Smokers and obese people DON'T cost the health system more

Kimia

Contrary to all the arguments that you hear from the staunch anti-smoking anti-fat brigade, smokers and obese people don't cost their health system more than non-smokers and thinner people because they die earlier! Worry not, your tax money is safely going towards the socially accepted needy because these previously thought drains will be culled by their own vices.

Tbh I'm a former smoker and I HATE when former smokers preach to the non-converted while polishing their halos upon their high horses. There's nothing worse than a holier than thou 'Do you not know that you're KILLING yourself?' hand-wringer trying to 'save' another smoker. Get over yourself.

What about leaving people alone to make their own choices? I don't like smoking, I'm so happy I gave up (it was v hard) but I'll be damned if I start telling people what to do. None of my business as long as their choices don't affect me.*

Here's the story:

Background

Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention.
Methods and Findings

With a simulation model, lifetime health-care costs were estimated for a cohort of obese people aged 20 y at baseline. To assess the impact of obesity, comparisons were made with similar cohorts of smokers and “healthy-living” persons (defined as nonsmokers with a body mass index between 18.5 and 25). Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands. In sensitivity analyses the effects of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions were assessed. Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.
Conclusions

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

* I do however detest when people smoke in bus shelters or by entrances of pubs etc, meaning everyone has to walk through a fug of smoke. Nasty and selfish.

sh1tstirrer

How much money do the Government get off smokers in tax I would think it's about €5-€6 a packet.

PeakOutput

dont believe your reference, they do die earlier obviously but usually after long expensive illnesses

if every was fit and healthy most of them would die fit and healthy having had very little dependance on the health service

living longer does not cost more

living longer in bad health does

people can smoke and eat what they want but they should be taxed as much as possible and there should be an unhealthy food tax for people who choose to eat **** aswell

AnonoBoy

Not sure if they do or not but they sure make an awful lot more noise whinging about stuff don't they?

AgileMyth

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Not sure if they do or not but they sure make an awful lot more noise whinging about stuff don't they?

I would have thought the opposite to be honest.

Sykk

Kimia wrote: »

* I do however detest when people smoke in bus shelters or by entrances of pubs etc, meaning everyone has to walk through a fug of smoke. Nasty and selfish.

Yeah they should stand out in the rain, or walk down the road just so you don't have to hold your breath for 2 seconds walking by :rolleyes:

Rabble Rabble

PeakOutput wrote: »

dont believe your reference, they do die earlier obviously but usually after long expensive illnesses

if every was fit and healthy most of them would die fit and healthy having had very little dependance on the health service

living longer does not cost more

living longer in bad health does

people can smoke and eat what they want but they should be taxed as much as possible and there should be an unhealthy food tax for people who choose to eat **** aswell

Thats true but there are genetic non-fault diseases and pathologies which affect healthy livers as they age. However you are correct in suggesting that living to 90 and passing in your sleep with no real sickness does not cost the State.

Kimia

Sykk wrote: »

Yeah they should stand out in the rain, or walk down the road just so you don't have to hold your breath for 2 seconds walking by :rolleyes:

Oh come on. I'm not forcing them to smoke in the rain, I'm not forcing them to stop smoking, I'm just asking them not to smoke in areas where they are directly forcing their habit on others. I would have thought that's more than fair.

Sykk

Kimia wrote: »

Oh come on. I'm not forcing them to smoke in the rain, I'm not forcing them to stop smoking, I'm just asking them not to smoke in areas where they are directly forcing their habit on others. I would have thought that's more than fair.

I'm not a smoker either, but calling people selfish is a bit much.. I'd agree with the nasty part.. There are smoking rooms and all that but can't you just hold your breath, or time your exhale as you're walking in.. That's what I do anyway

krudler

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Not sure if they do or not but they sure make an awful lot more noise whinging about stuff don't they?

