The Costs Of Tobacco Use
- Thread starter deathmetal
- Start date
- Status
It only costs me about 50 cents a day.
168 million is a lot of money. I think someone may be overcharging.
168 million is a lot of money. I think someone may be overcharging.
The real issue brought up by this thread is the problem of people being forced to pay a health care system with taxes (a health care system that is now priced 1,000s of time more than it was 60 or 70 years ago) for people that choose to use that system who wouldn't pay if they had they had to use their own money. The second issue seems to be that someone owes their life to working for our society. As if their life span and choices are not theirs to decide.
I will add that I do not have health insurance. I do not sign up for programs that force other people to pay for what I won't. I wish I could keep more of my property (what I earn) to pay for healthier food, but society has decided I cannot do that. If I want to smoke, If I want to use alternative medicine that is still affordable I should be allowed that. Tobacco use is extremely affordable, this is coming from someone who can afford something off the dollar menu at McDonald's only once a week.
I will add that I do not have health insurance. I do not sign up for programs that force other people to pay for what I won't. I wish I could keep more of my property (what I earn) to pay for healthier food, but society has decided I cannot do that. If I want to smoke, If I want to use alternative medicine that is still affordable I should be allowed that. Tobacco use is extremely affordable, this is coming from someone who can afford something off the dollar menu at McDonald's only once a week.
"lies, damned lies, and statistics"
we live in an interesting time. in our parents' generation the default would have been to believe analyses prepared by scientists (or any other reputable "authority"). now we're more inclined to consider bias, and ask the same question that cicero raised in murder trials: cui bono?
anyone who works with numbers for a living understands that they can be made to say pretty much whatever the person doing the crunching wants them to say. it is for that reason that the motivation of the specific person or organization involved is, or should be, a factor in judging the reliability of the outcome.
in the case of the points discussed in this thread, for a popular summary of a very different analysis see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#8c4792b64aa2 (or, if you want to read the underlying study, see: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029). if you don't have the patience to read through the entire study shown in the second link, the punchline is in the second section of the abstract, headed "methods and findings", and appears in the penultimate sentence. it reads "because of the differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers". note in passing that the focus of the study was obesity, and its purpose was to compare lifetime health costs for the healthy, obese, and smokers. the "surprise" finding was that because the obese and smokers live shorter lives society spends significantly less on their healthcare. And the swiftian implication is that if saving money is what really matters then the feds ought to be encouraging kids to gain weight and smoke like chimneys.
but of course it's not really about money. that's just a convenient argument in the culture wars. there's an old saying: any stick will do to beat a dog. in this case statistics and money are the sticks, and the dog is smoking.
If you believe this analysis (i do), and if you also believe cost to society is important (i don't), then everyone out there should start gaining weight and smoking cigarettes.
we live in an interesting time. in our parents' generation the default would have been to believe analyses prepared by scientists (or any other reputable "authority"). now we're more inclined to consider bias, and ask the same question that cicero raised in murder trials: cui bono?
anyone who works with numbers for a living understands that they can be made to say pretty much whatever the person doing the crunching wants them to say. it is for that reason that the motivation of the specific person or organization involved is, or should be, a factor in judging the reliability of the outcome.
in the case of the points discussed in this thread, for a popular summary of a very different analysis see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#8c4792b64aa2 (or, if you want to read the underlying study, see: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029). if you don't have the patience to read through the entire study shown in the second link, the punchline is in the second section of the abstract, headed "methods and findings", and appears in the penultimate sentence. it reads "because of the differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers". note in passing that the focus of the study was obesity, and its purpose was to compare lifetime health costs for the healthy, obese, and smokers. the "surprise" finding was that because the obese and smokers live shorter lives society spends significantly less on their healthcare. And the swiftian implication is that if saving money is what really matters then the feds ought to be encouraging kids to gain weight and smoke like chimneys.
but of course it's not really about money. that's just a convenient argument in the culture wars. there's an old saying: any stick will do to beat a dog. in this case statistics and money are the sticks, and the dog is smoking.
If you believe this analysis (i do), and if you also believe cost to society is important (i don't), then everyone out there should start gaining weight and smoking cigarettes.
So, the good news is that smoking and obesity don't cost more because,
the bad news being, they kill you off sooner!
Talk about the health benefits of smoking! 8O
the bad news being, they kill you off sooner!
