Re: Smoking, Obesity, Life Span,....$$$

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Kai,
A Rand Corporation study about 10 years ago showed a net SAVINGS to the US Gov't from smoking! Dying earlier saves the Social Security and Medicare "cost" of our living.

 The people who will get your lifelong SS and Medicare withhold when you die, are the same people who dictate regulations (twice as many for Medicare as for the IRS!). Clinton-Cuba care already dictates "standard" care which is NOT  what federal employees get to choose for their separate retirement and medical plans. Avoid socialism to avoid incentives to reduce payback of Social Security and Medicare withhold - as by subsidizing tobacco, obstructing radiation hormesis, etc.

Howard Long
 

Kai Kaletsch wrote:

Just wondering if there are any honest statistics out there about the net cost to society of smoking, obesity etc. All I ever hear are sound bites about "the cost of treating smoking  (obesity etc) related diseases". Do these statistics take into account the savings in healthcare, social security, pension... that come if people die earlier? The cheapest person, for society, is one that works all his life, pays taxes (including sin taxes) and drops dead from a heart attack the day he retires. What does this have to do with radiation? We complain about the lack of thought and understanding the press exhibits when reporting on radiation issues, yet we are ready consumers of junk statistics if they agree with our overall world view. We should have zero tolerance for this nonsense, regardless whether we agree with the overall message or with the messenger. Maybe these statistics consider the savings (I don't know), but I have never heard a reporter raise the question. Kai 

I, for one, am not willing to contribute one cent to pay for
someone (anyone) else's bad habits.

Hence the proposed tax on sodas with sugar in California, because it makes obese kids, and we all pay for that too.  I'm no Gwyneth Paltrow, but I'm no Rosie O'Donnell either.  Fat is a serious health risk.  Why are any of us paying for that?  Or for that matter, as I stated earlier, my daughter's father's family has a history of melanoma.  Why should everyone else bear the cost of my potentially bad breeding choice?  Maybe we should prevent people with any genetically-connected disease or disorder from breeding?  That way we could really bring down health-care costs, right?