Hacker News Reader

Comment by ageofwant | Hacker News Reader

Lowering the smoking rate increases health cost significantly. Old age medicare is the bulk of state funded healthcare. Smokers die young so their net burden on the healthcare system is significantly reduced.

View on HN

That's a fallacy. Smoking costs $31.5 billion dollars a year in increased health funding in Australia.

And your argument is particularly silly - do you think people die of cancer overnight? No, they hang in there for years, and as a compassionate society we treat them for their terrible disease until they die. Of course, there are many other things that smoking can do before someone contracts a fatal condition: gangrenous limbs that must be amputated, rooting teeth and gums that must be operated on, non-fatal strokes that prevent them from working and must be subsidised, cataracts and blindness, hip and bone fractures, diabetes and increased recovery times from surgery all contribute to the cost.

And we have an additional cost that's not obvious to those outside Australia: bushfires. In fact, it's estimated that a quarter of all deaths in fires were due to cigarettes being improperly disposed. I believe the cost is something like $150 million a year. And that's not even putting a cost on the deaths of these people to their families and friends.

I see this quoted all the time and I wonder if it takes into account the total economic benifit of the individual. I'll conceed that an individual who lives longer will (on average) cost more in health care. I also believe it when I hear that lung cancer is a cheaper way to die than many other ways. But what about the lost 20-30 years of economic output that would have taken place if the individual lived? On top of that we see benefits that can't easily be calculated, like being able to leave children with their grandparents for care. Can't do that if they're dead.

I've read a study before (sorry don't have a link) and the timing tends to work quite well, you smoke and work until retirement, then die - give or take a few years.

> being able to leave children with their grandparents for care.

Don't recall that being addressed though, but it's almost certainly less than pension.

This is the second time in this thread I've seen this claimed. I haven't seen any evidence showing this, and in Australia at least it's difficult to prove. For example, residential aged care is expensive, but generally privately funded and a major source of employment.

I do agree that killing people as soon as they retire is the economic thing to do. Unsure that will win many elections, but who knows....

The ageing population is why we need to invest heavily in automation, and get away from the "creating jobs is good" mindset and into the "creating value is good" mindset.

Instead of trying to find ways to make people retire later and work more, let's find ways to make people not need to work as much.

Not really, cancer treatment is ridiculously expensive.

Also aged people put money into the economy in various ways so it's not a lost cause.

Aged people are also great baby sitters. You know day cares are insanely expensive. Grandparents are a lot cheaper.

Plus let's not kill people to save money. Many chose to euthanize themselves once they become bed ridden.

I know I would rather die than live a life where my memory is not functional. If I am bed ridden, I would happily say good bye to my family and call it a good life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com