Surprising given their tiny lung capacity and mouthfuls of delicious cake

ScumLord

PeakOutput wrote: »

dont believe your reference, they do die earlier obviously but usually after long expensive illnesses

if every was fit and healthy most of them would die fit and healthy having had very little dependance on the health service

living longer does not cost more

living longer in bad health does

people can smoke and eat what they want but they should be taxed as much as possible and there should be an unhealthy food tax for people who choose to eat **** aswell

I don't think any of this is true. Many, many people die of cancer no matter how healthy they are. Even if you don't smoke you could end up with lung cancer in your 80s and I'd really like to see some prof it's cheaper to look after them than it is to look after a 40 year od with lung cancer. Fit people do get sick and need medical care, it's unavoidable, you won't live a happy and healthy life up until your 120 and pop of quietly in your sleep one night. Your just making assumptions here that people who live a supposedly healthy life can't get ill which is nonsense.

Living longer quiet clearly must cost more.

Kimia

Sykk wrote: »

I'm not a smoker either, but calling people selfish is a bit much.. I'd agree with the nasty part.. There are smoking rooms and all that but can't you just hold your breath, or time your exhale as you're walking in.. That's what I do anyway

I think it is selfish. I have nothing against smokers, or smoking, but I choose not to smoke so it's unfair that it's forced on me or anyone who doesn't choose it. Why should we have to not breathe? Why can't the smokers smoke where it doesn't affect others?

Naikon

Surely the cost smokers "pose" to the system is offset by the amount in tax the goverment recieve per box of fags. Somehow I don't think it's that simple.

Biggins

O' good, this topic resurrected again!
All the others ended so well.

High energy

That article is a load of rubbish, obviously there will be more spent on health for non-smokers as there are MORE non-smokers. Bloody hell.

tommyhaas

Kimia wrote: »

* I do however detest when people smoke in bus shelters or by entrances of pubs etc, meaning everyone has to walk through a fug of smoke. Nasty and selfish.

FFS nasty and selfish, thats going a bit far. Why should anyone not smoke in an open public place when its perfectly legal to do so

Duggy747

Oh joy, another smoking topic.



*lights up fag*




*Puff*




.........continue........

Kimia

tommyhaas wrote: »

FFS nasty and selfish, thats going a bit far. Why should anyone not smoke in an open public place when its perfectly legal to do so

But bus shelters and doorways aren't open? I don't mind smokers smoking at all, I just don't like having to inhale too.

They may not, but fat smokers are still incredibly ugly to look at.

RobbieTheRobber

Kimia wrote: »

But bus shelters and doorways aren't open? I don't mind smokers smoking at all, I just don't like having to inhale too.

What kind of fancy bus shelsters do you have?

I would describe them as open

High energy

Duggy747 wrote: »

Oh joy, another smoking topic.



*lights up fag*




*Puff*




.........continue........

Do you enjoy a fag and a puff?

Lumen

This stuff was reported a couple of years ago. It's proper peer-reviewed science, I think.

Basically smokers die horribly, quickly, cheaply and young. Therefore, the health costs are lower compared to other outcomes, and they pay loads of tax.

It is a fair defence against the noisy little whiners who go on about their taxes being spent on other people's filthy disgusting habits etc. Unfortunately, that whole conversation eventually ends up with making everything enjoyable illegal ("how dare you break your leg skydiving? have you any idea how much tax that costs to fix? and put down that kebab whilst you're at it"). Feck 'em.

If people need a selfish reason to stop smoking, it's that cancer is a really horrible way to die and you may not see your grandchildren grow up. Arguments about healthcare costs are just callous and divisive whichever way the stats work out.

Kimia

@ Robbie Oh for god's sake, you know what I mean I'm not going to clarify it any more, if you want to be deliberately obtuse then fine.

Herb Powell

piss poor excuse to smoke or be fat

El_Dangeroso

Random shocking statistic:

85% of all hospital expenditure is used in the last year of a patient's life.

Introduce involuntary euthanasia at the first sign of illness, HSE financing sorted!

