A Post FOR Smokers....

[catnhatnh]

In a post from yesterday regarding smoking the poster suggested higher taxes on tobacco to charge smokers for their "increased health care costs" and this in turn was supported by other posters including "health care proffesionals" who also cited "higher costs"...So read it and weep-if anyone is owed anything, it would seem the smokers are owed a rebate-and an apology.



LONDON (AP) -- Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.(The cost for the "healthy" group was $417,000)

"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.



http://medicine.plosjournals.org

Any smokers want to join me here in presenting Razzies and waiting for this one to be spun???

Edited to add:the cost for the "healthy" group was $417,000.

[corkhead]

1. Smokers should be exempt from social security

they won't need it.:P :evilgrin: :hide:

[Jed Dilligan]

2. I read this in the paper

Great link to throw at the "YOUR FOUL HABIT IS STEALING MY REVENUE" weirdos.

I think we need a Smoking Forum--a "butt crack" where smoking flamewars can be left to smolder.

[elehhhhna]

18. Why bother?

They're a bunch of drunks, anyway.

[catnhatnh]

34. "That's your lot in life Elehhhhna...."

I can't blame ya.....is THAT were it comes from?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Longer lifespans always offset the savings of prevention and healthier habits

It's a dumb argument against things like smoking. Argue from a moral good standpoint or appeal to the self-interest of the smoker because that's more subjective than using statistics which can be easily disproven.

[sazemisery]

4. I'm with ya on this one, catnhatnh

We can use this as the trophy

[frazzled]

5. I've been saying this for years

Whatever more a smoker's healthcare may cost for a short period of time ... the fact that they will (probably) die sooner offsets that.

I've been spending a lot of time at a nursing home lately, visiting my mother-in-law, who is 95. Having used up all her personal assets (and no, she gave none away to her children in advance), Medicaid is now paying for it. There are people who are 104 in this facility. It's extra good care, and costs a lot. Plus there is a hospitalization for her every six months or so (urinary tract infection, broken hip, TIA ... it's always something.) This living a long time is very expensive.

[madinmaryland]

6. Not sure where that actual stats are, but

considering non-smokers live 10-20 years longer, then I would assume their healthcare cost would be a higher total in the long run, though as an average per year would probably be less than the smokers.

Smokers 20-65 (45 years)
326,000/45=$7,244/yr

Non-smokers 20-82 (62 years)
417,000/62=$6,725/yr

:shrug:

It's only a guess, as I don't know all of the statistics.

[elehhhhna]

20. smokers pay at least 50 cents per day (super-conservative guesstimate)

in TAXES on smokes. At least 8K per year.

[Wizard777]

22. Not in Maryland we paid 1.00 until the recent 100% increase. Now we pay 2.00.

That should place our medicare payments from the cigarette tax at 320 million per year instead of the 160 million we used to pay. That a hell of a lot of money to paying for nonsmokers to say we are deadbeats on medical bills. We used to pay the states medical bill throught the nose. Now we are paying the States medical bill out the ass.

[Warpy]

7. A successful antismoking campaign in the UK in the 50s

produced a bumper crop of "frail elderly" in the 70s and 80s, people who had been sickened, often from smoking, to the point they could no longer care for themselves. It did cost more than allowing them to continue smoking and court a heart attack and earlier grave.

I watched my mother take 25 years to die from COPD since she quit smoking about 10 years too late. She spent those years fighting for every breath she took. It was horrible to watch and it was a horrible way to die.

If you smoke, quit. If you can't quit, set fire to that thing outdoors and we'll get along just fine.

[catnhatnh]

9. Thanks for stepping in....

on a thread were I wanted to tweek the noses of a few rabid anti-smokers. And welcome too. Iwould NEVER post a pro-smoking thread but may occasionally dash off a pro-smoker one. Your advise is good and one day I hope to quit. But until then (and probably after) I hope to oppose the demonization and the money-milking of smokers by anti-smoking zealots.

