No one is encouraging anyone else to pick up smoking. its merely to refute the common belief that smokers cost X more dollars than non-smokers in healthcare.  Need I say more, or do I need to explain the concept of sarcasm to you as well?

I say this is bullshit. Ironic that this is the first time this argument has been made, and it's right when Washington wants to pass a healthcare plan.

My mother had cancer due to smoking, and here medical expenses for 2 years were higher then mine, my sisters, and my fathers life time costs to date.

My father is 70, and extremely healthy. I would expect him to continue to be no cost to healthcare, right up until he heart gives out, and is pronounced DOA at the hospital.

Even if he has 3 hart attacks and a pace maker, it would be the fraction of the cost of my mother.

It's not the first time... it's the first time it's been reported possibly.

But i've found a lot of credible reports that have said the same.

I've yet to find a credible research study that dose the opposite.

Thats exactly what I was thinking, they seem to be just assuming that smokers just die, whereas in many cases the situation is similar to that of your mothers.

Smoke if you got em

To expand on that, my mother didn't die. With the treatment, her cancer went into recession.

So she lives on to be the same expense as a non-smoker. And the crazy part is, she still smokes, so in 2-3 years, we get to do it all over again.

I love my mother, but some of the things she does is just plain stupid.

^ :O how could someone still smoke after going through that?