Comments on: Cigarette Smokers Rejoice: You Don’t Burden Society With Healthcare Costs

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:33:28 +0000

Now that we have demolished the smokers, lets start on fat slobs, the poser-exercise nuts, the bimbo celebrities, the empty headed valley view girls (smarter children), the sylicon ridden “beauties”, the annoying tree huggers, gun toters, any kind of protesters, flip-flop politicans, in fact, lets go against everybody and tell them how to live, what to buy (GM or Chrisler), when to sleep and get up, where to work, what to eat, when to go to a doctor or not, who to marry, when to volunteer and where…in fact, don’t use your brain – we know what is best for you – so you lost your freedom, so what?

By: My Journey

My Journey — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:01:25 +0000

What up Freakonomics! Want a cool book to read that goes along these thoughts? "More Sex is Safe Sex." I'd be happy to lend it to you. My Journey’s last blog post..A Couple of Carnivals and a Fun Movie Trailer about Beer

By: steven@hundredgoals.com

steven@hundredgoals.com — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:44:42 +0000

I never looked at it in this way…good points! Fun to read too!

By: Miss M

Miss M — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:10:25 +0000

I think there was a similar conclusion to a study on obesity. Obese people tend to cost less over their lifespan because they die younger, though the longevity difference was not as bad as with smoking. I would think the cost of cancer treatments would offset the savings of dying young, but what do I know.

By: SJ

SJ — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:36:06 +0000

Smoking is gross. And hard. And expensive.

I think i’m pro other drugs… at least they are forced to do it in secret away from me -__-

But if it makes you happy… at least don’t make me suffer ugh. and clean up or make smokey sad!

But yea, hilarious. But wouldn’t this just be counteracted in the decreased taxes/production the smokers generate for the govt?

By: MoneyEnergy

MoneyEnergy — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:59:05 +0000

Thanks for visiting my blog…. ironic perhaps that smokers “cost less” since they die sooner, but the title of your post implies you support it – one has to read to the end to see that you don’t – could be more than misleading (rather than a matter of “style” as Baker points out above) for readers who don’t read the whole post.

Anyways, another great point is that smokers do harm non-smokers through second-hand smoke – the problem is a lot worse than people think. In certain jurisdictions now, they’re making it illegal to smoke in a vehicle if you’re driving with those under 18, and I think this is a step in the right direction. Ideally people naturally wouldn’t smoke near others (or at least near non-smokers), but this doesn’t happen on its own!

By: My Life ROI

My Life ROI — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:20:10 +0000

Interesting study.

My only complaint is that you left out one significant part of the study: “A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.”

The $417,000 figure is for THIN AND HEALTHY people. How many Americans are thin and healthy? :p

By: Amber Jones

Amber Jones — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:38:27 +0000

You know, I saw your tiny url on FB, and was sure I wasn’t going to agree with your statement because I immediately thought about how smokers do cause non-smokers more health concerns (second hand smoke), so I thought that it would burden our society more.

But it makes some sense as I would agree that smokers die earlier than healthy non-smokers and could in effect save on healthcare in the long run.

But when you have smokers around non-smokers, as I mentioned before, this increases their healthcare costs. So does the “healthy nonsmokers” costs assume that the person could have been around second hand smoke? Most likely not.

By: Baker @ ManVsDebt

Baker @ ManVsDebt — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:22:06 +0000

Haha, your writing style never ceases to make me laugh.

The point you bring up about not wanting to pay for the healthcare of people that purposely destroy their bodies is very relevant. However, I do think it’s a slippery slope. I mean, I’m overweight for sure, which is just another form of destroying myself. I wonder how long it will take before the government institutes a fat tax of some sort.

Actually I’d be all for a fat tax… maybe then I’d be able to shed a few pounds!