[catnhatnh]

8. The Spin is In....

so I went back to the other post that advocated higher taxes because of "the increased MEDICAL costs",and appearently yahoo has picked up the story (I got mine from AP via the Union Leader).The OP attacked on the basis of increased "social costs" including "lost productivity".But that is NOT what she said the taxes were for and the study cited stated they had addressed only medical costs.The poster also stuck in something about how expensive it is to transport the morbidly obese (as if that wouldn't be addressed in a study of medical costs).So in short if you are a fifty plus smoker you have been lied to, advertised to, addicted, overtaxed, and now milked like a cow for every governmental shortfall.While many posters called for taxes to go into "smoking cessation programs" or even rehab, not one poster suggested the government ban the manufacture or sale of tobacco or cigarettes.Oddly enough, I might support that-an outright ban with no penalty for rolling or growing your own might actually do some societal good.What percentage of teens would get the habit when it was hard to come by and so initially unpleasant???Got that-not just cigarettes but no bulk tobacco, no rolling machines, no filter tubes, and no penaties for addicted people...In one years time this country could be 99% smoke free and THAT is what anti-smokers would push for if they were honest in their convictions.Instead they allege "severe smoke allergies" and oppose the establishment of any smoker friendly facilities.But their actions show them not to be "public health advocates" but smoking Puritans,who have the feeling that somewhere,someone,is enjoying something.

[Raejeanowl]

29. I Agree With You 99.99%

But there is such a thing as an intolerance to smoke-years of smoking left me with one (go figure). I have to carry a rescue inhaler around because I start wheezing when I walk through clouds of it. Barbecues and fireplaces, too. But I'd never begrudge someone their enjoyment; I just need to know what places to avoid, or that there are places I can go safely.

Yes, if they'd only get the courage of their "convictions" together. Were I still smoking, I wouldn't necessarily mind buying them from behind a drugstore pharmacy counter, while a program of attrition on the way to outright ban was phased in.

[catnhatnh]

10. The Part that Irks me is the Hypocracy...

...that the original post is on the greatest page with more than 15 "recommends" and when a part of it is proven factually wrong the silence is deafening.Let's talk taxes here-cigarettes are one of the single highest taxed commoditities in the US and it turns out that not only should we not be taxed-it turns out we should be subsidized JUST LIKE THE AGRO-GROWERS.Appearently we are dying off at a 90 thousand plus savings to the "healthcare" system and the statistics indicate we should be payed about $2000 a year even if we smoke UNTAXED cigarettes...in short, if the system is to continue this way, the reality is that the stores should hand you all you can smoke WHILE saying "Thank You"...But on this subject I find little honesty here.

[kster]

11. This should scare the sh*t out of non-smokers and smokers alike

Popular health magazines ... contain warnings against the dangers of smoking. The scientific research into the health effects of smoking goes hand in hand with extensive health promotion activities aimed at reducing the prevalence of the habit.

Transportation, workplaces, and public buildings become targets for smoking reduction campaigns. Smoking is prohibited in many individual workplaces and public buildings, including government bureaus, hospitals, and rest homes.

Tobacco manufacturers cannot represent the use of tobacco as a sign of manliness.

Excerpts from Contemporary News?...


No.

Nazi Germany,



1937 - 1944


http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2.htm

[catnhatnh]

12. Cool Post Kster.....

Smoke Nazis-who wudda thunk it?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

27. Thats what alot of people dont get

Much of the Nazi Agenda was aimed at curtailing freedoms for 'the public good'. People who think the rights of small business owners are somehow less than their own are not in good company..

[Matariki]

13. You want to 'present Razzies' to people because they'll live longer?

well, that'll show them.

[erinlough]

14. No. but I do want smokers to stop being demonized

I have said for years that since I haven't smoked around non-smokers, even in my own house, ever, I never fought any of the smoking bans, I will die sooner and release any claim I have to Social Security or Medicare to the younger generation, you should throw me a parade. The problem I see with the attitude of some of the anti-smoking groups is that to win their rights they must make the smoker out to be evil.

Someone I have worked with for 12 years just told me she found out I smoked just this year (she passed me in my car when I was indulging) she was shocked I tell you, just shocked. I didn't even laugh or tell her it was none of her business anyway. I just smiled.

I am middle aged, I just finished taking care of my two non-smoking 87 year old parents, and if you ask me, that last 7 years we just went through was nothing I really ever want to experience. My doctor told me I was cutting my life by ten years, when I paused and told him that would be about right he started laughing with me.

[Lugnut]

33. Let me tell you about my mother-in-law.

She will be 97 years old in two weeks. She smoked until she was in her late 70s. The only reason she quit smoking was because she couldn't afford them anymore on her meager SS income. She's as sharp as a tack but she's in a nursing home because her legs are shot. Having eight kids and running her family grocery store wore them out. She told me she'd still smoke if she could afford cigarettes and take herself outside to smoke them.

I smoke and I smoke in my own home and car. Anyone who doesn't want to spend time with me while I'm smoking in my own space has a choice to not be there.

