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

dark crystal

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

Who says you are paying for a smokers lifestyle choice? Smokers pay just as much, if not more, tax as you do, why on earth should they be denied a service they have helped contribute to?

If an average smoker smokes 20 cigarettes a day for 30 years, they will have paid approximately €80,000 in tax on those cigarettes (at current prices) - that's not including any income tax they will have paid over the same period.

Let's say a 'perfectly healthy' person decides, as a lifestyle choice, to mountain climb, play hurling or rally drive and they incur, say, 10 major or minor injuries over a period of 30 years, should they be denied help too? After all, they brought it on themselves, right?

If you pay into the same system as everyone else, why should you be denied the right to avail of that system if and when you need to?

Victor

dark crystal wrote: »

Who says you are paying for a smokers lifestyle choice? Smokers pay just as much, if not more, tax as you do,

No, smokers work less, die younger from ill health, contribute less.

dark crystal

Victor wrote: »

No, smokers work less

How do you work that one out?

bobblepuzzle

Victor wrote: »

No, smokers work less, die younger from ill health, contribute less.

I'm sorry, but that statement is the most stupid I have read today...

Victor

dark crystal wrote: »

How do you work that one out?

The glib answer is that non-smokers don't doss off for 10-20 times per day at 5-10 minutes a go.

My uncle (40 a day) died at 46 and I never knew him to be healthy. So, he worked for perhaps 26 years = 56% of his life. My father worked 47 years = 61% of his life. Experienced, skilled workers (my father after 47 years) work more and better than less experienced, less skilled workers (my uncle after 26 years) - in each case, deduct a few years in learning a skill.

My uncle left behind a wife and a pair of devastated teenagers - a few months later, my cousin failed her leaving cert as a result and has never really recovered. My father got to see his grandchildren and both he and they appreciate that.

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that statement is the most stupid I have read today...

But yet, you seem unable to counter it.

dark crystal

Victor wrote: »

The glib answer is that non-smokers don't doss off for 10-20 times per day at 5-10 minutes a go.

My uncle (40 a day) died at 46 and I never knew him to be healthy. So, he worked for perhaps 26 years = 56% of his life. My father worked 47 years = 61% of his life. Experienced, skilled workers (my father after 47 years) work more and better than less experienced, less skilled workers (my uncle after 26 years) - in each case, deduct a few years in learning a skill.

My uncle left behind a wife and a pair of devastated teenagers - a few months later, my cousin failed her leaving cert as a result and has never really recovered. My father got to see his grandchildren and both he and they appreciate that.

My grandad (smoked 40 a day) worked in the merchant navy for 50 years and lived 'till he was 94. Died from Alzheimers.

My dad (20 a day) is 63 and is still working - has done since the age of 16. Has never spent a day in hospital.

My uncle and auntie, never smoked, both died in their early 40's from a heart attack and diabetes.

Plenty of my non-smoking colleagues doss off from work, usually brought on by a self induced hangover or just pure laziness. Smokers take the same breaks as everyone else is entitled to where I work - no more, no less.

I hold steadfastly to my opinon that if someone, regardless of their lifestyle choices pays into the health system, they are just as entitled to avail of it as anyone else.

smk89

dark crystal wrote: »

My grandad (smoked 40 a day) worked in the merchant navy for 50 years and lived 'till he was 94. Died from Alzheimers.

My dad (20 a day) is 63 and is still working - has done since the age of 16. Has never spent a day in hospital.

My uncle and auntie, never smoked, both died in their early 40's from a heart attack and diabetes.

Plenty of my non-smoking colleagues doss off from work, usually brought on by a self induced hangover or just pure laziness. Smokers take the same breaks as everyone else is entitled to where I work - no more, no less.

I hold steadfastly to my opinon that if someone, regardless of their lifestyle choices pays into the health system, they are just as entitled to avail of it as anyone else.

But smokers have been proven to cost more than non-smokers to the health care system. Substantially more. In fact the long term cost of smoking is estimated to be 8-9 times the amount made by the government. And this is a low estimate, some Australian economists put the cost at x35 the initial investment.
I personally have nothing against smoking but the amount of healthcare costs attributed to it is disproportional to another activity except unhealthy eating.

(Source: Centre for Disease Control and Duke University studies on the cost of cigarettes on society and the economy.)

Victor

dark crystal wrote: »

My grandad (smoked 40 a day) worked in the merchant navy for 50 years and lived 'till he was 94. Died from Alzheimers.

