Fat Smokers. Not All Bad?
Discussion
From an economics point of view. They pay loads of tobacco tax then die 10 years early saving those expensive later years health costs.
" One Small Step, for example, points out that smoking costs the UK government £12.6bn a year, £2.5bn of which is spent on NHS smoking services. On the same page, however, it notes that “half of all life-long smokers die early, losing on average 10 years of their life”. Given how dramatically health, social care and pension expenditure increases as someone ages past retirement, those 10 lost years actually represent a saving for the taxpayer."
https://www.newstatesman.com/health-science/2022/0...
" One Small Step, for example, points out that smoking costs the UK government £12.6bn a year, £2.5bn of which is spent on NHS smoking services. On the same page, however, it notes that “half of all life-long smokers die early, losing on average 10 years of their life”. Given how dramatically health, social care and pension expenditure increases as someone ages past retirement, those 10 lost years actually represent a saving for the taxpayer."
https://www.newstatesman.com/health-science/2022/0...
I don't have the figures to hand, but my understanding was that even though they die early, their overall poor health and conditions caused by their obesity and smoking actually means they cost the NHS more - but at a high level, this cost is largely offset by the additional tax that smokers in particular pay.
I think it all comes out in the wash anyway. But bluntly put, there is no doubt that the country would be in much better financial health if everybody died a decade earlier than they do now.
I think it all comes out in the wash anyway. But bluntly put, there is no doubt that the country would be in much better financial health if everybody died a decade earlier than they do now.
deckster said:
I don't have the figures to hand, but my understanding was that even though they die early, their overall poor health and conditions caused by their obesity and smoking actually means they cost the NHS more - but at a high level, this cost is largely offset by the additional tax that smokers in particular pay.
I think it all comes out in the wash anyway. But bluntly put, there is no doubt that the country would be in much better financial health if everybody died a decade earlier than they do now.
To quote Yes Prime Minister...I think it all comes out in the wash anyway. But bluntly put, there is no doubt that the country would be in much better financial health if everybody died a decade earlier than they do now.
YPM said:
Jim Hacker: It says here, smoking related diseases cost the National Health Service £165 million a year.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes but we've been in to that, it has been shown that if those extra 100,000 people had lived to a ripe old age, it would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than it did in medical treatment. So, financially speaking it's unquestionably better that they continue to die at their present rate.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes but we've been in to that, it has been shown that if those extra 100,000 people had lived to a ripe old age, it would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than it did in medical treatment. So, financially speaking it's unquestionably better that they continue to die at their present rate.
J4CKO said:
Roderick Spode said:
I'm carrying a few pounds stone (let's be honest) extra, and smoke a pipe. Do I count?
Pipe ? Hipster or have you stumbled in from a HG Wells novel ?coppernorks said:
Has anyone asked the OP what causes the unacceptable amount of ursine droppings in woodland areas ?
Don't tell me. Tell the govt sponsored propoganda units which insist that smokers are an overall financial drain on society.https://ash.org.uk/media-and-news/press-releases-m...
I think there is an assumption that all obese people are constantly ill and in the NHS system. I suspect the reality is that there are 10s of millions of "obese" people in the UK that havent been to the docs in years and rarely get ill, just go about their business, going to work, etc etc day in day out.
The notion that being obese automatically makes you ill is nonsense. I'd be interested in seeing the stats on % obese and bariatric patients in the NHS treatment system, compared to non obese / baratric. Anecdotally, when i have been in hospital, it been for broken bones, routine ops, follow up, physio etc, and i havent noticed the place being full of 20 stone plussers!
I am not saying they dont suffer with illnesses or more than non obese, nor that it is healthy to be so, but i think the notion of the NHS being dragged down by such people is horses
t.
I dont know many "obese people" but i do know a few. They all work, none are "disabled" non have any issues with being "ill" or in hospital any more than anyone else i know. I suspect many carry on in life, happy at what they are doing, ignorant of the risks maybe, and just drop down dead one day from heart attack, rather than go chronically sick?
The notion that being obese automatically makes you ill is nonsense. I'd be interested in seeing the stats on % obese and bariatric patients in the NHS treatment system, compared to non obese / baratric. Anecdotally, when i have been in hospital, it been for broken bones, routine ops, follow up, physio etc, and i havent noticed the place being full of 20 stone plussers!
I am not saying they dont suffer with illnesses or more than non obese, nor that it is healthy to be so, but i think the notion of the NHS being dragged down by such people is horses
t. I dont know many "obese people" but i do know a few. They all work, none are "disabled" non have any issues with being "ill" or in hospital any more than anyone else i know. I suspect many carry on in life, happy at what they are doing, ignorant of the risks maybe, and just drop down dead one day from heart attack, rather than go chronically sick?
Health economics is an interesting subject.
Ideally you have people who have healthy, productive working lives, retire, and drop dead cleanly and promptly after retirement. The last thing you want is someone consuming vast amounts of resources in their later lives over many years when they are unproductive. Dementia is a bloody disaster if you are coming at it from a health economics pov.
From that point of view, heavy smokers are great. They live until they are about 60, and die fast. If they get other ailments later in life, their smoking finishes them off quickly.
Fat people are slightly more questionable. If they’re really fat, then they are less productive (can’t work). Their ailments generally preclude them from getting really old and expensive, but diabetes and the like costs a fortune.
Of course, all this is about probability. Everyone can find an example of a 90 year old Alzheimer’s patient who smokes like a chimney. But in the main, they don’t make it that far.
Ideally you have people who have healthy, productive working lives, retire, and drop dead cleanly and promptly after retirement. The last thing you want is someone consuming vast amounts of resources in their later lives over many years when they are unproductive. Dementia is a bloody disaster if you are coming at it from a health economics pov.
From that point of view, heavy smokers are great. They live until they are about 60, and die fast. If they get other ailments later in life, their smoking finishes them off quickly.
Fat people are slightly more questionable. If they’re really fat, then they are less productive (can’t work). Their ailments generally preclude them from getting really old and expensive, but diabetes and the like costs a fortune.
Of course, all this is about probability. Everyone can find an example of a 90 year old Alzheimer’s patient who smokes like a chimney. But in the main, they don’t make it that far.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff