5 ms·

In the short term yes, in the long term governments lose money due to chronic diseases caused by tobacco

metaphor 9y ago
> in the long term governments lose money due to chronic diseases caused by tobacco I don't follow how governments lose money in the long. Could you elaborate?
- polskibus 9y ago
  Smoking tobacco kills taxpayers. Illnesses caused by smoking are expensive to treat.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobduchen 9y ago
  I think these estimates from the CDC are pretty conservative. In the US, EVERY YEAR: "Smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year. Nearly $170 billion for direct medical care for adults More than $156 billion in lost productivity, including $5.6 billion in lost productivity due to secondhand smoke exposure" https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/econ... OFF-TOPIC A major way (the only way?) to curb tobacco usage is to simply increase taxes on tobacco usage, but politicians/bureaucracy prefers the short-term tobacco tax revenue. Cool article about Chinese tobacco tax rev: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/the-chinese-government-is-getting-rich-selling-cigarettes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/the-chine...
  - metaphor 9y ago
    Thanks for the link. CDC's reference 11 seems particularly relevant[1], although the $170 billion measure is not totally attributable to the government: from Table 3, more like $108.4 bil between Medicare ($45.0 bil), Medicaid ($39.6 bil), and other federal programs ($23.8 bil; e.g. Tricare, VA health benefits, etc.). The paper's data set and method of extrapolating portions of healthcare expenditures attributable to smoking does raise an eyebrow at first glance, but I've admittedly not dived deep enough. EDIT: > A major way (the only way?) to curb tobacco usage is to simply increase taxes on tobacco usage... If by curb you mean reducing the number of new adopters proportional to overall population, I agree and would support such a measure. As a former smoker and current smokeless tobacco user myself, I'd say those of us who fell for the trap are fucked six ways from Sunday; as much as I'd like to quit, my mind and body are way too dependent on nicotine to function effectively on a day-to-day basis. I'd need roughly 3 months of leave and a lot of mindless distractions to drop the habit. A significant increase in per-unit cost for no apparent reason (like 2-3x overnight) would probably work too...like a proverbial slap to the face that would incite just enough outrage on the merits to serve as an effective distraction, hopefully for long enough to allow physiological dependencies to permanently fade. [1] https://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.012 https://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.012
ahmedalsudani 9y ago
I believe this has been debunked. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-... Admission: I never got the chance to look at the research so I don’t know how reliable it is.
- jacobduchen 9y ago
  He brings up some interesting points, but he closes his article writing, "Those who die young save health care systems money, not cost." Yes... if everyone died, including the smokers, governments would effectively cut healthcare costs to 0. Thats not how public health systems work though. I would not say debunked
- shakna 9y ago
  The article certainly draws conclusions that the research doesn't. [0] It seems to be that the obese and smokers do cost a lot more on the healthcare system - however they also die earlier, and so the net cost ends up being less. > Nevertheless, these findings suggest that although effective obesity prevention reduces the costs of obesity-related diseases, this reduction is offset by the increased costs of diseases unrelated to obesity that occur during the extra years of life gained by slimming down. However, it doesn't seem like government funding into prevention or research were also tallied into the costs of the illnesses, which are not inconsiderable. [0] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- sjwright 9y ago
  > I believe this has been debunked. It might be true that it tobacco reduces the overall health care burden because it causes people to die earlier, but it's not relevant. Setting your car on fire might also have the side-effect of lowering the operating cost of that car.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Of course it's relevant to how much governments spend. You can't simply ignore the consequences you dislike. That doesn't mean it's a good reason not to discourage smoking, but that's because we shouldn't hinge that decision on the financial considerations in the first place.
mtgx 9y ago
Mostly in countries that have a national healthcare system, as the government has to pay directly for the harm caused by corporations to its population's health. This applies to the coal and oil/car industries, too. However, one could argue that even countries such as the U.S., which have a private healthcare system are negatively impacted by harmful industries like these, because the citizens pay for healthcare when they could be paying for something else. But the effect is not as direct, and it may not be as big either, as the government can still profit from taxes in the private healthcare industry and so on.
gaius 9y ago
In the short term yes, in the long term governments lose money due to chronic diseases caused by tobacco Smoking costs the NHS £2Bn/year while tobacco raises £12Bn/year in taxes, and smokers are less of a pension liability too. Noone wants to talk about what happens when smoking is eradicated and a huge chunk of tax just vanishes overnight...
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  This fact check gives estimates between 3 and 6 billion a year in direct health costs and possibly 14 billion in wider costs including e.g. missed work days due to illness and responding to more fires. https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes...
- DanBC 9y ago
  > Smoking costs the NHS £2Bn/year while tobacco raises £12Bn/year in taxes, If you ask the tobacco industry. They have a lousy track record, so you can understand people who don't believe them. Also, note this is a dubious claim in the UK with a > 80% tax rate, it's even shakier in countries with a lower tax rate.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Especially in USA...your last year can cost millions of dollars, paid or unpaid. Cancer treatment is expensive. That's without calculating asthma, missed days of work, productivity loss due to feeling sick etc etc. Now in third world countries cigarettes might actually save money, maybe. It kills quite a few before getting pensions, and healthcare is limited so you have to accept that your days are over.

