5 ms·

We’re not trying to eliminate vice. We’re trying to decrease health care expenses we’re paying and the poisoning of children who live in said homes and have no

• rsj_hn 5y ago
  Smokers, as they die young but not so young as to reduce the labor force, save money rather than cost money. Quite a bit of money, actually[1,2]. People will of course die anyway and treating them of whatever cancer or heart disease they get when they are older also has costs. You can make arguments against smoking (it's not good to die prematurely of lung and heart disease) but these financial arguments aren't valid. [1]https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/smokers-save-govt-cash-says-report/FYUXTPA456UAK3KNA5RFYRL62U/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/smokers-save-govt-cash-says-re... [2]https://reason.com/2012/11/21/want-to-save-health-care-costs-then-subs/ https://reason.com/2012/11/21/want-to-save-health-care-costs...
  • lotsofpulp 5y ago
    In the US, since the costs for risk pool for over 65 and under 65 are allocated separately, unless the tobacco smokers are dying quite a few years before age 65, then they are more costly to members of the risk pool for people under 65. The simple proof of this is that insurers have no obligation to charge tobacco users a higher premium, but all of them do (for under age 65 insurance). If it was true that tobacco users were less costly from age 0 to 65, then insurers would not be charging tobacco users extra since any one could steal customers by offering a lower premium.