• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Smokers vs Non-Smokers Cost on Society

T

TheBloodguard

Senior member
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.

MSNBC Link

Need to start charging more for health insurance for those thin and healthy people!



 
Originally posted by: TheBloodguard

Need to start charging more for health insurance for those thin and healthy people!
Click to expand...

That's not true, smoking causes more health insurance payouts than healthy people. What you should be saying is that the government needs to start handing out free smokes. 😉
 
Wow, worst study ever.

What happened to SMOKERS VS NON-SMOKERS? Where the fuck did thin and healthy come from?

Fail.
 
😕
I would like to thank all smokers for this unexpected but valuable contribution to the common good.

By dying earlier, you are saving us a ton of money.

Thanks.
 
Just basically reinforces the notion that SS & other benefits should be shifted back to a later date because we are living longer as a whole. Healthy or not, our life expectancy has surpased our fiscal solvency.
 
Originally posted by: James Bond
Wow, worst study ever.

What happened to SMOKERS VS NON-SMOKERS? Where the fuck did thin and healthy come from?

Fail.
Click to expand...

Probably because obesity has huge and documented increases in health care costs and is a disorder in its own right. It doesn't make sense to compare smokers to obese people. And it doesn't make sense to compare smokers to chronically-ill people.

Face it, the knee-jerk notion that healthy people cost less to society is wrong.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yup. Smokers tend to die much earlier than non-smokers, which saves a lot of money in late-life care.

ZV
Click to expand...

Smokers also tend to get more aggressive cancers. Small cell carcinomas are more prevalent in smokers, and the prognosis isn't good. Typically around 18-24 month survival unless you are lucky and catch it early.
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yup. Smokers tend to die much earlier of diseases that don't respond much to treatment than non-smokers, which saves a lot of money in late-life care.

ZV
Click to expand...

fixed. lung cancer is a bitch.
 
We shouldn't even let smokers enter hospitals if they have a disease that is exacerbated by smoking(unless they are paying out of their own pocket). No health insurance company or hospital should be liable for something that could have been prevented. That would save us even more money. If you can't take care of your own body, why should anyone else do so for you?
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Easy there, Logan.

WTH! There is a Logan's Run Remake coming in 2010? Wait, I think there was a thread on it but I forgot about it. Never mind.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

There was an episode of Star Trek about that! There was a whole society of people who euthanized everyone the moment they reached age 60, in order to allow everyone to die with dignity rather than the last 10-20 years being a race to see who can cling to one last scrap of life longer than the other guy.

A bit crazy in practice, but that's why we have science fiction - we can explore the ramifications of such possibilities, no matter how outlandish they seem. In that particular episode, the guy they wanted to save was a scientist who wanted to keep doing his life's work a little longer and of course it led to a big conflict and so on.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
We shouldn't even let smokers enter hospitals if they have a disease that is exacerbated by smoking(unless they are paying out of their own pocket). No health insurance company or hospital should be liable for something that could have been prevented. That would save us even more money. If you can't take care of your own body, why should anyone else do so for you?
Click to expand...

There would be no end to THAT slippery slope
 
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Hacp
We shouldn't even let smokers enter hospitals if they have a disease that is exacerbated by smoking(unless they are paying out of their own pocket). No health insurance company or hospital should be liable for something that could have been prevented. That would save us even more money. If you can't take care of your own body, why should anyone else do so for you?
Click to expand...

There would be no end to THAT slippery slope
Click to expand...

Yeah.

If you weren't born you wouldn't have become sick!!
 
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Hacp
We shouldn't even let smokers enter hospitals if they have a disease that is exacerbated by smoking(unless they are paying out of their own pocket). No health insurance company or hospital should be liable for something that could have been prevented. That would save us even more money. If you can't take care of your own body, why should anyone else do so for you?
Click to expand...

There would be no end to THAT slippery slope
Click to expand...

There is no slippery slope. These people are increasing insurance costs for everyone. Smoking is a choice that you make. No one forced you to take that first puff. Why should others subsidize the smoker's mistake?
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
There is no slippery slope. These people are increasing insurance costs for everyone. Smoking is a choice that you make. No one forced you to take that first puff. Why should others subsidize the smoker's mistake?
Click to expand...

ok, now what about people who get injured playing extreme sports? obesity? dental problems because you don't floss? you being an idiot and blowing off your foot playing with firecrackers? problems related to alcohol? etc, etc, etc.

Why should smokers get penalized because your dumbass 16 year old kid decided to race a mustang in his POS civic and crash into a tree?

slippery slope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top