My dad (20 a day) is 63 and is still working - has done since the age of 16. Has never spent a day in hospital.

My uncle and auntie, never smoked, both died in their early 40's from a heart attack and diabetes.

Plenty of my non-smoking colleagues doss off from work, usually brought on by a self induced hangover or just pure laziness. Smokers take the same breaks as everyone else is entitled to where I work - no more, no less.

I hold steadfastly to my opinon that if someone, regardless of their lifestyle choices pays into the health system, they are just as entitled to avail of it as anyone else.

Five million smoking deaths per year prove you wrong.

old_aussie

PeakOutput wrote: »

living longer does not cost more

How much does an extra 20 to 30 years of old age pensions cost the tax payer?

old_aussie

Victor wrote: »

Five million smoking deaths per year prove you wrong.

So the entire population of Ireland will be dead in one year?

Qualitymark

Smokers also infect others with ill-health - kids who grow up with smokers are prone to asthma, later to heart disease, hardening of the arteries, emphysema, strokes - all the diseases that the smokers get.

Not only are these people ingesting poison every day, they're sharing it with the vulnerable children around them.

A new study even found that kids who grow up in apartment buildings where there are smokers are badly affected, because of ducts bringing the polluted air around the building.

Victor

old_aussie wrote: »

How much does an extra 20 to 30 years of old age pensions cost the tax payer?

Not as much as you might think when you take into account the illness benefit paid to, and income taxes forgone from sick smokers. Then add the health costs.

old_aussie wrote: »

So the entire population of Ireland will be dead in one year?

That is an odd statement from someone in Australia. Its 5 million people per year worldwide.

PeakOutput

dark crystal wrote: »

If an average smoker smokes 20 cigarettes a day for 30 years, they will have paid approximately €80,000 in tax on those cigarettes (at current prices) - that's not including any income tax they will have paid over the same period.

as far as im concerned thats a stupidity tax

Let's say a 'perfectly healthy' person decides, as a lifestyle choice, to mountain climb, play hurling or rally drive and they incur, say, 10 major or minor injuries over a period of 30 years, should they be denied help too? After all, they brought it on themselves, right?

people who take part in those activities generally have secondary insurance, like i do for my hobby, to pay for any accidents

If you pay into the same system as everyone else, why should you be denied the right to avail of that system if and when you need to?

the system dosnt cover plenty of voluntary procedures why should their smoke induced ones be any different?

ScumLord

Victor wrote: »

The glib answer is that non-smokers don't doss off for 10-20 times per day at 5-10 minutes a go.

They probably should be though depending on their work. If your looking at a computer screen you should be taking a 10 minute break every hour anyway. In many other jobs taking a break clears your head and can encourage breakthroughs when they return to work. Companies don't lose out at all from smoking breaks, they may like to think that if their workers aren't at their desks working flat out they're losing company money but that's just not true.

And then of course the only reason smokers take breaks is because the non smokers made them and now the breaks are an issue too.

Qualitymark

ScumLord wrote: »

They probably should be though depending on their work. If your looking at a computer screen you should be taking a 10 minute break every hour anyway. In many other jobs taking a break clears your head and can encourage breakthroughs when they return to work.

All very true, but while a group of smokers disappearing for a smoke is accepted, try leaving for a 'clear your head' break - you won't exactly get approval!

(Incidentally, a German company was considering renting an office in a place I used to work, but at the meeting they were kind of edgy. "What about the prostitution problem?" they asked. They thought all the smokers hanging around the doorways were prossies.)

HarryPotter41

ScumLord wrote: »

They probably should be though depending on their work. If your looking at a computer screen you should be taking a 10 minute break every hour anyway. In many other jobs taking a break clears your head and can encourage breakthroughs when they return to work. Companies don't lose out at all from smoking breaks, they may like to think that if their workers aren't at their desks working flat out they're losing company money but that's just not true.

And then of course the only reason smokers take breaks is because the non smokers made them and now the breaks are an issue too.

What a daft defense, I worked on a production line where the guy beside me religiously took a smoke break every 20 minutes, while he was gone I had to do my work and his to keep the line flowing, same on other parts of the line with other people. If I was an alcoholic would I be allowed pop off every 20 minutes for a small shot to keep me going and clear my head??

