Smokers SAVE taxpayer money?

[Shrykull]

I keep hearing this. That smokers are actually GOOD for society because they die sooner and save taxpayer money. Whereas non-smokers live LONGER and will be using more medicare, social security and other benefits that smoker's would not live long enough to use. Here are some links on it.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abs ... 37/15/1052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360912/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... osts_N.htm

It would help to get some more specific information. If we were to compare a non-smoker who lived to be 100 vs a smoker who died at 80, every healthcare expense each had. People who have never smoked yes DO live longer. But, people who have never smoked probably would NOT require the treatments that current and former smokers do. They would not require oxygen for their emphysema, or cancer excision surgery and chemotherapy for the multitude of cancers they at higher risk to develop, as well as a lot less hospitalizations. The non-smoker would have to go the doctor a lot less than a smoker would, and get less treatments in general.

Maybe they are argue that since the non-smoker who lived to be 100 would require more age-related healthcare costs that the smoker who died at 80 wouldn't because they didn't live to be that old and develop them in the first place. Things like a power scooter/walking canes when they are no longer able to walk, medicine for their arthritis, and or Alzheimer's, etc. Geriatric health care costs.

I fixed your grammar. Learn the difference between plural and possessive.

[Samuel]

Obviously the correct answer is that this ignores the healthcare costs that smokers incur and impose on everyone else.

Also the whole "I'm a fucking sociopath vibe". The calculations seem to be based on the idea that people actually living is irrelevant.

Whereas non-smokers live LONGER and will be using more medicare, social security and other benefits that smoker's would not live long enough to use.

Or you could remove the benefits if you think it is a significant drain. Of course a person arguing this wouldn't do that because... wasn't this argument origionally advanced by the tabacco companies when they were trying to get countries in Eastern Europe not to tax cigarettes?

[Drooling Iguana]

Healthy people aren't a drain on the healthcare system regardless of their age. Both smokers and non-smokers often have a period of bad health before dying during which they're a drain on the medical system, smokers just have it earlier.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously the correct answer is that this ignores the healthcare costs that smokers incur and impose on everyone else.

Also the whole "I'm a fucking sociopath vibe". The calculations seem to be based on the idea that people actually living is irrelevant.

Whereas non-smokers live LONGER and will be using more medicare, social security and other benefits that smoker's would not live long enough to use.

Or you could remove the benefits if you think it is a significant drain. Of course a person arguing this wouldn't do that because... wasn't this argument origionally advanced by the tabacco companies when they were trying to get countries in Eastern Europe not to tax cigarettes?

It would make more sense to simply raise the retirement age. People who live much longer should also retire older, hence extending the time they contribute to society rather than drawing from its funds.

[Darth Wong]

Healthy people aren't a drain on the healthcare system regardless of their age. Both smokers and non-smokers often have a period of bad health before dying during which they're a drain on the medical system, smokers just have it earlier.

And I should believe this half-assed two-sentence analysis over a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine ... why?

[Junghalli]

What is the argument here? That we shouldn't discourage smoking because it saves money by making people die sooner? That smokers are better citizens for embracing a lifestyle choice that often leads to a premature death? Honestly, I think the sheer moral bankruptcy of "we shouldn't discourage people from using or becoming addicted to a harmful drug because we'll save money from them dying sooner" should speak for itself. And smokers are welcome to any bragging rights about how noble they're being for engaging in a hazardous habit as far as I'm concerned.

[Darth Wong]

What is the argument here? That we shouldn't discourage smoking because it saves money by making people die sooner? Honestly, I think the sheer moral bankruptcy of "we shouldn't discourage people from using or becoming addicted to a harmful drug because we'll save money from them dying sooner" should speak for itself.

Are you saying that moral outrage excuses you from having to make a logical argument?

[Drooling Iguana]

I hadn't checked the links. Sorry.

[Junghalli]

Are you saying that moral outrage excuses you from having to make a logical argument?

I think I phrased that poorly. I'm saying that if the argument is "we shouldn't discourage smoking because it saves taxpayer money" then you better show me that the money you could save through not discouraging smoking can and will be used to benefit people to a greater degree than curtailing smoking would be. Otherwise the whole thing is irrelevant, unless you subscribe to the lolbertarian notion that taxes or government interference are inherently bad in a way detached from the utility function, which ... well, I don't think I have to go into why I consider that stupid.

[Darth Wong]

Are you saying that moral outrage excuses you from having to make a logical argument?

I think I phrased that poorly. I'm saying that if the argument is "we shouldn't discourage smoking because it saves taxpayer money" then you better show me that the money you could save through not discouraging smoking can and will be used to benefit people to a greater degree than curtailing smoking would be.

