Smokers vs Non-Smokers Cost on Society

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

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.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

Are we? Really? God, I'd love to have retired at age 20. :roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

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.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

Are we? Really? God, I'd love to have retired at age 20. :roll:

LOL!!! You're misreading his point.

His point is LIFETIME medical costs as an ADULT.

Smoking kills people late. On average, the life expectancy of a smoker is 10 years less than a non-smoker.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

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.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

Are we? Really? God, I'd love to have retired at age 20. :roll:

LOL!!! You're misreading his point.

His point is LIFETIME medical costs as an ADULT.

Smoking kills people late. On average, the life expectancy of a smoker is 10 years less than a non-smoker.

Smoking killed my mother at 53 years old (many years after she had quit). Hardly "post retirement". I know several people that have had lung cancer or emphysema in their 40's and 50's due to smoking. I don't call that late, I call that middle aged. And how do you measure productivity anyway? You realize there is a far greater number of retirees continuing employment past 65 years old than ever? And that's only one form of productivity. The fact is the study focuses on "age 20 on", not "post-retirement".

I'm not misreading any points, I'm creating educated conclusions based on the facts presented before me. There is simply a staggering amount if information missing. Now if the study put into results the average cost spread over years of life, I bet we'd see a far different cost picture. Amortize that ~100k over the additional 20 or so years, and I bet our smoker friends end up costing more per year of their life than the non-smokers do, especially when you correlate it to their productivity. But then again, they decided that wasn't important in their study.

That's the problem with studies like this - there's always a way to spin it one way or another.

 

[jpeyton]

Here's a huge gaping hole in that study:

People who stay healthier and live longer are more productive members of society. They provide more benefit to the economy than a smoker in a hospital bed dying prematurely of cancer.

Furthermore, it doesn't even address second-hand smoke.

Why else do you think the word "MAY" was used so prominently in the title.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NFS4
So, smokers are still disgusting and they smell like shit

So do bums, should be ban them as well??????

Don't forget hippies.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NFS4
So, smokers are still disgusting and they smell like shit

So do bums, should be ban them as well??????

Now that you mention it...

I might as well treat smokers as bums. No smoking in my house, no smoking in my car, I don't hang out with people that are smokers or go in restaurants that cater to smokers.

Second-hand smoke = disgusting

 

[evident]

who cares, smokers are still annoying as hell.

i hate nothing more then getting cleaned and dressed up to go to a bar or comedy club, then afterwards smelling like absolute crap

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here's a huge gaping hole in that study:

People who stay healthier and live longer are more productive members of society. They provide more benefit to the economy than a smoker in a hospital bed dying prematurely of cancer.

Furthermore, it doesn't even address second-hand smoke.

Why else do you think the word "MAY" was used so prominently in the title.

Should have read the thread.

Especially the part where people pointed out those living longer do so POST retirement and in the Medicare/Social Security ages thus costing more, and producing nothing.

 

[mugs]

Edit: nevermind

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here's a huge gaping hole in that study:

People who stay healthier and live longer are more productive members of society. They provide more benefit to the economy than a smoker in a hospital bed dying prematurely of cancer.

Furthermore, it doesn't even address second-hand smoke.

Why else do you think the word "MAY" was used so prominently in the title.

None of those have any bearing on insurance rates. Smokers cost less in insurance payouts (on average). This means that, on average, smokers should pay less for insurance than thin, healthy people.

The other "benefits to society" from longer life are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in monetary terms. As far as insurance payments go, it's pretty clear that, on average, smokers cost insurance companies less money overall.

ZV

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here's a huge gaping hole in that study:

People who stay healthier and live longer are more productive members of society. They provide more benefit to the economy than a smoker in a hospital bed dying prematurely of cancer.

Furthermore, it doesn't even address second-hand smoke.

Why else do you think the word "MAY" was used so prominently in the title.

None of those have any bearing on insurance rates. Smokers cost less in insurance payouts (on average). This means that, on average, smokers should pay less for insurance than thin, healthy people.

The other "benefits to society" from longer life are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in monetary terms. As far as insurance payments go, it's pretty clear that, on average, smokers cost insurance companies less money overall.

ZV

FTA:

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.

ZV is correct. Under the current model, healthier people do have to pay more for insurance. But just because we can't measure the contributions of retirees in financial terms doesn't mean they aren't there. I would bet that through volunteering, interpersonal relationships, etc., the spin-off effects of their "productivity" could offset their additional health care costs.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

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.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

Are we? Really? God, I'd love to have retired at age 20. :roll:

LOL!!! You're misreading his point.

His point is LIFETIME medical costs as an ADULT.

Smoking kills people late. On average, the life expectancy of a smoker is 10 years less than a non-smoker.

Smoking killed my mother at 53 years old (many years after she had quit). Hardly "post retirement". I know several people that have had lung cancer or emphysema in their 40's and 50's due to smoking. I don't call that late, I call that middle aged. And how do you measure productivity anyway? You realize there is a far greater number of retirees continuing employment past 65 years old than ever? And that's only one form of productivity. The fact is the study focuses on "age 20 on", not "post-retirement".

I'm not misreading any points, I'm creating educated conclusions based on the facts presented before me. There is simply a staggering amount if information missing. Now if the study put into results the average cost spread over years of life, I bet we'd see a far different cost picture. Amortize that ~100k over the additional 20 or so years, and I bet our smoker friends end up costing more per year of their life than the non-smokers do, especially when you correlate it to their productivity. But then again, they decided that wasn't important in their study.

That's the problem with studies like this - there's always a way to spin it one way or another.

:thumbsup: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
one day we will figure out the fairest, most logical, economical and efficient method will be for people to pay for the services they use

Then how would the insurance companies profit!!!!!!?????!!!!!

 

[ja1484]

Give me cost per year or get the fuck out.

 

[senseamp]

So let me guess, we should give cigarette companies a tax break for sending more Americans to an early grave?

 

[BladeVenom]

People who die early save society money in health care, social security, retirement, and nursing homes costs.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
one day we will figure out the fairest, most logical, economical and efficient method will be for people to pay for the services they use

Or just kill them when they hit 65 years old. Mandatory euthanization unless government deems you to be worth more than your drain on society.

-edit-
My tongue is firmly in cheek but this is the logical step and conclusion for people that try to use healtcare costs to impose social and governmental policy.

sounds like something Johnathan Swift would write if he were alive today.