Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money

It’s a common enough argument around the world at the moment, that various unhealthy behaviours increase the costs to health care systems. Thus those unhealthy behaviours should be taxed more heavily so as to pay for the costs to those health care systems. The only problem with the argument is that it is entirely gibbering nonsense, unhealthy behaviours reduce costs to health care systems: if we are to accept the initial logic then we should subsidise them, not tax them.

We see it in my native UK over smoking, alcohol and obesity. Rarely does a week go past without there being another report about how much this or that activity costs the NHS and thus taxes must be raised. You’ve got it in the US with the various people calling for taxes on HFCS, sugar, empty calories, soda pops and junk food.

Now there is no doubt at all that these unhealthy behaviours do have costs, that’s not at issue. The major cost is of course to the imbiber, smoker or lardbucket in the form of a shorter lifespan. However, it’s pretty much a given that in anything even approximating to a free or liberal society that consenting adults have to be left to make their own cost benefit trade offs.

But what about these costs to the health care systems? Well, the clue is in that shortened lifespan. Yes, certainly, there are costs to treating the diseases brought on by too much booze, tobacco or food. But there are costs to treating all diseases, all modes and methods by which we might possibly reach that undoubted destination, the grave.

The question is, are the costs of treating the illnesses and deaths brought on by those three indulgences higher or lower than the costs of treating those who live healthily but still inevitably die? We could argue it either way: Alzheimer’s costs more to manage than lung cancer costs, the cracked hips of age related osteoporosis perhaps more or less than fried livers from excessive bourbon. What we need to do is actually go and tot up the figures. Fortunately, that has been done:

via www.forbes.com

Click through for the numbers...

Comments

[captain catholic]

1.

"...if we are to accept the initial logic then we should subsidise them, not tax them."
Hmmm. Okay, so we subsidise cigarettes so that the people in the lower socio-economic demographic (who tend to use tobacco more than the more educated people) die younger. Good idea.

[John Mc]

2.

The point is, by your own logic, that would save the state money, in contrast to what The Left usually says.

But before you get too excited that you've discovered the evil underbelly of the right, no one is saying that we should encourage the lower socio-economic demographic to hurt themselves, just that we should respect their choices, as they are people too, y'know.

[dante]

3.

Does the right have an "evil underbelly"? I thought it was evil all over and on the inside!! And thanks for reassuring me that those in the "lower socio-economic demographic" are people too, I wasn't aware of it. I thought people from your 'demographic' were all beasts.

[dante]

4.

This article is typical of the dishonesty in reporting rampant on this site. It concludes saying "the question is, are the costs of treating the illnesses and deaths brought on by those three indulgences higher or lower than the costs of treating those who live healthily but still inevitably die?" Gee, really? Even the healthy die? Are we sure of that?

I wonder why statements like "Clearly, the improvement in health associated with the prevention of obesity is a worthwhile goal in itself" in the original article never found their way into the MH article. The original article goes to great pain to explain that "because of differences in life expectancy (life expectancy at age 20 was 5 years less for the obese group, and 8 years less for the smoking group, compared to the healthy-living group), total lifetime health spending was greatest for the healthy-living people, lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the obese people". I suppose the brains behind MH would prefer to die young and save the community some money.

The original article warns that "as with all mathematical models such as this, the accuracy of these findings depend on how well the model reflects real life and the data fed into it. In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity." So there you go, the scourge of "indirect costs". In short, the original article acknowledges that its model is simple and it's not based on REAL data.

Any intelligent person that read the original article could not title this MH piece with "Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money". To do so is dishonest to those that produced the original work and to the public.

[DJKL]

5.

So this article is not trustworthy? (I don't think I'll be back on this site in a couple of hours anyway)
Please answer ASAP!

[liberal elitist]

6.

It's funny how it's okay to use mathematical modelling to challenge big government public health campaigns, but it's wrong to use climate change modelling to promote reducing carbon emissions.