IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Not so fast!
Faulty premise: "If the higher tax reduces smoking, the less smoking means less healthcare costs, so the reduced tax revenue is not a problem." Not in reducing health risks, but costs. These people who stop smoking also will now live longer. Nothing increases health care costs like living longer. They then will need more knees and hips replaced, scans done, prescriptions filled, etc., etc., etc. I may be missing something, but I can't see how this could possibly reduce HC costs. Guess what the number one cause of death is in the US for non-smokers... Cancer. Same costs as for the smokers for chemo, surgery, etc.

Looking for long term logic in your argument.
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New Well, you're right
The idea that you're going to soak the smokers to pay for healthcare is just stoopid.

Instead, they should do what we USED to do here in Ontario, and set up a crown non-profit corporation to run the insurance program (as opposed to now, when we take it out of general tax revenue). We used to have an item on the payroll stub detailing how much insurance we'd paid to OHIP, and this was good because we could see what our money was paying for. This was back in the days when waiting times were not a problem etc etc because the basic deal was that anyone could open a hospital/clinic and get it accredited and then try to make profit off of the rates paid by OHIP. The rates were set in consultation with the OMA as well as various other stakeholders, keeping in mind that the goal was to get the best deal possible for the ratepayers. Better still, since people could see the chunk of paychecque paying for health insurance it gave them a good idea of who to bitch to if rates were too high. At the same time, if rates were too low and services were falling by the wayside, we knew who to bitch to then too. Now all we can do is bitch at the politicians because we can't see the numbers so easily.

It also saved the hospitals a lot of money because their billing departments were very small, saving money on administrative labour as well as making more space available for beds in the buildings. Nowadays the pay schedule is far from simple (if what I hear about it is true) making it very difficult for doctors and hospitals to keep track of their billing because of all the caveats and conditions attached to various rates for procedures etc. This requires hiring more labour and adds cost to the overall system. They really should go back to the way it was, which was simply to set up a non-profit monopoly, let loose the auditors on it from time to tome, and let the people working there get down to the business of getting the health-care providers their money so they can afford to give us the care.
New You hold on, too!
:-)

Nothing increases health care costs like living longer. They then will need more knees and hips replaced, scans done, prescriptions filled, etc., etc., etc. I may be missing something, but I can't see how this could possibly reduce HC costs.


[link|http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002700.html|Healthlink]:

Other recent Dartmouth studies have shown that regions with the highest health care costs actually have lower-than-average outcomes and poorer quality of care in general. With about three-quarters of total US health care costs resulting from treating the chronically ill, some may argue that we needlessly sacrifice resources on end-of-life cases that could be applied to those with the chance of brighter outcomes.


Knee replacements, etc., are expensive, but they're usually one-time things. O2 for [link|http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/emphysema.html|emphysema], etc., etc., and other chronic treatments apparently eat the bulk of the costs. Many of these illnesses and conditions are associated with smoking. Having healthier people means they have fewer chronic illnesses that need treatment, and (probably more importantly) means that they can contribute to the economy and society longer.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: You hold on, too!
I think perhaps you missed my premise. I'll give you emphysema (not contagious) but cancer and heart disease is just as drawn out and chronic (and expensive) for the non-smokers - after the hip and knee replacements, Lipitor, etc. A simple premise that I am working from is that, to my knowledge, no one has cured death or any of the nasty diseases that cause it. Smoking is politically charged and (like abortion), not a topic that is easily rationally debated. Let's more to a less politically charged topic.

Carrying extra weight (in some circles, the second leading preventable cause of death), if we tax the crap out of all foods/diets that cause obesity, do you think it will lower health care costs over a lifetime? There are way too many variables (with genetics being a major wildcard) to make any conclusive statements/correlations regarding actuarial certainty that costs will decrease.
To my knowledge, we don't have any truly longitudinal studies that show how many smokers who died were also overweight, heavy drinkers, highly stressed, etc. Until we can better isolate all of these variables, we may be barking up the wrong tree. To my knowledge, the only "proven" way to significantly increase lifespan (in female rodents) is a near starvation diet that slows cell division.
All in all tough to make a solid "economic" argument on fuzzy facts. Just my $.02
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New Maybe
People who live into old age do cost a lot. However, being poisoned isn't cheap either, even discounting lung cancer. I'm not a physician but I know they tell people to stay away from smoking. Nicotine, amongst others, is not a nice substance. Poisoned people aren't as productive and this is bad for taxes in general.

It could be the maths favours people smoking and slowly dying before their time, though I doubt it. Is it likely that President Bush commissioned a team of physicians and economists to consider this smoking tax? And the high cost of people smoking less, living to old age and being a healthcare burden is his reason for the threatened veto?
Matthew Greet


Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
     Smart Tax Policy??? - (bepatient) - (20)
         Still worth it. - (Andrew Grygus)
         How can reducing smoking be a bad thing to be vetoed? -NT - (warmachine) - (13)
             Not the point - (bepatient) - (12)
                 Reducing smoking reduces healthcare costs - (warmachine) - (11)
                     Once again - (bepatient) - (5)
                         Clearly the solution is to . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                             That is a plan . - (bepatient)
                             Why not cut to the chase? - (Ashton)
                         So what does Bush know? - (warmachine) - (1)
                             you will spend more in the long run - (boxley)
                     Not so fast! - (danreck) - (4)
                         Well, you're right - (jake123)
                         You hold on, too! - (Another Scott) - (1)
                             Re: You hold on, too! - (danreck)
                         Maybe - (warmachine)
         Bush is binary on taxes-He rationalizes the reason post hoc. -NT - (Another Scott)
         Possibly - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
             Secret? - (bepatient) - (2)
                 Bush is going a lot further right now - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                     just reversing the bush tax cuts would be the biggest -NT - (boxley)

bash#_
64 ms