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think any of this is true. Many, many people die of cancer no matter how healthy they are. Even if you don't smoke you could end up with lung cancer in your 80s and I'd really like to see some prof it's cheaper to look after them than it is to look after a 40 year od with lung cancer. Fit people do get sick and need medical care, it's unavoidable, you won't live a happy and healthy life up until your 120 and pop of quietly in your sleep one night. Your just making assumptions here that people who live a supposedly healthy life can't get ill which is nonsense.

Living longer quiet clearly must cost more.

you must have missed the word most :rolleyes: obviously there are naturally occuring diseases etc that we have no real control over until they happen. but if everything stays the same accept everyone on the planet stays fit and treats their body right then it would be far cheaper for the health service obviously

take away obesity and smoking cigarettes and there would be trillions saved world wide imo

Lumen

PeakOutput wrote: »

obviously there are naturally occuring diseases etc that we have no real control over until they happen. but if everything stays the same accept everyone on the planet stays fit and treats their body right then it would be far cheaper for the health service obviously

take away obesity and smoking cigarettes and there would be trillions saved world wide imo

You would think so, but you'd be wrong. As the analysis shows.

PeakOutput

Lumen wrote: »

You would think so, but you'd be wrong. As the analysis shows.

well its conveniently unreferenced analysis and i already said i just dont believe it. i think you are wrong so there

Kimia

Ooops sorry, forgot to post the link so you can check the validity.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Public library of science and the article was funded by the Dutch ministry of Health.

Lumen

And some coverage from 2008:

Healthy? You're a burden on the state
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/

Kimia

PeakOutput wrote: »

well its conveniently unreferenced analysis and i already said i just dont believe it. i think you are wrong so there

Do you believe it now?

ScumLord

PeakOutput wrote: »

you must have missed the word most :rolleyes: obviously there are naturally occuring diseases etc that we have no real control over until they happen. but if everything stays the same accept everyone on the planet stays fit and treats their body right then it would be far cheaper for the health service obviously

take away obesity and smoking cigarettes and there would be trillions saved world wide imo

That's not a good thing though, human population growth is the biggest threat facing planet earth. It will mean less treatment to go around and more chances of rapidly spreading diseases as people become more cramped. There is no benefit in saving people by making them live an unfulfilled life so they can live in an overcrowded world.

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not a good thing though, human population growth is the biggest threat facing planet earth. It will mean less treatment to go around and more chances of rapidly spreading diseases as people become more cramped. There is no benefit in saving people by making them live an unfulfilled life so they can live in an overcrowded world.

ye i kinda agree, i dont actually care how other people live their lives as long as i dont have to pay for their voluntary life style choice

i dont think the population is near critical point yet though or anything

PeakOutput

Kimia wrote: »

Do you believe it now?

no but at least its referenced

Kimia

PeakOutput wrote: »

no but at least its referenced

How can you not believe it? It's scientific analysis from the results a study that was carried out - it's not wishy washy made up nonsense, pretty black and white actually..

blackbird98

PeakOutput wrote: »

.... most of them would die fit and healthy.....

if most are going to die "fit and healthy", then why even try? Eat, drink, smoke, and be merry!!!:D

PeakOutput

Kimia wrote: »

How can you not believe it? It's scientific analysis from the results a study that was carried out - it's not wishy washy made up nonsense, pretty black and white actually..

well i read research papers every day(just because reserach and how to perform research is part of my studies) i understand these sorts of things fairly well. im sure their numbers show the conclusions they claim they do that dosnt mean its the last word on the subject

scientific research/analysis/papers/journal articles etc are proved wrong by other ones every day of the week, some because of the methods of the original others cause of bias from the researcher others because we just learn more about things as time goes on.

you just have to read the comments left on that paper to get a feel for the type of things that can be critiqued in any given paper

they might be right but its going to take a lot more then one journal article to convince me personally

ScumLord

PeakOutput wrote: »

ye i kinda agree, i dont actually care how other people live their lives as long as i dont have to pay for their voluntary life style choice

Why should they pay for your medical expenses or anyone else's? We all contribute to the health service smokers more so, it's just wrong for a small minority to turn around and start saying some people deserve to die because others don't particularly like their life style. Everybody dies and everybody has the right to live their life's. The health service is for everyone.

upandcumming

PeakOutput wrote: »

living longer does not cost more

No. Ever hear of the pension?

desaparecidos

I don't smoke which means I am better than the weak minded smoker.