You mean like the peer-reviewed study linked from the OP did?

Otherwise the whole thing is irrelevant, unless you subscribe to the lolbertarian notion that taxes or government interference are inherently bad in a way detached from the utility function, which ... well, I don't think I have to go into why I consider that stupid.

See above. I don't think I have to go into why I consider it stupid for someone to say "show me the money" when responding to a study which does precisely that.

[Junghalli]

See above. I don't think I have to go into why I consider it stupid for someone to say "show me the money" when responding to a study which does precisely that.

I didn't dispute that money would be saved, I disputed whether or not the money saved would be worth the lives shortened in a realistic ethical utilitarian calculus. Which I'll admit has so many variables that it may be the case that there are better things we can do with the money (and I'll admit that is a modification of my original position), but I definitely don't see it as a simple matter of "not encouraging people to quit smoking will save money = we should do that".

[Darth Wong]

See above. I don't think I have to go into why I consider it stupid for someone to say "show me the money" when responding to a study which does precisely that.

I didn't dispute that money would be saved, I disputed whether or not the money saved would be worth the lives shortened in a realistic ethical utilitarian calculus. Which I'll admit has so many variables that it may be the case that there are better things we can do with the money (and I'll admit that is a modification of my original position), but I definitely don't see it as a simple matter of "not encouraging people to quit smoking will save money = we should do that".

Irrelevant to the point of the study, which is to critically examine the assumption that it would save money to get everyone off smoking. The ethics of the resulting social policies are not relevant to the point of the study.

The suggestion I made earlier is to roll with the study's conclusions rather than trying to fight them. If non-smokers are healthier and live longer, then if everyone quit smoking the logical course of action is to raise the retirement age. The retirement age is set where it is because it is assumed that people beyond that age are too infirm to work. If people are generally healthier and living longer, then it would make sense to raise the retirement age. Longer lifespan is only more expensive to society if everyone lives longer but keeps retiring at the same age.

[Junghalli]

Irrelevant to the point of the study, which is to critically examine the assumption that it would save money to get everyone off smoking. The ethics of the resulting social policies are not relevant to the point of the study.

Yeah, I'll admit was just going off the OP and I was kind of thinking in terms of ulterior motives for citing such a study, as this sort of things sounds like something lolbertarians who complain about "smoker persecution" would eat up.

The suggestion I made earlier is to roll with the study's conclusions rather than trying to fight them. If non-smokers are healthier and live longer, then if everyone quit smoking the logical course of action is to raise the retirement age. The retirement age is set where it is because it is assumed that people beyond that age are too infirm to work. If people are generally healthier and living longer, then it would make sense to raise the retirement age. Longer lifespan is only more expensive to society if everyone lives longer but keeps retiring at the same age.

Skimming the first link, it seems to be talking about health care costs being higher for non-smokers rather than non-smokers costing more simply because they spend longer in retirement, so I'm not entirely sure raising the retirement age would compensate. It would depend on to what degree reduced smoking lead to greater general health and vitality in the ~60-70 age bracket vs. how much it would lead to non-smokers living into more advanced ages and incurring more age-related health costs.

[Lusankya]

Ok, so those articles only seem to address the medical costs of smoking, but smokers also have an additional cost to society due to them being less productive than non-smokers, due to greater rates of absenteeism and lengthier and more frequent breaks from work:

Financial costs of excess absenteeism, reduced productivity, and occupational injury from employees who smoke are significant in Taiwan. Based on conservative estimates, total costs of smoking among working adults in Taiwan were approximately US$1032 million: US$184 million from increased sick leave, US$81 million from ETS, US$34 million from occupational injuries, and US$733 from lost productivity. Estimated costs from absenteeism were based on several factors as mentioned earlier (sick days among smokers, sick days among non-smokers due to ETS exposure, occupational related sick days, and loss of productivity due to smoking breaks). Applying available probable ranges for these parameters, table 6 shows that the financial costs due to smoking in Taiwan range from US$740 million to US$1476 million.

The study does say admit these costs are assumptions, but it's a significant amount of money.

This site gives a higher figure, but I don't really trust it because it's trying to sell "stop smoking" stuff to businesses, and I can't find where they get their information from, but it could be that smoking in the US costs more per capita in terms of lost productivity in Taiwan due to demographic differences in the distribution of smokers.

[Darth Wong]

Skimming the first link, it seems to be talking about health care costs being higher for non-smokers rather than non-smokers costing more simply because they spend longer in retirement, so I'm not entirely sure raising the retirement age would compensate.

It's directly impacted by retirement age. The expenses of old age security programs such as Social Security and private pension plans are based on how long the person draws off them. If someone retires at 65 and lives to 85, that's 20 years on the dole.

