatbelt if i feel a bit queasy.
I don't think anyone wants to not wear a seatbelt. Do you know anyone who drives around saying "I'd be having a good time if it weren't for this blasted seatbelt!"?Personally, I think seatbelts are a good safety feature for a very minor inconvenience. However, I know people that absolutely despise seatbelts- think them inconvenient, uncomfortable, and so on. Why do you support forcing them onto people who do think they're inconvenient just because they are not?
Again, it gets back to:
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?Why do you think people should be free to kill themselves with drugs, but not by refusing to wear a seatbelt?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 19:59
However, I know people that absolutely despise seatbelts- think them inconvenient, uncomfortable, and so on.
I think it's a fifty dollar fine that can't be compared to years in prison, and a minor inconvenience that can't be compared to what for some people is their primary mode of recreation.
Shouldn't people be allowed to be unhealthy if they want to?(Unless I judge it to be a minor inconvenience to be 'healthy' and I deem the punishment for non-compliance appropriate- then it's ok.):wink:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2008, 20:39
Haha, fine, have it your way ~:)
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 08:15
Is that what you really tell yourself? I want to see some studies to prove that's possible, cough them up.
Haven't you heard of people flung out of the front screen during car crashes? Happens a lot if people aren't wearing their safety belts.
And with a guy flung out of his own car, there is of course a chance that he will hit my car, and a chance that he will hit and kill me.
"Something annoying you is no basis for making it illegal." Er, yes it does. If not why do we have laws...:laugh4:
All what cost money to the society should be ban: Climbing mountains (cost a lot in helicopteres flights to rescue these poeple) swimming, diving, speleogogy, driving car, crossing streets, eating unhealthy food (delicious BUT costly in terms of health) etc.
Thanks to this new concept, the 19th century Moral Leagues would be happy to live now: no smoke, no alcohol, and soon no sex. New research prove it is bad for your heart (ask the Archibishop of Paris who died in a Prostitute bed room. Giving her a confession they said at the time. Don't remember the date but was at the beguinning of 20th Century).:shame:
Your avatar pisses the hell out of me, change it ~;)
Something annoying you is no basis for making it illegal.
A little more than just annoying: passive smoking is unhealthy. :saint:
"Something annoying you is no basis for making it illegal." Er, yes it does. If not why do we have laws...:laugh4:
All what cost money to the society should be ban: Climbing mountains (cost a lot in helicopteres flights to rescue these poeple) swimming, diving, speleogogy, driving car, crossing streets, eating unhealthy food (delicious BUT costly in terms of health) etc.
Thanks to this new concept, the 19th century Moral Leagues would be happy to live now: no smoke, no alcohol, and soon no sex. New research prove it is bad for your heart (ask the Archibishop of Paris who died in a Prostitute bed room. Giving her a confession they said at the time. Don't remember the date but was at the beguinning of 20th Century).:shame:
A nice mixing of arguments. :whip:
Kralizec
02-08-2008, 16:27
It should be noted that the study only focuses on one aspect of the whole aspect of costs.
The economic effects of higher numbers of sick days were not taken into account.
It should also be noted then that the study only considers costs, not the tax income that comes from tobacco. Over here the government earns 3 to 4 times more than the manufacturer for each pack of cigarettes.
None of that changes the fact that smoking is bad, but I've been told more than once that my habit is "costing us non-smokers money". Now I'll show them :2thumbsup:
Meneldil
02-09-2008, 10:54
Your avatar pisses the hell out of me, change it ~;)
Something annoying you is no basis for making it illegal.
Dying in a car crash because some dude decided that he could drive while being drunk is not only annoying, but also quite unhealthy.
Just like having some man smoking near me might be bad for my health. If I want to poison myself, that's fine. But I don't want some unknown Joe to poison me.
Note that if said Joe wants to poison himself, that's fine aswell. People are entitled to be unhealthy. As long as they do it in private.
FactionHeir
02-09-2008, 11:22
This is something public health workers have been aware of for nearly a decade already. Indeed, the Czech president, Milos Zegman, had said on a public announcement that "by smoking, I contribute to the stability of the state budget. I increase state and I will die of lung cancer and the revenues state won't have to pay my pension."
Basically, if everyone stopped smoking (or other behavior that affects you a few decades onwards), the state loses revenue from taxes and the pension system might face a collapse with people living to a higher age and thus eligible for more pension payments. However, behavior that kills you in the short term or increases morbidity over that short period is detrimental to government budgets due to lost working hours and sick leaves if you are employed that is. If you are unemployed or beyond working age, well, dying is better for the state.
As above, the reason smoking contributes to the nation, is because smokers' survival curve levels off much faster after age 45 compared to non smokers and exsmokers. So by the time age 70 comes, 19% of non smokers are dead while 42% of smokers won't live another year, according to a study by Doll R et. al from 2004. Might not be fully generalizable of course as he studied male doctors in the UK, not elements of the general population.
