Bozur
Amicus
Posts: 5,515
|
Post by Bozur on Apr 8, 2009 20:41:42 GMT -5
How Much Does Smoking Cost Society?
huffingtonpost.com — Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too _ by living longer.It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful. More… (Health)
---------
How Much Does Smoking Cost Society? digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - How Much Does Smoking Cost Society?
ERICA WERNER | April 7, 2009 07:01 PM EST |
WASHINGTON — Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too _ by living longer.
It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.
House members described huge health care costs associated with smoking as they approved landmark legislation last week giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer.
Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.
A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."
However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states but said that his research, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has never been funded by industry.
Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.
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.
The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.
Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.
"We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."
Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations.
The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."
Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.
"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do." www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 11, 2009 7:01:28 GMT -5
Ho god!
Both damned!
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Apr 11, 2009 8:38:49 GMT -5
It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.
Future generations will also find it distasteful that earlier ones could not find a logical consensus on population and pollution cap (just one car makes far more pollution then ton of smokers yet no-one takes that into account when producing them and we are approaching billions of them) which is and will cause ecological hell on earth that they will have to endure.
No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer.
Who are not only ever increasing in numbers but also ones polluting on average more then others as they use their retirement years largely for recreation purposes (airlines, travels, cruises) and simply put billions of more people still mean more pollution especially if they have resources to make it (and they have since they accumulated them throughout life through savings).
However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.
And these savings are surely more then 100 billions of dollars a year that they cost.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
Another added benefit. If this is being approached as economical issue then lets.
Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. 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. The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.
Another added benefit.
Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.
Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations.
Economics is about finance and not about taboos (or ethics then again how ethical is it to add billions of pollution causing agents in the form of elderly people when that spells ecological doom approaching faster for the youngest generations or ones yet to come).
"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."
Not just cheapest but most logical one as well and most natural. (as nature does not reward weak, stupid or elderly and human society is showing why since we have reached the point of no return ecologically speaking or will reach it within several years due to our uncontrolled overpopulation, insatiable appetites and thus natural imbalance).
Both damned! You can say that.
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Apr 11, 2009 9:55:28 GMT -5
my prediction is that less and less people will be smoking (in USA)
cigarettes have been slowly changing in taste for the worse ... cigarettes have been taxed like a mofo ....$9 here in Chicago and $7 of it is just tax....and soon going higher
many smokers I know are lighting up and before 1/2 way to center of cigarette they are flicking it away bcs taste has changed bcs new chemicals/additives have been added ...one of those additives is suppose to make the cigarette turn off if left unattended and for safety reasons ....
I think they are putting more formaldehyde in them suckers
I have myself am in "a trying to quit stage" bcs of 2 reasons one is taste ...I am down to 2 cigarettes a day from 1 1/2 packs a day ....and many other people I know are doing same and mostly complaining about the taste...
the 2nd reason is bcs of a dream I had ...my Dad and one of my favorite uncles .....they are both deceased and were smokers ,and they were telling me in this vivid dream that I should stop smoking .
Tobaco stocks in my book will be at Zero in 15-20 years ...less and less kids are in the smoking scene and thats bcs of smoking prevention in schools and one other thing is that parents that smoke are making sure that their kids dont and one way is by them quiting .
smoking is not cool like it use to be in my time
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Apr 12, 2009 0:45:47 GMT -5
It is a matter of dying healthy or unhealthy...
|
|