Addictions cost economy $40B a year!

[Circa89]

Okay Fine I'll concede defeat on my fuzzy math skills. A point remains that this "study" did not take into account revenues generated by tobacco and alcohol use. That is a severely flawed study. What if a study had said The Calgary Flames lose X amount of money per season because they pay out millions in salaries. Note * "this study" doesn't take into account gate revenues, parking or concession takes. Therefore there is no way it costs the economy $40B. I'm sure they could have grown the number to $100B if they wanted to. including costs such as The tabacco farmer wastes gas and oil tilling crops and spend way too much on pesticides and fertilizers. Ashtray companies strip the Canadian Shield of metal products in turn causing those miners the dreaded Black Lung and ensuing health care costs.

This arguement is going nowhere. I conclude with this. Everyone dies, health care costs are a by product of death. Smokers/drinkers pony up a lot extra in sin taxes etc. for essentially the same services that non-smokers/drinkers enjoy. Lets not label smokers/drinkers the devil because they are not!

My wife has cancer. Is this smoking/eating/Drink related? NO she eats well, does not smoke and has an ocassional glass of wine. It's called life (and or death). I have no idea what the health care costs will add up to and I don't really give a rats ass. We are all going to die and as Canadians we are supposed to help share the burden with pride and a sense of duty. After all isn't that what seperates us from The Americans and makes us Canadian.

[NuclearFart]

I am sorry to hear about your wife, and I hope she prevails through this.
________
Arizona Medical Marijuana

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Dude, it DOES cost the economy $40 billion because the country is on the hook for $40 Billion that would otherwise not be spent.

A parallel would be insurance.

If you never get into an accident the cost to the insurance company is $0.
If you get into an accident because you are drunk then the cost to your insurance company is say $10 000.
Just because you and other people pay insurance premiums does not mean there is no cost to the isurance company.

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SMOKERS ARE PAYING TAXES FOR THEIR OWN PROBLEM. even if they had to pay out of pocket that doesn't mean that there isn't a cost to the Canadian Economy. The fact of the matter is that $40 Billion is being spent on problems directly related to addictions that could be spent elsewhere if those addictions did not exist.

Even if it did matter, I've already shown that smokers DO NOT PAY ENOUGHT TAXES TO COVER THE COST OF THEIR OWN TREATMENT. But again that is moot because the fact that they require more treatment is the entire point of the arguement.

Another example.

The country needs roads. Does this cost the country anything? Of course. But wait, these roads are paid for by taxes, so I guess they don't actually cost anything right?

To reiterate. The fact remains that smokers are causing an increase in healthcare costs. Wheter they pay for it directly through taxes, the costs are split evenly throughout the country, or they pay right out of pocket, the fact remains that money is being spent on a service that would not be required if it weren't for smoking. That is the cost to the economy. Yes, we are all supposed to share the burden of helping the sick and injured in the country, but because of things like smoking, the burden on all of us is increased.

That being said, i am also sad to hear about your wife, and I hope she recovers.

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Dude, it DOES cost the economy $40 billion because the country is on the hook for $40 Billion that would otherwise not be spent.

A parallel would be insurance.

If you never get into an accident the cost to the insurance company is $0.
If you get into an accident because you are drunk then the cost to your insurance company is say $10 000.
Just because you and other people pay insurance premiums does not mean there is no cost to the isurance company.

Okay I'll let this go right after this last point.

You say it cost $40 Billion that would otherwise not be spent. Yes it would be spent! Lots of money still gets spent on people's care wether they are wholesome perfect health conscious indiviuals or not. The money would still be spent, end of story.

Car Insurance is not a good paralel. it fact its terrible
If you don't get into an accident it cost $0 right?
Well guess what, we will all die (get into the accident) eventually no matter how carefully we drive.

Enough is enough. I see your side and understand where you are coming from I just don't agree with the numbers thats all.

Its almost 5:00 I must stop chating, get a little work done so I can watch some Hockey!

Cheers

Nice debating with you

[11mile]

Good read Cheese, thanks. I usually don't have much faith in yahoo write-ups, but this one is reasonably solid.

These topics are all tough to debate because of the variable outcomes of boozing/smoking. Some people can do it their whole lives and run a halfmarathon at age 60, others are bedridden by age 25. There really is no way to tell (Dr. Fart: resist the temptation to refute this please ). Taking a guess at revenue/cost of "sin" at this point is just that: guessing.

Best wishes Circa.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Circa89

Okay I'll let this go right after this last point.

You say it cost $40 Billion that would otherwise not be spent. Yes it would be spent! Lots of money still gets spent on people's care wether they are wholesome perfect health conscious indiviuals or not. The money would still be spent, end of story.

Car Insurance is not a good paralel. it fact its terrible
If you don't get into an accident it cost $0 right?
Well guess what, we will all die (get into the accident) eventually no matter how carefully we drive.

Enough is enough. I see your side and understand where you are coming from I just don't agree with the numbers thats all.

Its almost 5:00 I must stop chating, get a little work done so I can watch some Hockey!

Cheers

Nice debating with you

MY GOD YOU ARE FRUSTRATING TO DEAL WITH.

The fact is that due to things like cigarettes the number of people who die due to illness such as cancer is higher than it would be withou cigarettes. Cancer is very expensive to treat. Without cigarettes we would have less of the expensive chronic problems to treat. THAT IS A FACT.

Yes we all die, but people who smoke tend to die in ways that are a lot more expensive, and you simply saying "We all die so the money would be spent anyway" is just wrong.

