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?