[Zhade]

35. Smokers shouldn't be demonized.

Selfish assholes who smoke and want the right to force their cancer on others, like their kids, should be demonized.

There's a difference.

[Wizard777]

15. Funny, nonsmokers don't mind smokers paying their medical bills.

At least not in Maryland. Here Medicare is paid out of the money made with our cigarette tax. Maryland smokers pay 160 million dollars worth of medical bills every year. If than money was put into a fund that only paid the medical bills of smokers. The nonsmokers wouldn't have to pay our medical bills. We could pay them ourselves. Do you how much money Maryland makes off people not smoking? Nothing! Zero! Zip! Zilch! Nodda! So in reality the nonsmokers depend upon the smokers to pay their medical bills.

[spacelady]

16. Excellent point. n/t

[Wizard777]

23. That's without mentioning the taxation without Representation.

Maryland has a 1 billion dollar deficit. That's probably because our legislators represent people who do not pay taxes. They have just passed all kinds of smoking bans. When it comes to smoking issues I think tax paying smokers should be given weight over non tax paying nonsmokers. So what comes down to in Maryland is that the best way to get representation in Annapolis is to not pay taxes.

[Raejeanowl]

26. My Other Bright Idea

Involves a boat and a load of cigarettes. I'm sure you get my drift, pun intended.

[Wizard777]

31. I propose a Clean Air Tax for non smokers.

On the Maryland tax form there would be a box for nonsmokers to check. Certifying under the penalty of perjury that they are a nonsmoker and then add $730.00 to the amount of taxes owed. That's 2.00 per day just like many smokers pay. There would also be a database of the people people filing as nonsmokers accessible by insurance companies. That way you can't claim Nonsmoker on your health insurance and smoker on you tax form.

[Raejeanowl]

25. Worse Than That

Maryland relies on keeping people smoking in order to balance the general budget. They hike the cigarette tax and call it a "cessation program." Funny, I thought perhaps state tax rebates, or anti-nicotine prescription subsidies, or free health-department support groups would be more on point. Silly me!

[Wizard777]

30. When I started smoking cigarettes were .05 per pack. This last increase won't get me to stop.

After suing the tobacco companies for concealing that they profit from cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and death. They don't even have the common decency to say that they are going to balance the budget with cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and death.

[tyedyeto]

17. I'll add this....

I stopped smoking for many years and took up the 'habit' 7 years ago.

I have been to the doctor 3 times since, all for non-smoking related problems.

My health insurance carrier has deemed me to be at greater risk because of my age (not by my smoking 'habit') than other co-workers who have had several operations and who are on many prescription meds. Myself, I take no meds and, other than an annual check-up, have no need for the medical community except when I am physically sick.

The smoker-non smoker equation doesn't always fit those nice and neat bubbles insurance companies and (some) Democrats think we belong in.

[shadowknows69]

19. I'm large and I smoke

Someone should be paying me damnit!

[ruiner4u]

21. I want to know where my Patch and Nicotine gum went...

I thought the cig tax was to help smokers... Instead Im paying for for crap when I want to smoke...


Ridiculous

[Raejeanowl]

28. Don't You Know?

It's voluntary-a "lifestyle improvement." That's what my insurance company said about my costly prescriptions. And I remember (then) Governor Paris Glendenning sending out a newsletter with really cutting-edge quit-smoking recommendations like drinking cocoa.

[Raejeanowl]

24. That Was An Interesting Article

One of the unintentionally amusing consequences of its publication was a derivative article-sorry, no link-citing a specific comparison of smoking, obese and healthy people. It said that "healthy people" were the "likeliest to die of a stroke." Huh?

But it does generally back up what I've been saying for years. The claims of extraordinary health costs are overall b.s. because smokers and the morbidly obese die early deaths. They may have extreme costs, especially in their final illnesses, but they don't tend to hang around until 100 with one chronic illness after another and drive up Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance costs.

I'm a former smoker, by the way, and the two most policy-shaping, number-massaging, operative words in your OP are "political agendas." The misinformation is part of the crap the states opportunistically took to court to get the tobacco $ettlement$. And look how much of it they all plowed back into prevention and help with cessation. :sarcasm:

[Greyhound]

32. I've finished my cigarette and it's time for bed.

Nice article and thread.:smoke:

Thanks.

:kick: & R

[pleah]

36. I usually try to avoid smoking threads, but I have one question, why has noone

sued for discrimination over these laws? They are discriminatory laws. Oh, well. I need a cigarette.