Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

They cost us money. That has been the perception. A new Dutch study says that people who are less healthy live shorter lives and cost the health care system less.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because smokers and obese people died sooner than the healthy group it cost less to treat them in the long run (that does not include all of the extra taxes smokers pay over a lifetime).

The Associated Press report story goes on to say “in a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the “healthy-living” group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on ‘cost of illness’ data and disease prevalence in the
Netherlands in 2003”.

What if this study is really true? What if the moral high-ground of “healthy people” is no more? At that point opposition to those that choose unhealthy lifestyles has to be seen as aesthetic or empathetic or just one-upmanship, or marginalization under the guise of concern for behavior modification. Many people try, for any reason at all, to simply point fingers.

Most non-smokers are not really bothered by actual second-hand smoke; they just don’t like the idea of someone else doing it. For many others, unless it is a loved one, how others behave and what others do as a lifestyle choice is irrelevant.

There are still those who would like to hide behind the notion of altruistic societal betterment in the notion of condemning lifestyle choices. “It’s better for all of us” is the mantra.

Well, now that that notion is blown out the window with regard to obesity and smoking, the principal and logic of the argument should still remain and apply; that is, if you are determining as the main criterion for your evaluation cost benefits, then let’s look at it the other way.

What that means, by your very own argumentation logic, and the prioritizations of your criteria, is that more people should be fat and smoke as it is more health cost effective.

I am still jogging, but I won’t pull that Twinkie away from you.

But yes, now that you’ve asked, I do have a light.