4 ms·

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/ ht

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.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    I think there are a lot of reasons to scoff at the "but death saves money" argument. Most of those reasons have to do with the difficulty of accounting for the value of a life fully lived. E.g., if a highly educated worker dies ten years before retirement, how much productive labor did the society that educated that person lose out on? What about the non-paid labor that the elderly/retired often take on? "Free" child care for the grand kids, much higher rates of volunteering in churches/schools/etc., and so on. Suffice it to say that this is not exactly a trivial computation...
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I wouldn't say it's trivial, but it does probably save money overall. Highly educated workers are rare overall, and they smoke at much lower rates, so they barely count to the average. The elderly get an income enough to live off plus usually quite a lot of expensive healthcare for many other conditions - and I'm glad they do! But not for financial reasons.
moby_click 9y ago
Usually, there's a medically expensive period before death and the burden may even begin in the productive years. Smoking probably causes higher incidence and severity of common diseases like influenza, additionally resulting in loss of labour, income and associated taxes.

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.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I think there are a lot of reasons to scoff at the "but death saves money" argument. Most of those reasons have to do with the difficulty of accounting for the value of a life fully lived. E.g., if a highly educated worker dies ten years before retirement, how much productive labor did the society that educated that person lose out on? What about the non-paid labor that the elderly/retired often take on? "Free" child care for the grand kids, much higher rates of volunteering in churches/schools/etc., and so on. Suffice it to say that this is not exactly a trivial computation...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I wouldn't say it's trivial, but it does probably save money overall. Highly educated workers are rare overall, and they smoke at much lower rates, so they barely count to the average. The elderly get an income enough to live off plus usually quite a lot of expensive healthcare for many other conditions - and I'm glad they do! But not for financial reasons.

moby_click 9y ago

Usually, there's a medically expensive period before death and the burden may even begin in the productive years. Smoking probably causes higher incidence and severity of common diseases like influenza, additionally resulting in loss of labour, income and associated taxes.