Talk about the health benefits of smoking! 8O
Alcohol @ #2. Hmmm. Love my nightly dose of wine and would never advocate the FDA regulating the alcohol industry the way they're doing with tobacco. But, I've always thought it was hypocritical that this is the case. Like the adage about taxation policies & politics being about whose ox is gored, have thought so about this discrepancy, That there are simply more drinkers than smokers in Congress.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed. Approximately 20% of Americans admit to being tobacco users, and it "costs" $168 billion. Approximately 50% of Americans admit to being male. I wonder what that costs? You can contextualize anything.
They've been telling us about the "cost" of healthcare for tobacco users for many years before the Obamacare subsidy scam took effect. I pay for my own healthcare, so who is it that is "costing" so much? Geezers on Medicare? Loafers on Medicaid? The incredibly small fraction of the population who actually receives benefits for being legitimately disabled? All the military retirees who use Tricare or the VA? Illegal aliens who must be treated every time they walk into an ER? Just who are these villains they've been telling us are such a "cost"?
They've been telling us about the "cost" of healthcare for tobacco users for many years before the Obamacare subsidy scam took effect. I pay for my own healthcare, so who is it that is "costing" so much? Geezers on Medicare? Loafers on Medicaid? The incredibly small fraction of the population who actually receives benefits for being legitimately disabled? All the military retirees who use Tricare or the VA? Illegal aliens who must be treated every time they walk into an ER? Just who are these villains they've been telling us are such a "cost"?
I recognize the Constitution of the United States of America, I am no comrade.
It isn't the fault of smokers that our medical system charges unrealistic and unjustified prices, it isn't the fault of smokers that nonsmokers are required to pay for the healthcare of some smokers who take advantage of the free healthcare required of our system, it isn't the fault of smokers that some people want everyone to work most of their lives, with an every increasing age of retirement, to support the national economy. Smokers do not cause these problems, they are a problem of policy. However, smokers do spend money, they do pay taxes (often at rates above everyone else.) Smokers are directly responsible for a lot of money staying in circulation, and thereby they continuously support the national economy. What is the cost to our economy of overtaxing cigarettes? How much less money stays in our communities do to those taxes? How much money was wasted by tobacco companies defending their freedom of speech from corrupt politically biased courts? Money that could've supported farmers and their families. When a private business is constantly forced to go to court to defend themselves, prices go up on customers, and less is offered to growers for their labor. Is the cost to customers, farmers and businesses important? Or is it only costs to insurance companies and projected lost days of work that matter? If money is spent on the medical system that is money spent in our economy. Most importantly, how can money spent (medical care) and money not spent (projected lost days of work, early death) in our economy both be added as if equal to create this total cost figure?
It isn't the fault of smokers that our medical system charges unrealistic and unjustified prices, it isn't the fault of smokers that nonsmokers are required to pay for the healthcare of some smokers who take advantage of the free healthcare required of our system, it isn't the fault of smokers that some people want everyone to work most of their lives, with an every increasing age of retirement, to support the national economy. Smokers do not cause these problems, they are a problem of policy. However, smokers do spend money, they do pay taxes (often at rates above everyone else.) Smokers are directly responsible for a lot of money staying in circulation, and thereby they continuously support the national economy. What is the cost to our economy of overtaxing cigarettes? How much less money stays in our communities do to those taxes? How much money was wasted by tobacco companies defending their freedom of speech from corrupt politically biased courts? Money that could've supported farmers and their families. When a private business is constantly forced to go to court to defend themselves, prices go up on customers, and less is offered to growers for their labor. Is the cost to customers, farmers and businesses important? Or is it only costs to insurance companies and projected lost days of work that matter? If money is spent on the medical system that is money spent in our economy. Most importantly, how can money spent (medical care) and money not spent (projected lost days of work, early death) in our economy both be added as if equal to create this total cost figure?
Every time a tobacco vendor has a sale, my cost of tobacco use goes up.
How does THAT work? :crazy:
How does THAT work? :crazy:
P
pipebuddy
Guest
I would like to see the figures on obesity. In Canada it has replaced smokers as the no 1 health problem. And boy, are all the diseases and health problems derived from it going to cost everyone lots of money Bob! I'm talking a mountain of money.
I'm sure it's the same in the US. :wink:
I'm sure it's the same in the US. :wink:
P
pipebuddy
Guest
Absolutely. Obesity represented at least twice as much than tobacco and that was about 10 years ago. So imagine what it is today. :wink:
It certainly is a "growing" problem! :rofl:
My biggest accomplishment of last year was finally getting back under 200 pounds for the first time in a decade.
My biggest accomplishment of last year was finally getting back under 200 pounds for the first time in a decade.
Achtung Bürger: In Finland,Sweden and in Denmark as well,selling Tobacco products by discount prices is being considered as federal offence and as a such action can lead to annulation of tobacco trading license.
- Status