More on topic, my mother died of cancer after barely costing the health service anything in the intervening years, and died 13 years after giving up smoking when the damage obviously had already been done. Its a horrible death and as a previous poster said thats much more a reason not to smoke than the cost to the health service.

dark crystal

PeakOutput wrote: »

as far as im concerned thats a stupidity tax



people who take part in those activities generally have secondary insurance, like i do for my hobby, to pay for any accidents



the system dosnt cover plenty of voluntary procedures why should their smoke induced ones be any different?

As condescending and pontificating as your stupidity tax comment is, it doesn't disguise the fact it's still a valid tax paid by smokers. A hefty one at that.

I honestly don't know many people who take out secondary insurance in case of hobby/sport related injuries. If they do, fair play. However, as I've stated, smokers pay extra tax into the system for their lifestyle choice too.

As for your point about the system not covering voluntary procedures, would you also withhold treatment from HIV patients who have contracted the disease due to lifestyle choices?

ScumLord

Qualitymark wrote: »

All very true, but while a group of smokers disappearing for a smoke is accepted, try leaving for a 'clear your head' break - you won't exactly get approval!

Depending on your work I think you may be legally obliged to take a break

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

What a daft defense, I worked on a production line where the guy beside me religiously took a smoke break every 20 minutes, while he was gone I had to do my work and his to keep the line flowing, same on other parts of the line with other people. If I was an alcoholic would I be allowed pop off every 20 minutes for a small shot to keep me going and clear my head??

No, if you think that one through you'll discover why.
You are right though it's hardly fair in that situation, if you cover for him he should be prepared to cover for you. The repetitiveness of a production line is one area where constant breaks would be a good thing. I know myself from working a metal press that accidents and mistakes can creep into your work if your doing the same thing over and over again.

If it was a case where workers were obliged to take a staggered (so half the staff isn't going at the same time) 10 minute break every hour that problem would be gone. 10 minutes is nothing either, we easily lose that ten minutes talking. As long as production doesn't suffer there wouldn't be a problem. It's not usually a case were a production line has to produce as much as possible they only need to produce as much as the next stage in production can handle.

Qualitymark

In theory, everyone's supposed to take a 10-minute screen break every hour. In practice, I don't know of any workplace where this actually happens.

Smoke breaks, however, are often longer than 10 minutes.

de Lehman Bruddars

Hate how smokers always blow smoke inside on their way back in the door. BLOW OUTSIDE YOU SCUMBAGS! And stand 10 feet away from the door so smoke doesn't come back in!

As for people smoking outside hospitals, that is beyond pathetic.
"I just CAN'T quit, I just can't! waah waah"

Absolutely infantile willpower and stupidity.

HarryPotter41

ScumLord wrote: »

Depending on your work I think you may be legally obliged to take a break


No, if you think that one through you'll discover why.
You are right though it's hardly fair in that situation, if you cover for him he should be prepared to cover for you. The repetitiveness of a production line is one area where constant breaks would be a good thing. I know myself from working a metal press that accidents and mistakes can creep into your work if your doing the same thing over and over again.

If it was a case where workers were obliged to take a staggered (so half the staff isn't going at the same time) 10 minute break every hour that problem would be gone. 10 minutes is nothing either, we easily lose that ten minutes talking. As long as production doesn't suffer there wouldn't be a problem. It's not usually a case were a production line has to produce as much as possible they only need to produce as much as the next stage in production can handle.

I spent 13 years working on production lines and sub assemblies in factories and believe me I managed without breaks perfectly well.Production lines I worked on went for start of product to finsished item so the line had a target to meet which wasn't helped by the smokers skiving off every 20 minutes. The targets were met in spite of the smokers, certainly not because of them. I did however work in a factory where smoking between breaks was strictly forbidden, was great.All that bothers me much more than any cost to the health sector. And as we are usually never more that 3 hours away from a rest break why the hell does anyone need clear the head breaks.

PeakOutput

dark crystal wrote: »

As condescending and pontificating as your stupidity tax comment is, it doesn't disguise the fact it's still a valid tax paid by smokers. A hefty one at that.

im not pontificating to anybody i do stupid things all the time for the fun of it and some of them have stupidity taxes as well

I honestly don't know many people who take out secondary insurance in case of hobby/sport related injuries. If they do, fair play. However, as I've stated, smokers pay extra tax into the system for their lifestyle choice too.

most people who are serious about mountaineering or whatever risky sport will have insurance to cover it and part of membership to most associations that represent those types of sports include insurance as part of their membership perks, or at least the ones iv looked into anyway

As for your point about the system not covering voluntary procedures, would you also withhold treatment from HIV patients who have contracted the disease due to lifestyle choices?