If smoking gives me cancer then my death will be prolonged and cost the system quite a bit. But if I don't smoke and don't get cancer, and die of something else, say a heart attack, my death essentially costs the healthcare system nothing.

See, dying prolonged chronic illness = expensive
Dying of "Natural causes" = not expensive

More smoking = more prolonged chronic illness
Therefore
More smoking = more expensive deaths = greater cost to heathcare system.

BTW, I don't know why it is you are saying nice degating with me, because I have yet to see a post of yours that shows any semblance of actual debate. Simply "Not agreeing with the numbers" isnt' debating, it's ignorance.

For interests sake here are other things you can debate with me if you "Don't beleive the numbers"

1+1=2
3<4
2*4=8

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If smoking gives me cancer then my death will be prolonged and cost the system quite a bit. But if I don't smoke and don't get cancer, and die of something else, say a heart attack, my death essentially costs the healthcare system nothing.

See, dying prolonged chronic illness = expensive
Dying of "Natural causes" = not expensive

This particular bit is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. "Prolonged chronic illness" is very much a part of "natural causes"; these are not mutually exclusive concepts. I think you're on to something, but this is not a solid way to defend your stance.

More smoking = more prolonged chronic illness
Therefore
More smoking = more expensive deaths = greater cost to heathcare system.

In a very general way, you can substitute "more natural causes" for "more smoking" in your flow chart there... and it would make the same amount of sense. There is reasonable evidence to support that "natural causes" are increasing in prevalence these days too.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Dude you even said yourself in a previous post that the avoidable cost due to smoking etc is $1260 per canadian. If it wernt' for these addictions that avoidable cost would not be spent, that is what makes it avoidable.

I think everyone will agree that the cases of chronic illness brought on by smoking and other addictions are among the more expensive treatments to administer (Examples such as cancer, and liver/kidney failure). Yes there are more expensive ways to die, but overall, non smoking related deatsh would be on the whole cheaper even though in the big picture they also include some, but not nearly as many, of the ultra expensive treatments.

It is the extra instances of the expensive treatments that is causing the extra burden on the economy.

Yes we all die, but smokers are much more likely to die in expensive prolonged ways, that is a fact.

So go ahead, and once again say "We all die so the money get's spent anyway". That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. I hate to flat out state it like that, but you cleary for some reason just want to dispute the hard numbers that have been prevented.

If you can give me one shred of evidence or experience to back up your claims, then I'll gladly take a look at it but up till now you've only ever said "I don't believe those numbers". That is not debating, that is ignorance.

Finally, no you can't substitute "More natural causes" for "More Smoking" because anyone who isn't blind will accept that smoking causes greater need for more expensive treatments. They are not equivalent.

Finally, I realize cancer can be a part of "Natural causes" but again here is some simple math.


Let's say that 50% of non-smokers require the expensive treatments for diseases such as cancer.

If 20 % of the population smoke and say 10% more of them require more expensive treatments, then we get the following.

If 20% smoke
of 100 people

20% smoke (60% get cancer) = 12 cancer patients
80% don't smoke (50% get cancer) = 40 cancer patients

Total = 52 cancer patients

if no on smokes
100% don't smoke (50% get cancer) = 50 cancer patients

Here is another number you can not beleive if you want

50<52 therefore smoking increases the burden on healthcare.

So go ahead if you want to debate that 50<52 you can.

The math works for any percentage of smokers and any increased risk of cancer, that is why they are numbers, not opinions.

And as intent as you are on debating numbers with opinions, it can't be done successfully.

[11mile]

Are you talking to me or someone else in this post? If it is me, please re-read my short little post. Where did I disagree with the *general* concept of what you said?

Edit:
One other thing: I do have some regard for numbers... but do consider one thing: your numbers are strictly descriptive and qualitative. How is this different from an opinion?

[Circa89]

Only because you asked me to refute the numbers, not because I want to.I thought I was done "debating".

from an article taken from the Western Standard (boo!) called thank you for smoking;
http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...9&pagenumber=3

In the early 1990s, University of Montreal economist André Raynauld and his colleague Jean-Pierre Vidal published a study that showed smoking-related diseases cost Canadian health care $669 million a year in 1986 dollars. The smokers' shorter lifespan, however, saved the government $461.8 million in foregone medical services. This brought the net cost to $152.8 million. But when the $3.2-billion smokers contributed in tobacco taxes (and taxes were lower then) was added, it became a net revenue of more than $3 billion. Foregone pensions brought the net contribution of smokers to over $4.3 billion. Previous studies in Ontario and the U.K. show similar fiscal benefits. Smokers, in other words, are greater contributors to the national weal than, say, marathoners.

Same article:
Harvard professor W. Kip Viscusi, in his book Smoke-Filled Rooms, provides statistics that show although smokers may cost the health care system slightly more than non-smokers, they more than compensate for that in taxes and pensions foregone by their premature mortality.

Now if I really wanted to search I'm sure I could find 100 articles that would either support my arguement or your arguement.
The problem may lie in the term "Cost". Gross Cost versus net cost. You feel it costs the government $40B or the Gross Cost. I say it costs the Government $40B less any taxes that would not otherwise be there. Net Costs.

Dude. we could argue this till the cows come home. However I am not a smoker and do not encourage others to smoke therefore I quit defending this stance. The reason I am disputing this is because staunch anti-smokers are trying to take away freedom of choice from individuals and impose their will upon others using the medicare arguement as their justification.
I say let the smokers smoke and everybody else mind their own business. We're all grown ups and can weigh risks and benefits of our chosen lifestyles.