3 ms·
> Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. This is probably false. Smokers rack up less health care costs than nonsmoke
by wheels 5y ago
> Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker.
This is probably false. Smokers rack up less health care costs than nonsmokers because they die earlier. The study I'm linking doesn't consider the possibility of exiting paying into a healthcare system early, but even most smokers die after retirement:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506
- erulabs 5y agoHah that is interesting. I don't think it changes my point tho - maybe just makes smoking a bad example. However, I was using it as a proxy for "anything that increases your health-care costs".
- alasdair_ 5y agoRetired people provide a lot of useful labor, it’s just much of it is in the home and therefore both unpaid and invisible. Grandparents provide childcare for working children and they help take care of their spouses that would otherwise need in-home care. It’s a complicated calculation.
- wheels 5y agoI think the argument that you're making is that smoking is a net-negative economically, which strikes me as plausible, if not obviously true. There you'd also need to go a step further and consider the economic contributions of the tobacco industry. You're right that it's very complicated (and macabre). But that's a broader question than whether or not their relative costs (vs. payments) into a healthcare system. The reason I brought up retirement is that most people in the west pay into health care systems until retirement, and only (or mostly) draw from it once retired.