5 ms·

Public health system == we get to ban smoking if we want. You are free to express your individual liberty wherever you currently are, please stay there.

tmnvix 5y ago
Smoking is taxed very heavily in NZ - to the point that smokers are a net financial benefit to the public health system.
- stubish 5y ago
  Money is only part of the problem. At least in Australia, the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. An unhealthy population strains what is a limited resource.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Obese people are far more likely to strain healthcare systems than smokers.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. Have they tried offering $5M per year to the doctor? $10M?
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  "There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-free-generation-with-lifetime-tobacco-ban-20211209-p59g7d.html https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    What is the value in measuring expenditure alone? Doesn't the income generated by those activities also factor into the equation?
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      Governments don't usually do things from the joy in their hearts, or out of the care for their constituents. I'm more inclined to think that smokers aren't subsidizing everyone as much as they like to think.
      - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
        Governments, when objectively correct, tend to release data to support their position. The only value in measuring expenditure alone is in how the uneducated interpret it as more favorable.
        brokenmachine 5y ago
        So what you're saying is that the government is leaving money on the table out of care for the health of the people? That's terrible...
  - tmnvix 5y ago
    Over what timeframe? It can't be yearly. The population of NZ is 5,000,000. The smoking rate is 12%. A saving of $5B/y would mean $8,333 per smoker, per year. Don't forget that a typical smoker in NZ might pay about $5000/y in tobacco tax ($100/w for 2.5 packs or 1 pouch per week taxed at 80%+). Let's call it a saving of $13,333/y then. But wait! This $5B figure obviously can't be based on eliminating smoking, just a reduction. So the estimate must be based on saving much more than $13,333/y for each smoker this 'stops'. On top of that, smokers on average die much younger than non-smokers. Healthcare costs are mostly accrued in old age.
poulsbohemian 5y ago
What you are saying here makes sense, but I wonder practically speaking how well a prohibition like this will work, given that universally whenever a government pushes back on some vice (alcohol or drugs, for example), it causes a backlash... I have to wonder if smoking is any different in this regard.
throwaway888abc 5y ago
The public health argument is really good one. Heard it a lot last couple of months. We can justify it all in name of public health, right ? Also please, take more decisions out of me - life is hard anyway :)
listless 5y ago
This is the best argument against a public health system. Once you turn it over, the government controls far more of your life than you bargained for. I suppose some people are OK with that. However, history is cold comfort to those of us who are skeptical.
- siquick 5y ago
  I'd rather have public healthcare and a government that "controls far more of your life" than some faceless insurance company controlling my access to healthcare.
  - legerdemain 5y ago
    You can become far healthier by yourself by exercising basic self-control and using a little bit of open-minded health research than by paying lots of money to some profit-minded doctors. No insurance company needed!
    - siquick 5y ago
      I'll remember that the next time I'm in A&E.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- RichEO 5y ago
  What history? I don’t know of any society that adopted socialised health care and there were overwhelmingly negative outcomes.

tmnvix 5y ago

Smoking is taxed very heavily in NZ - to the point that smokers are a net financial benefit to the public health system.

stubish 5y ago
Money is only part of the problem. At least in Australia, the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. An unhealthy population strains what is a limited resource.
- unmole 5y ago
  Obese people are far more likely to strain healthcare systems than smokers.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. Have they tried offering $5M per year to the doctor? $10M?
brokenmachine 5y ago
"There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-free-generation-with-lifetime-tobacco-ban-20211209-p59g7d.html https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  What is the value in measuring expenditure alone? Doesn't the income generated by those activities also factor into the equation?
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    Governments don't usually do things from the joy in their hearts, or out of the care for their constituents. I'm more inclined to think that smokers aren't subsidizing everyone as much as they like to think.
    - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
      Governments, when objectively correct, tend to release data to support their position. The only value in measuring expenditure alone is in how the uneducated interpret it as more favorable.
      - brokenmachine 5y ago
        So what you're saying is that the government is leaving money on the table out of care for the health of the people? That's terrible...
- tmnvix 5y ago
  Over what timeframe? It can't be yearly. The population of NZ is 5,000,000. The smoking rate is 12%. A saving of $5B/y would mean $8,333 per smoker, per year. Don't forget that a typical smoker in NZ might pay about $5000/y in tobacco tax ($100/w for 2.5 packs or 1 pouch per week taxed at 80%+). Let's call it a saving of $13,333/y then. But wait! This $5B figure obviously can't be based on eliminating smoking, just a reduction. So the estimate must be based on saving much more than $13,333/y for each smoker this 'stops'. On top of that, smokers on average die much younger than non-smokers. Healthcare costs are mostly accrued in old age.

poulsbohemian 5y ago

What you are saying here makes sense, but I wonder practically speaking how well a prohibition like this will work, given that universally whenever a government pushes back on some vice (alcohol or drugs, for example), it causes a backlash... I have to wonder if smoking is any different in this regard.

throwaway888abc 5y ago

The public health argument is really good one. Heard it a lot last couple of months. We can justify it all in name of public health, right ? Also please, take more decisions out of me - life is hard anyway :)

listless 5y ago

This is the best argument against a public health system. Once you turn it over, the government controls far more of your life than you bargained for. I suppose some people are OK with that. However, history is cold comfort to those of us who are skeptical.

siquick 5y ago
I'd rather have public healthcare and a government that "controls far more of your life" than some faceless insurance company controlling my access to healthcare.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  You can become far healthier by yourself by exercising basic self-control and using a little bit of open-minded health research than by paying lots of money to some profit-minded doctors. No insurance company needed!
  - siquick 5y ago
    I'll remember that the next time I'm in A&E.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
RichEO 5y ago
What history? I don’t know of any society that adopted socialised health care and there were overwhelmingly negative outcomes.