I am not fat which means I am better than the weak minded fatty.

Stop smoking you filthy fat cnuts.

kylith

Kimia wrote: »

* I do however detest when people smoke in bus shelters or by entrances of pubs etc, meaning everyone has to walk through a fug of smoke. Nasty and selfish.

At the entrance of pubs? You mean the place where all the ashtrays are? Yeah, how dare those backstards smoke in the area where amenities are provided. Don't they know that littering is much less annoying than you having to hold your breath or suffer a bad smell for 2 seconds. What agonies you must go through if you're sitting next to a smelly person on the bus.

PeakOutput

upandcumming wrote: »

No. Ever hear of the pension?

we are talking about costs to the health service not the state in general

Why should they pay for your medical expenses or anyone else's? We all contribute to the health service smokers more so, it's just wrong for a small minority to turn around and start saying some people deserve to die because others don't particularly like their life style. Everybody dies and everybody has the right to live their life's. The health service is for everyone.

i dont particularly think they should have to pay mine personally, i think the only people the goverment should pay for are the people who cant afford it themselves, everyone else should have private health insurance.

upandcumming

PeakOutput wrote: »

we are talking about costs to the health service not the state in general

All the one.

terenc

ScumLord wrote: »

Why should they pay for your medical expenses or anyone else's? We all contribute to the health service smokers more so, it's just wrong for a small minority to turn around and start saying some people deserve to die because others don't particularly like their life style. Everybody dies and everybody has the right to live their life's. The health service is for everyone.

What country are you living in pass me a cream bun and a cig:p

PeakOutput

upandcumming wrote: »

All the one.

people dont get to choose how much they get back from the state pension they are told and act accordinhly

they shouldnt be able to choose a lifestyle that costs the state more in health costs or rather if they do they should pay more for the privilidge of public health care

stateofflux

the last comment by the OP seems a bit hypocritical to me.....

Ronin247

PeakOutput wrote: »

we are talking about costs to the health service not the state in general

i dont particularly think they should have to pay mine personally, i think the only people the goverment should pay for are the people who cant afford it themselves, everyone else should have private health insurance.

PeakOutput wrote: »

people dont get to choose how much they get back from the state pension they are told and act accordinhly

they shouldnt be able to choose a lifestyle that costs the state more in health costs or rather if they do they should pay more for the privilidge of public health care

If you choose to be a lazy dole scrounging cnut then what should happen,it is your lifestyle choice and you cant afford health insurance.Why should my taxes pay for you?

If you decide to go to college for 4 years instead of working why should my taxes pay for you?

It is not a great system but it is the only one we have.

PeakOutput

Ronin247 wrote: »

If you choose to be a lazy dole scrounging cnut then what should happen,it is your lifestyle choice and you cant afford health insurance.Why should my taxes pay for you?

they shouldnt, if you make a choice, if your there through no fault of your own i have no problem with social welfare

If you decide to go to college for 4 years instead of working why should my taxes pay for you?

everyone should have access to education, people who cant afford to go to college should be given enough support from the state to go, anyone who can afford to pay for themselves should pay for themselves

It is not a great system but it is the only one we have.

so we might as well just end the conversation so and not strive to improve

Ronin247

PeakOutput wrote: »

.........................................................................so we might as well just end the conversation so and not strive to improve

I am pointing out that it is not quite as simple as you seem to think.

PeakOutput

Ronin247 wrote: »

I am pointing out that it is not quite as simple as you seem to think.

i dont think its simple, nothing about what drives people to allow themselves to smoke or get fat or why i drink or do other risky things is simple.

the principle that people who choose to take the risk should have to suffer the consequences and/or pay for those consequences themselves is a simple one though

Kimia

stateofflux wrote: »

the last comment by the OP seems a bit hypocritical to me.....

What do you mean?