Wanted: more smokers and obese people
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.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:51 am
If you look at the growing number of obese people in North America, we could be solving our own overpopulation problem. Life expectancies will probably drop back to what they were at the start of the 20th century due to our poor habits.
Fat smokers are hot as hell, too.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Hi Andrew
I think your show is great and the more controversial the better. The topic yesterday regarding “healthy people cost more” was so funny. I could just see the non-smokers wincing. I quit smoking about 10 years ago and my son says I am
the “poster child” with reference to dedicated smokers being able to quit.
I am really tired of all these crazy regulations i.e not being able to smoke in a parking lot or a beach - for God’s sake - get a life and take up another cause. I would like to see you do a show sometime on euthanasia (for people ). I don’t understand the fact that we are able to starve a terminal person to death or cut their oxygen, but we can’t give them a needle to
end long term suffering which, to me, is much more humane.
Regards,
Sandra
February 8th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I’m ashamed to say that I’ve been a non-smoker for a few weeks shy of a year, but at least I put on some weight…
This isn’t the first time this idea has been thrown around. Philip Morris attempted to increase it’s international sales by presenting data to the government of some former Soviet country, that showed smokers were less of a burden on the health care system because they tend to die sooner. Unlike a lot of tobacco company funded studies, it looks like this one had some merit.
Let’s face it, the government has probably been aware of this for years, as for the past few decades they’ve been pushing tobacco use away with one hand, and drawing it in closer with the other. They love their tobacco tax cash and having to dole out a few less pension cheques doesn’t hurt them any either.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Love your show, what would the government do if everyone quit? This country is becoming Communist they tell you where you can and can’t smoke you cant even smoke in a bar anymore. I bet if you went to Russia and told them you cant smoke in our bars they would laugh its getting to the point people don’t want to leave their houses.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Pretty soon it’s gonna be that you can’t smoke outside of your own home! I’m getting fed up with all the hipe too! Laws laws and more laws,why don’t they make one big law! The law would be STOP MAKING THEM! There’s no benefit what so ever to cigarettes other then putting money in the hands of the already wealthy kingpins.
If they outlawed hunting and target pratcice would they still make bullets? Sure they would,just so people could buy them on the black market and kill! Were not going to get rid of the worlds problems untill they rid thease people of their greed. If I were to cut myself ,i would bleed. The trama we see today from smoking, is the direct result of someones greed. Someone once said”For every action there’s an equal and oppisite reaction”.Nothing has changed,that law still stands today.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
A visitor to our country could go into a smoke shop, but a pack of smokes, light up and get the owner of the shop fined, then he steps out side and gets usshered away by the owner who then receives a human rights violation, then the smoker gets fined for smoking in a public place, so he gets into his car and since the kids are there gets fined again. With all the fines and taxes associated with cigarrettes, why don’t the government just ban smoking everywhere adn just fine every canadian $1000.