5 ms·
> however, e-cigarettes end up saving billions in health care dollars I believe the jury is still out on whether or not smokers have more expensive health care
by sumy23 4y ago
> however, e-cigarettes end up saving billions in health care dollars
I believe the jury is still out on whether or not smokers have more expensive health care requirements than non-smokers. Smokers tend to die younger and quicker than non-smokers, so their health care needs may actually be less than most non-smokers. They've also voluntarily paid a huge amount of additional taxes throughout their lifetime.
- FireBeyond 4y ago> I believe the jury is still out on whether or not smokers have more expensive health care requirements than non-smokers. Using your argument, "dying early is a benefit when it comes to healthcare costs"... "I believe the jury is still out on whether chronic drunk drivers have more expensive health care requirements than non-drunk drivers." Huh.
- scotty79 4y agoDying younger is not a benefit. Years of people's lives are worth the taxes they pay during those years. And everything is taxed.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y agoAre pensioners paying that much in taxes, compared to estate tax?
- sumy23 4y ago> Dying younger is not a benefit. It is when talking about healthcare costs.
- bombcar 4y agoDying younger is a huge cost-savings, especially if it known non-treatable and quick. And once you're retired you're providing less tax than you're consuming (for most people) so there's a double benefit! Die at 65 and help balance the budget today!
- scotty79 4y agoThe point is, if you don't smoke it's less likely you'll get infirm. You'll live longer and pay taxes on that. And if your retirement is funded by private insurer it's not a cost to the country. But you still pay taxes on what you consume.
- sumy23 4y agoBut you also receive social security and Medicare, which are the two of the largest government expenditures. You’re not making a convincing argument that living longer is a revenue positive for the government.
- bombcar 4y agoSmoking-related issues kill and quickly. Most everyone will get lingering cancer at some point later and (can) consume large amounts of healthcare at that point. It's been studied, and those past income-earning age may pay few if any taxes in the US (food is not taxed, there are ways to get pension income untaxed, and the standard deduction is in play, mainly property tax is the one still collected).
- reaperducer 4y agoIt is when talking about healthcare costs. Not really. Only if by "dying younger" you mean being instantly killed in a car crash or by a falling piano. But someone dying at 80 of a heart attack is less costly than someone dying at 40 after being treated for a decade for several cancers caused by smoking.
- pessimizer 4y agoThis is a spurious comparison. Someone dying at 40 after being treated for a decade for several cancers caused by smoking is not going to end up dying at 80 after being treated for a decade for several cancers caused by living long enough.
- reaperducer 4y agoThis is a spurious comparison Not at all. I work in healthcare. We make these comparisons all the time.
- sumy23 4y agoBut why compare a cancer patient to a heart attack patient? What about smokers that die of heart disease, which they are more likely to get? What about non-smokers that die of cancer at 80 after a decade of chemo? Or the elderly that die at 95 after a 20 year battle with dementia?