[Darth Wong]

Ok, so those articles only seem to address the medical costs of smoking, but smokers also have an additional cost to society due to them being less productive than non-smokers, due to greater rates of absenteeism and lengthier and more frequent breaks from work:

Ah, that's an interesting point. The NEJM article is based on lifespan, but doesn't really account for worker productivity levels.

[Junghalli]

It's directly impacted by retirement age. The expenses of old age security programs such as Social Security and private pension plans are based on how long the person draws off them. If someone retires at 65 and lives to 85, that's 20 years on the dole.

Yeah, but this depends on questions of exactly how smoking impacts your health, i.e. how much does smoking reduce your ability to work at 65 vs simply how long it reduces your lifespan.

[Lusankya]

Smoking also caused $7 billion worth of fire damage in the US in 1998, and $27.2 billion globally. For some reason, US fire deaths due to fires caused by smoking actually make up a far large larger portion of fire deaths than the world average (30% vs 10%).

[Darth Wong]

Smoking also caused $7 billion worth of fire damage in the US in 1998, and $27.2 billion globally. For some reason, US fire deaths due to fires caused by smoking actually make up a far large larger portion of fire deaths than the world average (30% vs 10%).

Perhaps US smokers also tend to be drinkers, hence they fall asleep with the cigarette smouldering in their hands.

[Sea Skimmer]

Smokers can fall asleep easily enough even without drinking. The mere act of laying down is what does it, should you be dumb enough to do that at all. No real surprise since smoking = oxygen deprivation = drowsiness.

It’d be interesting to see how smoker related fire damage and urbanization rates match up, because after all a smoker in an apartment building has a whole lot larger potential to cause massive damage. New York City, and now following in the wake a large number of US states have banned the chemical cigarette companies put into the tobacco to keep the cigarettes burning. Now its being phased out completely because it was too much trouble for the companies to produce two different kinds of cigarettes for that requirement.

[Lusankya]

It’d be interesting to see how smoker related fire damage and urbanization rates match up, because after all a smoker in an apartment building has a whole lot larger potential to cause massive damage.

That would depend. In Australia, it would probably be a fire in the countryside that has a larger potential to cause massive damage, but then again, it's a country made of fire accelerants, oil, exploding trees and burniness. And despite being one of the most urbanised countries in the world, it doesn't have too many apartment buildings.

[Tsyroc]

The fire damage cost had occurred to me too. IIRC at least one of the massive wild fires in the US over the last decade has been traced back to a cigarette butt too, so it's not just dwelling fires that we can pin the cost on smokers.


I also thought it might be worth mentioning that smokers pay more taxes than non-smokers just by shelling out for their habit on a regular basis. Whether it's enough to allow a government healthcare program to break even on the cost of treating life long smokers I don't know. It certainly doesn't help private insurers because the taxes all go to the government.

[charlemagne]

For some reason, US fire deaths due to fires caused by smoking actually make up a far large larger portion of fire deaths than the world average (30% vs 10%).

This is interesting, another point where the US is for some reason ahead (this just made me remember the far higher STD infection rates of the US compared to other Western countries).

Smokers can fall asleep easily enough even without drinking. The mere act of laying down is what does it, should you be dumb enough to do that at all. No real surprise since smoking = oxygen deprivation = drowsiness.

Well yeah, but also smoking = nicotine-enriched blood = stimulation/alertness Strictly anecdotally speaking I know no smoker who's out cold by lying down.

[Lusankya]

I also thought it might be worth mentioning that smokers pay more taxes than non-smokers just by shelling out for their habit on a regular basis. Whether it's enough to allow a government healthcare program to break even on the cost of treating life long smokers I don't know. It certainly doesn't help private insurers because the taxes all go to the government.

But as far as I'm aware, most of the money from cigarette taxes goes into smoking prevention and reduction programs.

Besides, smokers earn about 20% less than non-smokers, which means they pay about 28% less in taxes. Given that non-smokers only use 7% more money for medical services over their lives, that means that smokers are actually the ones freeloading.

Of course, stopping smoking probably wouldn't reduce the wage disparity, since it's probably more a case of correlation rather than causation, but it still shows that non-smokers are once again contributing more to society in the first place.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Smoking also caused $7 billion worth of fire damage in the US in 1998, and $27.2 billion globally. For some reason, US fire deaths due to fires caused by smoking actually make up a far large larger portion of fire deaths than the world average (30% vs 10%).

Perhaps US smokers also tend to be drinkers, hence they fall asleep with the cigarette smouldering in their hands.

I can't help but imagine that the fact commercial cigarettes are specifically designed to keep burning like a fuse until they hit filter plays a hefty role in driving the numbers up.

Ah, Capitalism!