• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

Which brings us back to the point that smokers already pay a lot more, through taxation, even though they don't cost society more.
Still really stupid, if you ask me.

Gosh, I had no idea that the oxygen tanks for those with emphysema were free. Lung cancer must be the cheapest cancer to treat there is as well.

People that take care of themselves do not necessarily live longer than the obese or smokers, they simply have a better quality of life later in their lives and consume far less healthcare later in there lives. Its far cheaper to be healthy, your health deteriorate rather quickly over the course of a couple of months, then you die, than it is to be in poor health for decades before the chronic diseases you have (heart disease, adult onset diabetes, or emphysema) finally kill you.
 
Gosh, I had no idea that the oxygen tanks for those with emphysema were free. Lung cancer must be the cheapest cancer to treat there is as well.

Not that it's free. But over half the cost of tobacco products currently is tax, and those taxes were created for the purpose of offsetting the additional healthcare costs.

People that take care of themselves do not necessarily live longer than the obese or smokers, they simply have a better quality of life later in their lives and consume far less healthcare later in there lives. Its far cheaper to be healthy, your health deteriorate rather quickly over the course of a couple of months, then you die, than it is to be in poor health for decades before the chronic diseases you have (heart disease, adult onset diabetes, or emphysema) finally kill you.

Except that statistically this isn't true. Smokers will come down with big disease earlier than non-smokers. But they will also die earlier. If you live a healthy life, when you're knocking on death's door it takes A LOT of money to keep you alive for another 6 months. The smokers, who already pay, whom succumb to disease earlier in life tend to die earlier in life and thus do not incur the end of life costs that "healthy" people will eventually realize.

Furthermore, their earlier deaths save on all sorts of things from pensions, medicare, social security, etc. Dying early is cheaper than holding on.
 
Not that it's free. But over half the cost of tobacco products currently is tax, and those taxes were created for the purpose of offsetting the additional healthcare costs.



Except that statistically this isn't true. Smokers will come down with big disease earlier than non-smokers. But they will also die earlier. If you live a healthy life, when you're knocking on death's door it takes A LOT of money to keep you alive for another 6 months. The smokers, who already pay, whom succumb to disease earlier in life tend to die earlier in life and thus do not incur the end of life costs that "healthy" people will eventually realize.

Furthermore, their earlier deaths save on all sorts of things from pensions, medicare, social security, etc. Dying early is cheaper than holding on.

Do you have any sources at all to back up your claim that the chronic diseases associated with smoking and obesity are cheaper - because they live shorter lives, than what the average healthy fit individual consumes?

If your fat, you are getting a knee replacement at 50, high blood pressure drugs from 40s on, cholesterol drugs from 40s on, adult onset diabetes drugs and treatments many times, and various other treatments and surgeries related to heart disease and joint deterioration until you die.

If you are a smoker, chances are you have all that, plus the health issues associated with smoking. Yet that is supposed to be cheaper than the 65 year old guy that still runs, eats right, maintains a health bmi, and does not take any drugs for blood pressure or cholesterol?
 
Which brings us back to the point that smokers already pay a lot more, through taxation, even though they don't cost society more.
Still really stupid, if you ask me.

But if they are costing the EMPLOYER more, the taxes don't cover that increased cost to the employer...
 
Do you have any sources at all to back up your claim that the chronic diseases associated with smoking and obesity are cheaper - because they live shorter lives, than what the average healthy fit individual consumes?

If your fat, you are getting a knee replacement at 50, high blood pressure drugs from 40s on, cholesterol drugs from 40s on, adult onset diabetes drugs and treatments many times, and various other treatments and surgeries related to heart disease and joint deterioration until you die.

If you are a smoker, chances are you have all that, plus the health issues associated with smoking. Yet that is supposed to be cheaper than the 65 year old guy that still runs, eats right, maintains a health bmi, and does not take any drugs for blood pressure or cholesterol?

Not to mention that the healthy 65-year-old can still be a highly productive member of society...
 
Not to mention that the healthy 65-year-old can still be a highly productive member of society...

That's a good point. Long after the typical smoker is on the oxygen and drawing disability, a healthy and fit senior is still working and still paying taxes.
 
Open discrimination to be honest, why not charge old people double the standard because of the costs they accrue?
Jeez. Don't give them any ideas.
 
That's a good point. Long after the typical smoker is on the oxygen and drawing disability, a healthy and fit senior is still working and still paying taxes.

This isn't data, this is your hysteria. Can't be useful? Some smokers go out quickly, some stay relatively healthy and productive for a very long time. Man, we can't be going off of your imagination here; we need data. This was already posted awhile back:

They actually cost a little less, overall. But only because non-smokers, on average, live about 10 years longer.

MMS: Error
Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

But, in that case, you would have to take into account that most of the medical costs for those non-smokers are going to be near the end of life, most likely after retirement age, or at least after reaching Medicare age. So, as far as insurances that are offered as worker plans, within that time frame, the smokers are more likely to cost insurance companies more in health care costs, especially older smokers.

Basically, those insurance companies that are providing health care for workers are not interested in the overall costs of a lifetime smoker compared to a lifetime non-smoker, since the increase in cost of a non-smoker is likely to come after the person no longer has that particular insurance.

It doesn't matter how "healthy" one lives their life. All men die. They all cost a lot of money keeping alive. But the smoker goes earlier and thus nets less cost.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how "healthy" one lives their life. All men die. They all cost a lot of money keeping alive. But the smoker goes earlier and thus nets less cost.

Which is all relative to how the person lives and whether they actually do get preventive or any healthcare at all, especially at the end of life. And not all people cost a lot of money to be kept alive, since some are certainly going to refuse such extension of what they may consider either a well-fulfilled life or an extension not worth the cost.

The longer the smoker lives, the more his life is going to cost. And if he is still working, then that costs is taken on generally by whatever health insurance is offered through his job, especially if he is still relatively young. In which case, compared to someone at his same age with that particular medical insurance, the smoker is going to cost more than the non-smoker in health care costs.

I would love to see us go to a UHC, and not have to worry about this at all, but the facts are that employer based insurance is going to base their costs on what they are most likely to pay for while the person is covered by them. Since the average ages for men and women are past 65 and retirement age is also around there, then most employer offered health insurance is going to take this into account and figure that those extra 10 years of life and subsequent medical bills that a non-smoker would cost more than a smoker would not be covered by them anyway, since they would probably be retired by that time, and most likely have Medicare.
 
Back
Top Bottom