5 ms·

In Canada the alcoholics example holds because we have universal healthcare. Alcohol/tobacco is actually highly taxed because of this.

by Jack000 11y ago

DanielDent 11y ago
I've seen research indicating that tobacco users actually cost the Canadian healthcare system less overall: they die ~5 years younger, and healthcare costs go up with age.
- maaku 11y ago
  You're comparing a statistic of one population (smokers) with a different stat of another (general population). There's no conclusions to draw from that. E.g. healthcare costs go up with age because that's when people start dying. Smokers die at an earlier age, so they experience those costs earlier. Is this correct? Who knows, but it's one of the many ways in which the argument you wrote could be invalid.
  - DanielDent 11y ago
    You are quite right and I could have been more clear. In this case they specifically looked at the total healthcare costs and still concluded it was cheaper. Unfortunately I don't have a link and feel a strong [citation needed] flag is warranted. Furthermore, healthcare costs don't reflect the complete picture. Firstly, lost productivity is an issue. Secondly, we may not want a society where ritual suicide is encouraged at a pre-determined age with the goal of reducing healthcare costs.
    - crgt 11y ago
      Here's a link that mentions a NE Journal of Medicine report backing up your claim: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_1_smokers-pay-pack-of-cigarettes-cents http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_...
- kirrent 11y ago
  The same is certainly true in Australia. Smokers cost the healthcare system far less because they die sooner and faster. Of course, the value and efficiency of a healthcare system isn't measured in how little you can spend per a person but instead at what cost can you keep people healthy. In the case of smokers there's no way at any price point for the healthcare system to provide long term positive outcomes so it ends up being cheaper. That's not a good thing. Obviously I know this isn't what you're arguing. You're right in saying that alcohol and tobacco taxes aren't used to offset higher costs to healthcare. In most cases they're supposed to be a cost pressure to change consumption.
- refurb 11y ago
  I think that same study included savings from paying out pensions, etc. Smokers are subsidizing everyone!! How do you solve for that?

In Canada the alcoholics example holds because we have universal healthcare. Alcohol/tobacco is actually highly taxed because of this.

by Jack000 11y ago

In Canada the alcoholics example holds because we have universal healthcare. Alcohol/tobacco is actually highly taxed because of this.

DanielDent 11y ago

I've seen research indicating that tobacco users actually cost the Canadian healthcare system less overall: they die ~5 years younger, and healthcare costs go up with age.

maaku 11y ago
You're comparing a statistic of one population (smokers) with a different stat of another (general population). There's no conclusions to draw from that. E.g. healthcare costs go up with age because that's when people start dying. Smokers die at an earlier age, so they experience those costs earlier. Is this correct? Who knows, but it's one of the many ways in which the argument you wrote could be invalid.
- DanielDent 11y ago
  You are quite right and I could have been more clear. In this case they specifically looked at the total healthcare costs and still concluded it was cheaper. Unfortunately I don't have a link and feel a strong [citation needed] flag is warranted. Furthermore, healthcare costs don't reflect the complete picture. Firstly, lost productivity is an issue. Secondly, we may not want a society where ritual suicide is encouraged at a pre-determined age with the goal of reducing healthcare costs.
  - crgt 11y ago
    Here's a link that mentions a NE Journal of Medicine report backing up your claim: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_1_smokers-pay-pack-of-cigarettes-cents http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_...
kirrent 11y ago
The same is certainly true in Australia. Smokers cost the healthcare system far less because they die sooner and faster. Of course, the value and efficiency of a healthcare system isn't measured in how little you can spend per a person but instead at what cost can you keep people healthy. In the case of smokers there's no way at any price point for the healthcare system to provide long term positive outcomes so it ends up being cheaper. That's not a good thing. Obviously I know this isn't what you're arguing. You're right in saying that alcohol and tobacco taxes aren't used to offset higher costs to healthcare. In most cases they're supposed to be a cost pressure to change consumption.
refurb 11y ago
I think that same study included savings from paying out pensions, etc. Smokers are subsidizing everyone!! How do you solve for that?