i dont think its the same thing. the best way i can explain that opinion is that having risky sex does not cause hiv the two arent intrinsically linked, smoking does directly cause cancer and other illnesses. its not just that you are a higher risk factor for something its that it is actually directly caused by it if that makes any sense

PeakOutput

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

And as we are usually never more that 3 hours away from a rest break why the hell does anyone need clear the head breaks.

i dont know its just science

it definitely depends on the job though. like an assembly line tends to be quite repetitive work i imagine (by its very nature) and you dont have any choice but get your work done before the next one comes along or whatever and you probably get so used to it that you are doing it on autopilot at times

but in other jobs that arent like that like an office job were you are staring at the screen examining numbers or whatever then its been shown that you will be more productive if you take regular short breaks

PCPhoto

Lumen wrote: »

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.

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.

I cant be ar$ed reading the whole thread - I just want to say that....if smokers die horribly quickly cheaply and young - why are the government trying to stop them from dying - by providing health care for them.

on that note ... why do the government make efforts to "control" the general public ... increase tax on smoking/drinking, speed checks to stop speeding ..... why not let people do what they want (within reason) .... and if they mess up - HUUUUGE penalties.

ScumLord

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I did however work in a factory where smoking between breaks was strictly forbidden, was great.

I don't really have a problem with that as such if that's company policy and the staff agree to it then that's just the way things are, smokers will get used to it. If I have to go without a smoke to earn my money then so be it. Depending on your type of work that may not be such a problem if your a smoker because when your busy you don't get get the urge to smoke. If it's a tedious job it may just be best for everyone to allow the smokers to get their fix.

Star Bingo

same bracket? i always thought fatties would far outweigh smokers in requiring healthcare. lets start a fat vs fags war

Victor

ScumLord wrote: »

They probably should be though depending on their work. If your looking at a computer screen you should be taking a 10 minute break every hour anyway. In many other jobs taking a break clears your head and can encourage breakthroughs when they return to work. Companies don't lose out at all from smoking breaks, they may like to think that if their workers aren't at their desks working flat out they're losing company money but that's just not true.

And then of course the only reason smokers take breaks is because the non smokers made them and now the breaks are an issue too.

There is many a smoker who will take both.... and then have 10 coffee breaks a day.

PCPhoto wrote: »

on that note ... why do the government make efforts to "control" the general public ... increase tax on smoking/drinking, speed checks to stop speeding .....

Because overall, it is seen as desirable. Why should we waste 1-2% of national income on traffic collisions?

why not let people do what they want (within reason) .... and if they mess up - HUUUUGE penalties.

Because many individuals don't appreciate huge penalties that only occur rarely, smaller penalties on a basis where the is a realistic possibility of being caught is much more effective - because people don't like being caught.

There is also the matter that not everyone can afford a "HUUUUGE" penalty, so imposing one might be impractical.

Capt'n Midnight

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2006/quit-smoking/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfyhJgVTZ5U

The advertisement focuses on the amputation of a gangrenous foot caused by peripheral vascular disease (PVD), ... PVD occurs when the arteries that carry blood to your legs or arms become partially or totally blocked by the build up of fatty material on your artery walls,
...

Mr Mark Westcott, a Vascular Surgeon at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne said smoking is the number one risk factor for PVD, and over 80% of people with PVD affecting the lower limbs are either smokers or ex-smokers.

Kold

Biggins wrote: »

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

What the hell are you? AH quality control?

Hank Scorpio

Victor wrote: »

No, smokers work less, die younger from ill health, contribute less.

hate these bloody threads, so depressing to read as a smoker

and LOL at suggesting smokers work less, infact in my previous job I had 2 breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon(and an hour off for lunch) I would go for my smoke, which would take 5-10 minutes and go back to work.

queue the majority of other staff lazing back to their desks 30 minutes later, in a feckin government job

get a job in the public sector and you`ll see how little work some people can do

arriving at 9:20 - 9:40 every morning aswell and feckin off home when they feel like it, talking all day in corridors

having worked in the private sector also, which is alot stricter, i simply had a word with my manager where i would take a smoke break at certain times of the day in exchange for less time @ tea breaks. alot of people seemed to do this

what about the office chatterbox, or the one whos always 15 minutes late in the morning, or the lad in the corner who likes to take a few sickies. everyone has different habits and personalitys

just because your uncle died from smoking doesnt give you a right to make such ridiculous statements

i really hope karma doesnt come around and bite you on the arse