> in the long term governments lose money due to chronic diseases caused by tobacco I don't follow how governments lose money in the long. Could you elaborate?

polskibus 9y ago
Smoking tobacco kills taxpayers. Illnesses caused by smoking are expensive to treat.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jacobduchen 9y ago
I think these estimates from the CDC are pretty conservative. In the US, EVERY YEAR: "Smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year. Nearly $170 billion for direct medical care for adults More than $156 billion in lost productivity, including $5.6 billion in lost productivity due to secondhand smoke exposure" https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/econ... OFF-TOPIC A major way (the only way?) to curb tobacco usage is to simply increase taxes on tobacco usage, but politicians/bureaucracy prefers the short-term tobacco tax revenue. Cool article about Chinese tobacco tax rev: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/the-chinese-government-is-getting-rich-selling-cigarettes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/the-chine...
- metaphor 9y ago
  Thanks for the link. CDC's reference 11 seems particularly relevant[1], although the $170 billion measure is not totally attributable to the government: from Table 3, more like $108.4 bil between Medicare ($45.0 bil), Medicaid ($39.6 bil), and other federal programs ($23.8 bil; e.g. Tricare, VA health benefits, etc.). The paper's data set and method of extrapolating portions of healthcare expenditures attributable to smoking does raise an eyebrow at first glance, but I've admittedly not dived deep enough. EDIT: > A major way (the only way?) to curb tobacco usage is to simply increase taxes on tobacco usage... If by curb you mean reducing the number of new adopters proportional to overall population, I agree and would support such a measure. As a former smoker and current smokeless tobacco user myself, I'd say those of us who fell for the trap are fucked six ways from Sunday; as much as I'd like to quit, my mind and body are way too dependent on nicotine to function effectively on a day-to-day basis. I'd need roughly 3 months of leave and a lot of mindless distractions to drop the habit. A significant increase in per-unit cost for no apparent reason (like 2-3x overnight) would probably work too...like a proverbial slap to the face that would incite just enough outrage on the merits to serve as an effective distraction, hopefully for long enough to allow physiological dependencies to permanently fade. [1] https://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.012 https://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.012

ahmedalsudani 9y ago

I believe this has been debunked. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-... Admission: I never got the chance to look at the research so I don’t know how reliable it is.

jacobduchen 9y ago
He brings up some interesting points, but he closes his article writing, "Those who die young save health care systems money, not cost." Yes... if everyone died, including the smokers, governments would effectively cut healthcare costs to 0. Thats not how public health systems work though. I would not say debunked
shakna 9y ago
The article certainly draws conclusions that the research doesn't. [0] It seems to be that the obese and smokers do cost a lot more on the healthcare system - however they also die earlier, and so the net cost ends up being less. > Nevertheless, these findings suggest that although effective obesity prevention reduces the costs of obesity-related diseases, this reduction is offset by the increased costs of diseases unrelated to obesity that occur during the extra years of life gained by slimming down. However, it doesn't seem like government funding into prevention or research were also tallied into the costs of the illnesses, which are not inconsiderable. [0] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
sjwright 9y ago
> I believe this has been debunked. It might be true that it tobacco reduces the overall health care burden because it causes people to die earlier, but it's not relevant. Setting your car on fire might also have the side-effect of lowering the operating cost of that car.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Of course it's relevant to how much governments spend. You can't simply ignore the consequences you dislike. That doesn't mean it's a good reason not to discourage smoking, but that's because we shouldn't hinge that decision on the financial considerations in the first place.

mtgx 9y ago

Mostly in countries that have a national healthcare system, as the government has to pay directly for the harm caused by corporations to its population's health. This applies to the coal and oil/car industries, too. However, one could argue that even countries such as the U.S., which have a private healthcare system are negatively impacted by harmful industries like these, because the citizens pay for healthcare when they could be paying for something else. But the effect is not as direct, and it may not be as big either, as the government can still profit from taxes in the private healthcare industry and so on.

gaius 9y ago

In the short term yes, in the long term governments lose money due to chronic diseases caused by tobacco Smoking costs the NHS £2Bn/year while tobacco raises £12Bn/year in taxes, and smokers are less of a pension liability too. Noone wants to talk about what happens when smoking is eradicated and a huge chunk of tax just vanishes overnight...

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
This fact check gives estimates between 3 and 6 billion a year in direct health costs and possibly 14 billion in wider costs including e.g. missed work days due to illness and responding to more fires. https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes...
DanBC 9y ago
> Smoking costs the NHS £2Bn/year while tobacco raises £12Bn/year in taxes, If you ask the tobacco industry. They have a lousy track record, so you can understand people who don't believe them. Also, note this is a dubious claim in the UK with a > 80% tax rate, it's even shakier in countries with a lower tax rate.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

Especially in USA...your last year can cost millions of dollars, paid or unpaid. Cancer treatment is expensive. That's without calculating asthma, missed days of work, productivity loss due to feeling sick etc etc. Now in third world countries cigarettes might actually save money, maybe. It kills quite a few before getting pensions, and healthcare is limited so you have to accept that your days are over.