By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Help the US Economy: Pick up Smoking

_____

Too Long, Didn't Read Version:

Smokers may cost more in healthcare, but that is offset by the fact that they die sooner. Healther people live longer, therefore, the cost to keep them alive for an extra 10 years or so that drives up the cost of healthcare/pension/social security. On average, a smoker who dies 10 years earlier than the healthy non-smoker gives us a net cost savings of 32 cents per patient.

______

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_he_me/fact_check_fda_tobacco;_ylt=AuRv7LZdJNlP0CP8CayKSAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFkYzlmMmkwBHBvcwMxMzkEc2VjA2FjY29yZGlvbl9oZWFsdGgEc2xrA2ZhY3RjaGVja2Rvcw--

 

WASHINGTON – Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too — by living longer.

It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.

House members described huge health care costs associated with smoking as they approved landmark legislation last week giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer.

Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.

White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."

Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states but said that his research, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has never been funded by industry.

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.

"We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."

Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations.

The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."

Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.

"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."

 



Around the Network

So, fat alcoholic smokers are the answer to the health care crisis?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

That Guy said:

Smokers may cost more in healthcare, but that is offset by the fact that they die sooner. Healther people live longer, therefore, the cost to keep them alive for an extra 10 years or so that drives up the cost of healthcare/pension/social security. On average, a smoker who dies 10 years earlier than the healthy non-smoker gives us a net cost savings of 32 cents per patient.

I don't personally believe in much regulation over smoking, though I find the "second-hand smoke" argument to be at least worth considering.  But the healthcare cost argument?  Is ghastly, and one of the reasons why some people get a little bent out of shape over the idea of national healthcare.

I mean, if we start thinking that, since government pays for healthcare, it should be able to regulate people's "health-related" activities... well, that's goodbye liberty, right?

So, let's not try to weasel past that argument by saying, "well... not smoking actually costs more"; let's stick by the stronger, more important message, that the government has no business telling people that they can't do things that are unhealthy for them.



Tyrannical said:
So, fat alcoholic smokers are the answer to the health care crisis?

 

YES! Save the economy, take a burger for lunch and a pack of cig for snack.



I support this.

Unfortunatly I won't take place because I like being healthy.



Around the Network

Just the point I was trying to make in an earlier thread on why the taxing of tobacco has nothing to do with the healthcare costs and everything to do with lazy politicians targeting their way to free cash rather then actually have to make cuts.



WessleWoggle said:
I support this.

Unfortunatly I won't take place because I like being healthy.

 



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

donathos said:

That Guy said:

Smokers may cost more in healthcare, but that is offset by the fact that they die sooner. Healther people live longer, therefore, the cost to keep them alive for an extra 10 years or so that drives up the cost of healthcare/pension/social security. On average, a smoker who dies 10 years earlier than the healthy non-smoker gives us a net cost savings of 32 cents per patient.

I don't personally believe in much regulation over smoking, though I find the "second-hand smoke" argument to be at least worth considering.  But the healthcare cost argument?  Is ghastly, and one of the reasons why some people get a little bent out of shape over the idea of national healthcare.

I mean, if we start thinking that, since government pays for healthcare, it should be able to regulate people's "health-related" activities... well, that's goodbye liberty, right?

So, let's not try to weasel past that argument by saying, "well... not smoking actually costs more"; let's stick by the stronger, more important message, that the government has no business telling people that they can't do things that are unhealthy for them.

 

This was just a funny article and I didn't mean to have any sort of political spin on it. 

I mean, if the goal was just to cut costs, we could just stop treating people period. I think even the article mentions that. But the question now is "how much is a life worth to you?"

 



WessleWoggle said:
I support this.

Unfortunatly I won't take place because I like being healthy.

You selfish bastard!

 



This is the most stupid article/thread I have ever read. Encouraging people to take up smoking? Smoking kills millions of people worldwide every year and the evil Tobacco companies get richer.

The US government gets rich through taxes on tobacco sales which they just waste on idiotic schemes. $US 1.3 billion dollar, US Bailout packages lol.