4 ms·

> It is the largest single expense to employers and to the [Canadian] healthcare system. I've read numerous times that smokers are actually a net gain for a he

> It is the largest single expense to employers and to the [Canadian] healthcare system. I've read numerous times that smokers are actually a net gain for a healthcare system, assuming the same system pays for the whole life of the patient. The majority of medical costs are incurred by a small minority of patients, usually at the very end of their lives. Smokers die earlier and faster, usually without the slow and expensive deterioration many healthier patients will go through.

artursapek 8y ago
So squirrel suit fliers must be a huge discount then.
- repsilat 8y ago
  For countries with public health systems, retiree squirrel-suit fliers are the ideal -- they die cheaply, and have finished paying taxes and started taking pensions.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Whether actually true or not, tobacco companies have definitely used this argument in lobbying against anti-smoking public health efforts, particularly in Eastern Europe. Of course at best this argument assumes that you are looking at cost for a comparable standard of care, not cost for comparable health outcomes.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > Of course at best this argument To me, this deflects from the main question of whether it is true or not. Or in other words, whether those quoting the "costs" of smoking (as a justification for further anti-smoking measures) are using dishonest propaganda. Also known as lying.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > To me, this deflects from the main question of whether it is true or not. It points out that the question the claim addresses is different then that addressed by the opposing claim (and different than the policy concern that is usually beoing addressed.) Which means its truth is orthogonal, rather than opposed, to the truth of the other claim.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Lost productivity is a huge cost for smoking (to say: we lose out on the fruits of labor, particularly of some great people). But then most smokers don't just quickly die of cancer, but do have much larger incidents of heart disease, which can pressure the healthcare system.
koolba 8y ago
Plus the same government is paying for pensions / social security so there's a "double dip" of savings when they die earlier.

artursapek 8y ago

So squirrel suit fliers must be a huge discount then.

repsilat 8y ago
For countries with public health systems, retiree squirrel-suit fliers are the ideal -- they die cheaply, and have finished paying taxes and started taking pensions.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Whether actually true or not, tobacco companies have definitely used this argument in lobbying against anti-smoking public health efforts, particularly in Eastern Europe. Of course at best this argument assumes that you are looking at cost for a comparable standard of care, not cost for comparable health outcomes.

mistermann 8y ago
> Of course at best this argument To me, this deflects from the main question of whether it is true or not. Or in other words, whether those quoting the "costs" of smoking (as a justification for further anti-smoking measures) are using dishonest propaganda. Also known as lying.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > To me, this deflects from the main question of whether it is true or not. It points out that the question the claim addresses is different then that addressed by the opposing claim (and different than the policy concern that is usually beoing addressed.) Which means its truth is orthogonal, rather than opposed, to the truth of the other claim.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Lost productivity is a huge cost for smoking (to say: we lose out on the fruits of labor, particularly of some great people). But then most smokers don't just quickly die of cancer, but do have much larger incidents of heart disease, which can pressure the healthcare system.

koolba 8y ago

Plus the same government is paying for pensions / social security so there's a "double dip" of savings when they die earlier.