HoreTore
02-09-2008, 18:26
Basically, if everyone stopped smoking (or other behavior that affects you a few decades onwards), the state loses revenue from taxes
I'd say that is a bad argument. If they banned tobacco, it would be the smallest problem in the world to add another tax to make up for it. :whip:
This is something public health workers have been aware of for nearly a decade already. Indeed, the Czech president, Milos Zegman, had said on a public announcement that "by smoking, I contribute to the stability of the state budget. I increase state and I will die of lung cancer and the revenues state won't have to pay my pension."
Basically, if everyone stopped smoking (or other behavior that affects you a few decades onwards), the state loses revenue from taxes and the pension system might face a collapse with people living to a higher age and thus eligible for more pension payments. However, behavior that kills you in the short term or increases morbidity over that short period is detrimental to government budgets due to lost working hours and sick leaves if you are employed that is. If you are unemployed or beyond working age, well, dying is better for the state.
As above, the reason smoking contributes to the nation, is because smokers' survival curve levels off much faster after age 45 compared to non smokers and exsmokers. So by the time age 70 comes, 19% of non smokers are dead while 42% of smokers won't live another year, according to a study by Doll R et. al from 2004. Might not be fully generalizable of course as he studied male doctors in the UK, not elements of the general population.
:inquisitive:
Crazed Rabbit
02-10-2008, 03:58
Sigh. Too true.
Although I'm entirely in favor of seat belt laws. It's no bother to wear a seatbelt.
Well then you've already started down the path of telling people what's good for them. And then its only a matter of where you draw the line. Now, you tell me, do you see that line moving towards more or less government intervention in our lives?
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-10-2008, 04:03
Everything is only a matter of where you draw the line. I think for almost every policy if you make a blanket statement (like the one I was corrected) you'll end up with an untenable position.
Crazed Rabbit
02-10-2008, 04:26
No, I would have to disagree. You can choose to have the government not tell the people what is good for them at all. If you want to call it drawing the line, then just say you draw the line at nothing.
CR
Sarmatian
02-10-2008, 09:07
"[B] Thanks to this new concept, the 19th century Moral Leagues would be happy to live now: no smoke, no alcohol, and soon no sex. New research prove it is bad for your heart (ask the Archibishop of Paris who died in a Prostitute bed room. Giving her a confession they said at the time. Don't remember the date but was at the beguinning of 20th Century).:shame:
Aren't all studies saying that sex is good for the health? And now they've found out it isn't? Bummer... There goes my number 1 pickup line...
Papewaio
02-11-2008, 04:31
Definitely missing a lot of factors like, productivity, ROI (all those years of school, means that society invested in you and would expect something back... maybe make a HECS on school costs for smokers), a person who dies before retirement age is also lost tax revenue...
LittleGrizzly
02-12-2008, 10:40
Wouldn't the majority of smoking deaths be around 50 years old ? at this point theres only a few years of working left anyway...
also does anyone have any data on extra days off for smokers i seem to only get the occasional cough which doesn't stop me working (unless im feeling really lazy)
In the UK at least people pay a crazy amount of tax on cigerettes, ive heard 75% of the price is tax, i think UK smokers pay for themselves and more.
Papewaio
02-12-2008, 23:51
Wouldn't the majority of smoking deaths be around 50 years old ? at this point theres only a few years of working left anyway...
I think they die on average later then 50 (some do die a lot younger too). Considering that most males work until 60 or 65 (72 in one of my Grandfathers case, the other was skiing Whistler at that age and ran his own B&B until late 70's)... if they did die at 50 then you have lost maybe a third of their working life and in some cases that experienced phase is when the money kicks in as the accumulated knowledge becomes very useful.
Now there is a secondary economic effect. Lots of young parents who are working rely on Grandparents to look after the grandchildren... so even though a lot of smokers will actually die much later then 50 a lot of the time they are too unhealthy to look after grandchildren, in fact in some of them they require help from their children so they cannot easily go to work too. Nature evolved menopause for a reason, dying at that age kind of negates one of our advantages.
If you have ever seen someone with asthma you would find it bizarre that someone would duplicate such an affliction by smoking until they have advanced lung problems.
LittleGrizzly
02-13-2008, 15:24
I think they die on average later then 50 (some do die a lot younger too). Considering that most males work until 60 or 65 (72 in one of my Grandfathers case, the other was skiing Whistler at that age and ran his own B&B until late 70's)... if they did die at 50 then you have lost maybe a third of their working life and in some cases that experienced phase is when the money kicks in as the accumulated knowledge becomes very useful.
ok maybe 50 was a bit early but i think my point was most manage to get most of thier working life in before smoking kills them.
Aren't smokers more likely to be in lower income brackets ? I think i have heard this before, and due to other factors to do with lower income aren't they more likely to be the smokers that die youner ?
Now there is a secondary economic effect. Lots of young parents who are working rely on Grandparents to look after the grandchildren... so even though a lot of smokers will actually die much later then 50 a lot of the time they are too unhealthy to look after grandchildren, in fact in some of them they require help from their children so they cannot easily go to work too. Nature evolved menopause for a reason, dying at that age kind of negates one of our advantages.
I suppose an active healthy retired person would also have other positive effects, volunteer work around the local community to do with young people, charity or just helping out at the local church. Would the quicker turn around of this persons inheritence have a positive economic effect ? it sounds about right to me but im no economist...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.