6 ms·

I have very bad news for you. Smokers (and the obese) are cheaper in health care costs than non-smokers. Why? To be blunt, because smokers die early. Keeping

I have very bad news for you. Smokers (and the obese) are cheaper in health care costs than non-smokers. Why? To be blunt, because smokers die early. Keeping someone alive into their 90s is more expensive than someone who dies of smoking derived illness in their 70s or younger. This is similarly true for the obese. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506

martinald 7y ago
Yes, of course. Smokers and many other bad habits are great for the public purse - especially with less state pension payouts. But this isn't an argument we accept in public health. If it was, we wouldn't provide any healthcare that prolonged life after someone was after working age. Regardless there are still an awful lot of really dibilating conditions that massively affect productivity caused be tobacco related illnesses that isn't just death or cancer care.
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  I was replying to a comment proclaiming the financial savings. It isn’t a savings. It’s a cost. It may well be a cost worth paying. I’m not arguing policy. OP’s math made incorrect assumptions. Just letting them know.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
Yes and no. The use less. But they also are able to contribute less. That said, yes a whole lotta money is spent on the last 0 to 6 months (or so) of life. From what I understand, this is a USA only problem.
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  > From what I understand, this is a USA only problem. The study I linked was based on the Netherlands. I suspect the cost difference will be true for most countries. Unless you just let people die earlier. But that’s a whole other discussion. I don’t know if anyone has done any studies on productivity differences. That would be interesting.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    I was referring to the big spend on med treatment at the end of life. That's pretty much USA only.
- cm2012 7y ago
  Don't people more or less stop producing economic value at age 60 on average?
  - throw_m239339 7y ago
    How many people do you think retire at 60 today? At what age do you think you're going to retire yourself? Your question is either senseless or stupid. What does "producing economic value" even means?
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Obese people? Dying of diabetes related or heart attack? They going younger than 60. Furthermore, they're missing work, are less effective, etc.
scurvy 7y ago
It reminds me of the misguided logic in mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles. They're more costly because people have higher survival rates. Whereas people who make the bad decision of not wearing a helmet are killed quickly - there's no crazy surgeries. Just send the coroner. The laws should be taken off the books. It's cheaper to not have the bad decision makers around. (anti Idiocracy) Disclosure, I ride a MC every day.
- jnwatson 7y ago
  Plus, motorcyclists are excellent sources of organs. They don’t call them donorcycles for nothing.
  - sago 7y ago
    There is a fun poem about that: https://imgur.com/a/isGWqU4 https://imgur.com/a/isGWqU4 It is maybe dated a bit now. I think it refers to boomers (in the 90s/00s?) rather than modern riders. But still awkwardly accurate.
fortran77 7y ago
The obese have other very costly externalities, for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22657 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22657 They are more of a burden to society than smokers.

martinald 7y ago

Yes, of course. Smokers and many other bad habits are great for the public purse - especially with less state pension payouts. But this isn't an argument we accept in public health. If it was, we wouldn't provide any healthcare that prolonged life after someone was after working age. Regardless there are still an awful lot of really dibilating conditions that massively affect productivity caused be tobacco related illnesses that isn't just death or cancer care.

forrestthewoods 7y ago
I was replying to a comment proclaiming the financial savings. It isn’t a savings. It’s a cost. It may well be a cost worth paying. I’m not arguing policy. OP’s math made incorrect assumptions. Just letting them know.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

Yes and no. The use less. But they also are able to contribute less. That said, yes a whole lotta money is spent on the last 0 to 6 months (or so) of life. From what I understand, this is a USA only problem.

forrestthewoods 7y ago
> From what I understand, this is a USA only problem. The study I linked was based on the Netherlands. I suspect the cost difference will be true for most countries. Unless you just let people die earlier. But that’s a whole other discussion. I don’t know if anyone has done any studies on productivity differences. That would be interesting.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  I was referring to the big spend on med treatment at the end of life. That's pretty much USA only.
cm2012 7y ago
Don't people more or less stop producing economic value at age 60 on average?
- throw_m239339 7y ago
  How many people do you think retire at 60 today? At what age do you think you're going to retire yourself? Your question is either senseless or stupid. What does "producing economic value" even means?
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Obese people? Dying of diabetes related or heart attack? They going younger than 60. Furthermore, they're missing work, are less effective, etc.

scurvy 7y ago

It reminds me of the misguided logic in mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles. They're more costly because people have higher survival rates. Whereas people who make the bad decision of not wearing a helmet are killed quickly - there's no crazy surgeries. Just send the coroner. The laws should be taken off the books. It's cheaper to not have the bad decision makers around. (anti Idiocracy) Disclosure, I ride a MC every day.

jnwatson 7y ago
Plus, motorcyclists are excellent sources of organs. They don’t call them donorcycles for nothing.
- sago 7y ago
  There is a fun poem about that: https://imgur.com/a/isGWqU4 https://imgur.com/a/isGWqU4 It is maybe dated a bit now. I think it refers to boomers (in the 90s/00s?) rather than modern riders. But still awkwardly accurate.

fortran77 7y ago

The obese have other very costly externalities, for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22657 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22657 They are more of a burden to society than smokers.