|
|
|
February 05, 2008
More fat, less cost
I don't know what the communitarian scolds will make of this study, but apparently people who live short and unhealthy lives cost no more to society than their healthier, slimmer, counterparts: LONDON -- Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.While I can't vouch for the accuracy or reliability of the data or the methodology, what's a surprise for me is that no such study would have been done before -- despite years and years of nagging and scolding. I can understand the compassionate side of the communitarian equation. No one wants to see people die premature deaths. But if you're going to scold people with economic arguments, shouldn't you make sure that the numbers are at least correct? The irony is that if this study is accurate, libertarians and communitarians (at least the utilitarian communitarians) might for once be on the same side -- if for very different reasons. No longer is there any need for laws banning trans fats! Ridiculous extortionate taxes on cigarettes can be repealed! No more insane legislative efforts like this to make it a crime for restaurants to serve fat people! While it's small comfort to me emotionally, now that I think about it, all the friends I lost to AIDS back in the 1980s and 1990s probably saved society a bundle. The only downside of this news is that it might provide ammo for opponents of life extension technology. (A better way to address that concern might be to advocate a cutoff in social security benefits for people who live too long with the help of technology. But hey, don't expect me to do Leon Kass's job!) posted by Eric on 02.05.08 at 09:00 AM
Comments
Considering how expensive AIDS medical treatment is, I'm surprised that Britain's National Health Service hasn't called for the euthanization of all AIDS victims. Bob Sykes · February 5, 2008 09:27 AM Thank you so much for your insight. It does make sense on one hand but I would like to see more data. Oval Office Report · February 5, 2008 11:40 AM Like Jardinero1, I remember this argument coming up before. I think it was made by the tobacco companies when the states were suing them. The states were claiming to be harmed by the cost of treatment of tobacco-related illness. My hazy memory is that the judge(s) ruled the argument invalid, and the tobacco companies were not allowed to present it. SteveBrooklineMA · February 5, 2008 01:27 PM Just because something doesn't have a dollar price on it doesn't mean it is worthless. Any rational government run by rational men should want its citizens to live long healthy lives rather than short unhealthy lives. chocolatier · February 5, 2008 01:42 PM The comparative medical costs should not be the only economic element considered if you want to make an economic argument. If you factor in the amount of taxes collected on the tobacco and the significantly less drawdown of Social Security, maybe the government should encourage smoking. Can't you see the campaign? "Save Social Security. Have a Marlboro." Leon · February 5, 2008 07:18 PM Tyrants don't hold the moral high ground? Say it isn't so! Brett · February 6, 2008 12:07 PM The problem is that there is (eventually) no such thing as a "long healthy" life. Even the most fanatical health food and exercise faddist will likely begin to suffer from expensive age related debilities at some point-after drawing a government funded pension for a lot of years. In fact, if their healthy lifestyle keeps them alive longer than someone who smoked two packs a day and ate junk food all their lives, they will be even more of a net drain on society's resources. I'm not saying I agree with this line of argument mind you, but it is disingenuous of crusaders against smoking, fast food, trans fats etc. to use an economic argument to bolster their position, but then to sputter in indignation when the numbers actually seem to go the other way. MarkM · February 6, 2008 09:59 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• If there's a high turnout, wherein lies the base?
• We Need Complistic Solutions • Conservative purity derangement syndrome? • The "sides" are coming! The "sides" are coming! • I'm just about ready to give up • A Little Something For The Political Conventioneers • The Coulter-Clinton-Buchanan Axis • "McCain is bad." "Therefore, Romney is good!" • More fat, less cost • "you are no gentleman"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I believe that RJ Reynolds or Phillip Morris actually did such a study of smokers in Europe during the eighties. They did the study in Europe because the various national healthcare systems have more comprehensive records in one place than here in America. Anyway, they came to the same conclusion: smokers are way cheaper than non-smokers. I believe they actually presented the study during the big tobacco lawsuits in the nineties.